Is this gonna hurt us?

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

The OP has no decision or choice to make with regard to disclosing his fiance's travels abroad. They'll be clearly shown in her passport. The OP and beneficiary's choices relate to how much detail to volunteer about the nature of her travel decisions or pregnancy. There are no legal concerns with respect to either the pregnancy or abortion in this case because no laws were violated.

Proving again, that the system works if you let it. Anytime you try to "avoid" an issue, it comes to bite you in the end.

[pushbrk 13,173]

The OP has no decision or choice to make with regard to disclosing his fiance's travels abroad. They'll be clearly shown in her passport. The OP and beneficiary's choices relate to how much detail to volunteer about the nature of her travel decisions or pregnancy. There are no legal concerns with respect to either the pregnancy or abortion in this case because no laws were violated.

Proving again, that the system works if you let it. Anytime you try to "avoid" an issue, it comes to bite you in the end.

It may or may not bite them. She's done nothing illegal. There could be some legitimate questions about the on-again off-again relationship but those are frequent. That her interim relationship was abroad is of no huge concern. The couple will face perhaps increased scrutiny of their bona fides but there's plenty of time to conduct and evidence a bona fide relationship between now and the interview with visits and frequent communication.

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

It may or may not bite them. She's done nothing illegal.

Correct. The qualifier is "yet." The OP has already expressed an intention of manipulating the system, and may have already done so, by not giving complete and accurate information on his fiancee's G-325A. If this is the case, they are already committed to a course of action.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Rocky_nBullwinkle

[pushbrk 13,173]

It may or may not bite them. She's done nothing illegal.

Correct. The qualifier is "yet." The OP has already expressed an intention of manipulating the system, and may have already done so, by not giving complete and accurate information on his fiancee's G-325A. If this is the case, they are already committed to a course of action.

What information do you think was left out?

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

It may or may not bite them. She's done nothing illegal.

Correct. The qualifier is "yet." The OP has already expressed an intention of manipulating the system, and may have already done so, by not giving complete and accurate information on his fiancee's G-325A. If this is the case, they are already committed to a course of action.

What information do you think was left out?

Here is what the OP stated on 7 January, "Also they told his embassy that they had been together for a year, when it was actually a lot less. I don't think the US embassy can check that. However her passport shows permanent residence in Europe. Some sort of domestic partner visa or something like that. That might raise red flags. I suppose she might be able to get a new passport."

Did he change his mind before, according to his timeline, he filed the I-129F on 9 January? He also stated he did not give any information about his fiancee's history on the form, because it was not asked. The G-325A is a supporting document, and the fiancee would have to disclose her employment and residences for the last five years, as well as her last foreign employer.

Anything beyond that is just conjecture.

[pushbrk 13,173]

It may or may not bite them. She's done nothing illegal.

Correct. The qualifier is "yet." The OP has already expressed an intention of manipulating the system, and may have already done so, by not giving complete and accurate information on his fiancee's G-325A. If this is the case, they are already committed to a course of action.

What information do you think was left out?

Here is what the OP stated on 7 January, "Also they told his embassy that they had been together for a year, when it was actually a lot less. I don't think the US embassy can check that. However her passport shows permanent residence in Europe. Some sort of domestic partner visa or something like that. That might raise red flags. I suppose she might be able to get a new passport."

Did he change his mind before, according to his timeline, he filed the I-129F on 9 January? He also stated he did not give any information about his fiancee's history on the form, because it was not asked. The G-325A is a supporting document, and the fiancee would have to disclose her employment and residences for the last five years, as well as her last foreign employer.

Anything beyond that is just conjecture.

We've interpreted the pronoun "this" differently. I took it he didn't mention the abortion or other sordid details. You took it he didn't metnion his fiancee's history. Perhaps the OP can clarify for us what was mentioned and what was left out.

