Randy W

Congrats!

When we specified a date range that we desired for a K-2 interview, they sent the interview notice out the same day for an interview a week and a half later. Email them now and tell them you would like to schedule an interview if at all possible during the date range appropriate for her.

How about having her interview for the K-4?

The situation is the same (in terms of illegal immigration) as if an illegal alien took a plane from Brownsville to another part of the US. Anyone who travels near the US border (including US territories) should carry adequate identification for their own particular set of circumstances. I know the Border Patrol watches roads going into the interior, but I don't know who (if anyone) would watch the domestic terminals. We have discussed going through the (road) border checkpoints before, and I believe the advice was to be wary of this before getting the greencard (I don't remember the particulars). But I think documentation as far as legal presence is advisable. Maybe someone will have a specific experience they can relate.

Jim, thanks for finding that. Now, if a USC is returning from these US territories and are NOT required to present a passport upon their return to the Continental US, then this leads me to believe that the setup is exactly the same as any domestic airport and these flights are considered domestic and not international. If a USC is not required to present a passport then that must mean they do not check for passports at all. Otherwise how would they know who is a USC and who is not, as the USC is not required to have his or her passport for these trips. This leads me to believe that they won't be asking any other nationals to present their passports as well--how can they prove these other nationals are not USCs? This leads me to believe that a new Chinese immigrant or, non-immigrant in the case of a K-1 visa, should be able to visit any of these US territories without any additional visas. These territories, for the purpose of traveling, would be exactly like any other US states. Why couldn't a new Chinese immigrant simply claim to be a USC, thus not needing to show his or her passport, if confronted? Anyone have any first hand info regarding traveling to any of these territories? Did you witness any checking of passports upon disembarking the plane and entering the airport? Domestic flights are domestic flights. Anyone on them has ALREADY gained admission to the United States. No passports are checked. On International flights to any US Territory (whether admitted to the union or not) passports are checked. It is the responsibility of the airlines and airports (as at any domestic airport) to keep the domestic and international traffic separate.

Oh, I see! Yeah, I thought IMBRA, also, when I read your original post. I think that really the differences between us and them are financial, Internet access, and the fact that most of the Internet (especially these broker/dating sites) is English. The sites themselves seem to be skewed in the same way a purely American site would be - toward the male paying a small to large fee, while the woman gets by with a lower to non-existent bill. But her expenses come for the Internet access and/or a translator/facilitator who provides "services" of some sort. In order to make it affordable for the woman, they will charge low fees up front, with a final bill to be paid at P4, Visa time, or marriage. Thus it would be paid by the male in most cases. The only real cultural factors involved are the limited Internet access, attitudes toward divorce, and the degree to which these services have caught on in an area.

Sounds like the other embassies are treating it the same way GUZ is (no IMBRA questions at the interview)!

By remaining beneath their radar. Like Tony said, 2 is better than 4. No ambiguity there.

It's these situations which cause the most concern IMO... Any service saying, "We will leave it up to you" is the lamest of excuses... If they are an IMB, then they are required to be capable of providing that information to their paying customers; If they are not an IMB, they don't.. this is one of the few times the application of an otherwise ambiguous law is black or white; You're either an IMB or your not; Your operational capability includes providing this information about USCs or it does not. Asking a service if they are an IMB does not always get a straight answer; I'd suggest asking them if they are capable of and do provide to their paying clients background on USCs.. if they cannot answser yes/no to that, then they are simply wanting to avoid any responsibility. In the end, we have to see what happens at the interviews and AOS when discrepancies exists between what's on a form, what's on a list, and what the beneficiary did or did not get from a service... David, I think the Cherry Blossoms response is spot on. No one knows what constitutes an IMB, because no ruling has been provided. Providing the form is very simple - something they can do in CYA mode. Yes - they are taking no responsibility because they HAVE no responsibility. And won't until some guidelines are being provided. I am still of the opinion that the only reasonable answer to the "Did you use an IMB?" question is "No!". So far, it seems like there is no downside to answering "Yes", but the USCIS may someday have to take a position on that issue.

Eunice pinned it - pure and simple - ASSHOLE!

Judging from your member name, you might want to meet up with Richard (chef4u)

E-mail the consulate, telling them of your previous and current status, and that you are ready for a visa. I couldn't find the web-page for the GUZ e-mail just now, but it's a web-form that you enter your information on. They are VERY responsive.

InfoPass

So far, it seems that the extent of the reaction to IMBRA has been to add a question to an existing form, or, for the websites, to add an additional IMBRA questionaire in some cases. Have we heard of anyone (woman) being given the questionaire, or being questioned about IMBRA at the interview? Have we seen any feedback from USCIS as to exactly which sites are IMB's or which aren't? I don't think DOS (or GUZ) has done anything at all. It's very easy for the websites to add some additional IMBRA questions - I don't think this constitutes an 'admission' that they are an IMB. I think everyone is still in CYA mode with regard to the IMBRA legislation.

That is her 'A#'. Keep it, and use it anytime they ask for her 'A#'. It will help keep her paperwork together (they have been known to issue more than 1 A# to an applicant).

