From what I read they posted a notice in the Federal Register on May 26, 2006 requesting emergency review by OMB for the revisions to the form I-129F. They gave a 60 public comment period followed by a 30 day review of comments period.

So, included with the 4 subjects is the new draft of the I-129F and information about the paperwork reduction act.

Well, I conclude that the I-129F draft was posted on 6/1/2006 for 60 public comment to be followed by the 30 day review period. This could potentialy mean a 90 day delay from yesterday.

Oh right!!! i forgot to add to spec of info from my talk with the USCIS rep from this morning.

She said that the status on their online website would change once they have received my petition back from the embassy abroad....so keep checking, for those whose petitions have been recalled

A response i just got from Rick Santorum

Dear Ms. R.....

Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciate hearing
from you and having the benefit of your views.
As you may know, the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act of 2006, on May 25, 2006. I voted against this legislation because I do not
believe this is the right way to reform our immigration system.
As the son of an Italian immigrant who came to the United States in 1930, I
understand the important and valuable contributions legal immigrants have made
and continue to make to our country. I have great respect for those who have
legally come to our nation seeking a better life for their families.
However, I firmly believe that the safety and security of our country must be
our first priority. Who is traveling across our borders and why they are doing
so is as important as any issue we currently face. It is a complicated issue
with far reaching implications that will impact our national security, our
economy, and our culture.

Securing our border is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. An
immigration policy that does not control who is entering our nation is not an
immigration policy at all. The best way to do this is by strengthening and
supporting our Border Patrol, both through greater numbers and technological
advancements. To this end, I cosponsored and voted for a successful amendment
introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that authorizes the Department of
Homeland Security to construct 370 miles of triple-layer fence and 500 miles of
vehicle barriers at strategic locations along our southern border.

I also cosponsored an amendment offered by John Ensign of Nevada that provides
reimbursement for the temporary use of the National Guard to secure the borders
of the United States. With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the
governor of any state may order the use of the National Guard to provide
"command, control and continuity of support" such as ground and airborne
reconnaissance, logistical, tactical and administrative support, communications
services and emergency medical services. I was pleased to see both of these
amendments pass as they are solid first steps towards border security.

However, the main reason that I voted against S. 2611 is that this bill gives
amnesty to the immigrants who came to this country illegally. I believe those
who have entered this country illegally must return to their native land and
move through the legal process just like everyone else. The idea that those who
have been here illegally for an arbitrary number of years should be able to stay
in America simply by paying back taxes is an insult to all those who have waited
patiently and lawfully for their chance to come here and pursue the American
dream.

There were many opportunities to improve this legislation throughout Senate
debate, and I was disappointed that the majority of my colleagues did not truly
hear the call of their constituents to oppose amnesty. I cannot support an
amnesty proposal now because amnesty has failed in the past. In 1986, Congress
attempted to address this same issue, though on a much smaller scale. Estimates
of the size of the illegal-immigrant population in the U.S. in 1986 placed the
total number close to 1 million; today we are dealing with around 12 million.
Providing amnesty to one million illegal immigrants yielded 12 million over the
course of 20 years. Amnesty simply fails the test of history.

S. 2611 also threatens the health of our nation's social safety net-Social
Security-by adding millions of new beneficiaries to an already burdened program.
I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign that would have
prevented illegal immigrants from getting Social Security benefits based on
their illegal work history, often with an invalid number. Unfortunately, a
majority of my colleagues voted to kill this amendment. By doing so, the Senate
has rewarded illegal immigrants by putting our current elderly beneficiaries,
who paid into the Social Security system for decades in order to collect the
benefits they receive today, further at risk in an already stretched system.

America is a nation of immigrants, a nation that derives much of our strength
from those who come here to live the American Dream. However, the immigrants
who have contributed so much to the character of our nation came here legally.
We devalue their sacrifices and hardships if we fail to ask the same of today's
immigrants. I will continue to oppose any legislation that provides amnesty for
illegal immigrants.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or
any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.

Sincerely,

Rick Santorum
United States Senate


This e-mail, a copy of which has been archived in the United States Senate, is
an official Senate communication intended for the individual or entity named
above. Any improper alteration or fraudulent misuse of the contents of this
e-mail may constitute a violation of federal law (18 USC 1030; 18 USC 2511; 18
USC 2701), and/or state laws governing defamation and misattribution. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please notify us that the
message was received in error and then delete it.

Can someone clarify this 60 and 30 day thing for me? I'm a bit confused by all these dates. Does the expiration date on the draft of the revised 1-129f mean that after that date, comments and input are done with?

