HCMC answered my questions....

[ScottThuy 140]

The response to my request for clarification:

Section 221 (g) was cited, the section indicates that documents are required.. Is the RFE limited to the four (4) items listed as the only documentation being required?

1.petitioner notarized timeline

2.petitioner former spouse info

3.applicant former spouse info

4.applicant revised police certificate

Items 2 & 3 are related to former spouses with which we have very limited or no contact. Regarding the reference to "evidence of his or her current address", what is considered sufficient evidence, given that our ex's play no role in our relationship or day to day lives and are not willing to directly provide any documentation to assist us in our petition to marry?

Given that I have been married twice previously, does item 2 require documentation for both of my prior spouses?

The prompt response two weeks later:

Evidence of the ex-spouse’s address may include utility bill or phone bill, driving license, envelope…anything that helps the consular officer verify this information. If for any reason this information cannot be provided, you are requested to submit a clear explanation which is notarized. This requirement applies to both of your previous spouses.

The blue slip specifically says former spouse, singular, infering most recent only, but in fact the CO's expectation based on the response is any and all former spouses.. had we gone with what the blue slip said and not asked for the prompt response , we would have likely been in trouble for not providing requested info...

Given that the due date for these documents in Feb 23, I asked for a prompt response to allow us sufficient time to acquire the requested documents. HCMC considers 2 weeks prompt.. and now leaves us 2 weeks to acquire the documentation... I am glad we prepared for the worste case response and got everything we could think of while we waited to hear back from them.

[Teacher Mark 53]

The blue slip specifically says former spouse, singular, infering most recent only, but in fact the CO's expectation based on the response is any and all former spouses.. had we gone with what the blue slip said and not asked for the prompt response rofl.gif , we would have likely been in trouble for not providing requested info...

Sounds like someone needs to practice their plurals.

[ScottThuy 140]

There is so much misinformation out there, that it is amazing that anyone gets approved...

Have a box packed and on its way to ya.. should be there next weekend still not sure which day...

[Teacher Mark 53]

There is so much misinformation out there, that it is amazing that anyone gets approved...

Have a box packed and on its way to ya.. should be there next weekend still not sure which day...

That's typical business here. as you already know. That Consulate is American in name only. You know that if your case was further complicated by that error the person who was responsible wouldn't lose a seconds sleep over it, if they were even made aware of it.

[ScottThuy 140]

I told them about errors in the website and that was several months ago.. no correction to date...

[toddandhien 2]

Scott, the following sentence can be read in two different ways: This requirement applies to both of your previous spouses.

You read it as both of Scott's previous spouses. plural but for a single party. You could also read it as (and I suspect that this is what they meant) both Scott's and Thuy's previous spouses. singular but multiple parties.

Think about how people actually talk and you will realize that if you wanted to make reference to the previous spouses that you both had, you would say "both of your previous spouses."

English vernacular not easy for Americans. Harder for folks who learned it as a second language.

I suspect that the paperwork you had was good to go.

[ScottThuy 140]

Scott, the following sentence can be read in two different ways: This requirement applies to both of your previous spouses.

You read it as both of Scott's previous spouses. plural but for a single party. You could also read it as (and I suspect that this is what they meant) both Scott's and Thuy's previous spouses. singular but multiple parties.

Think about how people actually talk and you will realize that if you wanted to make reference to the previous spouses that you both had, you would say "both of your previous spouses."

English vernacular not easy for Americans. Harder for folks who learned it as a second language.

I suspect that the paperwork you had was good to go.

I can see what you mean.. had I not asked "Given that I have been married twice previously, does item 2 require documentation for both of my prior spouses?" it could go either way...

[Teacher Mark 53]

2.petitioner: former spouse(s) info

3.applicant: former spouse(s) info

Fixed.

[ScottThuy 140]

When are you gonna start working at the consulate and fix things there?

[BinhJerome 14]

When are you gonna start working at the consulate and fix things there?

I guess this is becoming more of a chat room than a help forum?????

[ScottThuy 140]

[Teacher Mark 53]

I guess this is becoming more of a chat room than a help forum?????

Alienating 2 memebers that have first hand knowledge of living in Vietnam when you're planning on moving here. Nice move J-Rome.

P.S. Happy New Year!

Edited February 14, 2010 by Mr. Saigon

[ScottThuy 140]

Alienating 2 memebers that have first hand knowledge of living in Vietnam when you're planning on moving here. Nice move J-Rome.

P.S. Happy New Year!

Mark,

I sure hope nobody said something that has taken away from the personal enjoyment of this Service by you or anyone else.

We're going to Ralphs for dinner on the 22nd if ya want to join us.. let me know if you need anything else brought over.

[BinhJerome 14]

I guess this is becoming more of a chat room than a help forum?????

Honey, em yêu anh nhất! Anh Jerome đẹp trai nhất. hahaha

Bình

[BinhJerome 14]

Honey, em yêu anh nhất! Anh Jerome đẹp trai nhất. hahaha

Bình

I am back to VJ to see who will be in the same boats with us year 2010. Bình