SterlingGirl

Only 48 days to left of this life ahh...then I'll be in a whole new world! Kinda scary!!!!! I cant even drive and Im moving to America lol!! blink.gif Soo much to do including memorizing road rules!

Ha, my love's never driven either. I wouldn't worry too much - the rules aren't so hard here, which may actually be the reason for the REAL problem: the drivers. I don't even live in a huge urban centre and I can't tell you how many unbelievable idiots there are out on the road - kids flying around in the sports car Daddy bought him, soccer moms yammering away on their cell phones in huge SUVs, you name it.

Although I don't agree with it being government regulated in theory, I can see WHY insurance is a requirement to drive now.

So a couple of years back, before life was quite so good as it is now, my fiance saw a therapist a few times for what he felt was some depression. With his upbringing and life up to that point, it was long overdue. He never ended up needing any kind of medication or longterm treatment; more or less, his doctor said that he simply needed to get out more, make and pursue some goals, and boy howdy, he took his advice. Ever since then, things have gotten better and better and better - very little of the person he used to be still exists, except for the positive aspects, like his wit, charm, and genuine niceness.

However, he found an old crumpled letter from his doc while cleaning out his room to get ready to move, and on it were a few remarks about his "not being able to sustain relationships". Now, I personally have no idea what that honestly means, because the melancholy truth is, my fiance never truly HAD many relationships before me - he found most of his female peers patently uninteresting for most of his life, and you'd truly have to HAVE a decent amount of relationships before you could find that you can't sustain any of them, right?

Anyhow, he was worried that perhaps this would be on the doctor's letter that Knightsbridge requested after he informed them that he HAD attended therapy for a brief period, and how it might impact his visa - the LAST thing we'd want the Embassy thinking is that he "can't sustain a relationship" with the woman he's marrying. While we're not sure that's even IN there, in general, seeing a therapist for depression and/or a few emotional issues isn't normally cause for a visa to be denied, is it? Aren't they more concerned about whether or not the person is a danger or a criminal liability? Has anyone ever had experience with this as it relates to the visa process?

I don't even see in the link where it says someone with an abortion must undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Is this something that's done per consulate?

Indeed, if that's true, then it's highly disturbing. I've never heard of any "required" psychiatric eval after an abortion, at least not in the U.S. I've heard of having to go through a ridiculous "waiting period", but never a psych eval.

OK so here it goes

Everything went well, the visa was approved! We´re just waiting for it to come DHL.

The problem is that it might not come before I leave. We´ll have to see what happens b-c we wanted to leave together.

We had an interview in a little room and it was very easy they asked us questions and we answered them. Then they asked me to leave and asked Luis a couple of questions.

Everything good, I´m so happy.

I´m on somebody else´s computer so I can´t stay long, but I promise I´ll give details later on!

Thanks for all of your help guys!

and Congratulations!!!!

Aww, yay! I'm so glad to hear it, Suzy.

Here's hoping you guys get to fly back together! *fingers crossed*

I understand that this may not be the most popular take but i have to say this. As a victim of sexual assault, i say denial of immigration benefits is absolutely fair. Each case should be handled carefully though and treated on a case by case basis. This might be a minor case to the person convicted of this problem but you should wonder if it is indeed minor to the other person. A 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old seems wrong to me. IF you do not see it as wrong, then maybe you are not rehabilitated. This may seem harsh to you but that is how i feel as a victim of sexual assault.

Thank you.

I know this ! My wife has decided to come back and work things out. My wife has her faults, and I have mine also. We've spoken on how we could work our problems, and we MAY give it another shot. Did I say I was getting remarried any time soon. I don't know where your getting this from. Possibly I wasn't clear on the fact I am not looking for another wife

Well, when you say stuff like this:

I already have another woman in line. She's Hispanic and yes she has her green card. Praise God !

It kind of gives an impression otherwise.

I think you need marriage counseling... the whole situation is a mess!

Marriage counseling for what? He's already moved on to his next woman.

