frank1538

First, take a look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm to make sure of the age requirement for your particular state. If your fiancee is of the age that requires parental consent, it seems you would have two options. First, as part of the I-129F filing, you could supply the parental consent as part of the paperwork to demonstrate that, at the time of filing, you are free to get married. Second, you could wait until your fiancee is of the minimum age that doesn't require parental consent and file then. Personally, I'd probably wait.

Congratulations and best wishes to you both.

I don't think the signature needs to be notarized. I presume that you've considered the I-864EZ and have concluded that you don't meet the requirements for using it.

The green card application (I-485)/EAD (I-765) application is one of the oldest scams out there. File both simultaneously. The bogus I-485 goes with the left hand. The bogus I-765 goes with the right hand. Government inefficiency will often allow the applicant to get an interim EAD after 90 days even though both the I-485 and I-765 will eventually be denied. Sounds like Dallas has a good idea.

What Lee said, Lusheng and the twins had this same thing happen to their names and it was no problem. 235915[/snapback] What Lee and Mikey said. Name on passport - "Jingwen" Name on K-1 - "Jing Wen" Maybe, it's just the government's way of trying to westernize the applicant.

Congratulations. It's been a long time coming. Good luck at the interview.

Belated congratulations.

Good catch and congratulations on getting out of USCIS. I've haven't been reading CFL that much of late, but are you one of the first to get a post IMBRA approval on a K-3? Burnout, okay, but how about a doughnut for old time's sake?

I know this is heartbreaking news, and it's really unfortunate that what happened might well have been avoided had the consulate been on top of the case processing. I probably wouldn't classify this as a visa denial but rather a delay in the issuance - cold comfort, I know. Given the length of time in processing your case, I'm wondering if the namecheck expired (usually 12 months), and someone caught it at the last minute.

Congratulations and best wishes.

That's great news. My hearty congratulations to you guys.

Welcome to CFL, where the wait is made less painful by having a cast of characters who will entertain, enlighten, drink a beer with you, and sometimes get in you face. But, hell, this is America. I don't have the statistics, but my gut tells me that the success rate of CFLers is extraordinarily high. The reason that many people worry is simply one of time where a little mistake can cost you 3 months in an already long 9-12 month process. Based on your posts, it certainly sounds like you've got things well in hand. On your SO's daughter's situation, press your lawyer on the adjustment of status/aging out rules for K-2ers and make sure you're comfortable with the information. My step daughter was 20 when she got her K-2, and we filed for her AOS before she turned 21 but specifically requested expedited processing because the law is really unclear about whether a K-2 AOS applicant is protected by the CSPA (Child Status Protection Act). She did receive her green card after she turned 21. To this day, I'm still not sure if we dodged a bullet or if the Act really did apply. Good luck.

There is a rule out there that goes: "Don't worry about the things you can control because you can control them. Don't worry about the things you can't control because you can't control them. Bottom line - don't worry." I know that's cold comfort, and I stressed out a little before the family's arrival. I made every effort at prepping the house and ended up wasting a lot of time. Jingwen's arrival meant that she would take over. She became the boss, I the laborer and slowly, the house was transformed into this kind of funky Chinese American home. One thing I can guarantee, if we ever sell the house, it'll show better without the furniture and pictures. If you try to anticipate her needs, you'll likely waste your time and money. I bought new linens for the bed - not to her liking. I bought a new wok - not to her liking. A new cleaver - forget it. New bowls - now we have them as extras somewhere in the kitchen. Anticipation can be a scary thing like watching that giant roller coster while standing in line, but once on board, I can almost guarantee the ride of your life. I had your same concerns about working most of the time. Jingwen still does not drive a car, and my normal workday has me out of the house the same time you're out. But, she has adapted well, although having the kids around some of the time when they're not in school or working or out playing has made it a little easier. One last thing. PM me and I'll shoot you my phone numbers, so we can chat live, but only if you want. Maybe Jingwen can help with the transition once your SO arrives. Atlanta has a fairly vibrant Chinese community, and our proximity to it has really helped. PS. Does your SO play ma jiang?

It's been a long time coming, Gil. Best of luck to you and Ya.

Fortunately, Jingwen's pronunciation of "that" is "na-guh".

Congratulations and best wishes to you both.