[faryan 4]

yeah, abortion isnt anything to do with the petition or anyone else for that matter, we arent here to judge.. just to help and support each other because its hard enough.. i always feel like my relationship is under scrutiny because it doesnt fit into the "norms"

All the best to the OP!

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Agreed.

[shaggy_mutt 0]

this kinda stuff makes me mad, that people think they have the right to tell another person to have a child they may not be able to care for or want or force them to live their lives in a certain way!

Miss G - Unless you'd like to defend sex-selection abortion and its devastating consequences to China and India, let's not even go there.

Rocky&Bullwinkle - to classify a miscarriage as an intentional abortion isn't just cruel, it's medically wrong. They may have used the term abortion - which in formal gynaecological language (as opposed to common US usage) simply means any pregnancy that does not culminate in a live birth - but if they actually prepended "intentional," this is medically inaccurate. Are you sure they don't say "spontaneous abortion"?

[B&Gie 0]

We didn't mention anything about europe. She was NOT actually employed there, so no work history. She spent 4 of her 6 months there killing time on a tourist visa bombing around eastern europe while they waited for the permanent residence visa to come through. She has a permanent resident visa but she only spent like 6 weeks living at his house in the country of permanent residence. It's not like she was living in one place for the whole 6 months. I'd consider that visiting/traveling.

By the same token I spent over a year traveling overseas in various places and didn't mention it on the previous addresses section, because I didn't really live there. heck I spent 2.5 months in one place, but I never even thought to list it as a former residence.

And regarding the year thing, that may be legit. I think she had talked with him online some before she met me. I don't know if the question was how long since you met in person or how long since you met online. I'll have to ask her. The relationship was real and long term. However it was also very marginal and he portrayed it as otherwise. I don't know the details though.

Regarding the abortion, I'm not to worried about telling the US interviewer that. I'd rather not have to, but if they ask the right questions, they'll get the whole truth in all it's unpleasant detail. She's taken a lot of flak back home about her decision, and I'd rather she didn't have to go through that again in the interview, but we may not have the choice. I still don't fully understand the situation for the medical. I've heard that in the Philippines if you tell them you had an abortion(regardless of where it was) they'll declare you emotionally unstable/insane, and that'll get you blacklisted for life. I think that's an outrage but that's what I've heard. I'm not sure if they legally have to or if that's only if you get a religious fanatic for a doctor. That's the one thing I'm still worried about. Man, that Certificate of Infant Death thing that Rocky_nBullwinkle posted freaks me out. Having to document a miscarriage is just bizarre. Is that required for all miscarriages or just late term ones?

[pushbrk 13,173]

this kinda stuff makes me mad, that people think they have the right to tell another person to have a child they may not be able to care for or want or force them to live their lives in a certain way!

Sovereign Countries have a right to enact and enforce laws. Laws that make abortion a crime do not "tell people to have a child" or "force them to live their lives a certian way" any more than laws that make stealing or immigration fraud crimes do.

All that said, no laws were broken in this case and the abortion was legal.

Edited January 13, 2009 by pushbrk

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Rocky&Bullwinkle - to classify a miscarriage as an intentional abortion isn't just cruel, it's medically wrong. They may have used the term abortion - which in formal gynaecological language (as opposed to common US usage) simply means any pregnancy that does not culminate in a live birth - but if they actually prepended "intentional," this is medically inaccurate. Are you sure they don't say "spontaneous abortion"?

The wife is a graduate of Philippine law school, and that was the term she used.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

She explained that it was not for the miscarriage, per se, but for the proceedure to follow, to remove the remnants of the pregnancy, if that makes any sense.

[pushbrk 13,173]

She explained that it was not for the miscarriage, per se, but for the proceedure to follow, to remove the remnants of the pregnancy, if that makes any sense.

In the US, we call that a D&C. "Dilation and Curettage". The same procedure is used for other purposes, whether a fetus was ever present or not. It just puts the uterus back in a "fresh" state.