Utah Online Marriage, SF Consulate Rejected RoM.

[TO285 1]

I recently sent off a report of marriage packet to the consulate. Every single document that was needed was included, including additionals.

 

The SF Consulate stated that they will not accept RoMs for the Utah Online Marriage option and are suspending it until further notice from the PSA to clarify legal requirements.

 

I'm so confused now. I even sent in a verification letter from Utah that stated the marriage was considered a legal marriage in the state of Utah and would not technically really fall under 'Online proxy' marriages. Yet the Consulate still sent the packet back.

 

Could this be foreshadowing USCIS also bringing up problems with this? I'm really worried and concerned about it now.

[top_secret 2,414]

I have seen a number of recent reports of this.  It's the latest new twist. The Philippines are always ready to throw a curve ball at you.  I don't think it would impact USCIS at all since they seem pretty established as accepting Utah online marriages for US Immigration, assuming meeting requirements are met.  I think your US visa petition would still proceed normally with or without a ROM.  It seems the jury is still out on the Philippines side of things.  They are saying wait and see and if that's what they say, then that's all you can do.  Depending on the outcome of DFA and PSA's possible policy changes it might or might not be kind of a gamechanger on the Philippine side of things.  The main practical issue related to immigration at the moment would be using the husbands surname and CFO issues.  I still think you are just fine with USCIS though.  It could make a big difference for foreign spouses staying in the Philippines.

 

 

This is the language the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco is using.

Quote

"Please be informed that, pursuant to instructions received from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the processing of applications for ROM of those whose marriages where held online and so called Proxy Marriages is being put in abeyance until clarification and guidance is received from the Philippines Statistics Authority."

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by top_secret

[TO285 1]

7 minutes ago, top_secret said:

I have seen a number of recent reports of this.  It's the latest new twist. The Philippines are always ready to throw a curve ball at you.  I don't think it would impact USCIS at all since they seem pretty established as accepting Utah online marriages for US Immigration, assuming meeting requirements are met.  I think your US visa petition would still proceed normally with or without a ROM.  It seems the jury is still out on the Philippines side of things.  They are saying wait and see and if that's what they say, then that's all you can do.  Depending on the outcome of DFA and PSA's possible policy changes it might or might not be kind of a gamechanger on the Philippine side of things.  The main practical issue related to immigration at the moment would be using the husbands surname and CFO issues.  I still think you are just fine with USCIS though.  It could make a big difference for foreign spouses staying in the Philippines.

 

 

This is the language the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco is using.

 

So what are they expecting people to do? It's not like we can get remarried in the USA even if she came here. And you'd have to lie under perjury to get remarried in the PH that you're not married elsewhere. It's really confusing.

 

Appreciate your perspectives on USCIS and everything else, thank you.

[top_secret 2,414]

14 minutes ago, TO285 said:

So what are they expecting people to do? It's not like we can get remarried in the USA even if she came here. And you'd have to lie under perjury to get remarried in the PH that you're not married elsewhere. It's really confusing.

 

Appreciate your perspectives on USCIS and everything else, thank you.

They expect you to wait and see.  The Philippine government are experts at making people wait.😉   It seems issuing of ROM's for online marriages is just temporarily suspended for now and presumably they will have some new process "soon" (Philippines soon not US soon) that may be problematic or may be no big deal at all. But for USCIS you are obligated to proceed with the Utah online marriage certificate if that is how you are already married.   It should still be fine for immigration. You cannot "remarry" if you are already married.

Edited November 10, 2022 by top_secret

[John & Rose 7,239]

Per Philippine law the online marriage is recognized. I know of one couple that got their stamped paperwork back on Oct 17, 2022 and I saw another that got the same letter on October 28, 2022. My step son’s wife got her PSA marriage certificate after the Utah marriage but hasn’t tried DFA yet. 
 

This will have no impact on the CR-1 but may cause challenges changing the passport of the beneficiary to the married name. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by John & Rose

[Steve & Erma 36]

My ROM is stamped Oct 12 2022 and according to the SF consulate is scheduled to be transmitted to the DFA mid-November; I would expect mine to be processed by the PSA since the consulate did so.

 

For those getting rejected this will not cause any issues with the USCIS. If you cannot get your ROM then your spouse will not be able to change their name. Should you get to your immigration or CFO interview and still have no PSA MC then if asked just be straight forward and explain you were unable because of the change in the policy. I can't imagine all of the people who have already been married this way and are in the immigration process would get rejected for either interview after getting to the very end of this long process.

 

Bright side is I hear there are Philippine lawyers already fighting this in the courts.

[JJJ2022 0]

On 11/14/2022 at 12:51 AM, Steve & Erma said:

My ROM is stamped Oct 12 2022 and according to the SF consulate is scheduled to be transmitted to the DFA mid-November; I would expect mine to be processed by the PSA since the consulate did so.

