birth certificate question - UK fiance

[miss g 1]

If you had ever seen a UK decree absolute you would know. It is a one page document that is not signed and just has a small smudgy stamp that makes it an official document. If you request a true copy, which I have, you get a document that looks exactly like the orginal document.

Her RFE asked for a "true copy", hence my assertion that calling her statement gibberish is unneccessarily rude. But also par for the coursefor you. After all, you know everything and couldn't possibly learn from others who have actually lived through a I129f and subsequent K1 visa through the US Embassy in London.

Her RFE may well have asked for a "true copy" but what I called "gibberish" was her assertion that she was asked for an "original". When we use the wrong terminology, statements are misleading. When statements make no sense, I call them "gibberish" or worse. Use the correct terminology and amazingly most people understand.

She was not asked for an original and did not obtain one. She obtained a "true copy". In the US, we would call that a "certified copy".

you are a pretensious one arent you... im not gonna argue with u about SEMANTICS... at the end of the day.. the reasonable people who read this to get info got the gist and thats all that matters... this is a message board not MENSA dont take things outa context.. the "original" was in reference to the "Original" documentation that I had submitted.. and NOT the "original" decree.. LEARN TO READ. LEARN SOME MANNERS.

[pushbrk 13,564]

If you had ever seen a UK decree absolute you would know. It is a one page document that is not signed and just has a small smudgy stamp that makes it an official document. If you request a true copy, which I have, you get a document that looks exactly like the orginal document.

Her RFE asked for a "true copy", hence my assertion that calling her statement gibberish is unneccessarily rude. But also par for the coursefor you. After all, you know everything and couldn't possibly learn from others who have actually lived through a I129f and subsequent K1 visa through the US Embassy in London.

Her RFE may well have asked for a "true copy" but what I called "gibberish" was her assertion that she was asked for an "original". When we use the wrong terminology, statements are misleading. When statements make no sense, I call them "gibberish" or worse. Use the correct terminology and amazingly most people understand.

She was not asked for an original and did not obtain one. She obtained a "true copy". In the US, we would call that a "certified copy".

you are a pretensious one arent you... im not gonna argue with u about SEMANTICS... at the end of the day.. the reasonable people who read this to get info got the gist and thats all that matters... this is a message board not MENSA dont take things outa context.. the "original" was in reference to the "Original" documentation that I had submitted.. and NOT the "original" decree.. LEARN TO READ. LEARN SOME MANNERS.

I read this...

i dont know coz i recently got a RFE because of my decree absolute "Not being the original" so i went to the court to get another and it was just a print off with a red stamp.

What you wrote says you got an RFE because your decree absolute was "Not being the original". You were never asked for an original by any definition of "original" and you didn't submit any original in response to the RFE. That's why your post amounted to gibberish. Nobody could take any meaning from it that made any sense. I responded so people wouldn't go looking for "original" birth certificates or divorce decrees in order to avoid an RFE. Based on what you wrote above, either you're lying or too illiterate to offer meaningful assistance to a group who succeed or fail in being reunited with their loved ones based on their ability to correctly understand context and semantics.

[scandal 951]

What you wrote says you got an RFE because your decree absolute was "Not being the original". You were never asked for an original by any definition of "original" and you didn't submit any original in response to the RFE. That's why your post amounted to gibberish. Nobody could take any meaning from it that made any sense. I responded so people wouldn't go looking for "original" birth certificates or divorce decrees in order to avoid an RFE. Based on what you wrote above, either you're lying or too illiterate to offer meaningful assistance to a group who succeed or fail in being reunited with their loved ones based on their ability to correctly understand context and semantics.

At the risk of jumping into the fray on an issue in which I have no stake, I offer the following:

a ) I actually found the back/forth exchange in this thread illuminating. If nothing else, it made me think more deeply about the meaning of the terms 'original', 'certified copy', etc.

b ) In other threads in the past, including in response to questions I've raised on VJ, I have found pushbrk to be helpful and informative. He speaks with some authority, but he apparently has reasonably expert knowledge in our wonderful subject domain. So, I pay attention to his writings.

c ) pusbrk - It probably wouldn't hurt to back off on the tone in this case. E.g., were I you, I would stand by the substance of my position, while conceding that the tone was a bit harsh and hence retract it.

[pushbrk 13,564]

What you wrote says you got an RFE because your decree absolute was "Not being the original". You were never asked for an original by any definition of "original" and you didn't submit any original in response to the RFE. That's why your post amounted to gibberish. Nobody could take any meaning from it that made any sense. I responded so people wouldn't go looking for "original" birth certificates or divorce decrees in order to avoid an RFE. Based on what you wrote above, either you're lying or too illiterate to offer meaningful assistance to a group who succeed or fail in being reunited with their loved ones based on their ability to correctly understand context and semantics.

