elmcitymaven

Nothing's changed, dude. I've been here over 15 years and it's always been full of Judgey McJudgefaces, exercising their internet-given right to judge. I've been both judge and judged, and after a while, I've embraced the hate and let it flow through me.
 
I'm always here for a decent flounce though.
 

Nothing's changed, dude. I've been here over 15 years and it's always been full of Judgey McJudgefaces, exercising their internet-given right to judge. I've been both judge and judged, and after a while, I've embraced the hate and let it flow through me.
 
I'm always here for a decent flounce though.
 

Nothing's changed, dude. I've been here over 15 years and it's always been full of Judgey McJudgefaces, exercising their internet-given right to judge. I've been both judge and judged, and after a while, I've embraced the hate and let it flow through me.
 
I'm always here for a decent flounce though.
 

Absolutely agree with everything you say, there are good and bad people everywhere and everybody should be treated as an individual. 
 
OP's first wife was 19 (so just barely an adult) when they married and he was in his mid-late 50's. OP's 2nd wife to be is 21 and he is now 65. Regardless of stereotyping and talking about possible ulterior motives, these are girls, not women...

I'm sorry, but how many single mothers do you know in the US? How many of them are collecting child support? Comments about Western Men are not unfounded.
 
See, 2 can play that game. 😁

Yes, because that 45 year old woman has some life experience behind her and is decades past being a child. 

To be fair,  in your initial post you wanted to know if USCIS would scrutinize your relationship specifically because of the age gap. I am not sure how anyone can answer that question without making a judgment from the details you gave. Expect a similar amount of skepticism from USCIS, just because you don't like the skepticism doesn't mean it's unfounded. 
 
You did cross a line (for me) when you made a blanket statement about Filipino men. Now you put the disclaimer that everyone you talked to said those things, but you have to know those people are either fools or lying to you. Don't insult Filipino men in order to help you justify the age gap that you clearly know is a problem from your first post.
 
 

I was being polite.  
 
And I very much agree with everything you say here. 45 and 80 is a little out of the ordinary, but those are two people with entire lives of experience. The power balance is more equal.

I think it is about more than just the age gap.
These are young girls, VERY young girls and that adds something to this mix as well. For example: A 45 year old women with an 80 year old man is the same age gap (and probably with a similar reason) but feels different. 

Same goes for the American guys on here who start spouting off about how American women are disrespectful and lazy, so they just had to go abroad... 
 
OP, you have to understand (I'm sure you do) that what you're doing is out of the norm, so many people will judge you for it. We have all seen similar cases to yours that don't turn out well, so we're jaded. Of course your case is your case, and nobody else's, and we don't know all the details. But on the face of it -- and I say this will all respect -- your relationship looks like it has red flags. We don't know! We're not you! But you can't blame people for clicking on a topic called "Huge Age Gap" and then posting, yeah, that's a big age gap. It's not normal in our society -- which is not to say it's bad, it's just not "normal." So accept the brickbats as the risk of posting on a public forum. If you love your fiancee enough, you won't care. Personally, it's not an age gap I am comfortable with, but that's just me. You're you. Be confident in that.

I don't judge what others do. I was 53 and my wife was 30 when we met. Any more of an age gap and I would have felt a little uncomfortable. But, to each their own. I would expect that the OP might face some added scrutiny but Manila is pretty forgiving of age differences.

Lines that have always been red flags for me are.... "men from my country are disrespectful to women"...and  "age is just a number". These are the standard answers when someone is telling you what you want to hear. And yes those can be applied to men in some countries trying to snag themselves an older American woman. 
 
Not saying it isn't true love in the OP's case, but when I hear that stuff I get very skeptical. Reminds me of the lyrics from The Eagles song "Lyin' Eyes"

I'm a Filipina. I lived 30 years in the Philippines and dated many Filipinos before eventually marrying an American.
 
Time for some brutal honesty. 
 
The age gap is definitely a consideration. But for many people, especially those who don't have significant resources of their own, the bigger consideration is money. 
 
