AZwolfman

Right, good job! Just send it! It is perfect now. Let's keep it short and directed to the one subject. M. Harty is intelligent enough to realize that this is causing us pain and hardships. We have already stated, briefly, our problem and our requested solution. Too many things in one letter just makes the letter longer and harder for the reader to focus. I think the main thing is to get this letter out now. We could always write another letter later if necessary. We all appreciate your dedication, Mark. Keith

OK, Mark, now you have 2 versions and you have asked us to choose. What I have done is combine the two. I really don't like being referred to as a, "SMALL" group. Other than that, either letter should get the point across. Here is my suggestion below; a combined edification of your two proposed letters. Keith _____________________________ Dear Mrs. Harty, We would all like to personally thank you for the outstanding job you have done so far to help clear up the backlog in the issuance of family based and fiancée visas. But, as you and many of us are aware, there is still a major problem with lost, misplaced, or just not completed name checks for many of the July and August interviewees. Consequently, we are asking for your personal intervention to institute a provisional exception to the standard process of resubmitting after the 90-day waiting period. The entire August group has already waited over 150-180 days for a name check clearance. A very recent response from the consulate in Guangzhou for one of the August intervieweer's seems to imply that July and August interviewees should expect at least another 90-day wait. Since current interviewees are receiving visas the same day or next day, we should not be asked to wait another 90-days as implied in the letter quoted below. We are asking you personally, to please contact the appropriate office or offices to find these cases and have them expedited. We are also requesting a specific response to this matter including actions that will be taken to correct this inequity. Recent letter from Guangzhou: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxcopy of letter herexxxxxxxxxxx. Regards, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Immigrant Visa Unit U.S. Consulate General Guangzhou Please help with the following list of August interviewees Sincerly the list

Looks fine, Mark. But I did notice 2 spelling errors. "implied" "response"

Good eye "formally" is correct.

Yes Mark, this letter looks good: brief, to the point, and asking for specific action! I have emailed to you our info to add to this letter.

August 8 interview. Received prompt (3-day) email reply from GZ. Same old tired answer....."security not cleared, will notify you when...."

Jerry I was in a similar but different situation, having quit my job and gone into business for myself when I met my fiancé. My self-employment income was not verifiable to be sufficient to meet the minimum poverty requirement. So as far as the I-134, I was in the same situation as you. You will file the I-134 and list your parents as co-sponsors. You will send your own financial papers along with those of your parents. You just have your parents notarize their financial papers, bank statements, work verification, assest, etc. Send these in along with your I-134. Be sure to list the co-sponsor material on the cover sheet .