PBJ

Thank you!
Today mostly sounds like this:

12 years ago, when I was 19 years old, I had two interactions with police, both within a few months of each other and both for what were seen as petty offences as they were disposed of by caution. Under UK law, a caution is a formal warning received following arrest and given on admittance of a crime (and hence constitutes an official confession). It is not a criminal conviction since no judge or court is involved, but you can be charged if you don't agree/admit to the offence, and it can be used as evidence of bad character if arrested for further offences.
It is important to know there is no equivalent of a UK police caution under US criminal law, and so emerges a grey area with regards to US immigration. Earlier this year, the London embassy began refusing some visas to individuals based on arrests disposed of through police caution since this was seen to represent an official confession of a crime. This notion of confession and its validity is significant. See the following section of the Foreign Affairs Manual for official guidance given to Consular Officers when basing ineligibility upon said confessions. There is also excellent further reading by immigration lawyer Steven D Heller explaining this change in guidance much better than I can.
Back to my circumstances then: my first police caution for theft would be deemed exceptionable under the petty offence ruling, where only one crime has been committed and the maximum penalty does not exceed 1 years' imprisonment or a sentence of six months' confinement. So far so good.
My second caution for possession of a controlled substance proved more significant and is indicative of the USA's hard line on drug offences. If found to be inadmissible courtesy of a controlled substance violation, there is no waiver available for immigrant visas (other non-immigrant visas may still be available) unless possession was for 30 grams or less of cannabis only, and the penalty can be a lifetime ban. This is where I got very scared!
The finding of inadmissibility due to a caution is done on a case-by-case basis and is only reached if there is evidence that the criteria established in US law were satisfied. That is to say, in lieu of a conviction, is there proof a crime has been committed, or is the crime being confessed to?
In my interview, following the standard questions about my fiancé and marriage, I was asked to briefly explain the events leading to arrests. Here, the notion of confession is again significant, and presents an opportunity to undermine the prior admittance at the time of the caution (ie. give reasonable doubt against the offence).
For those with concerns about cautions for substance possession, consider the following:
- Do you know unequivocally what the substance was? Not all drugs are controlled substances
- Did you buy it, or were you given it? The difference may be significant
- Did you use the substance? This is not the same as possession, although difficult to argue against
- Will you admit to using drugs at any other time?
Do seek a subject access report (SAR) from the Police National Computer via ACPO, which will show brief information additional to the police certificate. A further SAR can be filed with the relevant local police force, requesting the original arrest report and substance lab report together with any further disposal history. If significant time has passed since the offence, and there has been no prior arrests, it may be that such further paper files may not even exist anymore (some records are disposed of after 7 years). In this situation, your testimony is compelling.
Also consider the nature of your original confession. Was it given freely and under oath? The admission must specify factual elements of the crime, with an explanation of the crime given beforehand. It may be that in determining a weak conviction via the Crown Prosecution Service, police officers coerce a confession in order to dispose of quickly via a caution. For most first time/low risk offenders who are cooperative and remorseful, this is an acceptable outcome preferable to being charged and facing court, but doesn't necessarily represent the only outcome. Indeed, the disposal could possibly be greatly improved if handled by legal representation.
There may be further mitigating factors such as age at the time of offences, time passed since offences, demonstration of remorse, good character etc, but none of these factors are exceptionable in isolation. The CO is well trained to assess the quality of admissions given during interview and is more likely to stick to the facts of the matter supported by evidence.