I don't know of any 21 year old Filipina with her own resources who would happily marry a 65 year old man. But I can think of many 21 year olds without resources who would do and say anything to land a rich senior citizen. Especially one who offers a path to US citizenship.
 
People will tell you what they think you want to hear because they see you (and your young fiancee, once she gets to the States) as a golden ticket to a better life. They will never admit it to you, of course. 
 
A good test to see if this relationship is genuine: try pretending that you lost all your money (and of course look and act the part). See what your fiancee does. 
 
 
 

Exactly this!
 
if we would take out the general statement of Filipino men being horrible (and I am sure there are still plenty of stable, loving Filipino men out there), would a 21 year old Filipina pick a 65 year old Filipino man who can provide her with the same companionship, stability, etc.? I don’t think so..
 
We see similar situations with middle aged (US citizen) women and young men from certain African countries. Not all of these cases are the same, but you get my point.
 
USCIS will scrutinize your case, I think you already know that. Especially because a pattern is starting to develop. 

 

I believe the statements about men in the Philippines is more the women telling a westerner what they want to hear than the actual truth. The average Filipino man is no more and no less likely to be a dirt bag than a man from any other country, that is a completely unfair generalization. I know of many hardworking Filipino men who are good loyal husbands. Their income ceiling is a lot lower than even a poor American/westerner, and that is more likely the reason why a young Filipina (individual) would tell a westerner what he wants to hear. They (the individual filipina) are never going to tell the older westerner they are looking for a better financial situation,  they are going to flatter him.

In a previous post you mentioned your partner worked overseas... has she moved back to the Philippines now or is she planning on working overseas again?
Be aware there is a huge backlog for K1 visas in Manila and currently it is taking 13 months for the K1 petition to be approved so you're looking at maybe 2 years or so before she can move to the US. 
If she is going to interview somewhere else it might be a little shorter.
I would consider either living with your partner during those two years to see if you are fully compatible and forget about the K1 on file. Or maybe consider getting married in a third country of via Utah and filing the spousal visa. . . 
But, maybe you should play it safe and file the K1 in case the CO doesn't believe the relationship is bonafide. Easier to walk away from an engagement as opposed to a marriage. 

But wearing a headscarf or praying over lunch isn't involving other students. I know in previous cases, there's a distinction between "forcing" kids to participate in religious activities due to their mandatory attendance (which is why prayers over the intercom in public school is not allowed). This case is a bit of a gray area considering it was at a sporting event, but for the players of that sport, attendance is mandatory and they are subjected to prayer time whether they want to be or not. 
 
I guess in my view, it is closer to "prayer over the intercom" than "praying over your own lunch". 
 
Edit: Just to clarify, there have been numerous other cases where prayers conducted before a sporting event were considered to violate the establishment clause because many students are unable to leave/choose not to participate (band, cheerleaders, athletes). The only really difference I see here is that it looks like these prayers were conducted immediately after the game. Were the athletes and other students involved in the sporting event able to immediately leave and choose not to participate with no repercussion for doing so? 

Wonder if they would have made the same decision if the coach was Muslim or of any other religion than Christianity practicing their faith and/or praying on the field with students. 
 
The erosion of separation of church and state is extremely concerning to me. 

Yes Platinum plan indeed. Thanks 

Personally, I'm ageing backwards. When you get sworn in, you're Fedexed a starter pack of adrenochrome. Eventually, you will need to re-up, but this is a fairly straightforward process administered by Vons (aka Safeway). With every $100 purchase of mid-range champagne and 8oz packet of sustainably-raised smoked salmon, and a swipe of your bar card, you get enough baby blood to keep you going for another lunar cycle. Really an amazing value!

As you know, NB, every time I am invoked a small gong is struck in my infernal lair to alert me to a summoning. I would have been here earlier, but the wages of sin are earned through typing way too many emails on exceedingly boring topics. Also we had pastries in the office kitchen today, which was distracting.
 
I am afraid that I am here to spoil the fun, yet again. What if I were to tell you that this case boils down to some of the most dull topics conceivable for a Friday night, specifically the enforceability of arbitration awards through the courts, statutory interpretation, and the rights of a third party in intervention? I read the actual opinion, which is 15 pages of my eyeballs' reading life I will never recoup. (Sadness.)
 