At the risk of jumping into the fray on an issue in which I have no stake, I offer the following:

a ) I actually found the back/forth exchange in this thread illuminating. If nothing else, it made me think more deeply about the meaning of the terms 'original', 'certified copy', etc.

b ) In other threads in the past, including in response to questions I've raised on VJ, I have found pushbrk to be helpful and informative. He speaks with some authority, but he apparently has reasonably expert knowledge in our wonderful subject domain. So, I pay attention to his writings.

c ) pusbrk - It probably wouldn't hurt to back off on the tone in this case. E.g., were I you, I would stand by the substance of my position, while conceding that the tone was a bit harsh and hence retract it.

You would. I wouldn't. I'm not posting to win an argument but to make sure the readers don't get the wrong information. I don't want anybody chasing "originals" that are either not needed or in many cases unobtainable based on somebody's gibberish. The stakes are just too high for that.

[StillThePrettiest 4]

there are MANY ways to skin a cat, and many ways to 'make sure the readers don't get the wrong information'... in this case, ONE WORD was slightly off in meaning; this is NOT gibberish, by any reasonable definition of the word

pushbrk: if you're as abrasive to people in real life as you proudly defend your right to be on this board, I'd be surprised... it wouldn't hurt you to be more thoughtful of people, and less harsh, and you wouldn't have to dilute your 'message' one iota... but then, I'm by no means the first to say this to you, and you keep claiming your repeated rudeness to be nothing more than 'straight talk', so I'd imagine my words are wasted in this regard, like everyone else's on the subject... it must be nice to be SO confident, in the face of so much disagreement

[truffles 2]

I understood exactly what you were refering to Miss G - we too got an RFE for my divorce document - in the end I had to go to the court and get the document and insist on a very clear red stamp - which is simply that a very basic stamp with the court location around the rim of the stamp. I was suprised that the clerk simply pulled out what looked like a pretty standard stamper and stamped it - I then composed a letter explaining where the paragraphs in the document indicated it was an absolute along also drawing attention to the name of the document ( the very last words on the document).

Agree with Julez in regard to the fact it really doesn't look like anything important - of course it is, but it has a simple and plain appearance.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

But you know what? The issue is NOT about whether it was an original or a certified copy. The issue is that USCIS have repeatedly had issues recognising UK decree absolutes as being acceptable. Take it from me -- I was, until last year, a member of the Law Society of England and Wales -- even the very first decree absolute a newly divorced person receives is ONLY a certified copy as the decree absolute is pronounced in court and recorded centrally. It is only an extract, and it looks as official as if it were written on the back of a cocktail napkin. Every official copy received will look exactly the same. It is impossible to send an original of a decree absolute.

So fine, yes, it is a copy and not an original. But most people who receive that very first copy think of it as being an original, as it was the original document they receive. There have been multiple postings in VJ about USCIS not accepting UK decree absolutes -- even with the special red stamp. It is a known problem amongst UK people. This is a UK issue and those of us who have gone through the hassle might know a smidge more about it.

Honestly, why has this been sidetracked into a squabble about definitions? No one is trying to score points here.

[pushbrk 13,564]

But you know what? The issue is NOT about whether it was an original or a certified copy. The issue is that USCIS have repeatedly had issues recognising UK decree absolutes as being acceptable. Take it from me -- I was, until last year, a member of the Law Society of England and Wales -- even the very first decree absolute a newly divorced person receives is ONLY a certified copy as the decree absolute is pronounced in court and recorded centrally. It is only an extract, and it looks as official as if it were written on the back of a cocktail napkin. Every official copy received will look exactly the same. It is impossible to send an original of a decree absolute.

So fine, yes, it is a copy and not an original. But most people who receive that very first copy think of it as being an original, as it was the original document they receive. There have been multiple postings in VJ about USCIS not accepting UK decree absolutes -- even with the special red stamp. It is a known problem amongst UK people. This is a UK issue and those of us who have gone through the hassle might know a smidge more about it.

Honestly, why has this been sidetracked into a squabble about definitions? No one is trying to score points here.

A quick read of post #1 in this thread will clear up the questions. The thread is about whether an "official copy" of a UK birth certificate would be an acceptable substitute for the original lost in a flood years ago. It is not about UK decree absolutes.

I responded to an assertion that an official copy might not be enough because somebody wrote... "i dont know coz i recently got a RFE because of my decree absolute "Not being the original"

Using the word "original" in place of any kind of "copy" is not a small error in word usage. It's like calling night, day or yes, no. In effect, the statement said, " I don't know if an official copy is good enough because my RFE asked for an original so I went and got a an official copy and submitted it in response?" The statement is gibberish. It's as meaninful as, "I had a miscarriage but the baby I miscarried is doing just fine."

Edited January 8, 2009 by pushbrk

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

But you know what? The issue is NOT about whether it was an original or a certified copy. The issue is that USCIS have repeatedly had issues recognising UK decree absolutes as being acceptable. Take it from me -- I was, until last year, a member of the Law Society of England and Wales -- even the very first decree absolute a newly divorced person receives is ONLY a certified copy as the decree absolute is pronounced in court and recorded centrally. It is only an extract, and it looks as official as if it were written on the back of a cocktail napkin. Every official copy received will look exactly the same. It is impossible to send an original of a decree absolute.

