True or False: CFO can require police clearance or FBI report for petitioner

[Nathan2424 3]

1 hour ago, Edward and Jaycel said:

1 hour ago, Nathan2424 said:

The other seven bullets apply to the beneficiary, so it would be unreasonable to assume the eighth bullet applied to the petitioner without stating as such. 

 

2 hours ago, Edward and Jaycel said:

● Certificate of family relations / registration of foreign spouse

2 hours ago, Edward and Jaycel said:

● Proof of residency/Alien Registration Card-ARC of foreign spouse

 

These both refer to the petitioner - 

 

Yes and no. You are correct that the document itself describes a foreign spouse, but the bullet and applicability applies from the perspective of the beneficiary as it is their foreign spouse, which is why it is labeled to make that distinction. It furthers my point because they opted to use 'of foreign spouse' on multiple bullets, yet on the last bullet opted to exclude it. Additionally, these wouldn't apply to a petitioner (in context of a K-1) either because fiancé(e)s are deemed separate from a foreign spouse according to the CFO website, which is also why they use 'petitioner' in a prior bullet opposed to 'foreign spouse's passport'.

 

Point is, it is confusing and unclear when it doesn't need to be with a very simple fix (e.g. updating it to say 'Both the GCP applicant and their petitioner'). This benefits both the CFO's goals and the individuals they claim to be serving, so there really is no excuse to not do it. As someone else pointed out, the go-to strategy is to just grin and bear it, which is what 99.99% of people do [including me most likely], but that doesn't exempt them from criticism.

 

PS: I do not mean to be argumentative and I really do appreciate you responding and giving your insights/information ❤️

[Edward and Jaycel 789]

14 minutes ago, Nathan2424 said:

 

Yes and no. You are correct that the document itself describes a foreign spouse, but the bullet and applicability applies from the perspective of the beneficiary as it is their foreign spouse, which is why it is labeled to make that distinction. It furthers my point because they opted to use 'of foreign spouse' on multiple bullets, yet on the last bullet opted to exclude it. Additionally, these wouldn't apply to a petitioner (in context of a K-1) either because fiancé(e)s are deemed separate from a foreign spouse according to the CFO website, which is also why they use 'petitioner' in a prior bullet opposed to 'foreign spouse's passport'.

 

Point is, it is confusing and unclear when it doesn't need to be with a very simple fix (e.g. updating it to say 'Both the GCP applicant and their petitioner'). This benefits both the CFO's goals and the individuals they claim to be serving, so there really is no excuse to not do it. As someone else pointed out, the go-to strategy is to just grin and bear it, which is what 99.99% of people do [including me most likely], but that doesn't exempt them from criticism.

 

PS: I do not mean to be argumentative and I really do appreciate you responding and giving your insights/information ❤️

 

👍

[Nathan2424 3]

1 hour ago, top_secret said:

Americans tend to look for a check list, fulfill the requirements, and thus have complete assurance of the expected result. The Philippines in general has less certainty about everything.

 

I agree, but I don't see any fault with criticizing that lack of transparency or at least suggesting they clarify it on their website. It would benefit both the CFO and the individuals they aim to protect/serve.  Also, this tendency is not limited to Americans, even Filipinos share this feeling. I would even argue that it is a universal feeling that people tend to favor transparency in regards to legal processes.

 

PS: I really do appreciate you responding and giving your insights. I am just frustrated with the whole process because in both the US and Philippines, the government agencies create needless confusion and it just leads to added stress and delays.

[RO_AH 1,667]

Another reason the CR-1 is a better option (in my opinion). The tend to be a lot easier to get through CFO.

[Nathan2424 3]

Verdict: For anyone that finds this thread in the future: the facilitator (interviewer) for the CFO (GCP) DID NOT ask for the petitioner's criminal record. They did ask for evidence of our relationship though and a ton of other questions to the beneficiary (e.g. how we met, how will she get to the USA, what is our plan when gets here, etc.)