While I don't think my case is taking any longer than other CR1 cases, probably about the same timing, my situation maybe different. As far as what I said to ICE, I opened a case back in Janurary and told them of the situation. I did tell them I think there was fraud involved. No one ever contacted me after opening the case. I do know she is saying that I abused her. She said it in court in May when she tried to get $800 per month from me for support, she was denied by the Judge of course. After the divorce was final, she called me and spoke of getting back together, which I had no interest. While I didn't mention specifics in my I-130 to USCIS, I did say that I was married to a woman from China before and we got divorced before i married again, So there isn't a question of me trying to hide anything. I can see my timing as far as the NOA2 for the I-130 is similar to Jesse's and other I-130 filers timelines, I guess I'm just getting antsy ecause of my special circumstances, But i think waiting at least another month would be wise before really losing it, not that really losing it will do me any good. ... As always, my prayers is what I have to lean on. Your right.. I'm glad your looking at the data closer than I did on my first reply Your right around the average time.. but obviously some must be over average... so another month's wait is necessary. I'm thinking that USCIS won't be concerned with the court issues she pursued, but might be concerning her status... If you mentioned her (as part of the I-130 petition) but gave no identifying information about her, maybe they will try to track down something; Did you give her A-number or anything like that? Well, Charles, if you get nominated for the supreme Court in 10 years, she might show up and gum things up for a couple of weeks. But, other than that, I really don't think you have anything to worry about (she doesn't exactly sound like another Anita Hill)

Mulan, The Lost Horizon, and the Lady in Red (Orson Welles - takes place in Shanghai) all are in English with Chinese subtitles. Also check YesAsia.com for American movies dubbed in Chinese.

I agree with the concern of the elimination.. and it does follow that SS offices might follow suit. But I don't know enough about SS to say what they will truly do or if there are other doors to enter in order to get a SSN (ie: I would think one can get a SSN for non-work reasons)... It looks like the SSA has some new rules (Oct., 2006) - http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html - for a non-citizen, your immigration status determines your SSN eligibility. Previously, they would accept a letter from a government agency which required an SSN. They don't mention K-1's, so I assume their rules haven't changed there yet. Now - and -

It's not clear if this change would prompt Social Security to reverse their trend toward issuing a SSN number based on an unexpired I-94 for a K1. It seems these two departments have been going in different interpretations or directions for some time. --- Here is another link, from the USCIS Press Room... that locally produced EADs stopped being issued on Sept.1 , 2006 and are being issued centrally instead. USCIS REMINDS CUSTOMERS OF FILING CHANGE FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENTS Local Offices To Stop Processing and Producing EADs http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EA...gCh072806PN.pdf But the concern for most of us is the SSN's - the K-1 employment authorization is useless unless the window is extended to close the gap. This 'employment authorization' is what the SSA uses to justify giving SSN's to K-1's. If the Employment Authorization is eliminated, they would no longer have that (on paper) justification.

The Ombudsman's recommendation was primarily concerned with breaks and overlaps in the periods of employment eligibility. In particular, the K-1 authorization is good for 90 days, but the EAD (I-785) which is filed for with the AOS (I-485) is rarely approved by the 90 day expiration. So, there is a gap between the 90 day expiration and the time the EAD is received. And when a new EAD card is applied for, it is dated as of the date of approval, rather than on the date of expiration of the previous one. That 90 day period of K-1 employment authorization is pretty useless for employment, since most employers won't hire someone with a built-in expiration date. Most of us have used that window to obtain a social security card, however. So one way to eliminate that gap is to simply eliminate the 90 day employment authorization window. This, unfortunately, would have the side effect of delaying the SS application, which, in turn, would put a pretty severe crimp in our SO's driver's license (in some states), bank account, and I'm sure a lot of other financial matters which require an SSN. All of this, of course, leads into the AOS.

Microsoft Loses the Swastika It IS open to misinterpretation.

Sino¨C pref. Chinese: Sinology. [From Late Latin S¨©nae, the Chinese, from Greek S¨©nai, from Arabic S¨©n, China, probably from Chinese Q¨ªn, Qin. See Qin.]

Is the 'X' the month of submission? Are these averages of those reported?

Holy shit! This was actually on your person as you went through security checkpoint? Thank god you were in China. I believed they'd have arrested you in the US if they found a bullet on your person during airport security screening. Congrats on the marriage! Best wishes going forward. On my trip in October, I packed a Swiss Army knife in the checked luggage. Once I got to China, I kept it in my pocket. When we went to the consulate, I went to the security gate - it was still in my pocket, so I tossed it in the x-ray bin, next to my camera bag, in plain view. They were very interested in my camera bag, and obviously paying no attention to the knife. So I tossed it back in my pocket, and went on through rather than bring any attention to it. Then at the airport in Beijing, same thing, except that I was able to put it in a pocket in the camera bag, away from the camera equipment that they would look through, but right next to it, so it wouldn't stand out on the x-ray. No problem. Then again at Newark. (We were in such a hurry to make our connecting flight that I forgot to toss it in the checked baggage). But I didn't dare use it for fear that someone might see it. Oh - and congratulations!

Wife is happy. No more paperwork. Life is good. Congrats.