* * *
Subsequent to my cautions I have travelled to the US a total of five separate occasions as a tourist under the VWP. This means that in completing ESTA, I had incorrectly answered the question regarding arrests for CIMT and controlled substances. This may constitute misrepresentation and I was prepared to face this during my interview. To my surprise, I did not face a single question regarding misrepresentation, undermining the commonplace idea that London is very tough on this matter. It is clear many people have had to face this one and so, again in the interests of paying it forward, here follows my prep notes.
A charge of misrepresentation is qualified by four key points: [1] misrepresentation has been made, [2] that it was wilfully made, [3] that it was material, and [4] that fraud was used to receive immigration benefit. The CO must believe all four requirements exist in order for inadmissibility apply.
Material is defined better as a new question: would your admission have been affected if the facts had been known? If the facts could not be used against you, it is not material.
Also, a charge of misrep is compounded by multiple visits, as this demonstrates multiple opportunities to answer the same question via ESTA.
If found inadmissible for misrepresentation, there are no waivers available for immigrant visas.
London is known to take a broad approach to misrep, specifically the wilful aspect, where it may be presumed that "you knew". Recently however, the Administrative Appeals Office effectively told London to stop finding misrep as a matter of course and to actually look at whether the person intended to misrep.
My interactions with police officers were casual and even friendly, but this did mislead me into presuming I hadn't actually been arrested in the first place (no handcuffs, don't recall being read my rights, not detained in a cell etc). And so, when completing ESTA, it was a genuine and wilful answer that I had not been arrested for a controlled substance violation. This is my testimony and hence misrepresentation cannot be reached. Since then, and in commencing the K1 process, I have come to learn so much more about the nature of my police record and the implication of my arrests. I understand I am no longer eligible for VWP and as a tourist would always need to seek the appropriate visa.
* * *
I've presented a lot of information here, demonstrating the hundreds of hours spent preparing for my interview, consisting of reading and rereading the law, chats with various attorneys, reflecting on my past misdemeanours, and plenty of anguished reflection on the whole mess. I was always hoping for the best, but primed for the worst; I really did expect a denial. I was thoroughly consumed by the drama of it all. I had imagined a thorough grilling by the CO, suspicious glares from sturdy fellows carrying guns with important-looking lapels draped over their shoulders, maybe even a private room with a glass mirror where they take all the naughty people for intense psychological inspection and all because you'd been a fool one time in your life. I imagined it all.
I got none of it.
Beyond the regular, well documented questions about meeting my fiancé and getting married I faced little more than a few simple additional questions, which were then promptly proceeded by an approval. No fuss, no bother, no conferring with seniors. He was calm and polite as he gave me the good news. By reply I was of course overwhelmed with delight. I nearly fell over. I was full of smiling, fawning displays of excessive gratitude as I stepped away from the booth, stumbling over my own astonishment as I obliged my way out of the embassy. I will never know if my accompanying surprise was blatant to him. I cut just short of quizzing the CO further, certain for a moment that he had in fact made a terrible mistake in omitting that glaring charge of misrep.
And so it goes. On this day, I won, and I am truly grateful. God Bless America! I shall not waste this opportunity, and I'm beyond excited now that I can start preparing for my new life with my beautiful girl in crazy California.
If you're in a similar situation, here's a synopsis of my advice: stay calm, don't stress, be diligent, learn the facts and avoid conjecture, and go see a lawyer. Oh and don't let it consume you. I prepared so hard for this, and its impossible to say if I was better for it, but in any case i'm glad I did it all.
Peace everyone.
x