I already have another woman in line. She's Hispanic and yes she has her green card. Praise God ! kicking.gif

Yay, a woman you don't have to make any sacrifices for, so she can make them all for you! Yaaaay!

Yep. I can really tell you loved her.

What did she do that was fraudulent?

I'm serious. Ten months. She doesn't leave with another guy. You're not going to be able to say 'well, after I cut her family off after I had her brought here, she wasn't as hot and didn't cook for me like I thought she would, so I started cheating online and she left.'

Ha, wonderfully stated.

No one can really know her side of things because she isn't here to share them, but more often than not - at least in these "particular" cases - I find I have to sympathize a little more with the one immigrating than the USC. Especially when she comes from a place like the Philippines, a culture whose values and customs are probably going to be a little different from ours. Regardless of what anyone might say about her family, the bottom line is that's her family and she probably misses them dearly. I mean - if he's sending her a $500 a month allowance, why would she even WANT to immigrate, really? She probably easily could've strung him along for a long while, citing excuses why she couldn't fly out immediately, and when the charade was dropped, pick up some other guy who'd pay her a monthly stipend.

It takes a lot to move country to be with someone. Even my fiance, who is from England and HATES it there, knows it's going to be a huge adjustment - that's his home. That's the only home he's ever known. My job as his wife is going to be as a firm hand of support to hold on to. My job will be to show him around, to get him comfortable, to talk about how he's feeling about being over here, to work out when and what times we might be able to visit his home again, and to let him know that he's not adrift in his completely new country - that he has me, that my parents support and love us, that my friends are excited he's coming. My job is to create a support net for him, so that he feels comfortable and like he really is *home*.

Sounds like the USC simply didn't do that. He expected it to be like any other marriage within the US, where husband and wife immediately "know their role" and set about doing it. She was depending on you to be her guide and sometimes it doesn't just take "whoa, 10 months!" Sometimes it might take a year, or two, or three. It's a huge adjustment, but I guess since the burden's not yours, who cares? All you know is, she doesn't cook or clean for you, eats your food - wow, what a horrible person she is. And then to top it off, after wow, count 'em - TEN months, your strategy is to get on dating sites, essentially proving that you've emotionally discarded her in search of someone else?

Hell, dude, I weep for you. What a sorry lot life has given you.

If you consider the USCIS's point of view, the intent of the I-864 is to prevent the non-USC from becoming a burden on the government (unemployment, medicare, etc).

This is exactly right.

Therefore, this does not mean pay for their housing if they refuse to work, pay for their housing if they can afford a cheaper place but prefer to keep some luxury condo - hell, if the person is fully able to work and have a job in the U.S., then I can't see where I'm obligated to pay anything at all if the relationship falls apart. If the government wants to come back on me because he finds himself on some kind of welfare or aid . . . okay. Fair enough, it's in the contract.

But, were my guy to suddenly walk away from the relationship, changed course from everything we built, and expect ME to foot the bill for his "new life" away from where he promised he wanted to be? Yeah, no. My obligation doesn't extend THAT far. Maybe it'd be different in my case because my hubby is English and there's not really much of a cultural barrier between himself and the employers in the U.S. But my options to him would be thus: if you want to saw off the plank you're standing on, then I'm afraid it's not going to be the end that's nailed to the ship. Either get a job and support yourself or I can pay for you to fly back home.

There's absolutely no reason for that not to happen if he has an EAD. Besides, there's really not much ANY single man could get as far as welfare in the U.S., so it may well be a moot point.

SOEXCITED!

Welcome back, Russell!

Maybe it is the nomad in me but I've never fancied owning a home. I like being able to know I can get up and move with little notice. I also like the fact that if anything goes wrong I call my landlord to come and fix it and I don't get charged.

I was the same way for a little while, but the older I get, the more not owning my place bothers me. At any time, someone can sell your building, forcing you out, you toss all that money in rent literally down a black hole where you get nothing that's yours when all is said and done. It's just a wise investment if you want a return on the money you put in.