 

For those getting rejected this will not cause any issues with the USCIS. If you cannot get your ROM then your spouse will not be able to change their name. Should you get to your immigration or CFO interview and still have no PSA MC then if asked just be straight forward and explain you were unable because of the change in the policy. I can't imagine all of the people who have already been married this way and are in the immigration process would get rejected for either interview after getting to the very end of this long process.

 

Bright side is I hear there are Philippine lawyers already fighting this in the courts.

DFA might have approved but PSA will definitely reject it at this point. If DFA ordered Embassy to pause accepting ROM for online marriage due to PSA then it is because PSA has the final say when it comes to this stuff and not DFA. They can transmit the data but it'll just be rejected for sure.

 

If you watch the livestream from PSA themselves, the attorney general and the supreme court judges are NOT supporting this ROM through online marriage yet.

 

Lawyers might be fighting it but it will take awhile since they explicitly said that according to the family code that it requires both parties WITH the officiant. I understand they should have planned this accordingly and grandfathered the existing ones, but who knows. We'll see.

[Steve & Erma 36]

50 minutes ago, JJJ2022 said:

DFA might have approved but PSA will definitely reject it at this point. If DFA ordered Embassy to pause accepting ROM for online marriage due to PSA then it is because PSA has the final say when it comes to this stuff and not DFA. They can transmit the data but it'll just be rejected for sure.

 

If you watch the livestream from PSA themselves, the attorney general and the supreme court judges are NOT supporting this ROM through online marriage yet.

 

Lawyers might be fighting it but it will take awhile since they explicitly said that according to the family code that it requires both parties WITH the officiant. I understand they should have planned this accordingly and grandfathered the existing ones, but who knows. We'll see.

@JJJ2022 where do I find the live stream at?

 

Where in the family code does it say both parties have to be in the same location as the officiant? Everything I have read says nothing about who has to be where. All foreign weddings as long as done in a lawful manner in that country are viewed as legal according to article 26 of The Family Code of the Philippines.

 

I can get the "proxy" weddings not being legal but when both people are on the zoom call there should be no issues. My wife and I were actually together in Manila when we got married via the Utah wedding.

 

This all has to come down to money. The LCR's are losing money because of this. Instead of making changes to their laws to make the process more convenient for foreigners they just cancel this or that. Wish they could be a bit more forward-thinkers.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 hours ago, Steve & Erma said:

@JJJ2022 where do I find the live stream at?

 

Where in the family code does it say both parties have to be in the same location as the officiant? Everything I have read says nothing about who has to be where. All foreign weddings as long as done in a lawful manner in that country are viewed as legal according to article 26 of The Family Code of the Philippines.

 

I can get the "proxy" weddings not being legal but when both people are on the zoom call there should be no issues. My wife and I were actually together in Manila when we got married via the Utah wedding.

 

This all has to come down to money. The LCR's are losing money because of this. Instead of making changes to their laws to make the process more convenient for foreigners they just cancel this or that. Wish they could be a bit more forward-thinkers.

You act like many of the laws in the Philippines concerning marriage make sense when in reality they don't

[JJJ2022 0]

7 hours ago, Steve & Erma said:

@JJJ2022 where do I find the live stream at?

 

Where in the family code does it say both parties have to be in the same location as the officiant? Everything I have read says nothing about who has to be where. All foreign weddings as long as done in a lawful manner in that country are viewed as legal according to article 26 of The Family Code of the Philippines.

 

I can get the "proxy" weddings not being legal but when both people are on the zoom call there should be no issues. My wife and I were actually together in Manila when we got married via the Utah wedding.

 

This all has to come down to money. The LCR's are losing money because of this. Instead of making changes to their laws to make the process more convenient for foreigners they just cancel this or that. Wish they could be a bit more forward-thinkers.

I agree and I support you with it comes to Article 29. However, the ASG and judges kept spewing Article 3. Either they don't know the law or they're to outsmart normal people who doesn't understand the law. Here's the link start around 40:00 and you should open it before a moderator deletes the link lol since for some reason they dont allow fb links.

 

They kept saying at the livestream. Which uhh that's article 3, but yeah... whatever.

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

 

• (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

  (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and

  (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

Edited November 16, 2022 by JJJ2022

[TO285 1]

In my case I was physically present WITH my now wife, on the Zoom call with the officiant in Utah. I also had the two witnesses who verbally signed the marriage certificate physically present as well. Maybe six or so other non marriage cert witnesses also present physically.

 

So I'm pretty sure I could get plenty of affidavits if needed to show the San Francisco embassy eventually that we were physically together. I also have the zoom video recording (which I'm not sure if they'd accept that or not as evidence.)

 

Maybe I should contact the Provo office in Utah and ask if the officiant we used (They were one of the clerk officiants there.) would be willing to sign an affidavit that they witnessed us both together on video, that according to their knowledge we were present together in the Philippines, etc.

