free to marry

[desert_fox 32]

While, according to today's law, and following the law to the letter, we have to take the 'free to marry' question on the I-129F to include any restrictions that one must legally abide to by not filing the I-129F if they are not 'free to marry' as of the date of application.... Asante still has a very valid point...

We should, in fact, be writing to the USCIS to change their form because I believe that the spirit of what they're trying to impose by asking this question and setting forth this regulation is to prevent people from filing an I-129F while they still have a pending (and in many cases not even started) divorce. They want you to finish what you've started first (the divorce) before starting the process with them. I don't believe that this has taken into consideration certain waiting periods and whatnot, which causes the original poster to this thread to probably have to wait an additional 6 months for no truly good reason, because, after all, it's not like anything is going to be able to happen in that 6 months that couldn't happen to just about anyone applying to change his marital status from 'single'. I believe that the USCIS just doesn't want to have their time wasted by applications coming from petitioners who are going through a divorce when there is still a chance that the divorce will never actually happen.

This boils down to being a 'spirit of the law' vs. 'actual law' scenario. Whenever there is a discrepency between the spirit of a law and the actual law, it is our duty as citizens of the United States to provoke changes to the laws so that they then will apply as intended... but until then, the law is the law and we must abide by it...

Perhaps there is some sort of a waiver that can be applied for in this situation to allow for the application without the 6 month wait? That's another question a lawyer can answer.

Both the petitioner and the respondent can have the waiting period waived at the final hearing. Usually the waiting period is imposed to allow for the timeframe allowed by the state courts to appeal to a higher court. The appeal can be waived, but everyone has the right to appeal. Some states just prefer a cooling down period as many couple reconcile. I remember in Calif that they issued two decrees...the Interlocutary and the final six months later.

Courts interprete the intent of the Legislature when the law was passed. The legislature includes a statement of legislative intent when they pass the law, and leave it up to the courts to develop case law and how to interpret the original legislative intent.

I can also tell you, that no private agreement to going to change or modify any state law.

[rebeccajo 14]

All I have said is that for I-129F, only the divorce decree is relevant. For example, if I have decree for a divorce today, I can go file an I-129F tomorrow, provided my decree does not say I have to wait any number of days to remarry. Anything else anyone telles you is their opinion and as you, like an a*hole, we all have one.

Oh silly me I get it now!

In other words you are saying that in order to FILE the I-129F all you need is a decree that doesnt say one cannot remarry.

What would your advice be to someone who like to have their FILED petition APPROVED?

[john_and_marlene 162]

*popcorn time*

asante...you have an attitude problem. If everyone took your advice there would be a ton of RFE's...possibly denials. Thank the gods you aren't an attorney. I'm with becca on this one. To spout out advice of the kind you give here is scary. Some newbies will take it to heart, make a bad decision based ON that advice and then something happens.

Be careful with your advice please. I for one would not want a newbies RFE or denial happen because of advice given my me. As for your problem with others on here, they've been around a heck of a lot longer than you and know a bit more than you or me. You would do well to listen.

They won't get an RFE for not being free to marry. They will get a denial. Their petition fee will be wasted. Perhaps Asante would be willing to reimburse them for their loss at his urging.

[KarenCee 3]

And a denial is a heck of a lot harder to overcome than an RFE.

Just noticed a spelling error in my post...my apologies

[rebeccajo 14]

*popcorn time*

asante...you have an attitude problem. If everyone took your advice there would be a ton of RFE's...possibly denials. Thank the gods you aren't an attorney. I'm with becca on this one. To spout out advice of the kind you give here is scary. Some newbies will take it to heart, make a bad decision based ON that advice and then something happens.

Be careful with your advice please. I for one would not want a newbies RFE or denial happen because of advice given my me. As for your problem with others on here, they've been around a heck of a lot longer than you and know a bit more than you or me. You would do well to listen.

They won't get an RFE for not being free to marry. They will get a denial. Their petition fee will be wasted. Perhaps Asante would be willing to reimburse them for their loss at his urging.

