Fianc?e) I-129F Petitions Recalled by DHS

[david_dawei]

ok Now i am confused, The nebraska service center recieved my 129f on the 2nd of may. Now my visa is denied ???????????

218102[/snapback]

Your I-129F petition is at NSC... it will probably take a little longer to approve this first step [relative to those submitting a few months ago] based on the new requirements spelled out in the telegram..

 

After approval, it will go to NVC (National Visa Center) and then to Guangzhou (GUZ) , where the visa interview/approval occurs.

[C4Racer]

[

217514[/snapback]

As I understand it, the purpose of this law is to protect foreign nationals from US citizen sexual predators.    Other than something general like, "Obey the laws of countries you visit", financial restrictions, or something that only applies to military personnel, can anyone think of another case like this where our government requires specific actions by US citizens solely for the benefit of people living in other countries?

217735[/snapback]

The law was not enacted to catch sexual predators , though they were added to the list as all criminal activity. It is a side benefit.

This law was push for by Washington State Senators and Congressman in response to something that occured about five years ago in Seattle. I remember it well, because at the time I was dating a lady from Ukraine. The man had brought his fiancee to Seattle from Russia. She started sleeping around soon after she arrived. It turns out she was a scammer, but this was not caught through the visa process. I think it should as she was something like 20 and he was 42, if I remeber correct. Anyway, he got really pissed off and murdered her. Soon afterwards, they started talking about coming up with the Marriage Brokers Law.

The way the US Government views it and I think most governments agree is that murder goes beyond national boundaries. So, yes it is designed to protect a foreign citizen, but at the same time protect national interests abroad.

Edited May 25, 2006 by C4Racer (see edit history)

[Peachy]

Why, oh why, are innocent people being punished for the bureaucracy's error?

217973[/snapback]

This is the Department of Homeland Security at work again, that same poorly conceived and organized department with the inept and incompetent management that demonstrated their efficiency and effectiveness with the Katrina debacle. And if anyone wants another example of their management skills, take a look the efficient and timely operation of their California Service Center.

 

Many innocent people in New Orleans met their deaths because of DHS's incompetence. The worst "punishment" we are facing is only a delay. We should consider ourselves lucky!

218002[/snapback]

Whaaa?!? Are you telling us all that you HAVEN'T gotten your duct tape and plastic wrap ready in the event of a biological attack as they recommended we do?

 

Tsk, Tsk... For shame. B)

[IluvmyLi]

Why, oh why, are innocent people being punished for the bureaucracy's error?

217973[/snapback]

This is the Department of Homeland Security at work again, that same poorly conceived and organized department with the inept and incompetent management that demonstrated their efficiency and effectiveness with the Katrina debacle. And if anyone wants another example of their management skills, take a look the efficient and timely operation of their California Service Center.

 

Many innocent people in New Orleans met their deaths because of DHS's incompetence. The worst "punishment" we are facing is only a delay. We should consider ourselves lucky!

218002[/snapback]

Apples and Oranges!

[mercator]

So what about the dates that met the deadline? You suppose they will process faster or slower? If it turns into a " Hole " , please no, there will be a gap in the process possibly. Will GUZ speed up or slow down? Strive for a small break, or make the current material last?

 

It is a bummer to wait, but I will wait as long as it takes. Hahaha ..... No Choice I suppose.

217588[/snapback]

Logic would tell me that things should speed up due to less petitions in GUZ, but I don't know how logical they are over there...

217591[/snapback]

I was thinking that too. The delay would mean a small lull in the constant flow of applications, since K-1/2's aren't in the mix for a small bit. Maybe not enough to catch them up, but maybe enough to provide a brief speed up?

 

I am actually pretty confident that they are going as fast as they can, constrained as they are by lack of manpower and huge volume...

 

It'd be nice to be a fly on the wall sometimes in the VO breakroom, eh? Don't you just wonder what they think of the changes as time has gone by?

Edited May 26, 2006 by mercator (see edit history)

[LeeFisher3]

A friend just had their K-1 case sent from NVC to GZ, they had an approval date of March 8. I'm wondering if his 11 week Administrative hold process is somehow related to the USCIS setting up their procedures.

[MikeandRong]

A friend just had their K-1 case sent from NVC to GZ, they had an approval date of March 8. I'm wondering if his 11 week Administrative hold process is somehow related to the USCIS setting up their procedures.

218433[/snapback]

Did your friend happen to mention is he was asked for any additional paperwork/information, (by USCIS) in regards to the IMBR

 

 

Edit: Bad question, sorry. His NOA1 was well before the deadline.

Edited May 26, 2006 by MikeandRong (see edit history)

[LeeFisher3]

A friend just had their K-1 case sent from NVC to GZ, they had an approval date of March 8. I'm wondering if his 11 week Administrative hold process is somehow related to the USCIS setting up their procedures.