According to the OMB - OIRA page the current I-129F form is approved until :

OMB NO: 1615-0001 EXPIRATION DATE: 06/30/2006
RESPS:200,000 HOURS:100,000 COSTS(000):$1,900
Petition for Alien Fiance(e)
FORMS: I-129F


And if you look it isn't reviewed in the past 30 days or pending...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/library/OMBI...HS.HUD.html#DHS

And btw I dont know if anyone read that, but someone already mentioned for the pending petitions(cases) they(USCIS or NBC) will do the background check. And as far as I know they just need you to obtain any police record or evidence if your(USC) name is registered at the FBI....They are working together with the FBI so I believe that there is no RFE or new Petition or whatever unless you have some records in your past.

We all need to calm down a little. There is not much we can do and I know waiting sucks. But honestly a delay of 1 month is ok. (BTW what was that delay related to? to the new petition? Then its clear. Since it expires at the end of june...if not yeaaahhhh some news ...what was supoosed to happen on June 6th?)

And btw I dont know if anyone read that, but someone already mentioned for the pending petitions(cases) they(USCIS or NBC) will do the background check. And as far as I know they just need you to obtain any police record or evidence if your(USC) name is registered at the FBI....They are working together with the FBI so I believe that there is no RFE or new Petition or whatever unless you have some records in your past.

(BTW what was that delay related to? to the new petition?

ummmmmmmmm Isabel, you obviously havent been following things. The delay is not due to the new I-129F.....it is due to the IMBRA.

Approved petitions that even had interviews scheduled were recalled because of IMBRA as they dont conform to the requirements of the act. There will be an RFE of some description or this has been a pretty pointless excercise on the part of USCIS I think you need to read a little more

Edited to add......forms with an expired date are often still used. Emergency reviews are not a regular occurence and this was clearly done because of IMBRA

Ah well I was reading the whole tread since it has been started . I do know that there is a delay because of IMBRA. Maybe I did not find the right words to say that :s. Sorry for that. Im still wondering what this emergency review means? Any ideas? 180 days? Seems alot though are they approving petition then during these 180 days?

Lg Isabel

30-day notice of I-129F

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/pra/index.htm

Scroll down and you´ll see it.

If you have filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any timein the past or previously had a K-1 visa petition approvedwithin two years prior to the filing of this petition, youmust apply for a waiver. To request a waiver you mustsubmit a written request with this petition accompanied bydocumentation of your claim to the waiver.

I just wanted to say that I decided to look up my case today for the heck of it. I was 'touched' today again. 3 days in a row!

yep you see they are working hard.

I also see that some peeps are saying something about biometrics? I hope not. The nearest office is 2 hours away for me.

This is strange. I think this must be some error. The law requries a background check, not the FBI fingerprint check. Just sharing background records already there, with the beneficiary...

Bel that is what the entire law is about. Imbra is set up to protect the beneficiary from the United States citizen (petitioner). They are requiring a criminal history ie. background check on the petitioner which will become available to the beneficiary so that they are made aware of any potential of the petitioner to harm them. It discloses whether they have a criminal history involving abuses and such. This information is passed along to the beneficiary so they can decide on whether to go ahead with their engagement and subsequent move to the United States. It's to protect the foreign beneficiary.
At least this is what I have gained from reading all of this. I could be wrong.

I still dont get what they expect the *already* spouse to do if they find out about a criminal background of the husband?????
Divorce? Or what? I dont think that makes sense at all???
I understand the USC backgroundcheck (as long as the (to be protected) benificiary is a fiance(e))

Am I the only one who is wondering about that?

Lg Bel

DON'T WORRY

It's old news - it's already expired. The hearing was March 20.

I am sure this is coming to an end, let´s just be patient folks, you´re all getting yourselves confused again.

Are you sure? She said she got this today, and it says they "just heard from this judge decision".
I´m panicking because the new form is almost there... and I just thought it would stop the whole thing, right when it seems to be working again.

I think it's just a matter of numbers -- 11 million people can demand virtually whatever they want, even if they're here illegally. That's 11 million people who probably have family members and friends and supporters and sympathizers who are USCs who will vote and influence elections. I don't know how many people apply for the K-1 every year, but it's probably a much smaller group than 11 million people -- and so, we matter less to most politicians. This is complete crap. Also, they probably figure that if we're going through all this trouble in the first place, we'll take whatever new laws and restrictions they throw out and continue to wait and follow everything to the letter.

It's funny because this new law probably is really a "good thing" because it aims to protect foreign women from abuse and I bet most people would be in support of it, but the way they're going about enforcing it is SO ridiculous and heartbreaking and it does seem like they're punishing people.