It's fairly easy to understand why the court did what it did, although there is the question of what precisely was in the insurance policy, as it apparently was not in the record reviewed by the appeals court. Anyway, here's how we got here:
Fun fun sexytimes in the back of a Genesis lead to HPV when the driver knew he had the virus but failed to tell his partner. This is literally the most exciting part of the case and frankly, yeeeuuucccccccch.  Partner gets HPV, and before filing an action for damages, presents a claim in settlement to GEICO. GEICO tells her to go away, the policy doesn't cover the claim, and she needs to take it up against the insured. This is crucial!  Partner and insured enter into a special agreement under Missouri law (California has a similar law I am aware of) wherein the parties agree to limit damages to whatever the insured defendant's limits are if the insurer has refused to provide coverage. The agreement also provides that the dispute shall be handled through arbitration, and not through the courts. The statute also requires that a notice be given to the insurer within 30 days of entering into such an agreement, which the parties deliver. The insurer then has the opportunity to intervene in any litigation that results from the arbitration.  After a full hearing during which both partner and insured presented evidence and gave testimony, the arbitrator made a finding that the insured was negligent leading to the partner's damages. The parties agree that they will not dispute the finding, and will file a new action in court to enforce the judgment as soon as possible. One week after the arbitration award, the partner files a lawsuit to affirm the arbitration award so that it becomes a judgment that is enforceable at law. This way she can collect from GEICO who is the insurer of, uh, the insured. Courts are pretty much required to affirm arbitration awards in the absence of corruption, fraud or undue means. It's a statute that says "shall" rather than "may" affirm. Not much wiggle room for what is essentially a ministerial act, and the court reduces the award to a judgment. Shortly thereafter, GEICO seeks leave to intervene after the judgment has been entered. They argue that they were not given any real opportunity to argue that the policy does not extend to the passing of naughty diseases in the back of a car, so the award should be vacated so they can make their arguments. But..... GEICO did have such an opportunity when the partner presented her claim in settlement, but they told her to get lost. They could have said they would defend in any such action but they passed. Too bad, so sad. Furthermore, when an intervenor comes into an action, like GEICO did in post-judgment proceedings, they take the case where it currently stands. In the case, a judgment had already been entered. They had no right as a third party to disturb the judgment in the absence of any fraud/collusion/etc., and GEICO failed to provide evidence of such. There was no right to relitigate when GEICO had the opportunity but said "nah, brah" and noped out. GEICO also pointed to a part of the statute that said a party has 90 days after receiving notice of the award to challenge the award prior to entry of judgment, and therefore they could go in and argue their case. Court said no, you were not a party to the case when the partner sought confirmation of the award or at any prior time. Sorry! Finally, GEICO's arguments that they had no opportunity to defend and litigate their own interests in violation of the US and Missouri Constitutions held no water. They passed when given the chance. Not only that, GEICO had also filed a separate action in federal court for declaratory relief to determine its obligations to the insured under the policy -- so they had a forum in which to litigate their interests. The decision was correct and the reasoning is very sound. It is important to note that while the judgment is currently enforceable against GEICO, the outcome of the federal dec relief claim may mean that they in fact have no obligation to pay. This is where the mysterious agreement comes in -- there is no copy out there that I could find, just a lot of people guessing that poor draftsmanship led to this result. 
 
I'd say watch this space, but really, do any of us want to watch venereal disease in action? I apologize if I inadvertently kink-shame anyone by that question.
 
Now do I get admitted to the damn platinum plan??????????

Personally, I'm ageing backwards. When you get sworn in, you're Fedexed a starter pack of adrenochrome. Eventually, you will need to re-up, but this is a fairly straightforward process administered by Vons (aka Safeway). With every $100 purchase of mid-range champagne and 8oz packet of sustainably-raised smoked salmon, and a swipe of your bar card, you get enough baby blood to keep you going for another lunar cycle. Really an amazing value!

As you know, NB, every time I am invoked a small gong is struck in my infernal lair to alert me to a summoning. I would have been here earlier, but the wages of sin are earned through typing way too many emails on exceedingly boring topics. Also we had pastries in the office kitchen today, which was distracting.
 
