Randy W

Along with the DS-230, you might include a new GS-325, with a cover sheet explaining that you wish to correct an oversight.

Yes, but for K-2's it says everywhere that you simply must be admitted as the son or daughter of a K-1. The only controversial paragraph is 245(d) where it uses "minor child" to refer to the "nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(K)" - where they are described as a person admitted as the child of a K-1. Of course, it all depends on the USCIS interpretation. Right now, the case reported on VJ is being appealed, so hopefully the decisiohn won't be distributed to the other offices.

. . . and just to make sure your remarks AREN'T concluding, I'll post here. Me, too.

Here we go - INA Act 216:

I think what's being missed here is that the CSPA came into existence for a specific reason: Children were aging out prior to adjudication. BOTTOM LINE... The CSPA now protects certain classes from this (and not others). This was created by the USCIS adjudication backlog. The more I read online, the more consistent message I see that it's about adjudication more than anything... Here are two very telling comments.. if adjudication was not the issue, then these comments would appear unnecessary... yet it seems USCIS has/had a procedure specifically to avoid the age-out by adjudication: 1) I-485's and aging out. It is our understanding that an I-485 will be expedited if a dependent child will turn 21 within 6 months of filing. We are ready to file an I-485 for an employee with a child who will turn 21 eight months from the date of filing. Should we wait for two months to file the I-485? If not, how can we flag the application to alert the Service Center that the application includes a child who will age out before the normal processing time is complete? If we have a case currently pending with such a situation, should we fax Division I? How far in advance should we fax? Answer: I-485 are flagged when they come in the door if the dependent will age-out within one year of the receipt date. The case is reviewed by a CAO in the mailroom. If the age-out falls within 6 months, the application is fee¡¯d in immediately hand carried to the supervisor¡¯s workstation in Division 1. If the age-out is beyond 6 months but under 1 year, the application continues through the process and is placed on the age-out shelf in the file room in (birth date) order. At the point that it reaches the 6th month mark, the file is pulled and sent out to the Age-Out Supervisor in Div. 1 Please place a sheet of paper with large print, indicating that it is an age-out on the face of the application. 2) Under paragraph 9 of the court order (regarding age-outs), adjudication of both I-140's and I-485's will be expedited by the Service upon advance written notice to the INS for a class member with a child who would become 21 years old. Such notice must be provided at least 120 days in advance of the child's 21st birthday. The laws (and examples) are all concering I-130 (or I-140) applicants for immigrant visas. It seems to me that we are quoting laws that don't apply (CSPA), and forms that weren't used (I-130) and trying to apply that to the K-2 visa. It doesn't seem to fit. Were K-2 visa holders aged-out BEFORE the CSPA? To my way of thinking, if the CSPA doesn't apply, then we need to know the laws with regard to the K-visa's without trying to apply the CSPA. Where is the law which DOES apply to K-visa adjucation?

What lymeboy should do is to be aware that this is a public forum, and be careful about expressing his feelings about what she is doing, whether she is claiming abuse or not. She can easily be coached on how to exaggerate, embellish, or dramatize the truth so as to be able to claim abuse. No court is involved - no one is actually legally accused of anything. It is unclear how a claim of abuse would affect future K-visa applications. Look back a few posts to find an example. Very few, if any, breakups are 100% amicable. There is almost always some sort of evidence that can be used in this manner. He did express concern about her immigration status - this is one (probably the only) way she can maintain it. However, don't forget that she may be headed for China.

If she's inclined to claim abuse, it's a done deal.

But that doesn't qualify as doing something unless they actually DO SOMETHING (duh). I'm sure there's been some behind the scenes activity (if only to discuss the statute), but have we heard of any actual IMBRA-related activity or questioning at the consulate?

Congrats, and check the FAQ's.

The I-864 requires that the sponsor file a change of address within 30 days of a move. So, if the alien files a change of address and the sponsor does not, they conceivably could put 2 and 2 together, but you're probably right.

Isn't this about IMBRA ? The DOS doesn't appear to be doing anything about it - I believe we are finally seeing post-IMBRA K-interviews going through. The skeeb comes out of hibernation in the fall.

