(b)(6)
DATE:
JUL
0 8
2015
INRE:
Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
FILE:
U.S.
Department
of
Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Administrative Appeals Office
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
MS
2090
Washington,
DC
20529-2090
U.S.
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services
PETITION RECEIPT:
PETITION:
Petition for Alien Fiance(e) Pursuant to
§ 101(a)(15)(K)
of
the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(15)(K)
ON
BEHALF
OF
PETITIONER:
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision
of
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case.
If
you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting
us
to
reconsider our
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5.
Motions must be filed on a Notice
of
Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B)
within
33
days
of
the
date
of
this
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee,
filing location, and other requirements.
Please do
not
mail any motions directly to the
AAO.
Thank you,
Y~4~r
Ron Rosenberg
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDE
NT
DECISION
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center (the director), denied the nonimmigrant
visa petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal.
The appeal will be dismissed.
The petitioner is a citizen
of
the United States who seeks
to
classify the beneficiary, a native and
citizen
of
Haiti, as the fiancee
of
a U.S. citizen pursuant
to§
101(a)(15)(K)
of
the Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K).
The director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition for abandonment, concluding that the petitioner
had not responded
to
a request for evidence (RFE) showing that he and the beneficiary met in
person during the two-year period immediately preceding the filing
of
the petition, or demonstrating
that he
is
eligible for a waiver
of
the meeting requirement. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that
he
did submit the requested evidence in September 2013, and he submits additional evidence on
appeal. The record reflects that on September 17, 2013, before the director's denial decision, the
Vermont Service Center received the petitioner's response. Therefore, the director's decision
to
deny the petition for abandonment
is
withdrawn.
Applicable
Law
A "fiance( e)" is defined
at
Section 101(a)(15)(K)
of
the Act
as:
subject
to
subsections (d) and (p)
of
section 214, an alien who -
(i) is the fiancee or fiance
of
a citizen
of
the United States
...
and who seeks
to
enter the United States solely
to
conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within
ninety days after admission[.]
Section 214( d)(1)
of
the Act, 8 U.S.
C.
§ 1184( d)(1), states in pertinent part that a fiance(e) petition:
shall be approved only after satisfactory evidence is submitted by the petitioner
to
establish that the parties have previously met in person within 2 years before the date
of
filing the petition, have a bona fide intention
to
marry, and are legally able and
actually willing
to
conclude a valid marriage in the United States within a period
of
ninety days after the alien's arrival except that the Secretary
of
Homeland Security in
his discretion may waive the requirement that the parties have previously met in
person.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b )(8)(ii) states that
if
all required initial evidence
is
not
submitted with the petition or does not demonstrate eligibility, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, deny the petition for lack
of
initial evidence. The
specific requirements for filing a Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiance(e) (Form I-129F),
including a description
of
the required initial evidence, may be found in the Instructions
to
the
Form I-129F.
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT
DECISION
Page 3
The statutory requirement
of
an in-person meeting between the petitioner and the beneficiary is
further explained at 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(k)(2), which states:
The petitioner shall establish to the satisfaction
of
the director that the petitioner and K-1
beneficiary have met
in
person within the two years immediately preceding the filing
of
the petition. As a matter
of
discretion, the director may exempt the petitioner from this
requirement only if it is established that compliance would result in extreme hardship
to
the petitioner or that compliance would violate strict and long-established customs
of
the
K-1 beneficiary's foreign culture or social practice, as where marriages are traditionally
arranged
by
the parents
of
the contracting parties and the prospective bride and groom are
prohibited from meeting subsequent to the arrangement and prior to the wedding day. In
addition to establishing that the required meeting would be a violation
of
custom or
practice, the petitioner must also establish that any and all other aspects
of
the traditional
arrangements have been or will be met in accordance with the custom or practice. Failure
to establish that the petitioner and K-1 beneficiary have met within the required period or
that compliance with the requirement should be waived shall result in the denial
of
the
petition. Such denial shall be without prejudice to the filing
of
a new petition once the
petitioner and K-1 beneficiary have met in person.
