Could ya'll proofread this for me?

[RosaMystica7 0]

Thanks, I feel better about that now!

I looked over the train tickets and I don't have any sets with dates that coincide with his boarding passes or our one NYC hotel stay. I have 1 ticket from when I returned home from dropping him off, a set from a trip we took into the city but didn't stay overnight, and the AirTrain JFK metrocard with a reciept from his last day. So... too sparse for me to bother with.

Here's my response to Q18 as it is right now:

I have provided documentation showing that my fiancé came to visit my family and me from 12/18/05 – 12/31/05. He stayed in my parents’ house but we also had a few hotel stays to celebrate my birthday, our first Christmas together, and to spend some quality time alone together before he left.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Angilla

[kitkat1 5]

Here's my response to Q18 as it is right now:

I have provided documentation showing that my fiancé came to visit my family and me from 12/18/05 – 12/31/05. He stayed in my parents’ house but we also had a few hotel stays to celebrate my birthday, our first Christmas together, and to spend some quality time alone together before he left.

This is my last try:

Q18: Describe the circumstances under which you met.

You actually have to write 1 or 2 sentences DESCRIBING HOW YOU MET. For example:

"My fiance and I met through mutual friends on Oct. 1, 2005 when I was visiting his country. He then came to visit me from December 18-31, 2005 when we celebrated my birthday and the holidays together.

You need to focus on answering the question directly and clearly.

[RosaMystica7 0]

Wait a minute, what? I thought I don't have to describe that unless we haven't met in person in the last 2 years? The question says, "Has your fiance met and seen you within the two-year period immediately receding the filing of this petition? Describe the cirucmstances under which you met. If you have not personally met each other, explain how the relationship was established." So I was under the impression that it wants a description of how we met in person in the last 2 years, not how we initially became acquainted with each other.

Hmm. Guess I get the fun of explaining how an ex-friar is eligible for marriage and hoping the adjudicator doesn't get confused.

The tail end of his time as a friar is in the 2 year period, he left the friars in 12/2004. They're not going to ask me for proof that we met while he was a friar, are they?

Edited November 20, 2006 by Angilla

[kitkat1 5]

I don't understand what is confusing you so much. This is not nearly as difficult as you think/feel.

The question says:

1. Has your fiancé(e) met and seen you within the two-year period immediately receding the filing of this petition?

Your answer: YES

2. Describe the circumstances under which you met. (Note that it does not say "only if you never met" because if you have never met, this question does not apply).

Your answer: Describe the circumstances under which you met and nothing more - like in the example sentences above.

There is no reason why you would ever have to explain that he is an ex-friar or why he is eligible to marry. There is absolutely nothing on the petition that asks you to explain anything of this nature. They don't care. They only care that you are USC and therefore eligible to file the petition, that neither of you are currently married and therefore able to and intend to marry each other, and that you have actually met each other.

3. If you have not personally met each other, explain how the relationship was established.

Your answer: NONE. LEAVE BLANK. DO NOT ANSWER. You HAVE personally met each other therefore this question does NOT apply to your case.

[RosaMystica7 0]

Kitkat... I'm getting confused because first I didn't have to explain how we initially became aquainted and then I did and now I don't, so I'm just confused about which one it really is. I was under the impression that I only have to explain how we met in person, i.e. his December visit. But your example includes how we initially became acquainted, too:

My fiance and I met through mutual friends on Oct. 1, 2005 when I was visiting his country.

We initially became acquainted because he was a friar and I was a volunteer with his community. So the adjudicator will see friar and assume he's not eligible for marriage. So if I have to say how we initially became acquainted, I have to hope I can get it through their heads that he's eligible for marriage now.

Okay, try this. Do I have to say:

My fiancé and I initially met while he was a [name of friar community omitted] in Bronx, NY on a R1 visa. I was a volunteer with the community. He left the friars (and so he is eligible for marriage) and returned to France in 12/2004.

We kept in touch and fell in love. He came to New York to visit me in person from 12/18/05 – 12/31/05.

Or can I just say:

My fiancé came to New York to visit me in person from 12/18/05 – 12/31/05.

THAT is just where I'm hung up. I didn't think I had to include how we initially met, but your example included that. Do I or don't I?

I know I'm annoying, and I honestly don't try to be... I just seem to come off that way no matter how hard I try not to. I'm sorry.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Angilla

[kitkat1 5]

You have to describe how you initially met - that's the question.