A change of address provided to the USCIS is all that is required for the green card to be mailed elsewhere. Extremely simple paperwork. But that is also admitting to the USCIS that she no longer lives with her husband

OK, then read - IRS form 1722 request info

Apparently, you must request it by phone - something like tax transcripts. expat forums on 1722

Yes - they will tell you to do exactly that if the P3 is slow in coming.

Claims don't make fact! She can claim anything she wants but without proof it is all just words! We are confusing facts and claims here. A claim is just words, but if she shows up at a women's shelter, and claims verbal/mental/whatever abuse, those words can get her a green card, with or without any facts behind them "without the abuser's assistance or knowledge". In other words, the OP will not know of her claims. No proof is needed - I'm not sure that any evidence is even needed. I don't know what her chances are of getting the green card otherwise (unless lymeboy can forward it to her), since she would have to change her address with the USCIS.

Charging and proving abuse aren't necessary to obtain a green card -

If she claims abuse (whether true or not) she has no problem whatsoever.

The original poster, Girona40 on VJ, is making the assertion that since the decision was "certified" by the Administrative Appeals Office, it will be passed along to ALL k-2's from now on. If this is true, then our attempts to bring Jiaying's son over will simply result in his being sent back, most likely within 90 days to a year. But I get the feeling from reading their story, that there are some unique circumstances (in particular, that his mother also filed an I-130 on his behalf and became an American citizen) that his case may be unique. We need to wait and see what the actual decision was.

Randy ... may we have a little more detail on that? Our K2 interviewed with her mom. We are now, 5.5 months later, trying to get the K2 installed in her passport (life of visa is only six months after it is in passport) so she can emigrate about 11 months after her mom, when she completes high school. Our problem is getting an appointment in the next couple of weeks. The Visa Call Center, which seems to control all appointments like this, does not have any slots available for about a month. VO told the girls that if the K2 was issued more than 6 months after the K1 that a new police report and medical were needed. This doesn't mesh with the usual 1 year validity for these items. We are corresponding with GZ via e-mail on this issue but any insights you might have would be helpful. Jiaying's son filed a police report for himself. No police report for Jiaying was required (I assume hers' had been sent to the USCIS). We had not provided a police report for him before him. USCONGUZ reply for Lee K2 forms needed, from USCONGUZ How to equest an Interview We emailed, and also wrote a letter. A P3 was then mailed to her son. 2 weeks before our recent trip, I emailed GUZ that we would like to have the interview during that time. He got the P4 within 3 days, and an appointment for the first week of our trip!

Sorry, this affects whether we should even bring her son here in the first place, and how we fill out his I-485 if we do. What you're seeing that I am not is this - why would he have to remain a child for the AOS? It seems to specifically require only that he was admitted as a child. I can find plenty of attorneys who see it the same way I do, but precisely what law should we be looking at?

So where do you see this stated? In fact, the I-485 says only that you must have been admitted as a child. The American citizen is NOT applying for one of his children. The LPR is NOT applying for one of her children. Why would CSPA apply?

Some more details from their case. The son had been in the US for 3 1/2 years on a K-2 derivative. A complicating factor was that the K-1 mother became a citizen on June 5, 2006, to put her son in line for a visa #. It's not clear to me if that would terminate the "follow to join" status.

The CSPA applies to an American citizeen petitioning on behalf of his/her children, or a legal permanent resident petitioning on behalf of his/her children. K2's as a derivative of K1 are not subject to it. He would not be applying for AOS as an Immediate Relative. The Application Type is: As the original VJ post states, He is saying, again, that this ONE decision because of the fact that If this is the case, Jiaying's son will come here and have to go back after his AOS application is turned town according to what is apparently the current USCIS interpretation of immigrant law, even though the application states that he is eligible to apply. Where is there an age limit on K2 AOS's? The visa must be used/awarded (unclear which) by age 21, but we are talking about AOS here. Like I'm saying, hopefully, this will be resolved before he gets here because his application will need to go in by Dec 17 (his 21st birthday).

What I see is: No mention of age. I also see: So is this person applying as the son of an American citizen? Apparently not. I hope for our sake this is resolved before December.