I am afraid that I am here to spoil the fun, yet again. What if I were to tell you that this case boils down to some of the most dull topics conceivable for a Friday night, specifically the enforceability of arbitration awards through the courts, statutory interpretation, and the rights of a third party in intervention? I read the actual opinion, which is 15 pages of my eyeballs' reading life I will never recoup. (Sadness.)
 
It's fairly easy to understand why the court did what it did, although there is the question of what precisely was in the insurance policy, as it apparently was not in the record reviewed by the appeals court. Anyway, here's how we got here:
Fun fun sexytimes in the back of a Genesis lead to HPV when the driver knew he had the virus but failed to tell his partner. This is literally the most exciting part of the case and frankly, yeeeuuucccccccch.  Partner gets HPV, and before filing an action for damages, presents a claim in settlement to GEICO. GEICO tells her to go away, the policy doesn't cover the claim, and she needs to take it up against the insured. This is crucial!  Partner and insured enter into a special agreement under Missouri law (California has a similar law I am aware of) wherein the parties agree to limit damages to whatever the insured defendant's limits are if the insurer has refused to provide coverage. The agreement also provides that the dispute shall be handled through arbitration, and not through the courts. The statute also requires that a notice be given to the insurer within 30 days of entering into such an agreement, which the parties deliver. The insurer then has the opportunity to intervene in any litigation that results from the arbitration.  After a full hearing during which both partner and insured presented evidence and gave testimony, the arbitrator made a finding that the insured was negligent leading to the partner's damages. The parties agree that they will not dispute the finding, and will file a new action in court to enforce the judgment as soon as possible. One week after the arbitration award, the partner files a lawsuit to affirm the arbitration award so that it becomes a judgment that is enforceable at law. This way she can collect from GEICO who is the insurer of, uh, the insured. Courts are pretty much required to affirm arbitration awards in the absence of corruption, fraud or undue means. It's a statute that says "shall" rather than "may" affirm. Not much wiggle room for what is essentially a ministerial act, and the court reduces the award to a judgment. Shortly thereafter, GEICO seeks leave to intervene after the judgment has been entered. They argue that they were not given any real opportunity to argue that the policy does not extend to the passing of naughty diseases in the back of a car, so the award should be vacated so they can make their arguments. But..... GEICO did have such an opportunity when the partner presented her claim in settlement, but they told her to get lost. They could have said they would defend in any such action but they passed. Too bad, so sad. Furthermore, when an intervenor comes into an action, like GEICO did in post-judgment proceedings, they take the case where it currently stands. In the case, a judgment had already been entered. They had no right as a third party to disturb the judgment in the absence of any fraud/collusion/etc., and GEICO failed to provide evidence of such. There was no right to relitigate when GEICO had the opportunity but said "nah, brah" and noped out. GEICO also pointed to a part of the statute that said a party has 90 days after receiving notice of the award to challenge the award prior to entry of judgment, and therefore they could go in and argue their case. Court said no, you were not a party to the case when the partner sought confirmation of the award or at any prior time. Sorry! Finally, GEICO's arguments that they had no opportunity to defend and litigate their own interests in violation of the US and Missouri Constitutions held no water. They passed when given the chance. Not only that, GEICO had also filed a separate action in federal court for declaratory relief to determine its obligations to the insured under the policy -- so they had a forum in which to litigate their interests. The decision was correct and the reasoning is very sound. It is important to note that while the judgment is currently enforceable against GEICO, the outcome of the federal dec relief claim may mean that they in fact have no obligation to pay. This is where the mysterious agreement comes in -- there is no copy out there that I could find, just a lot of people guessing that poor draftsmanship led to this result. 
 
I'd say watch this space, but really, do any of us want to watch venereal disease in action? I apologize if I inadvertently kink-shame anyone by that question.
 
Now do I get admitted to the damn platinum plan??????????

Someone who responds to years old posts made by members who no longer visit the site should probably avoid bringing up the subject of not aging well.

I would love she who spoils all the fun, to comment on this