12 years ago, when I was 19 years old, I had two interactions with police, both within a few months of each other and both for what were seen as petty offences as they were disposed of by caution. Under UK law, a caution is a formal warning received following arrest and given on admittance of a crime (and hence constitutes an official confession). It is not a criminal conviction since no judge or court is involved, but you can be charged if you don't agree/admit to the offence, and it can be used as evidence of bad character if arrested for further offences.
It is important to know there is no equivalent of a UK police caution under US criminal law, and so emerges a grey area with regards to US immigration. Earlier this year, the London embassy began refusing some visas to individuals based on arrests disposed of through police caution since this was seen to represent an official confession of a crime. This notion of confession and its validity is significant. See the following section of the Foreign Affairs Manual for official guidance given to Consular Officers when basing ineligibility upon said confessions. There is also excellent further reading by immigration lawyer Steven D Heller explaining this change in guidance much better than I can.
Back to my circumstances then: my first police caution for theft would be deemed exceptionable under the petty offence ruling, where only one crime has been committed and the maximum penalty does not exceed 1 years' imprisonment or a sentence of six months' confinement. So far so good.
My second caution for possession of a controlled substance proved more significant and is indicative of the USA's hard line on drug offences. If found to be inadmissible courtesy of a controlled substance violation, there is no waiver available for immigrant visas (other non-immigrant visas may still be available) unless possession was for 30 grams or less of cannabis only, and the penalty can be a lifetime ban. This is where I got very scared!
The finding of inadmissibility due to a caution is done on a case-by-case basis and is only reached if there is evidence that the criteria established in US law were satisfied. That is to say, in lieu of a conviction, is there proof a crime has been committed, or is the crime being confessed to?
In my interview, following the standard questions about my fiancé and marriage, I was asked to briefly explain the events leading to arrests. Here, the notion of confession is again significant, and presents an opportunity to undermine the prior admittance at the time of the caution (ie. give reasonable doubt against the offence).
For those with concerns about cautions for substance possession, consider the following:
- Do you know unequivocally what the substance was? Not all drugs are controlled substances
- Did you buy it, or were you given it? The difference may be significant
- Did you use the substance? This is not the same as possession, although difficult to argue against
- Will you admit to using drugs at any other time?
Do seek a subject access report (SAR) from the Police National Computer via ACPO, which will show brief information additional to the police certificate. A further SAR can be filed with the relevant local police force, requesting the original arrest report and substance lab report together with any further disposal history. If significant time has passed since the offence, and there has been no prior arrests, it may be that such further paper files may not even exist anymore (some records are disposed of after 7 years). In this situation, your testimony is compelling.
Also consider the nature of your original confession. Was it given freely and under oath? The admission must specify factual elements of the crime, with an explanation of the crime given beforehand. It may be that in determining a weak conviction via the Crown Prosecution Service, police officers coerce a confession in order to dispose of quickly via a caution. For most first time/low risk offenders who are cooperative and remorseful, this is an acceptable outcome preferable to being charged and facing court, but doesn't necessarily represent the only outcome. Indeed, the disposal could possibly be greatly improved if handled by legal representation.
There may be further mitigating factors such as age at the time of offences, time passed since offences, demonstration of remorse, good character etc, but none of these factors are exceptionable in isolation. The CO is well trained to assess the quality of admissions given during interview and is more likely to stick to the facts of the matter supported by evidence.
* * *
Subsequent to my cautions I have travelled to the US a total of five separate occasions as a tourist under the VWP. This means that in completing ESTA, I had incorrectly answered the question regarding arrests for CIMT and controlled substances. This may constitute misrepresentation and I was prepared to face this during my interview. To my surprise, I did not face a single question regarding misrepresentation, undermining the commonplace idea that London is very tough on this matter. It is clear many people have had to face this one and so, again in the interests of paying it forward, here follows my prep notes.
A charge of misrepresentation is qualified by four key points: [1] misrepresentation has been made, [2] that it was wilfully made, [3] that it was material, and [4] that fraud was used to receive immigration benefit. The CO must believe all four requirements exist in order for inadmissibility apply.
Material is defined better as a new question: would your admission have been affected if the facts had been known? If the facts could not be used against you, it is not material.
Also, a charge of misrep is compounded by multiple visits, as this demonstrates multiple opportunities to answer the same question via ESTA.
If found inadmissible for misrepresentation, there are no waivers available for immigrant visas.
London is known to take a broad approach to misrep, specifically the wilful aspect, where it may be presumed that "you knew". Recently however, the Administrative Appeals Office effectively told London to stop finding misrep as a matter of course and to actually look at whether the person intended to misrep.
My interactions with police officers were casual and even friendly, but this did mislead me into presuming I hadn't actually been arrested in the first place (no handcuffs, don't recall being read my rights, not detained in a cell etc). And so, when completing ESTA, it was a genuine and wilful answer that I had not been arrested for a controlled substance violation. This is my testimony and hence misrepresentation cannot be reached. Since then, and in commencing the K1 process, I have come to learn so much more about the nature of my police record and the implication of my arrests. I understand I am no longer eligible for VWP and as a tourist would always need to seek the appropriate visa.
* * *
I've presented a lot of information here, demonstrating the hundreds of hours spent preparing for my interview, consisting of reading and rereading the law, chats with various attorneys, reflecting on my past misdemeanours, and plenty of anguished reflection on the whole mess. I was always hoping for the best, but primed for the worst; I really did expect a denial. I was thoroughly consumed by the drama of it all. I had imagined a thorough grilling by the CO, suspicious glares from sturdy fellows carrying guns with important-looking lapels draped over their shoulders, maybe even a private room with a glass mirror where they take all the naughty people for intense psychological inspection and all because you'd been a fool one time in your life. I imagined it all.
I got none of it.
Beyond the regular, well documented questions about meeting my fiancé and getting married I faced little more than a few simple additional questions, which were then promptly proceeded by an approval. No fuss, no bother, no conferring with seniors. He was calm and polite as he gave me the good news. By reply I was of course overwhelmed with delight. I nearly fell over. I was full of smiling, fawning displays of excessive gratitude as I stepped away from the booth, stumbling over my own astonishment as I obliged my way out of the embassy. I will never know if my accompanying surprise was blatant to him. I cut just short of quizzing the CO further, certain for a moment that he had in fact made a terrible mistake in omitting that glaring charge of misrep.
And so it goes. On this day, I won, and I am truly grateful. God Bless America! I shall not waste this opportunity, and I'm beyond excited now that I can start preparing for my new life with my beautiful girl in crazy California.
If you're in a similar situation, here's a synopsis of my advice: stay calm, don't stress, be diligent, learn the facts and avoid conjecture, and go see a lawyer. Oh and don't let it consume you. I prepared so hard for this, and its impossible to say if I was better for it, but in any case i'm glad I did it all.
Peace everyone.
x