Factual and Procedural History
The petitioner filed the Form I-129F on July 12, 2013. Therefore, the petitioner and the beneficiary
were required
to
have met in person between July 12, 2011 and July 12, 2013. The director
requested evidence
of
the petitioner having met the beneficiary in person during the required time
period or the petitioner's request for a waiver
of
the meeting requirement; letters from the petitioner
and the beneficiary stating their mutual intent
to
marry one another within 90 days
of
her arrival in
the United States; and evidence that the petitioner terminated all marriages. In addition, the director
also requested that the applicant and the beneficiary each submit a completed Form G-325A,
Biographic Information Sheet (Form G-325A).
In response, the petitioner submitted the following:
1) Letters from him and the beneficiary stating their mutual intent to marry one another within
90 days
of
the beneficiary's arrival in the United States;
2) A September 3, 2013, notarized letter from the petitioner's friend, who claims she knows the
petitioner visited Haiti in April 2011 and that he met the beneficiary there. His friend also
states that the petitioner made a few trips
to
Haiti to visit the beneficiary;
3) A September 14, 2013, notarized letter from another friend, who states he knows the
petitioner visited Haiti in April 2011 and met the beneficiary there. This friend also
describes a loving relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary;
4) Travel documentation, including the petitioner's and the beneficiary's passports with travel
stamps corresponding
to
airline tickets and boarding passes for travel from
to
Haiti
and back
in
April 2012.
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT
DECISION
Page 4
5) Photographs of petitioner and the beneficiary together;
6) A judgment of divorce nisi, dated 2011, from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Trial Court, Probate and Family Court Department, terminating the marriage
between the petitioner and : ; and,
7) Completed Forms G-325A for the petitioner and the beneficiary.
On appeal, the petitioner resubmits some
of
this evidence and submits the following additional
relevant evidence:
a)
A certificate of divorce absolute from the Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts, Trial Court,
Probate and Family Court Department, dated December 13, 2013, certifying that on
, 2013, ninety days had expired since the entry
of
divorce nisi and that the judgment of
divorce became absolute on , 2013; and,
b)
An
English translation of a purported divorce certificate
of
and his
spouse _ indicating that the divorce between the parties was
finalized on 2007.
1
The translation
is
not accompanied by the original divorce
certificate in the language in which it was issued.
Analysis
As stated at section 214( d)(1)
of
the Act, the relevant time in which the personal meeting
between the petitioner and the beneficiary must occur is within the two-year period before the
petition is filed. Here, the documentation provided that shows that the couple met in April 2012,
within the required two-year period between July 12, 2011 and July 12, 2013. However, the
evidence is insufficient
to
establish that the petitioner has terminated his previous marriages.
As noted above, the
,petitio~er
submitted an English-language translation
of
_a
di_vorce
certificate_ of
t-
and
h1s
spouse The translation
1s
not accompamed
by the original divorce certificate
in
the language in which it was issued.
1
The petitioner indicated on the Form I-129F that this marriage ended on February 19, 2009.
On
his Form G-325A,
Biographic Information Sheet, the petitioner does not indicate having any former wives.
2
The petitioner indicated
on
the Form I-129F, at Part
A,
Number
7,
"Other names Used," that he used the name
' The petitioner's name on his birth certificate
is
' The name
on
his U.S.
passport and the remaining supporting documents
in
the record
is
" " On his Form G-325A, the
petitioner does not indicate having used any other names. The record does not include documentation
to
establish
that
and
are one
and
the same person.
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT
DECISION
Page 5
Conclusion
Without the foreign language divorce certificate document, the statutorily required evidence that
the petitioner has terminated all marriages has not been provided. Consequently, the beneficiary
may not benefit from the instant petition.
In fiance( e) visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden
to
establish eligibility for the
immigration benefit sought. Section 214(d)(1)
of
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d)(1); Matter
of
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed. The petition remains denied.
