Randy W

Check under 'Tools', 'Options', 'Security' and 'Privacy'. Make sure cookies are enabled, at least for Candle

This was before the olympics - all they need now is a contact (your gal) within China.

Perhaps this is it - That would be 9 FAM 41.81 N6.5a

This was part of a LONG discussion of the doctrine of consular nonreviewability http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/Fe...off_OpOrder.pdf

INA 222(f)

This from a civil suit filed in 2007, against LYNNE SKEIRIK, Director of the National Visa Center,CONDOLEEZZA RICE, Secretary ofState, and MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendants. This case seems to me to raise a LOT of concerns similar to what has been brought up recently on this board (constitutional rights, etc.), and should be required reading. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/r...+to+dismiss.pdf No, I haven't found the section in the INA.

No - you either apply or not, as you wish, At any time (after 3 years).

I'm pretty sure it is possible, but I have not done that myself. You can purchase pre-paid sim's for around $20 that should let you do all the calling you want. Re-charge if needed, Make sure your phone is NOT locked to a US carrier. If it is, it's still usually possible to get it unlocked. We have had members who took their call phones on international roaming and kept in email touch that way, but it is very expensive. (But at least we know the data network is there) Maybe reasonable for emailing, since you don't need to connect for very long. http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90884/6552670.html Here's an expensive one 2005 - China Mobile data services China Mobile GPRS Packages

Just shining the light of linguistic truth into the darkness of emotional misinterpretation pard'ner. It wasn't my quote being questioned anyway. I saw no reason to pick on a poor little word though. I meant hers not yours - I just thought it ironic that we would be held to the meaning of the word "enjoy" chosen by a Chinese.

I think we'll find out (someday) that Section 5A simply defines "bona fide" as being entirely up to the discretion of the Visa Officer. I believe the FAM states that up to 20% of a particular VO's cases should be reviewed, depending on the experience level of the VO. "Red flags" and "reasons for denial" are not the same thing. I hope you're not simply running into dead ends.

Sorry if we fail your English lesson . . .

The NVC won't bill you for the I-129F, so I'm going to guess this was the I-130, which SHOULD go to Guangzhou

From the I-129F - I won't bother to guess what you put here or was this the I-130? If you answered "Hong Kong" to this question, you should get a HKG (or whatever the 3 char abbreviation is) for the I-129F K-3, but not the I-130 IR-1. Other people have done this successfully

1000 years just ain't what it used to be, especially when 950 of them was under some sort of authoritarian rule. Nobody is telling anybody what to "enjoy" see post #22 The word "enjoy" is used in a different context - the Chinese (and American) people have what rights they have ("enjoy" them, as Roger put it) - whether they receive pleasure from them is a different matter

Correct. Make sure to file before the I-94 exit date. The "out of status" status is ignored for a reasonable period of time. Many of us have mailed it in after that point.

1000 years just ain't what it used to be, especially when 950 of them was under some sort of authoritarian rule. Nobody is telling anybody what to "enjoy"

They are processing applications that were filed in June 2002 (check out the Visa Bulletin). So that would make it about 6 1/2 years from the original application, which could have been as soon as your wife became an LPR (it gets upgraded to USC when she does). Add about 2 years if she's married.

Randy - take a look here? http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=465245 From what I could glean, the ConOff's behavior was illegal PLUS the white slip made reference to a non-existent statute. (Quoted the wrong chapter number). My quote was a side note that I came across - the parts that caught my eye are highlighted: That may indicate more than a little bit of manipulation of re-applications, although it's not clear that it applies to family visas. 5A, though, apparently IS a real Section SOMEWHERE - we just don't know where - http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=323570 The Visa Officer is ALWAYS a party to "substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not previously considered by DHS" - the P3 and P4 information, and the interview with the applicant herself. "Therefore the Consulate has failed to give proper notice as required by law" - the white slip itself is generally interpreted as satisfying this requirement. Anyone who feels they were wronged by the consulate has no recourse - there is simply no avenue through which their concerns could be addressed.

We have not applied for EAD yet. I thought we were sup[posed to do that at the same time as we apply for AOS. I plan to do that within the next three weeks. Yes - sorry - I just assumed you had already done that

Yes - K-2's are NOT work authorized, and so cannot apply for SS. He can apply when he gets his EAD (you DID apply for one, right?), or his green card.

You have chosen slobs

Any links, or articles?

This is what caught my eye - as I understand it, HE would add 100% of her assets to his, and then add 1/3 of that total to his income - THAT figure must exceed the poverty line. In other words, BOTH USC and the beneficiary's assets figure in at the same 1/3 value.

Spouses and children are what we deal with most here. This is my claim and that that total value may include the intending immigrants assets - not at 1/3 or 1/5 but at full value After that, I expect we'll get lost up in the arithmetic or semantics of it

Yes - but it also says that you may include the immigrant's assets and that Form I-864A is not required. Wouldn't that mean you simply add hers to yours? But I think that the factor of three applies for the total of all I-864 and I-864a assets IF you are a USC sponsoring a spouse or child. That is, it refers to an amount that must be met, not a proportion of each that may be included. The way I read it, anyway.