Advice on I129F

[Redicent 14]

I answered your question. If you cannot comprehend the answer, then that is on you.

Where is the evidence the OP's fiancee will have to undergo a psychological exam?

I didnt say that. You are mistaken.

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

I stand corrected. You stated the USC petitioner. So where is the evidence that a psychological exam of the USC petitioner may be warranted for a case where the foreign fiancee has a child that is not his?

[Redicent 14]

I stand corrected. You stated the USC petitioner. So where is the evidence that a psychological exam of the USC petitioner may be warranted for a case where the foreign fiancee has a child that is not his?

I didnt say that either.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

In a case such as this, a psychological exam of the petitioner may be warranted.

Answer Kay's question, please. Inquiring minds want to know.

Edited July 25, 2013 by TBoneTX

[Redicent 14]

Answer Kay's question, please. Inquiring minds want to know.

Sure thing. That's my opinion.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Sure thing. That's my opinion.

Consider, please, that expressing an unwashed "opinion" on a topic with important legal ramifications is like firing a gun into the air and hoping that a duck will be flying overhead right about then.

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

In a case such as this, a psychological exam of the petitioner may be warranted.

Right, silly me. Carry on.

You went off about Harpa not providing evidence for a statement she made and asked for evidence of her 'opinion' on the matter when you are spouting off your own opinions without evidence. I think this is a "pot-meet-kettle standoff moment" which should die here, so have a nice night.

[Redicent 14]

Consider, please, that expressing an unwashed "opinion" on a topic with important legal ramifications is like firing a gun into the air and hoping that a duck will be flying overhead right about then.

Thank you. I have been trying to make a point near that. Of course it should apply to all, not just Spike Jones types. In this topic. I have delved into supreme court cases and asked for citations of those commenting. We discussed "legal authority" on personal websites and looked at what it covered and didnt cover.Then I was told that opinions are not opinions. And opinions can be fact without citations. It was also stated that a member is rather trustworthy, but then maybe no endorsement is to be given. So far, Jay-Kay has cited one very interesting website re: exit authority, very interesting.

[Redicent 14]

Right, silly me. Carry on.

You went off about Harpa not providing evidence for a statement she made and asked for evidence of her 'opinion' on the matter when you are spouting off your own opinions without evidence. I think this is a "pot-meet-kettle standoff moment" which should die here, so have a nice night.

NO, you said that it was NOT an opinion that Harpa was relating. You took excepction to my refering to it as an opinion. I have not said opinions are bad. We are all entitled to them. It was you that elevated Harpa's opinion to near fact. And it was you who had to back up Harpa's proclaimation. You brought up Harpa. And tried to make her opinion more than it was. You even place quotation marks around the word opinion.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Redicent

[AymanAB 1]

Congratulations on the safe arrival of your newest family member!

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Then come up with a definite answer, Redicent, but don't speculate. In addition, in the future, if you express an opinion, please qualify it with "this is an opinion only, on the basis of ____..." You've been a member here for barely 5 weeks; you have no VJ timeline; and we don't know your qualifications, except that you admit that you're not a lawyer.

In my consistent observation, HT is one long-time member whose advice is highly reliable; Kay is among the most elite members currently active on VJ; and both are students of the immigration process. Neither has EVER posted anything that they couldn't back up -- and either would freely admit an error, if they were to commit one.

Two wrongs don't make a right: "Well, I expressed an opinion, but you did, too." It's my belief that the petitioner should consult a sharp immigration attorney (optimally, a member of AILA), phone USCIS and talk with someone above the Customer Disservice front-line level, e-mail the Manila embassy to ask what the consular requirements are, or all three. Regardless, receiving an RFE is a golden opportunity to correct, update, or provide additional information for USCIS, the consulate, or both.

[Redicent 14]

Then come up with a definite answer, Redicent, but don't speculate. In addition, in the future, if you express an opinion, please qualify it with "this is an opinion only, on the basis of ____..." You've been a member here for barely 5 weeks; you have no VJ timeline; and we don't know your qualifications, except that you admit that you're not a lawyer.

In my consistent observation, HT is one long-time member whose advice is highly reliable; Kay is among the most elite members currently active on VJ; and both are students of the immigration process. Neither has EVER posted anything that they couldn't back up -- and either would freely admit an error, if they were to commit one.

Two wrongs don't make a right: "Well, I expressed an opinion, but you did, too." It's my belief that the petitioner should consult a sharp immigration attorney (optimally, a member of AILA), phone USCIS and talk with someone above the Customer Disservice front-line level, e-mail the Manila embassy to ask what the consular requirements are, or all three. Regardless, receiving an RFE is a golden opportunity to correct, update, or provide additional information for USCIS, the consulate, or both.

Who said Im not a lawyer?

Well, by your standard, every post should begin with: "This is just my opinion". What each person says here is what they say. Each reader can evaluate it as they wish.

HT didnt admit to being wrong about embassies accepting mail. And HT has yet to back up the opinions I asked about.

I admire JK for citing evidence and find that she is quite knowledgable, although she may not recognize that admiration.

As to folks being on the forum a long time, do you think new blood has nothing to offer of value?

Edited July 25, 2013 by Redicent

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

NO, you said that it was NOT an opinion that Harpa was relating. You took excepction to my refering to it as an opinion. I have not said opinions are bad. We are all entitled to them. It was you that elevated Harpa's opinion to near fact. And it was you who had to back up Harpa's proclaimation. You brought up Harpa. And tried to make her opinion more than it was. You even place quotation marks around the word opinion.

Try to follow along with me. What she said is not opinion just because she did not supply a reference for you. What you said was an opinion because it is NOT a fact. What Harpa said about laws in the Philippines where an illegitimate child is concerned, was not an opinion because it IS a fact. If you did not like the evidence I posted to support that fact, then look up others on your own.

Mucking up this thread with all this incessant nonsense is not helpful to the OP.

He was answered on page 1 and 2 of this thread while you were still unclear of where he even was in his process, though he specifically stated that information in his very first post. Since he was answered, this needs to end now.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Who said Im not a lawyer?

The perceived lack of (at minimum) legal temperament in unquoted verbiage visible under your username in this thread is rather indicative of the applicable professional status that has been suggested just above. Also, the spelling is atrocious. Finally, sometimes new members don't know what they don't know.

Edited July 25, 2013 by TBoneTX

[Redicent 14]

Try to follow along with me. What she said is not opinion just because she did not supply a reference for you. What you said was an opinion because it is NOT a fact. What Harpa said about laws in the Philippines where an illegitimate child is concerned, was not an opinion because it IS a fact. If you did not like the evidence I posted to support that fact, then look up others on your own.

Mucking up this thread with all this incessant nonsense is not helpful to the OP.

He was answered on page 1 and 2 of this thread while you were still unclear of where he even was in his process, though he specifically stated that information in his very first post. Since he was answered, this needs to end now.

So you still claim that HT's proclaimation is not opinion. So your stance is that if a statement is true, its not an opinion? And if the statement is not true, it is an opinion? A statement can be an opinion whether its true or false.

I liked the evidence you posted and complimented you on it before.

And Im not dancing the Tango alone here.