So fine, yes, it is a copy and not an original. But most people who receive that very first copy think of it as being an original, as it was the original document they receive. There have been multiple postings in VJ about USCIS not accepting UK decree absolutes -- even with the special red stamp. It is a known problem amongst UK people. This is a UK issue and those of us who have gone through the hassle might know a smidge more about it.

Honestly, why has this been sidetracked into a squabble about definitions? No one is trying to score points here.

A quick read of post #1 in this thread will clear up the questions. The thread is about whether an "official copy" of a UK birth certificate would be an acceptable substitute for the original lost in a flood years ago. It is not about UK decree absolutes.

I responded to an assertion that an official copy might not be enough because somebody wrote... "i dont know coz i recently got a RFE because of my decree absolute "Not being the original"

Using the word "original" in place of any kind of "copy" is not a small error in word usage. It's like calling night, day or yes, no. In effect, the statement said, " I don't know if an official copy is good enough because my RFE asked for an original so I went and got a an official copy and submitted it in response?" The statement is gibberish. It's as meaninful as, "I had a miscarriage but the baby I miscarried is doing just fine."

It still smacks of point-scoring. A reasoned response would have omitted the highly emotive "gibberish." Yes, the OP was confused about the abso-effing-lutely perfect terminology. A correction might have been offered in an effective way that wasn't demeaning.

You know what? #### this. I have a husband, three jobs and a life. I am so sick of this #######, the petty oneupmanship and slapping of dicks on the table. I am outta VJ for a while. I'm banning myself before I say anything more.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

You would. I wouldn't. I'm not posting to win an argument but to make sure the readers don't get the wrong information. I don't want anybody chasing "originals" that are either not needed or in many cases unobtainable based on somebody's gibberish. The stakes are just too high for that.

[truffles 2]

"I read this...

i dont know coz i recently got a RFE because of my decree absolute "Not being the original" so i went to the court to get another and it was just a print off with a red stamp.

What you wrote says you got an RFE because your decree absolute was "Not being the original". You were never asked for an original by any definition of "original" and you didn't submit any original in response to the RFE. That's why your post amounted to gibberish. Nobody could take any meaning from it that made any sense. I responded so people wouldn't go looking for "original" birth certificates or divorce decrees in order to avoid an RFE. Based on what you wrote above, either you're lying or too illiterate t[/b]o offer meaningful assistance to a group who succeed or fail in being reunited with their loved ones based on their ability to correctly understand context and semantics.

"

you really have to resort to personal attacks ? - who are you to call someone a a liar ? Straight talk is one thing but your remarks over step the line. I KNOW the problem she is talking about because I have had to contend with it myself -as have many others. You also seem to intimate YOU think she shouldnt offer any assistance? are you are now in a position to say who posts and who cannot post?

Edited January 8, 2009 by truffles

[miss g 1]

"im not posting to win an argument" -

your comments to me werent value added they were abrasive offensive and supercilious -

I was infact asked for the "original" documentation in the RFE, the document I INITIALLY submitted was the "copy" I had received from the court.

now that we have established that UK documentation tends to be problematic - what i would like to know is.. If so many people have the same issue, why do they continue to delay petitions because of something so small...Surely they look at statistics and realise that it happens alot and maybe they should review this aspect?

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

And here's infamous UK Decree Absolute. The red stamp is what makes it acceptable to the USCIS. That certifies it. You will notice that I highlighted the relevant parts of the document so the USCIS would notice it. They did not RFE for it.

[miss g 1]

And here's infamous UK Decree Absolute. The red stamp is what makes it acceptable to the USCIS. That certifies it. You will notice that I highlighted the relevant parts of the document so the USCIS would notice it. They did not RFE for it.

thanks for that - now people can see what it looks like!

GOOD POINT Highlighting, I will ensure mine is highlighted..

[StillThePrettiest 4]

It still smacks of point-scoring. A reasoned response would have omitted the highly emotive "gibberish." Yes, the OP was confused about the abso-effing-lutely perfect terminology. A correction might have been offered in an effective way that wasn't demeaning.

THIS

if I insist, over and over, that I'm a good teacher, but the people in my class aren't learning, then a few things could be true... the most likely being:

i) I'm NOT actually a good teacher, and need to change my methods

or

ii) I'm a very good teacher, but my methods don't suit the people I'm teaching, so I need to change my methods

so either way, I HAVE TO CHANGE MY METHODS

insisting, over and over, that something is just about setting the record straight, or having the correct information out there, or whatever, is farcical when MANY MANY PEOPLE say that the method of delivery affects the result

I'm not even going to mention that it's JUST NOT A NICE WAY TO TREAT PEOPLE, when this obviously matters not a jot to certain people

You know what? #### this. I have a husband, three jobs and a life. I am so sick of this #######, the petty oneupmanship and slapping of dicks on the table. I am outta VJ for a while. I'm banning myself before I say anything more.

don't blame you... this place often increases stress instead of decreasing it, and the last thing most people need is another source of stress in their lives... it's such a shame