12 years ago, when I was 19 years old, I had two interactions with police, both within a few months of each other and both for what were seen as petty offences as they were disposed of by caution. Under UK law, a caution is a formal warning received following arrest and given on admittance of a crime (and hence constitutes an official confession). It is not a criminal conviction since no judge or court is involved, but you can be charged if you don't agree/admit to the offence, and it can be used as evidence of bad character if arrested for further offences.
It is important to know there is no equivalent of a UK police caution under US criminal law, and so emerges a grey area with regards to US immigration. Earlier this year, the London embassy began refusing some visas to individuals based on arrests disposed of through police caution since this was seen to represent an official confession of a crime. This notion of confession and its validity is significant. See the following section of the Foreign Affairs Manual for official guidance given to Consular Officers when basing ineligibility upon said confessions. There is also excellent further reading by immigration lawyer Steven D Heller explaining this change in guidance much better than I can.
Back to my circumstances then: my first police caution for theft would be deemed exceptionable under the petty offence ruling, where only one crime has been committed and the maximum penalty does not exceed 1 years' imprisonment or a sentence of six months' confinement. So far so good.
My second caution for possession of a controlled substance proved more significant and is indicative of the USA's hard line on drug offences. If found to be inadmissible courtesy of a controlled substance violation, there is no waiver available for immigrant visas (other non-immigrant visas may still be available) unless possession was for 30 grams or less of cannabis only, and the penalty can be a lifetime ban. This is where I got very scared!
The finding of inadmissibility due to a caution is done on a case-by-case basis and is only reached if there is evidence that the criteria established in US law were satisfied. That is to say, in lieu of a conviction, is there proof a crime has been committed, or is the crime being confessed to?
In my interview, following the standard questions about my fiancé and marriage, I was asked to briefly explain the events leading to arrests. Here, the notion of confession is again significant, and presents an opportunity to undermine the prior admittance at the time of the caution (ie. give reasonable doubt against the offence).
For those with concerns about cautions for substance possession, consider the following:
- Do you know unequivocally what the substance was? Not all drugs are controlled substances
- Did you buy it, or were you given it? The difference may be significant
- Did you use the substance? This is not the same as possession, although difficult to argue against
- Will you admit to using drugs at any other time?
Do seek a subject access report (SAR) from the Police National Computer via ACPO, which will show brief information additional to the police certificate. A further SAR can be filed with the relevant local police force, requesting the original arrest report and substance lab report together with any further disposal history. If significant time has passed since the offence, and there has been no prior arrests, it may be that such further paper files may not even exist anymore (some records are disposed of after 7 years). In this situation, your testimony is compelling.
Also consider the nature of your original confession. Was it given freely and under oath? The admission must specify factual elements of the crime, with an explanation of the crime given beforehand. It may be that in determining a weak conviction via the Crown Prosecution Service, police officers coerce a confession in order to dispose of quickly via a caution. For most first time/low risk offenders who are cooperative and remorseful, this is an acceptable outcome preferable to being charged and facing court, but doesn't necessarily represent the only outcome. Indeed, the disposal could possibly be greatly improved if handled by legal representation.
There may be further mitigating factors such as age at the time of offences, time passed since offences, demonstration of remorse, good character etc, but none of these factors are exceptionable in isolation. The CO is well trained to assess the quality of admissions given during interview and is more likely to stick to the facts of the matter supported by evidence.
* * *
Subsequent to my cautions I have travelled to the US a total of five separate occasions as a tourist under the VWP. This means that in completing ESTA, I had incorrectly answered the question regarding arrests for CIMT and controlled substances. This may constitute misrepresentation and I was prepared to face this during my interview. To my surprise, I did not face a single question regarding misrepresentation, undermining the commonplace idea that London is very tough on this matter. It is clear many people have had to face this one and so, again in the interests of paying it forward, here follows my prep notes.
A charge of misrepresentation is qualified by four key points: [1] misrepresentation has been made, [2] that it was wilfully made, [3] that it was material, and [4] that fraud was used to receive immigration benefit. The CO must believe all four requirements exist in order for inadmissibility apply.
Material is defined better as a new question: would your admission have been affected if the facts had been known? If the facts could not be used against you, it is not material.
Also, a charge of misrep is compounded by multiple visits, as this demonstrates multiple opportunities to answer the same question via ESTA.
If found inadmissible for misrepresentation, there are no waivers available for immigrant visas.
London is known to take a broad approach to misrep, specifically the wilful aspect, where it may be presumed that "you knew". Recently however, the Administrative Appeals Office effectively told London to stop finding misrep as a matter of course and to actually look at whether the person intended to misrep.
My interactions with police officers were casual and even friendly, but this did mislead me into presuming I hadn't actually been arrested in the first place (no handcuffs, don't recall being read my rights, not detained in a cell etc). And so, when completing ESTA, it was a genuine and wilful answer that I had not been arrested for a controlled substance violation. This is my testimony and hence misrepresentation cannot be reached. Since then, and in commencing the K1 process, I have come to learn so much more about the nature of my police record and the implication of my arrests. I understand I am no longer eligible for VWP and as a tourist would always need to seek the appropriate visa.
* * *
I've presented a lot of information here, demonstrating the hundreds of hours spent preparing for my interview, consisting of reading and rereading the law, chats with various attorneys, reflecting on my past misdemeanours, and plenty of anguished reflection on the whole mess. I was always hoping for the best, but primed for the worst; I really did expect a denial. I was thoroughly consumed by the drama of it all. I had imagined a thorough grilling by the CO, suspicious glares from sturdy fellows carrying guns with important-looking lapels draped over their shoulders, maybe even a private room with a glass mirror where they take all the naughty people for intense psychological inspection and all because you'd been a fool one time in your life. I imagined it all.
I got none of it.
Beyond the regular, well documented questions about meeting my fiancé and getting married I faced little more than a few simple additional questions, which were then promptly proceeded by an approval. No fuss, no bother, no conferring with seniors. He was calm and polite as he gave me the good news. By reply I was of course overwhelmed with delight. I nearly fell over. I was full of smiling, fawning displays of excessive gratitude as I stepped away from the booth, stumbling over my own astonishment as I obliged my way out of the embassy. I will never know if my accompanying surprise was blatant to him. I cut just short of quizzing the CO further, certain for a moment that he had in fact made a terrible mistake in omitting that glaring charge of misrep.
And so it goes. On this day, I won, and I am truly grateful. God Bless America! I shall not waste this opportunity, and I'm beyond excited now that I can start preparing for my new life with my beautiful girl in crazy California.
If you're in a similar situation, here's a synopsis of my advice: stay calm, don't stress, be diligent, learn the facts and avoid conjecture, and go see a lawyer. Oh and don't let it consume you. I prepared so hard for this, and its impossible to say if I was better for it, but in any case i'm glad I did it all.
Peace everyone.
x