And speaking of, I'm hoping my man and I will start house-hunting once AOS is out of the way, so I'll know exactly what our finances and savings will look like.

Most of us are at or past interview.

Russell is coming home Wednesday night.

good luck

AHHHH, no way! That's fantastic! I'll have to comb back through the last few pages (or thirty), it sounds like. Congrats to you both! Once the ball was over the NOA2 hill, it just FELL down the rest of the way, it seems.

I guess we better enjoy you for the next day and a half or so; we probably won't see you for about a week after.

Hey, Aprils! Been awhile; I've been knocking about the UK section since we're at the Embassy stage now. Jim just got his interview date! It's a little later than it would've been otherwise, because we had both mail problems AND he's got to go to Tokyo near the beginning of October.

How's everyone else faring? Seems like it should be about time for everyone here to have his NOA2, if not already.

Yeah, sounds tough. Jim and I are a little lucky, because he absolutely despises the UK. He'll miss his grandparents and best friend, but they've always been rather sparse with visits even now, so it won't be like he's leaving behind a job he loves (hates it), or loads of people he sees every day, or parents (hates them, with good reason).

I couldn't imagine leaving here, conversely, and I'm glad I don't have to. Hope the homesickness lessens with time.

I am trying to cling very hard to what I can get out of this as a benefit to me rather than focus on what I've lost. It's a shame he didn't persevere, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Sorry to double-post or spam, but I just saw this and this is a fantastic way to see things. I've always had this simple credo in life: "Use it." Whatever happens to you, use it. It's more or less the same as "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger", but I prefer the simplicity of "Use it". Let it allow you to become better, stronger, more experienced, wiser, whatever you want.

Even the worst of situations don't have to be total net losses.

Wow, that's harsh. Of course, every place has its bad apples, unfortunately (my fiance would be lightning quick to tell you that), and it seems like you just got unlucky enough to draw one out of the barrel.

But Gwen is absolutely right - he was never a "partner". He was a tagalong who, it seems, wanted his hand held and his desires catered to without having to give anything in return. The usage of 'partner' implies that equal work was done and equal rewards were shared; this doesn't sound like it was the case at all. Maybe you could've asked more, but then again, maybe he could've told more. After all, it sounds like, with all the health problems, you had a pretty darned good excuse to be out of it for a little while. I've had gallbladder removal surgery, and it's really not a pretty process. If there was nobody else in the world, he should've been the one to help you back onto your feet, to support you and tend to you until you were well enough to return the favour again.

And the new young tail he's got? Speaks volumes of him. My ex-husband took up with a 19 year-old when we divorced (he was 27 at the time, and I was four years his junior when we met, even). I'm not saying that age gaps ALWAYS mean a lack of maturity, but in this case, it makes so much sense. He wants a little girl who calls and texts and makes a big fuss over him, who will probably bend over backwards to do anything he wants. Not a grown woman who sees her man as an equal, rather than a superior to be waited on hand-and-foot (whether physically or emotionally).

Truly - it sounds like you're far better off, though I know it doesn't feel like it now. I just hate that you went through this whole arduous process only to find out how rotten he was. Take care of yourself, the pain will go away.

PHEW! Love phoned the library today, where he felt he might've left it, and not only was he correct, but by some miraculous luck, it was still there. Crisis averted.

My fiance has lost his passport. One of the evidence pieces we sent was his passport stamp from when he visited. He's got the boarding passes and ticket from the trip still, but if he has to get a new passport, will that present a problem for immigration? Those who have already been interviewed, do they make a habit of checking passports?

You'd be surprised. Far too many moral idiots want to push their views of abortion, marriage, and prostitution on others. The funny thing is they're so focused on everyone else's body and life and what they're doing, and controlling them with their own crappy subjective views, they pretty much ignore all the stupid things they're doing. Which is why I have a nice lolgasm when I hear of yet another pastor or Congressman who touches little boys, or has sex with gay men, or has pedophile-type relationships with his own pages, while at the same time preaching against all of these moral things.