Describe the circumstances under which you met. (Meeting each other prior to filing is one of the key requirements of the petition. People who have not met each other prior to filing the petition are denied. Therefore, you need to explain how you met).

You met in person when you volunteered at the place he worked. Write a sentence indicating this i.e. "We met in New York when he worked at XXX and I was a volunteer at XXX." It doesn't ask for you to explain subsequent meetings but you can add a sentence saying "he returned to NY to visit me in December 2005".

There is no reason to explain what type of visa he had or what he was doing. There is no reason why you would want to explain that he was a friar and now isn't. It has no bearing on the question.

[RosaMystica7 0]

I actually wonder if maybe we're both talking about different things... let me see if this can help clear some things up.

You have to describe how you initially met - that's the question.

Okay, by initially met I mean how we first bumped into each other. It is, for the most part, out of the 2 year time frame. I guess we first bumped into each other around... hmm... the summer-ish of 2003. He left the friars and returned home to France in 12/2004 - we were not in a relationship at that time, only friends. So in 11/2004 and 12/2004, the tail end of the 2 year period prior to filing, we were friends. Not romantically involved.

Describe the circumstances under which you met. (Meeting each other prior to filing is one of the key requirements of the petition. People who have not met each other prior to filing the petition are denied. Therefore, you need to explain how you met).

Okie, this I know. But this is when you visit each other face-to-face as boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance/fiancee, correct? I have proof that he came and visited me in 12/2005 - a year after he left the friars. He visited for 2 weeks, as my boyfriend, not as just a friend. That's why I'd like to provide the proof of this visit - we were romantically involved this time, and I have all the stuff like boarding passes, passport stamp, blahblahblah.

You met in person when you volunteered at the place he worked.

Yes, but I have little to no proof of that.... a copy of his R1 visa, a photo of us, and I can get a letter stating the dates I volunteered. So I'm not including this proof in our petition. I only have to prove that we've met in person once since 11/2004... so I'd like to provide proof of his 12/2005 visit since that's what I have sufficient proof of and that's when we were romantically involved. He also visited me, as my boyfriend, in October 2005 but I don't have sufficient proof of that visit either. So if you're wondering what the visit I'd like to leave out is, it's that October 2005 visit that I don't have the proof of. That October 2005 visit wasn't how we bumped into each other - that was just a different trip he made to spend time with me romantically that I don't have sufficient proof of.

Write a sentence indicating this i.e. "We met in New York when he worked at XXX and I was a volunteer at XXX."

It's not as simple as him working at somewhere. He was a friar, which is like a monk. He was in a religious vocation with temporary vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. I was a volunteer. We were friends and worked together that way.

It doesn't ask for you to explain subsequent meetings but you can add a sentence saying "he returned to NY to visit me in December 2005".

But I have to provide proof of what I say in Q18, don't I? My proof is of his December 2005 visit, not of how we bumped into each other while he was a friar/monk in 2003 - 2004.

There is no reason to explain what type of visa he had or what he was doing. There is no reason why you would want to explain that he was a friar and now isn't. It has no bearing on the question.

Hopefully what I said above clears up why I think it's important. I can't just say he was working at Jo Schmo's pizzeria. I'd have to say I met him while he was a Jo Schmo Friar of the Assumption because that was his title and his "job's" title. The common response I get to that is "but friars aren't supposed to marry, why are you engaged?" and then I have to explain that he was in temporary vows and able to leave. I don't want an adjudicator to see "I met my fiance while he was a Jo Schmo Friar of the Assumption" and assume that we're not free to marry.

Has your fiancé(e) met and seen you within the two-year period immediately receding the filing of this petition? Discribe the circumstances under which you met.

So where I'm lost is that... I thought this question wasn't asking me if I bumped into my fiance within the last 2 years, it's asking me if we've seen each other face-to-face as boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance/fiancee in the last 2 years, and that's why I have to provide proof of us seeing each other - to prove that we really did meet this requirement. That's why I wanted to answer Q18 with his December 2005 visit: that's what I'll be providing proof of (passport stamp, boarding passes, etc.) AND that's when we were romantically involved.

[rebeccajo 14]

Angela -

Any explanation doesn't have to be complex but it does need to be accurate, it needs to explain how you met, and when you've been together IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

The concept here, from the adjudicators standpoint, is - why is this a relationship? If you look at it from that aspect it might help you decide what to include.

