Randy W

It MUST be within 90 days for BOTH - giving you a window of 4/6 to 5/21.

I'll admit im not the brightest light bulb when it comes to this legal stuff, It scares the heck out of me I'm just afraid of doing something wrong and messing it up. I appriceate the advice though and I will bring it up to my senators liason and show her the FAM rule and see if she can help me with it. Yeah - that's a big leap there, since the first thing you would do is go off to Thailand and get married - check some other' stories here (like BrokenHeart, who just a few days ago had his K3 forwarded to Hong Kong - Hong Kong has its own embassy and is treated as a separate country from China for immigration purposes) We're here to help

You can lead a horse to water . . Your choice. But you might do better to look at the immigrant visas page - this is where the K visas are handled.

Yup - they do do that! I'm unclear on what you think they disagree with. The Dept of State - by way of the Foreign Affairs Manual - tells THEM what to do.

Thats what I was told by lawyers and other people but I checked with my senators liason and she said they would not allow her to do the interview in another country unless she lived there. She can travel to Thailand but needs a visa, I read on the uscis website that only residents could get a visa unless it was certain circumstances that we don't quilify for. Not true - the K-3 interview takes place in the country where married. The only restriction is that you would have to be eligible to be married there. 9FAM 41.81 (already had it open

Can you get married somewhere else (another country)? If so, a K-3 interview would be held in that country.

From 9FAM 41.81 Can they really deny her based on a requirement that she is exempt from? Well, yes, but it's interesting that they would put it in writing. I think whoever wrote that just didn't know which end was up

That would say that they are denying an avenue which was never applied for and they were never eligible for in the first place - They are avoiding the question of why the first was denied by shifting the blame to the second. I think the section 5A used to be in the INA, but was removed in the IMBRA shuffle, and that they are finally figuring out not to refer to it anymore. They told someone recently that that reference was in error. I would expect it to now be contained in an amendment somewhere. Look at 9FAM 41.81 N6.5a). My guess is that that corresponds to the old Section 5A of the INA, and somebody really just came up with a seat of the pants justification there

In George's case, they contacted him and asked him if he wanted to rebut. No appearance was needed. Of course, he can tell you more than I can. Don't count on getting that opportunity.

"Marriage penalty" only applies if you both report income. Married filing jointly is always less than filing single on the same income.

Thr 'secret' consulate is no secret at all. Until a few years ago, this was where the interviews were held. They still use it for their primary mailing address (including P3 returns). Check the 'contact us' page on their website to see where the different functions are.

It has nothing to do with Chinese culture - just tell him the situation he's in.

K-1 is "Work Authorized". You MUST check "Legal Alien Allowed to work" or you won't get the SSN

My fiancee and I started emailing online april 28th 07 and then face to face with yahoo messenger on 05/11/07. I went to see her on December 12th for the first time and proposed december 15th. Durning the interview they asked my fiancee when we met she told them in person we met december 12th they didn't ask when we started to communicate. They then requested a notorized chronology and I stated in that we started emailing april 28th then started talking online shortly after that. On the denial one of the reason they said was I proposed to her within 2 weeks of meeting her. They ignored the fact that we had been talking before that for 7 months and ignored the emails and letters we sent to each other. I am using this as a rebuttle In contrast to Vietnamese social and cultural norms which mandate a lengthy and careful period of pre-nuptial arrangements, Petitioner and Beneficiary became engaged within two weeks of meeting. Response: Dec 15, 2007 he proposed in person. That is 3 days after his arrival. They met on April 28, 2007. They were introduced by her brother's friend. Brother is in NY. His name Tran To Ha. He immigrated to the US by boat in 1978. Brother's friend is a Chinese-American named Henry "Vietnamese social and cultural norms" do not set American policy

If you apply within 76 days of entry, no. Be sure to print copies of these memo: http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...mp;#entry467142 http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...f=7&t=10720 in case you get an idiot who doesn't know that K-1's are work authorized

If you wife told you something in confidence, would you shatter that trust to 'fill in' a stranger? I think this situation is not fair to Al. No doubt about that. But, I think Dennis could damage his marriage by getting involved. He's not a stranger. Given the man's expectations, yes I think he owes it to him. No, it won't damage their marriage (will it, Dennis?) Anyway, I've said my piece.

I say you need to tell him - no need to explain all you know - just tell him what he's facing.Traveling to China to meet someone is a major undertaking for anyone - the shock and confusion on his arrival won't do anyone any good.

Yes. I guess in June of last year? Were you told to, and by whom? And why? (Just curious)

Good news! The address on the sign is actually the address of the parking lot. The building faces Air Center Blvd. Did you actually file an I-130?

To quote Marc Ellis: Again, this is a court finding in the US - not a visa denial. A very generalized, worst-case scenario, no specifics. The I-601 is not an appeal. It is a request to be allowed to final a new petition when the beneficiary is otherwise not eligible.

No - I'm watching also

I think they are found inadmissable at the hearing in the US by the USCIS. This rarely happens. But this is one reason why a lawyer might be useful in figuring out what to do. I-601 appeal cannot be filed unless the consulate give you that option, correct ? No - I-601 is waiver of inadmissability -this would allow a new petition to be filed in the event that Marc Ellis's worst case scenario 212(a)(6)©(i)[1] Misrepresentation trap comes about

I think they are found inadmissable at the hearing in the US by the USCIS. This rarely happens. But this is one reason why a lawyer might be useful in figuring out what to do.

It means she will be interviewed.

From the article: This "burden" is met quite easily with material from the P3 and P4 submissions, along with the interview itself, and does not even need to be documented. The article was written for a purpose - which was NOT to outline any requirements on the VO's. It was written to encourage people to front-load petitions with relationship evidence, and to tell people who have received white slips that they need to watch their mailbox for communications from the USCIS. Unfortunately, it seems to easily mislead people in other directions.