LeeFisher3

After a major fiasco with USPS International Priority (FedEx) I stick with USPS Priority. The tracking information has gotten so much better over the years. When we first began leaving the US was the last I heard about it, now I am getting tracking updates at every step and just waiting to hear it left customs. My nephew's wife is getting very impatient waiting for my wife's hand me downs.

China is now accepting packages again. We shipped something to my sister-in-law in April and it sat in LA for a month, it finally left LA on 5/14/222 and arrived in Beijing on 5/17. Wonder how big the backlog is in Customs now.

You're a big boy now, Lee. You can handle it! B) It's tough, but grabbing my chest like Fred Sanford seemed to do the trick for all situations. That is until I did that in front of my wife as we walked out of Burberry's with her new purse and she offered to drop me off at the hospital on her way home.

Do what's best for your situation as Randy suggests. The ideal situation is to keep renewing the B2 and be married for 2 years or more before immigating to the US. The 2 years of marriage before entry on a CR1 is prefered as your next interaction with USCIS will be a renewal in 10 years with the occasional change of address. Believe me there is value in not having to jump through any additional hoops with USCIS, plus every time you file anything co$t$ way too much. It just kills me to agree with Randy.

We made it to Dulles airport last night around 7:30 pm. Went through customs (no more problems for me at all this time) and went through immigration. Wenyan and Fengqi got their IR-1/2 visas stamped and got told to wait a month or two to get their 10 year green cards in the mail but that they oculd travel now it they want to. THey also got told, "Welcome to America". Everything went smoothly and I was with them both every step of the way through everything. Daymmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I take a nap and everything changes. It was a long path you took, but you made it. Congratualations old friend

Thanx Unkie Charles...Mamma walked the lil one to school today and was impressed with all of the women who spoke to her and wanted to get to know her better. She loves her new neighborhood and all the kids the kids want to hang out at our house...I wonder why? Nice kiddy pool, is that the adult pool in the background?

Just you hope and pray that your wife doesn't get annoyed and cut you short in your shorts.... But then again, it could be worse if she did it to me. EGAD YOU CAD.....heavens to mergatroid that my wife should do such a dastardly deed, indeed, as to cut me short in the short shorts!!!! You, on the other hand, or cutting as the case may be......... Hope all is well in Lees-burg. tsap seui Life is great here with one exception, my wife won't let me spend the money to go to China, but we always seem to find the price of a ticket for her.

Just you hope and pray that your wife doesn't get annoyed and cut you short in your shorts.... But then again, it could be worse if she did it to me.

It's not worked 10 years, it actually began the day you were married. Not sure how that is resolved in the SSA's system. You accrue a years worth of credits as long as either you OR your spouse earned the minimum during that year (NOT retroactively - his previous work history doesn't count towards her credits). The credits aren't combined, though - it still takes 10 years to get 10 years worth of credits. Correct, but it isn't dependent on when she began working.

It's not worked 10 years, it actually began the day you were married. Not sure how that is resolved in the SSA's system.

Not for a long time buddy....I've got too much to live and laugh for. Besides, lil' rabbit would KILL me if'n I died before we had the chance to grow old together. I trust things are well with you and the lil' missus. Good to see ya postin'. Y'all come back now, ya heah? tsap seui I know it's not time to kick it just yet, but there's nothing wrong with giving it a test run for a week or two.

Forget the N-600 just take copies of the required paperwork to the Post Office and submit a passport application, it's much faster and cheaper.

I'm sure they will be happy to offer you the free body cavity search Carl.

What, me affected by waiting???? NOOOOOOOOOOOO WAY!!! After 4 years of this game, the septum in my nose has separated from constant nose picking, I've scratched all the skin offa my butt and had to switch to scratchin' my arm pits. I talk to myself constantly, walk into the sides of buildings, and I masturbate incesstantly, like some monkey in the zoo during springtime.....I'm not affected at all, I tells ya, not at all not at all not at all not at all not at all....I scream into this manicured wilderness. tsap seui Where the heck is my vasolene Forget the vasolene, too spensive, just find a parked car and pull the bearing cap off the front wheel. You'll find all the best lubricent there, plus it's free, which will make your wife happy.

Be cautious about knee jerk reactions if there is any chance you would reconcile if she returned, if this is not a possibility then move forward.

IMHO, in many ways it's the Chinese.

Just remind them that he is currently in ESL and if they want to require him to learn Spanish as his second language you expect them to achieve fluency within 5 years.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD This was a topic a while ago, http://uschinak1.com/forums/index.php?show...c=28422&hl= Looks like they made a clarification. It would actually seem to muddy the waters quite a bit, since 8 CFR 292.1(a )(1) says that "Any reputable individual of good moral character, provided that" . . . "His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear". So we ARE allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up. Actually 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) concerns Reputable individuals, which is specifically excluded by the instructions as they state that 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(1) or 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(4) define who is allowed to utilize form G-28. The question that will need to be asked, probably in a Federal Court is where is the form is appropriate to use for those qualified under 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(2) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) which ARE specifically excluded under 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3), as well as is the modification to 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) legal by excluding representatives who are not a member of the bar or accredited by the USCIS. Definitely a move to exclude religious organizations, friends and family from assisting the applicant. I understand, but what I'm thinking is that these "reputable individual"s NEED to be allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up. That's the rub, which has been there all along, that the "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear" clause has always applied, but is harder for them to invoke when you have a signed G-28 on file. Another case of the USCIS having their own very special interpretation of government (in this case, their own) regulations. The difficult part is when it comes to Children and the USCIS, while the USCIS cannot interview the child alone they can exclude a step-parent from protecting the interest of the child by insisting that the natural parent is the only one with authority to be involved. The AOS interview for our son started off with the IO playing a game of who had a right to be there which was trumped by the G-28 my wife had signed. The IO was about to refuse permission and insist my wife conduct the interview when he was reminded that if he refused me it would be at his expense to bring in a translator to aid my wife in an interview outside of her native language as she had previously arranged for someone who spoke English fluently to represent our son.

Probably the most important statement in the article was:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD This was a topic a while ago, http://uschinak1.com/forums/index.php?show...c=28422&hl= Looks like they made a clarification. It would actually seem to muddy the waters quite a bit, since 8 CFR 292.1(a )(1) says that "Any reputable individual of good moral character, provided that" . . . "His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear". So we ARE allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up. Actually 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) concerns Reputable individuals, which is specifically excluded by the instructions as they state that 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(1) or 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(4) define who is allowed to utilize form G-28. The question that will need to be asked, probably in a Federal Court is where is the form is appropriate to use for those qualified under 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(2) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) which ARE specifically excluded under 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3), as well as is the modification to 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) legal by excluding representatives who are not a member of the bar or accredited by the USCIS. Definitely a move to exclude religious organizations, friends and family from assisting the applicant.

Check it carefully, the USCIS has been known to sanction same sex marriages.

Unfortunately history has shown that there is absolutely nothing that can't be made worse by government involvement. Although there have been limited exceptions to the rule in the past 50 years, but I doubt those were on purpose or by design.

The only deadline for a K-1 is to get married within 90 days of entry. 5-6 months for filing AOS is not a problem, but you will need to understand that your wife will not be able to work or travel outside of the US until you have DHS authorization.

If you are arriving on United and she is leaving on United there is no problem. You do change terminals but you don't need to pass through security again.

Signature Requirements for USCIS Forms