frank1538

So, what is it you do for the Air Force?

What letter? Neither Jingwen nor I ever received any correspondence from NVC as part of the K-1 processing. This, despite the fact that the NOA2 said we would be notified by NVC. The NOA2 did say the notification would have Jingwen's "unique number" which I took to be her GUZ number. A quick phone call to DOS after NVC had finished with the namecheck supplied the GUZ number.

Many people will quit using IMBs because of the new disclosure. 'Ya think this was part of the law's intent?

No, that's not good news. That's very good news. Coming to the US as a legal permanent resident sure beats adjusting status off a K-3. Good luck at the interview.

Medical exams are good for a year, but here's the catch. The medical staff also assembles the visa paperwork so you'll need the P4 documents and the notarial documents. When Jingwen went for her interview a couple of years ago, the assembly of the documents took place when she went to get the medical results. If this is still the practice, it might be possible to have the exam done early and then return at some future date to get the results and the assembly. You'd be trusting the medical facility to know where the exam results are. If you're really interested, maybe it would be best for your SO to contact the medical facility and see if this "two stage" approach is okay.

Good news and good luck.

Congratulations and best wishes to you both.

I share your concerns. One piece of idle speculation regarding the K-3 petitions' not being recalled from the consulates while the K-1s were recalled is that, rather than create an additional backlog, DOS would just let them languish at the consulates. The I-130s would get there faster than returning the K-3 petitions for additional inquiry. I'd be interested in seeing how many post 3/06 K-3 petitions continue processing.

Here's the actual text: Washington, DC ¨C U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that in order to comply with provisions of the International Marriage Brokers Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA), it will need to issue ¡°Requests for Evidence¡± for more than 10,000 Alien Fianc¨¦(e) Petitions (Form I-129F) currently being held at USCIS Service Centers. USCIS will begin issuing RFEs to affected petitioners as soon as the RFE template has been approved and cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Although USCIS began work on necessary revisions to the Form I-129F shortly after passage of IMBRA, the form has not yet received OMB clearance. All petitions filed on or after March 6 must be supplemented with additional information to satisfy the new evidentiary requirements established by IMBRA. To adjudicate the petitions that are being held as quickly and efficiently as possible, USCIS, upon clearance from OMB, will issue ¡°Requests for Evidence¡± (RFEs) asking petitioners to provide the additional information including data pertaining to a petitioner¡¯s criminal history (if any). Details on the waiver process for those affected by the new limitation for filings of I-129Fs are also provided in the RFE. A new Form I-129F that incorporates these changes should become available later in June. In certain circumstances, USCIS may need to issue a second RFE to some petitioners later in the process if it is determined that other required information was not provided in the initial filing. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, of which IMBRA is a part, are designed to continue Congress¡¯s efforts to prevent domestic violence and spousal abuse. Immigrants who have been victims of domestic violence have long benefited from VAWA immigration provisions, which allow abused spouses and children to self-petition for lawful immigration status. Under IMBRA, Congress has further extended those protections by regulating more closely the international marriage broker market and by requiring disclosure of violent criminal history, such as domestic abuse, rape, or murder, of which a fianc¨¦(e) may be unaware. NOTE TO ALL. This was the original version that was revised. The revised version is now at the old link: http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffair...ra_061306pn.pdf

Ah hell, let's stir the pudding. Completely reversing the order, from most moral to least: Sailor - He was to only one to help. Besides, what was a loveless physical act compared to a woman's happiness? Mary - She put the well being of John above all else. John - He stuck it out with Mary for as long as he could, but the guilt he felt from not trying to find Mary made him realize that the marriage wouldn't last. Better to call it off now. Business man - Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. He had his employees to take care of. Old man - He could have used his wisdom rather than his strength or lack thereof to help, but he didn't bother to lift a finger. Bob - He caught Mary on the rebound and married her for all the wrong reasons. Both their lives would be unhappy. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the poster.

I am so sure about this. I didn't think Part II of the DS-230 was used for K visas, K-1 or K-3.

Maybe we should change the name of USCIS to I-R-S or Incompetence Reigns Supreme. It sounds like the IO was confusing K-3 with K-1. I haven't heard of having to file a I-130 to adjust off of a K-1. Like the others have said, I guess just get them the physical and be done with it. Good luck.

It's a nice feeling, isn't it? Congratulations.

Take a look at http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html "Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided: 1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence; 2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth; 3) the father (unless deceased) had agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and 4) while the person is under the age of 18 years -- A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile, B ) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court." See also http://china.usembassy.gov/registering_a_child.html I haven't researched this issue, but this language sounds encouraging and may obviate the need for a visa. I'd check with the consulate about reporting the birth and obtaining a US passport and with the PSB about getting an exit permit for the passport.

So I assume I don't get to keep my old passport. 223422[/snapback] Several years ago when I renewed my passport, they also gave me back my old passport. 223423[/snapback] Same here - about 5 years ago. The old one came back with holes punched in it.

I don't have a confirming cite, but it would seem that the I-130 processing continues even if you file for AOS. In fact, there are situations where both the I-130 and the I-485 (AOS form) are filed simultaneously. Also, a K-3 visa can be extended by filing an I-539 form with USCIS: http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/files/i-539.pdf

I hate insurance!!!!! As a general rule, a life changing event, such as marriage, also has a grace period during which you can make changes to your coverage. Also, you do not need a social security number to participate in most plans, just numbers that will fill the data field until the actual number is secured. Otherwise, glad that things are going well for you and the family.

Take a look at http://guangzhou.usconsulate.gov/kvfaq.html "What's the period of validity for medical reports and notarial certificates? Notarial birth certificates, marriage certificates and divorce certificates have unlimited validity. Medical reports, notarial single certificates and police certificates are good for one year from the date of issuance." Many people like to have updated police certificates, etc. (less than 6 months) just to be safe.

Usually yes although I could envision a situation where the individual was born while on travel outside his/her official residence area. Here's one definition: http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/asy...tion/China1.htm

Congratulations. The same thing happened to Jingwen - approval without interview. At first, I thought it might have been a mistake, but then I remembered that USCIS never makes a mistake. There've been a dozen or so lucky members who have adjusted without interview: http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14871

That's good news on the I-130. Assuming you can get through NVC with a minimum of hassle, I'll hazard a guess that AIT is faster than Guangzhou. Good luck.

Hearty congratulations Dean.

This thread from VisaJourney suggests that the biometrics language is popping up on recent NOAs, even pre IMBRA. http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...topic=16262&hl=

Welcome to Candle For Love. It looks like you've gotten some pretty good information on the I-864. I'd like to add a few points. Although you are sponsoring only one person, your household size is likely to be two people (yourself and your wife). For 2006, the threshold for a two person household is $16,500, assuming you don't live in Alaska or Hawaii - http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/for...iles/I-864p.pdf Liquid assets can be used, but only 20% of the value will be counted. So, in your case, with $17,000 in the bank, you can use $3,400. It certainly sounds like you'll need a joint sponsor. The Department of State tries to draw a distinction between not having enough taxable income to have to pay tax and not being required to file a return. http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/in...nfo_1328.html#2 If your gross income is above certain levels (depending on your filing status), IRS probably would want you to file a return even if you don't own any tax. Take a look at http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ch01.html#d0e448 for the gross income levels. If you were required to file income tax returns but didn't, probably the best thing to do is to file them now and provide copies with the I-864. If you didn't need to file, then a notarized letter explaning why should be sufficient. Good luck.

Most excellent.