You have plenty! At London they will take the i-134 and one supporting document... they are not interested in anything else.
I'd like to add that Co-sponsor is possibly an inaccurate and misleading term. The short of it is, the beneficiary needs a single sponsor who must meet the threshold requirements, so if you as USC cannot achieve this on your own then your step-father is the single sponsor of this application. You do not need documentation for yourself.
I will admit that I prepared it in the same way (sponsor and co-sponsor), but it is not necessary.
Good luck! Everything will be fine!

I most definitely was there, and I can tell you that from very early on in the match fans had taken to fashioning planes from some shoddy marketing collateral left on each seat by Vauxhall. These pieces of corrugated cardboard were intended for a pre-match tifo (fan mosaic), but I was too busy occupying the bar before kickoff to see if this even happened. And thus a new game had commenced to see if the folded flying objects could reach the pitch from any seat. Such is the excitement of an England friendly (i've been to many), matched only by the sheer industriousness of jaded fans.
I missed both second half goals due to being preoccupied watching the thousands of planes disappearing over the edge of the stadium bowl only to fail in its mission to reach the green. It was very tense. Everyone was having a go. So when one did finally go the distance, gracefully floating through the air carried by increasingly excitable chants of expectation ("oooooooooooOOOOOOOOH"), it was just so much more incredible to see that special paper plane complete its unlikely and remarkable journey butted into the side of a players' head. An opposition player, too. And yes, the screams of joy from 70,000+ people at this sight was more than for any of England's 3 goals. And yes, it was very, very funny.
"England til I fly, I'm England til I fly".

