Enterline & Partners Consulting | info@enterlinepartners.com

Search
Close this search box.

What is 2-Year Meeting Requirement?

One key requirement to qualify for the K-1 non-immigrant visa for when a United States Citizen, the petitioner, wants to sponsor a foreign partner to immigrate to the U.S., is that the citizen and foreign spouse must physically meet within 2 years prior to filing the I-129 Petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

The couple has to provide physical evidence to prove they met, such as the U.S. citizen’s passport showing admission stamps visiting his or her foreign fianc(é)e, airline tickets, hotel reservations, restaurant receipts, and pictures of the couple together and with friends and family.

This is to prove the couple has an honest and truthful relationship. There are very few exceptions to this requirement. An exception can only be accepted if there is extreme hardship involved, such as a severe physical disability or a violation of traditional customs in the fianc(é)s home country.

The documentary evidence must be submitted with the initial I-129 Petition to USCIS. During the adjudication process, USCIS may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) regarding an issue regarding the relationship for which the petitioner may submit additional information to prove that a meeting happened within the two-year period.

 

ENTERLINE & PARTNERS CONSULTING
Ad: 3F, IBC building, 1A Cong Truong Me Linh Str, District 1, HCMC.
Tel: 0933 301 488
CATEGORY
time
recent posts
CTA_Collection

Over 18,000 successful customers with Enterline &
Partners, realizing the dream of immigration

Latest News

What Is Adjustment Of Status For U.S. Immigration Purposes?

Under U.S. immigration law, Adjustment of Status (“AOS”) refers to the process through which an individual who is already in the United States applies to change their immigration status from that of a nonimmigrant visa status to that of an immigrant visa status, or “Lawful Permanent Residence”. This process is typically pursued by individuals who entered the U.S. legally on a temporary basis as a nonimmigrant and later decide to stay permanently.  One of the best examples is when a student on F-1 status to attend a four year bachelor degree program is offered a job and qualifies at the end of their studies. They may then be eligible for Adjustment of Status. All AOS Applicants must fulfill certain qualifying requirements in order to apply for Adjustment of Status. They must have entered the U.S. lawfully, such as with a valid nonimmigrant visa and be physically present in the United

Read more >

Delinquent U.S. Taxpayers in Southeast Asia

While living in the Southeast Asian region, it’s easy to forget about U.S. tax obligations, especially if the taxpayer’s income is deemed “minimal.”  Let’s first re-visit our tax filing requirements, where an excerpt is noted right on the last page of one’s U.S. Passport, “All U.S. Citizens working and residing abroad are required to file and report on their worldwide income. Consult IRS Publication 54 …” Tax practitioners may use the standard deduction as the filing threshold. For tax year 2024, single status filers can claim up to $14,600 as a standard deduction. Therefore, if one can maintain and produce supporting documentation that the tax year’s income is below the standard deduction threshold, the taxpayer may opt to not file a U.S. Income Tax Return. However, it’s good practice to still file a tax return  to show the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that your income is below the standard deduction

Read more >

Federal Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump’s EO Ending Birthright Citizenship

A Federal Court of Appeals handed the Trump Administration another blow in its fight to redefine the 14th Amendment ending birthright citizenship through Executive Order (“EO”). The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Administration’s request for an emergency order putting on hold a nationwide ban issued by Seattle-based Judge John Coughenour last month who found the EO blatantly unconstitutional. Judge Coughenour decision was swiftly followed by Judge Deborah Boardman’s decision in Maryland who also ruled that the EO needed to be stopped. While the Trump Administration argued that Judge Coughenour’s ruling went too far, a three-judge panel disagreed and scheduled the case for arguments in June. U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest, whom Trump appointed during his first term, said that a rapid decision would risk eroding public confidence in judges who must “reach their decisions apart from ideology or political preference.” The other judges on the panel,

Read more >
Vietnam
icons8-exercise-96 chat-active-icon