218433[/snapback]

Did your friend happen to mention is he was asked for any additional paperwork/information, (by USCIS) in regards to the IMBR

 

 

Edit: Bad question, sorry. His NOA1 was well before the deadline.

218436[/snapback]

While he wasn't ask for evidence, his approval was after the requirement went into affect. I would bet there was some degree of background check performed on him, more as a CYA or it could have been it was being held up awaiting clarification of the new legislation.

[Guest pushbrk]

A friend just had their K-1 case sent from NVC to GZ, they had an approval date of March 8. I'm wondering if his 11 week Administrative hold process is somehow related to the USCIS setting up their procedures.

218433[/snapback]

Did your friend happen to mention is he was asked for any additional paperwork/information, (by USCIS) in regards to the IMBR

 

 

Edit: Bad question, sorry. His NOA1 was well before the deadline.

218436[/snapback]

While he wasn't ask for evidence, his approval was after the requirement went into affect. I would bet there was some degree of background check performed on him, more as a CYA or it could have been it was being held up awaiting clarification of the new legislation.

218444[/snapback]

I bet there wasn't. The law does not apply to him. It is NOT THE APPROVAL DATE that determines whether the law applies. It is the "PRIORITY DATE" which can be before but NOT LATER THAN the NOA1 Date.

[LeeFisher3]

A friend just had their K-1 case sent from NVC to GZ, they had an approval date of March 8. I'm wondering if his 11 week Administrative hold process is somehow related to the USCIS setting up their procedures.

218433[/snapback]

Did your friend happen to mention is he was asked for any additional paperwork/information, (by USCIS) in regards to the IMBR

 

 

Edit: Bad question, sorry. His NOA1 was well before the deadline.

218436[/snapback]

While he wasn't ask for evidence, his approval was after the requirement went into affect. I would bet there was some degree of background check performed on him, more as a CYA or it could have been it was being held up awaiting clarification of the new legislation.

218444[/snapback]

I bet there wasn't. The law does not apply to him. It is NOT THE APPROVAL DATE that determines whether the law applies. It is the "PRIORITY DATE" which can be before but NOT LATER THAN the NOA1 Date.

218461[/snapback]

IMHO you've got way too much faith in the USCIS thinking that they would read clearly understand which petitions that were to be held or returned. It has very little to do with the instructions that were initially given and everything to do with the understanding of the instructions that were given and the clarification of the questions that followed.

 

My experience with our bureaucracy has been that when in doubt do nothing because it is always easier to claim you didn't understand something and request clarification after a memo has come down from above.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[Guest pushbrk]

A friend just had their K-1 case sent from NVC to GZ, they had an approval date of March 8. I'm wondering if his 11 week Administrative hold process is somehow related to the USCIS setting up their procedures.

218433[/snapback]

Did your friend happen to mention is he was asked for any additional paperwork/information, (by USCIS) in regards to the IMBR

 

 

Edit: Bad question, sorry. His NOA1 was well before the deadline.

218436[/snapback]

While he wasn't ask for evidence, his approval was after the requirement went into affect. I would bet there was some degree of background check performed on him, more as a CYA or it could have been it was being held up awaiting clarification of the new legislation.

218444[/snapback]

I bet there wasn't. The law does not apply to him. It is NOT THE APPROVAL DATE that determines whether the law applies. It is the "PRIORITY DATE" which can be before but NOT LATER THAN the NOA1 Date.

218461[/snapback]

IMHO you've got way too much faith in the USCIS thinking that they would read clearly understand which petitions that were to be held or returned. It has very little to do with the instructions that were initially given and everything to do with the understanding of the instructions that were given and the clarification of the questions that followed.

 

My experience with our bureaucracy has been that when in doubt do nothing because it is always easier to claim you didn't understand something and request clarification after a memo has come down from above.

 

But that's just my opinion.

218571[/snapback]

I was thinking more in terms of a bet than an argument but I also didn't want anybody to be confused by this, your second reference to "approval date" in this thread. I would prefer to have fewer rather than more people panic as a result of reading about this issue.

 

As for the logic, it appears that the USCIS was so on autopilot that they didn't change anything they were doing until weeks after the deadline. I doubt anybody changed the way they did anything until somebody came and grabbed their hand and stopped their habitual task oriented butts from doing business as usual.

 

They sure as heck didn't arbitrarily go out and initiate any security checks that weren't routine. Since those are initiated by DOS instead of USCIS, I can't imagine they figured out some procedure to do them without realizing they needed to address the new law in more ways than that.

 

Of course, strange things happen.

[MikeandRong]

Somebody at Nebraska looked at me today, I just logged on and saw this on my profile. No email received, but that's ok for now. I am just glad to see that I was handled in some way at this point of time.

 

* Note on "Last Updated" date:

Your case may have a new "Last Updated" date and you may receive an Email Notification of your case being updated, without the status of the case changing. This is due to internal USCIS processing being performed on your Case. This will be reflected in the "Last Updated" date, but may not result in a different status message.