Having filed what I considered a straight-forward I-129F in mid-July, and following the timelines here, I was expecting a notice in my mail box.
Yesterday's correspondence from the California Service Center, however, was a minor shock.
The 'Notice of Intent to Deny', (NOID) references the IMBRA, claiming I have not met its requirements to establish eligibility for my requested immigration benefit.
As I understand it, there are three parts to this act:
1) Criminal acts. (Part C, #2) No problem in any way with this question, thus checked 'no'.
2) Previous filings of I-129F for alien fiance (Part A, #11) I checked 'yes' and included a supplemental attachment, explaining:
My ONE previous filing was in 1999, resulting in a six-year marriage, terminated in 2006, at my wife's request, who expressed a desire to return to her native Japan,
in an uncontested no-fault divorce. I also mentioned I had lost contact with her for a couple of months but understood her intent was not to return to the USA, thus
forfetiting her green card. (One month after filing, however, and 364 days after she left the country (12 hours before her Green Card would have been confiscated at
a POE), she appeared on my front porch. Before inviting her in, I explained my current situation. Five months later, she occupies a spare bedroom, we are friends
only, providing assistance to each other as we prepare for our new lives apart. I mention all of this, which friends and family all think is a crazy arrangement, though we
are very clear, but she has established a mailing address at my residence and my fiancee is unaware of this situation as there is no way she could understand it).
At any rate, this is ONE previous K-1 filing from over eight years ago. The NOID mentions IMBRA requirements imposing limitations on the number of K-1 petitions which
may be filed without seeking a waiver. It claims I have had TWO or more petitions in the past or had a petition approved within two years and thus must apply for a
waiver.
This stipulation is the only condition of the IMBRA quoted from the NOID applying to my case. The third condition, however:
3) 'Did you meet through the services of an international marriage broker'? (Part B, #19) I checked 'no'. Though not ashamed to admit we met through a dating web site
(ThaiLoveLinks, headquartered in Australia with an office in England, which operates like most such sites I suppose, someone must buy a membership (and it was me for
$30) to receive email, which then quickly bypasses the site), which I felt is differentiated from a "mail order bride" marriage broker definition.
On the application, however, the preceeding question (#18, 'Have you met in the two-year period before the filing?') I checked 'yes', providing exhaustive documentation,
as suggested here, on our first two month-long encounters. I skirted, however, the prompt to this question, "Describe the circumstances under which you met" by not
making any allusions to the circumstances.
Again, no mention in the NOID makes reference to this condition.
My questions, therefore, are:
a) Is this all a bureaucratic formality, or is my petition in jeopardy? Why did I receive a NOID, which sounds more foreboding than a simple RFE, and also requires my
response in 15 days from my receipt of notice (which took 12 days to arrive), rather than 90 days for an RFE?
b. Am I misunderstanding the limitations on number of previous K-1 visa applications? Again, this is my second filing ever, the first from 1999.
c) Though the NOID makes no mention of a possible meeting through a 'international marriage broker', should I address in my waiver more detail of our initial meeting?
d) Is it possible that this snafu is an administrative error, the result of a backlog of applications resulting from an increase in fees in July, coinciding with wages reduced
for USCIS contract case workers, an overworked and unhappy lot with a high turnover rate, making the first touch of applications?
e) I am optimistic this will be resolved through the waiver I intend to submit in days but, even so, will this result in a delay of months my petition being ultimately
approved? Will my case go to the bottom of the heap again or am I on track?
f) I understand, at this juncture, the petition judges only my worthiness and eligibility. I have no doubts about my fiancee demonstrating her merits and stability later
in an embassy interview. However, assuming she is from a country with a higher incidence of visa fraud (Thailand, for instance), is my petition being subjected
prejudicially?
Thank you for any valued input to any of my concerns and continued happiness.