Not to mention, when their own high school-aged kids turn up pregnant. There are always far more important sex lives to concern themselves with than those of random Americans.

What I'd want on a resume?

"Has voted 'NO' on just about everything to land on the Congressional table."

In short - Ron Paul.

See, this article sort of divides America, figuratively, into two categories - which is fallacious, because BOTH parties are wrong, as both are so hard-wired to believe that whatever policies they particularly endorse are those that should be made law, or nudged into the Constitution. Neither side is really intelligent enough to realize that our Constitution was fine the way it was - it laid out a very general, yet easy-to-understand, framework of our rights. Not because of what was IN it, so much, as what was NOT in it. Nothing in it ever said a woman terminating a pregnancy was either immoral or illegal. Nothing in it ever said it was ethical or right to own slaves (therefore, the amendments repealing slavery weren't even necessary - it was never Constitutional to own slaves in the first place). An amendment granting suffrage to women wasn't even necessary, as there was nothing in the Constitution restricting it in the first place; the only people doing that were idiot Americans at that point in time.

There was never ANY need to alter or amend the Constitution, and it opens too big of a can of worms to ever do so, because while you HAVE good-intentioned people who alter it for "good" reasons (if unnecessary ones), you'll have yahoos like Bush believing he's also entitled to alter it for whatever reason HE wants.

Generally, most people are too dumb to comprehend freedom. It's like they can't really grasp what it truly means. It means YOU are responsible for your destiny. YOU are responsible for whether you work or play, prosper or fail, live or die. And it also means YOU cannot tell other people what to do towards the same ends. Your rights end when another's begin. Whether you're dealing with corporations or environmental issues, or social ones, the same principles apply. It's so simple that, honestly, the only people who really get it? Are politically in the minority.

How dumb DOES a population have to be to completely ignore the school of thought that allows people to disagree on any issue, and yet pursue that ideology on an independent basis? (Meaning, they can choose not to partake in things like abortion or prostitution, they simply can't tell others not to). How dumb does a population have to be to utterly ignore the thinking that AUTHORED the Constitution in the first place?

Politics in the U.S. are a self-perpetuating cycle of fail. People essentially expect our government to control pretty much every aspect of their lives and they forget that the one most qualified to do that is themselves. They also don't expect more from their candidates; they don't demand a proportional amount of "perfection" from candidates who expect such from U.S. citizens. For instance, if a candidate wants to keep gay marriage banned because it violates "the sanctity of marriage", then I believe it's completely fair game to drag their marital past out into the open for dissection. It's only fair they should have to act with the same moral character as they expect from their constituents.

Essentially, the office of the president and those in Congress are no longer doing what they exist to do - protect American freedoms. Instead, they're in the business of restricting it, piece by piece. Whether it's Democrats eroding the rights of corporations, businesses and consumers, or Republicans eroding the personal freedoms of women or homosexuals - their problem is that they don't see the difference between what they personally disagree with and what should be legal/Constitutional policy.

Politics in America are an absolute farce, really.

Then that's strange. It's been just about three and half weeks since he's sent it and they're telling me to wait another week. I don't mind sending it back, or waiting if waiting is what it takes, but I hate not knowing which one I should do either way.

So, when my fiance sent back the Packet 3 forms, he posted it to the address on the cover letter (Immigrant Visa Branch, US Embassy 5 Upper Grosvener Street, W1A 2JB) instead of the Grosvenor Square address. When I called the DOS in Washington, the woman explained that the one he sent it to was the physical address while the Grosvenor Square address is the mailing address.

Problem is, he just sent it via the normal post, and we have no way to really track it. He sent it the 19th of August and they still have no record of it. Does anyone know if Royal Mail is likely to figure out where the wires got crossed and eventually get it there, or will anything sent to the physical address vs. the mailing address be returned?