It seems to me that there are too many apples and oranges in this basket. Putting aside for the moment whether the marriage in China is recognized in China, I tend to view this mess as one where it is necessary to determine whether the first (US "marriage") is recognized for immigration purposes. Although it appears that the OP is dealing with USCIS filings, the FAM ( http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/094...ined%20FAM' ) does provide some guidance on whether a common law marriage will be recognized. The applicable provisions of the FAM state: "...In the absence of a marriage certificate, an official verification, or a legal brief verifying full marital rights, the Board of Immigration Appeals has established that a common law marriage or cohabitation is considered to be a ¡°valid marriage¡± for purposes of administering the U.S. immigration law only if: (1) It bestows all of the same legal rights and duties possessed by partners in a lawfully contracted marriage; and (2) Local laws recognize such cohabitation as being fully equivalent in every respect to a traditional legal marriage, i.e; (a ) The relationship can only be terminated by divorce; (b ) There is a potential right to alimony; (c ) There is a right to intestate distribution of an estate; and (d ) There is a right of custody, if there are children. If it is concluded that the Colorado common law marriage passes muster under these criteria, I want to say that the common law marriage is just as valid as a marriage that is documented in a state's marriage certificate. Personally, I tend to agree with others that the parties claimed to be married in order to secure benefits available only to a spouse. While I pass no judgement on this, doing so is likely one of the factors that helps to satisfy the "holding themselves out as husband and wife" requirement for a common law marriage to be recognized at the state level. If the common law marriage is recognized as valid, then it would follow that the marriage in China does not produce a "spouse" for immigration purposes. Even if the marriage in China is deemed valid, the FAM addresses this by stating that polygamous marriages, cannot be recognized for immigration purposes even if legal in the place of marriage celebration. In such cases, it is the first marriage that immigration will acknowledge. Yep, I agree it's a mess.

All comes to he (or she) who waits. Long overdue. My heartfelt congratulations to you both.

Congratulations Jesse and family.

My opinion is that it sucks. Until there is clarifying guidance on the definition, each of us is left to having to interpret the law. Whether that interpretation will be consistent with the government's is anybody's guess. Just to give you an idea of how the law might be interpreted, here is the broadest interpretation that I've seen. The definition of an IMB is so broad that any site that allows people to post their profiles and contact information could be veiwed as "facilitating communication". The fact that the site doesn't charge a fee one level of membership but charges a fee for other levels of membership would not make a differerence since it does charge a fee in some instances. Once a site meets the general definition, then one must see if one of the exceptions applies. For most CFLers that exception would be the "principal business/comparable rates" exception. A site would be excepted from the definition if it's principal service is not between USCs/LPRs and foreign nationals and it charges comparable rates. Some commentators have suggested that this exception imposes two requirements, both of which must be met for the exception to apply. Again, under the broadest interpretation, if a site's principal service is between USCs/LPRs and foregin nationals but it charges comparable rates, it doesn't meet the exception because it failed the first requirement. Similarly, if a site's principal service is not between USCs/LPRs and foreign nationals but it doesn't charge comparable rates, it doesn't meet the exception because it failed the second requirement. Will the government use this broad interpretation? Who knows? Until then, each of us is left with having to make a best guess. Like I said, my opinion is that it sucks.

Congratulations.

It seems rare to me that information on the ex is asked for, and I probably wouldn't try to anticipate that GUZ would be asking for utility bills. However, one thing you might consider is seeing what information is online. If the utilities were ever in your name or you know the account information, you might be able to access the billing statements.

It's a canned response. Virtually all RFEs that I've seen have this language.

Well, I've reflected on this issue, and it's just not my style to put my foot down, even though I could. I told Jingwen that if she wanted to send David to China for a while, that would be fine with me. She was very happy to hear me say that. I then asked her when she wanted to do this, and she said maybe the best thing to do would be to wait until KK, the mother, has finished school and starts working, which I put at about two years out. A lot can happen in two years. Like I've said in previous posts, we have a rule in this household. I make all the big decisions, and Jingwen makes all the little decisions. So far, there have been no big decisions. Thanks everyone for the insights and thoughts. All were very helpful.

Another hurdle. As David says, statements about not being a member of the CCP or terminating membership are usually taken at face value unless the VO has information to the contrary. For example, in your wife's case, it may be that the employees of your wife's employers are routinely members of the party, and this raised an issue with the VO when she said she was never a member. The Afghanistan trip is another issue, and the fact that your wife traveled there in 2004 could easily raise a flag particularly if it is not common for Chinese citizens to get visit the country. It would seem to me that the rules related to terrorist activities are more expansive than for CCP membership/affiliation. In responding to the query about her trip, you might take a look at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligib...ities_1364.html which lays out some of the activities than would make your wife ineligible to receive the visa.