Not to mention the fact that under IMBRA, the previous petition, unnecessarily filed or not, will undergo a second scrutiny if a new petition is filed within 24 months. More delays.

[asante 0]

You know what, am sure am correct on this matter, let everyone choose and pick what to do. This Desert fellow has really changed the whole matter into a series of issues.

This issue is easy and common sense:Once I have a divorce decree, I can file an I-129F immediately, barring anything on the decree to the contrary, because a divorce decree will always say that the marriage is HEREBY DISSOLVED.

What is so hard to understand there? Desertfox and his cheerleaders want us to believe that even if one has a divorce decree that has no restrictions, that they cant marry. What is the reason for the divorce decree then?

[TomLena 0]

I can also tell you, that no private agreement to going to change or modify any state law.

You understand, of course, I'm not talking about a waiver to modify the state law that restricts the marriage from happening for 6 months... I'm talking about a waiver to allow for the application of the I-129F while still complying with the 6 month waiting period before an actual marriage takes place. Our laws are not perfect and in many cases don't accomodate for all situations, which is the very reason why waivers are issued for aspects of this process in the first place.

[rebeccajo 14]

You know what, am sure am correct on this matter, let everyone choose and pick what to do. This Desert fellow has really changed the whole matter into a series of issues.

This issue is easy and common sense:Once I have a divorce decree, I can file an I-129F immediately, barring anything on the decree to the contrary, because a divorce decree will always say that the marriage is HEREBY DISSOLVED.

What is so hard to understand there? Desertfox and his cheerleaders want us to believe that even if one has a divorce decree that has no restrictions, that they cant marry. What is the reason for the divorce decree then?

I'm done.

You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed individual.

Having the marriage disolved is not the same thing as being free to remarry. True the paperwork should spell out any restrictions but the law of the land will take precendence over improperly typed pleadings!

Edited August 6, 2006 by rebeccajo

[asante 0]

why dont you go and get armed instead?

=====================

I'm done.

You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed individual.

[rebeccajo 14]

why dont you go and get armed instead?

Very high school.

Come back and join the fray when you can debate with some level of maturity.

Edited August 6, 2006 by rebeccajo

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Just one quick observation. My husband was married and divorced twice before. At my interview I presented both divorce decrees. The interviewer had read them over very carefully and had a lot of questions about the first degree - from more than 30 years ago - because the wording and format were new to him. He actually went in and conferred with a number of his colleagues - took about 10 minutes - before he came back and said that they would allow it as valid for the K-1, so I can guarantee divorce decrees do get scrutinized. This was at the Consulate level - I am sure it had been equally scrutinized at the Service Center level before being approved there as well. Make sure all of your ducks are in order - that you are in compliance with all aspects of your divorce decree - because USCIS and staff do read the fine print.

Edited August 6, 2006 by Kathryn41

[asante 0]

I wont get into catfights with you Rebecca. The fact is what you just edited makes no sense because the divorce decree is the evidence that a marriage has been legally terminated. What else do you get after a divorce decree?

There is nothing you get after a divorce decree.You will know one day, from your own experience, hang in there.

why dont you go and get armed instead?

Very high school.

Come back and join the fray when you can debate with some level of maturity.

Edited August 6, 2006 by asante

[KarenCee 3]

Just explain to us one thing please....WHY are you so unpleasant to most everyone who posts on VJ? I just don't get it. Can't you be polite? Geesh

[asante 0]

Yes Rebecca, please answer that question. Thanks Karen for the observation.

Just explain to us one thing please....WHY are you so unpleasant to most everyone who posts on VJ? I just don't get it. Can't you be polite? Geesh

[rebeccajo 14]

MEOW.

I already have one divorce decree to my credit. Shocking I know. I'm truly surprised that you couldn't already tell by my superior attitude what a ###### I must be.

I wont get into catfights with you Rebecca. The fact is what you just edited makes no sense because the divorce decree is the evidence that a marriage has been legally terminated. What else do you get after a divorce decree?

There is nothing you get after a divorce decree.You will know one day, from your own experience, hang in there.

why dont you go and get armed instead?

Very high school.

Come back and join the fray when you can debate with some level of maturity.