 

Ultimately my concerns are 1. Getting her here to the USA some day. 2. Our marriage being recognized 'eventually' in the Philippines because if I wanted to ever stay with her in the PH someday for an extended period of time I'm guessing I'd be unable to avail any of the privileges of being her spouse, other visa options besides a tourist visa etc. Plus she and I both have interest of one day retiring in the PH when we're able to build up a big enough nest egg to do so.

 

I'm curious why the PH is suddenly going back to the family code in the prior mentioned livestreams when historically the country has accepted foreign marriages as long as they're lawful in the place of solemnization. Our marriage is LEGAL in the state of Utah in the USA and should be for all intents and purposes accepted in the PH...

[Steve & Erma 36]

1 hour ago, TO285 said:

In my case I was physically present WITH my now wife, on the Zoom call with the officiant in Utah. I also had the two witnesses who verbally signed the marriage certificate physically present as well. Maybe six or so other non marriage cert witnesses also present physically.

 

So I'm pretty sure I could get plenty of affidavits if needed to show the San Francisco embassy eventually that we were physically together. I also have the zoom video recording (which I'm not sure if they'd accept that or not as evidence.)

 

Maybe I should contact the Provo office in Utah and ask if the officiant we used (They were one of the clerk officiants there.) would be willing to sign an affidavit that they witnessed us both together on video, that according to their knowledge we were present together in the Philippines, etc.

 

Ultimately my concerns are 1. Getting her here to the USA some day. 2. Our marriage being recognized 'eventually' in the Philippines because if I wanted to ever stay with her in the PH someday for an extended period of time I'm guessing I'd be unable to avail any of the privileges of being her spouse, other visa options besides a tourist visa etc. Plus she and I both have interest of one day retiring in the PH when we're able to build up a big enough nest egg to do so.

 

I'm curious why the PH is suddenly going back to the family code in the prior mentioned livestreams when historically the country has accepted foreign marriages as long as they're lawful in the place of solemnization. Our marriage is LEGAL in the state of Utah in the USA and should be for all intents and purposes accepted in the PH...

Your story sounds almost exactly like mine. We were together in Manila with her brother, his wife, and three aunties.

 

16 hours ago, JJJ2022 said:

• (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

  (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and

  (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

The clerk is a solemnizing officer... the license is valid... and we were together in Manila physically with our witnesses and virtually with our solemnizing officer.

 

Like I said I think this is all coming about because the LCRs, Mayors, Judges, and Priests are all losing money from fees from this option and they want those back.

[RO_AH 1,659]

4 hours ago, Steve & Erma said:

Like I said I think this is all coming about because the LCRs, Mayors, Judges, and Priests are all losing money from fees from this option and they want those back.

I would bet you money that 99.5& of the people at all LCR's, mayors, judges and priests have no clue that they will even do online weddings in Utah and would have no clue that they are losing money not to mention that the amount that they would be losing would be too minimal to calculate. The problem is more likely ignorance. They see online wedding and it doesn't compute. They do not do even a fraction of research that the people that have gone through the process have to know anything about it. They hear online and think proxy. We all know that is not what it is, but like I said they are completely ignorant of the process. To compound the problem nothing moves fast in the Philippines. When they say they need to research it, we may be thinking weeks where reality maybe a year. Don't go reaching for some master conspiracy when the issue is easily explainable.

[Steve & Erma 36]

5 hours ago, RO_AH said:

I would bet you money that 99.5& of the people at all LCR's, mayors, judges and priests have no clue that they will even do online weddings in Utah and would have no clue that they are losing money not to mention that the amount that they would be losing would be too minimal to calculate. The problem is more likely ignorance. They see online wedding and it doesn't compute. They do not do even a fraction of research that the people that have gone through the process have to know anything about it. They hear online and think proxy. We all know that is not what it is, but like I said they are completely ignorant of the process. To compound the problem nothing moves fast in the Philippines. When they say they need to research it, we may be thinking weeks where reality maybe a year. Don't go reaching for some master conspiracy when the issue is easily explainable.

You are probably more right than I am.

 

I did actually email the guy from the FB video. I will let you all know how that works out and if I hear anything from him.

[John & Rose 7,239]

Keep in mind this ONLY impacts ROM and the changing of the beneficiaries name on the passport.  The US will still allow the wedding and if you meet after the online wedding you can file for a spousal visa.  ROM is not required.  The Utah wedding is still legal for US immigration and is technically legal in the Philippines.  This will get straightened out but it is just a minor hiccup.  I actually know of a couple who met in Cebu and did the Utah wedding while they were together.  It is too early to see how that will turn out but if it works for the Spousal visa they did find a way to avoid the LCR and licensing wait.  It was not a Proxy wedding as they were both involved and they were together for the ceremony.