I second this. Folks need to stop using CEAC date changes/updates as an indication of a pending interview. My status had not been updated since 16 May and then I received a letter on Saturday detailing an interview for this Thursday 05 June. This effectively proves the CEAC updates should not be followed as pointers for your interview.
I know its tough waiting, especially when you're so near the end, but it will come in good time so just be a little more patient. Good luck!
I'd also like to posit that continually contacting the embassy with repeated queries is counter-productive and quite likely slows down the whole system for everyone affected. This seems particularly ineffective when folks are still well within the timing guidelines given by the embassy. I think we should let them get on and do their job and everyone will be better off for it. Just my 2p.

This!

This!

Hell and no, in that order. Members here owe you nothing. Either believe them or don't.
Additionally, people who've been members for eight days aren't really in a position to rewrite the rules.

If you're anything like me you'll be spending lots of time here, reading other people's stories just to feel normal!
Enjoy the ride, its part of your life and your story together. Going through this is just a part of earning your own happiness... thats how we see it anyway.

Ok breathe, take it easy, you'll be fine!
I read and re-read the VJ guides for submitting the I-129f packet and although it was organised and coherent, I didn't do little baggies and nice Acco fasteners, and we got through just fine in 33 days.
Be cool, relax, stay focused. Be nice to each other, its a long road yet.
All the best for both of you!
D

Cheers, I should know by Monday and will post back. Loving your Keats quote, by the way, had me revisiting his infamous love letters.
D

Obnoxious, much.
Explain what you want recommendations for and you'll find people around here are most helpful.

I met my fiancé, Kelsey, at a party here in London. She was visiting from LA and staying with a mutual friend at the time. I very nearly didn't go to the party, but my friend said it'd be fun. Kelsey wasn't even mentioned to me, so obviously nobody saw us as a good match, even as friends!
Well, when I met her it was the most serenely powerful thing, something wonderful I still cannot describe. I've met a lot of people and never experienced such natural energy before. We chatted all night and all morning. Right away I knew I wanted to be with her forever, which is a scary thing to admit to yourself but still I went one better and shared that with her too. We spent the whole summer together. The following spring I visited her in LA for the first time, and we've been swapping borders ever since.
I proposed this January in Los Angeles, and you can see how in the video below.
Kelsey is my passion and my muse, the love of my life. I seek nothing else in anyone else, and its a great privilege to be staring down what appears to be a bright and exciting future together. Nothing is impossible when you're in love. Maybe everyone feels this way when they're getting married, I don't know.
And for what its worth, whilst this time apart is difficult and painful, we also admit that it has inadvertently done positive things for our bond by deepening our understanding of each other. I think we have learned to never take each other for granted, or any other special people for that matter. We're blessed to have good people all around us, in every direction.
Went off a bit there, but anyway, thats our story. Thanks for asking!

Obnoxious, much.
Explain what you want recommendations for and you'll find people around here are most helpful.

Not impossible I guess. I do remember reading a thread here earlier in the year from someone who had seen the whole process through - from NOA1 to approval in 6 weeks.
It would seem very rare indeed but does demonstrate the gross disparity in case timelines.

Not impossible I guess. I do remember reading a thread here earlier in the year from someone who had seen the whole process through - from NOA1 to approval in 6 weeks.
It would seem very rare indeed but does demonstrate the gross disparity in case timelines.

