scott1956

Yeah I just got my DS-230 last week and NVC is still including the supplemental form even though GUZ supposedly isn't using it anymore

I had originally thought I was supposed to file separate I-864's but when I got to the household size I made the incorrect assumption that it should be 3 and how could that be if I filed separate I-864's - I guess I made a wrong turn there. What is it they say about making assumptions Anyways I do see now the error of my ways and will prepare new I-864's - just don't know how to handle re-submitting the new I-864 for the CR-1 since it wasn't returned or mentioned in the letter from NVC.

OK I do think I have most of the answers and I will call NVC Monday morning to verify. I have been told at VJ that the checklist with regards to the DS-230 Part I is standard - apparently they just get ahead of themselves - so I don't need to do anything about this except just send in my original DS-230's on Monday as planned. I need to file separate I-864's for my wife and step-daughter and put N/A in part 3 and then there would only be 2 total for household size (me and the principal applicant which will be my wife in the CR-1 & my stepdaughter in the separate I-864 for the CR-2). My last question hiopefully on this matter is should I prepare a new I-864 for the CR-1 even though they haven't sent it back (it has to be wrong) and if so, would I just send it back with the barcoded sheet that was sent questioning no DS-230 with a letter explaining?

OK today I received a letter from NVC (CHECKLIST) indicating that they have reviewed the CR-2 application and it is missing or needs additional information. I aslo received the same letter for the CR-1 application I submitted. For both they indicate that they are missing DS-230 Part I which confusses me as I just received the NVC generated DS-230 Part I on 8/23/06 which are complete and ready to be mailed on Monday. For the CR-1 this was the only thing indicated as missing - do I need to send in a copy of the DS-230 that is being sent on Monday? Why would they do this? For the CR-2 they have also sent back the I-864 that was submitted for my 5 year old step-daughter that is immigrating with her mother. Based on instruction IV. Principal Applicants (immigrants) and Accompanying Dependents I submitted a photocopy of the I-864 that was being submitted with the CR-1 (Principal Applicant?) and included her name in Part 3 as an accompanying dependent. NVC has returned the copy submitted for the CR-2 for the following: Part 3 The biographic information provided in this part does not match the principal applicant of the associated petition. Family members are not allowed in this section under this visa petition. The sponsor should complete a separate I-864 for each family member. I am now a little confused about this ( since they apparently haved reviewed the original I-864 submitted for my wife with the CR-1 and don't have any problems with it and both I-864's were exactly the same since I only submitted a copy for the CR-2. They also indicate that under Sponsor's Household Size section that the number on Line 2 does not equal the number of applicants listed in Part 3. Again very strange since they are OK with the original I submitted which lists My wife and then my step-daughter as a child immigrating with wife named above - this totals 2 immigrants being sponsored in this I-864 which is what I put on Line 2. Also indicates that Line 5 from Sponsor's Household Size does not equal the sum of the numbers listed in lines 1 through 4 - WHAT the last time I checked 1 plus 2 equaled 3, but then again I am only an accountant so who knows? Finally, they indicate that the Determination of Eligibility Based on Income is all wrong - number on line 2 does not correspond to the number on line 5 of Sponsor's Household size which I show as 3 in both places - I am guessing this is the result of the previous issues, but who knows. I could really use some help interrupting this request from NVC

GREAT NEWS BOB - CONGRATULATIONS!

I agree, you should do nothing about the I-129F with incorrect birthdates, just inculde the correct ones on all the proceeding documents.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU BOTH! August is turning out to be a banner month for CFLers.

Great News - Congratulations to you both!

That is GREAT NEWS - CONGRATULATIONS!

Best of Luck!

May the pink slip fairy be with you and your SO.

NVC should have forwarded the I-864 and copies of tax returns to GUZ so in therory you shouldn't need copies. If you are going to be at the interview with SO then just give her your passport - it may impress VO that you are there in person. Of course just in case it is a good idea to have the copies of the I-864 and tax returns (last year is now the only one required), but I would not have them notarized (which is no longer required).

Great to see that you have moved through the process so quickly - I can only hope for anything close to this time line - 12 or 13 months would be fine, but 11 months would even be better

I don't think it is a big deal. They won't be sending anything yet to your wife in China so you could send letter to the Service center for your CR-1 and Chicago for the K-3 or call them with the correct address.

Clayton it sounds to me as if you have a good solid plan. You can start the K1 process anytime you want as long as you aren't legally married. So you certainly can start it once you return from your first visit - sounds like sometime in early '07. Then you can return as many times as you like durring the process which hopefully will be completed by the end of 2007. As everyone as indicated just make sure not to register the marriage in China - you can have any kind of ceremony you like.

WONDERFUL NEWS! BEST OF LUCK TO YOU BOTH.

This is correct you can use the EZ form and I am pretty sure you are only required to provide most recent tax return at least that was what I provided for CR1 although it was a DCF case.

I would be a good idea to have a copy of the I-864, but it was my understanding that the I-864 you sent to NVC for the CR1 is reviewed by NVC and then forwarded to GUZ so the VO will have the I-864 in the package. At least that was my understanding Anybody have more info on this?

You don't have a timeline and you don't say if you are completing the I-864 for a K3 or CR1. If it is for the CR1 the recent instructions have been for a copy of only your last year's tax return.

The CR1 & K3 are on separate visa paths and your CR1 should not be affected by K3 visa name check.

CR1 Currently the I-864 is completed and sent back to NVC prior to the NVC generating the P3 packet which includes the DS-230 part I, barcode sheet and supplemental (OF-169) which are returned to NVC as well. NVC forwards entire package (with I-864) to GUZ .

There are many of us here who have made the choice on which visa route to take and most of us remain faithful to such choice (biased ). You have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of all the options and decide which is the best route for you and your SO. In my case, as in many others here, I had very little reason to marry here in the US and my SO wanted very much to be married with her family so it was a no brainer for us ... we got married in China and chose the K3 & CR1 visa route. We made our choice based on my SO's desire to be married in China. If getting your SO to the US ASAP is the most important aspect then the numbers say choose the K1 route because not only is the average length of time from initial filing to visa in hand quicker than the K3 by 2 months or more, but you can usually start the K1 process sooner (you can file as soon as you have all the paperwork in place vs. making arrangements to be married in China which may take a few months or more). You have already made one of the most important choices by becoming a memeber here and at VJ ...GOOD LUCK on your journey.

Wonderful news - Best wishes.

Also be sure to make a complete copy of the entire package that you are submitting.

I found this information in the divorce papers which you will need for proof of elgibility to marry. I don't know if this information is always there, but it was for mine.