I would definately disclose every time you were together, even if your paper evidence is sparse. Every visit further validates the relationship.

I recall a member with a UK fiance who filed about the same time as me. She told when they had seen each other face to face, but didn't describe how the relationship began. She was RFE'd.

[RosaMystica7 0]

Angela -

Any explanation doesn't have to be complex but it does need to be accurate, it needs to explain how you met, and when you've been together IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

The concept here, from the adjudicators standpoint, is - why is this a relationship? If you look at it from that aspect it might help you decide what to include.

I would definately disclose every time you were together, even if your paper evidence is sparse. Every visit further validates the relationship.

I recall a member with a UK fiance who filed about the same time as me. She told when they had seen each other face to face, but didn't describe how the relationship began. She was RFE'd.

Thanks! I'll re-write it tomorrow... I have to wake up at 6am for work so I should really go to bed. I'll try to make it as short and to the point as I can while including sort of a timeline from meeting while he was a friar to his October 2005 visit to his December 2005 visit.

My question, then, is do I have to provide evidence of EVERYthing I say in Q18? I have barely any evidence of meeting while he was a friar, and very little evidence of his October 2005 visit. If I only include evidence of his December 2005 visit will I risk a RFE asking for proof of everything else I said? But I'm afraid if I include insufficient evidence of his October 2005 visit in my original petition I'll get RFE'd and not be able to give them the additional evidence they want.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Angilla

[kitkat1 5]

There are two separate and distinct questions.

1. Has your fiancé(e) met and seen you within the two-year period immediately receding the filing of this petition? YES

2. Describe the circumstances under which you met. Not "describe the circumstances under which you visited each other". Not "describe the circumstance under which you first met each other but only if it was in the past two years" The proof you will provide is proof that you have physically spent time together - at some time - in the prior two years.

Okay, by initially met I mean how we first bumped into each other. It is, for the most part, out of the 2 year time frame. I guess we first bumped into each other around... hmm... the summer-ish of 2003.

This was your first meeting - it is not required to meet someone only in the prior two years. People meet, have relationships and five years later file the petition. But they still are required to describe how they initially met each other - the first time. No matter when it was. Some people were married to other people at the time they met at a party in 1982. And now they are getting married. And they answer the question by indicating that they intially met at a party in 1982, and then provide a bit more information about subsequent meetings such as "two years later we ran into each other again in an airport and soon after started dating. He visited me . . . I visited him."

But this is when you visit each other face-to-face as boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance/fiancee, correct?

No. This is when you met each other. People don't meet as boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance/fiancee, they meet as people.

]You met in person when you volunteered at the place he worked. Yes, but I have little to no proof of that

Again, you are not required to provide proof of your initial meeting. You are required to show proof that you have physically spent time together in the same location, together in the prior two years.

It's not as simple as him working at somewhere. He was a friar, which is like a monk. He was in a religious vocation with temporary vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. I was a volunteer. We were friends and worked together that way.

Fine, write that. They didn't ask you to prove that he is "allowed" to get married other than indicating that he is not currently married and that he intends to marry you.

I'd have to say I met him while he was a Jo Schmo Friar of the Assumption because that was his title and his "job's" title. The common response I get to that is "but friars aren't supposed to marry, why are you engaged?" and then I have to explain that he was in temporary vows and able to leave. I don't want an adjudicator to see "I met my fiance while he was a Jo Schmo Friar of the Assumption" and assume that we're not free to marry.

Since you include a letter of intent indicating that you are free to marry, he will not have reason to question this. Why provide more information they they are asking for? That would be a good way to confuse things tremendously IMO.

[rebeccajo 14]

My question, then, is do I have to provide evidence of EVERYthing I say in Q18?

I don't believe so. It's more a preponderance of evidence that matters. If you're concerned with the consistency of your story, you could put in a few scraps from each visit with notes beside them. And of course some ABSOLUTE proof that you have been together in the last 24 months.

[lucyrich 20]

English is so ambiguous. The word "met" in English might meet the very first time you were introduced and became acquainted, or it might mean any time you were face to face. I can say "I met my older sister last weekend for dinner", even though I've known my sister all my life, and we first met when I was brought home from the hospital. When you read the word "met", you have to look at context to tell which is meant.

The statuatory requirement written into the law is that your most recent face-to-face meeting must have been during the two years prior to filing the petition (with a very few exceptions that are hard to get). The law doesn't say anything about how long ago your very first initial acquaintance may have been.