I met my fiancé, Kelsey, at a party here in London. She was visiting from LA and staying with a mutual friend at the time. I very nearly didn't go to the party, but my friend said it'd be fun. Kelsey wasn't even mentioned to me, so obviously nobody saw us as a good match, even as friends!
Well, when I met her it was the most serenely powerful thing, something wonderful I still cannot describe. I've met a lot of people and never experienced such natural energy before. We chatted all night and all morning. Right away I knew I wanted to be with her forever, which is a scary thing to admit to yourself but still I went one better and shared that with her too. We spent the whole summer together. The following spring I visited her in LA for the first time, and we've been swapping borders ever since.
I proposed this January in Los Angeles, and you can see how in the video below.
Kelsey is my passion and my muse, the love of my life. I seek nothing else in anyone else, and its a great privilege to be staring down what appears to be a bright and exciting future together. Nothing is impossible when you're in love. Maybe everyone feels this way when they're getting married, I don't know.
And for what its worth, whilst this time apart is difficult and painful, we also admit that it has inadvertently done positive things for our bond by deepening our understanding of each other. I think we have learned to never take each other for granted, or any other special people for that matter. We're blessed to have good people all around us, in every direction.
Went off a bit there, but anyway, thats our story. Thanks for asking!

I met my fiancé, Kelsey, at a party here in London. She was visiting from LA and staying with a mutual friend at the time. I very nearly didn't go to the party, but my friend said it'd be fun. Kelsey wasn't even mentioned to me, so obviously nobody saw us as a good match, even as friends!
Well, when I met her it was the most serenely powerful thing, something wonderful I still cannot describe. I've met a lot of people and never experienced such natural energy before. We chatted all night and all morning. Right away I knew I wanted to be with her forever, which is a scary thing to admit to yourself but still I went one better and shared that with her too. We spent the whole summer together. The following spring I visited her in LA for the first time, and we've been swapping borders ever since.
I proposed this January in Los Angeles, and you can see how in the video below.
Kelsey is my passion and my muse, the love of my life. I seek nothing else in anyone else, and its a great privilege to be staring down what appears to be a bright and exciting future together. Nothing is impossible when you're in love. Maybe everyone feels this way when they're getting married, I don't know.
And for what its worth, whilst this time apart is difficult and painful, we also admit that it has inadvertently done positive things for our bond by deepening our understanding of each other. I think we have learned to never take each other for granted, or any other special people for that matter. We're blessed to have good people all around us, in every direction.
Went off a bit there, but anyway, thats our story. Thanks for asking!

I met my fiancé, Kelsey, at a party here in London. She was visiting from LA and staying with a mutual friend at the time. I very nearly didn't go to the party, but my friend said it'd be fun. Kelsey wasn't even mentioned to me, so obviously nobody saw us as a good match, even as friends!
Well, when I met her it was the most serenely powerful thing, something wonderful I still cannot describe. I've met a lot of people and never experienced such natural energy before. We chatted all night and all morning. Right away I knew I wanted to be with her forever, which is a scary thing to admit to yourself but still I went one better and shared that with her too. We spent the whole summer together. The following spring I visited her in LA for the first time, and we've been swapping borders ever since.
I proposed this January in Los Angeles, and you can see how in the video below.
Kelsey is my passion and my muse, the love of my life. I seek nothing else in anyone else, and its a great privilege to be staring down what appears to be a bright and exciting future together. Nothing is impossible when you're in love. Maybe everyone feels this way when they're getting married, I don't know.
And for what its worth, whilst this time apart is difficult and painful, we also admit that it has inadvertently done positive things for our bond by deepening our understanding of each other. I think we have learned to never take each other for granted, or any other special people for that matter. We're blessed to have good people all around us, in every direction.
Went off a bit there, but anyway, thats our story. Thanks for asking!

Sounds like tough going... I really feel for you... but, two years? Your timeline shows one year?
I myself are waiting on NOA2 and every day I come here to read other people's stories... makes me feel a part of something larger, I guess.

Sounds like tough going... I really feel for you... but, two years? Your timeline shows one year?
I myself are waiting on NOA2 and every day I come here to read other people's stories... makes me feel a part of something larger, I guess.

Sounds like tough going... I really feel for you... but, two years? Your timeline shows one year?
I myself are waiting on NOA2 and every day I come here to read other people's stories... makes me feel a part of something larger, I guess.