In Q18, it says "Has your fiancé(e) met and seen you within the two-year period immediately receding the filing of this petition?". That's clearly asking if there has been any face-to-face meeting, not necessarily the initial one. Then it goes on to ask "Describe the circumstances under which you met." In context, this sentence's "met" is referring to the same meeting as the previous sentence's "met". It's all getting at whether you have fulfilled the statuatory requirement. It goes on to ask if you don't believe the statuatory requirement applies to you.

If you feel you must describe the circumstances of your intitial meeting there, go ahead, but that's not what they're really interested in here. Whatever you put there, make it clear so that anyone can understand that you have been together in the same place in each other's presence at some time within the two year time period before sending the petition in. And provide documentary evidence of this in-person meeting within the two year time period before sending the petition. If you describe an in-person meeting that happened many years ago, it doesn't help demonstrate fulfilling this requirement. Failure to demonstrate this is one of the most common reasons for RFEs and denials of K-1 I-129F petitions.

[RosaMystica7 0]

I do understand it now kitkat, rebeccajo slapped it through my thick skull somehow. (Rebeccajo, I think you deserve a prize for that. I can be pretty dense at times, like I'm being right now! )

Again, you are not required to provide proof of your initial meeting. You are required to show proof that you have physically spent time together in the same location, together in the prior two years.

Ok, I think this answered a question that I just asked. So I can mention we met while he was a friar, he visited in October 2005, he visited again in December 2005... and I can only submit evidence of his December 2005 visit without worrying about a RFE. Did I get it right?

Since you include a letter of intent indicating that you are free to marry, he will not have reason to question this. Why provide more information they they are asking for? That would be a good way to confuse things tremendously IMO.

Ah, duh. Good point. Why'd I over-look that? Heh. Boy do I feel stupid.

It's more a preponderance of evidence that matters. If you're concerned with the consistency of your story, you could put in a few scraps from each visit with notes beside them. And of course some ABSOLUTE proof that you have been together in the last 24 months.

Honestly, I'd prefer not to include scraps from other visits unless someone tells me it'd be stupid for me not to. I'd rather send them my concrete December visit stuff and let them RFE me specifically saying "I want proof of his October visit", in which case I'd send them what I can scrape together. I'd be more worried by sending them scraps from his October visit, that they'd say "this is nice and we didn't really need this, but since we have it it's not sufficient and we need more." Ya know? But I've never done this before so what do I know, maybe it would be better for me to include scraps from his October visit... I'm just not sure... but if I'm only required to show proof of 1 visit, and can get approved with proof from only 1 visit, I'd like to send the proof only from the visit that I have the best evidence from. Was that confusing or did I make sense?

[kitkat1 5]

If you feel you must describe the circumstances of your intitial meeting there, go ahead, but that's not what they're really interested in here. Whatever you put there, make it clear so that anyone can understand that you have been together in the same place in each other's presence at some time within the two year time period before sending the petition in. And provide documentary evidence of this in-person meeting within the two year time period before sending the petition. If you describe an in-person meeting that happened many years ago, it doesn't help demonstrate fulfilling this requirement. Failure to demonstrate this is one of the most common reasons for RFEs and denials of K-1 I-129F petitions.

I agree with everything here except for the part about the initial meeting. If you intially met - first met/were introduced (not met for dinner last week) five years ago, you need to provide that information. That's the truth. You can then add a sentence or two to explain how you kept in touch, developed a relationship, etc. Describing an in-person meeting that happened years ago, if it was the initial meeting, is the correct, accurate and truthful answer.

The totally separate question is regarding proof of having physically spent time together in the prior two years. This is MUCH more important than anything else and this is where you need to concentrate your evidence, as lucyrich stated.

[rebeccajo 14]

The statuatory requirement written into the law is that your most recent face-to-face meeting must have been during the two years prior to filing the petition (with a very few exceptions that are hard to get). The law doesn't say anything about how long ago your very first initial acquaintance may have been.

If you feel you must describe the circumstances of your intitial meeting there, go ahead, but that's not what they're really interested in here.

True, the statutory requirment is proof of meeting in the last two years.

But I respectfully disagree that it's not important as to how the relationship began. I've seen RFE's for that as well.

Look at it this way ...... if you were telling your Mother how you met this guy, would you leave that bit out?

Think of DOS as your Mother. Except they won't ask if you are using birth control.....