Please help: I-130 approved super-fast! But what about my I-129F?

[ryandgracey 2]

Our I-130 was approved fast too (21 days, dated Aug 18, hard copy Aug 25) and we had not even filed the I-129F yet. Yes, we also wanted a K3. YEs, we have seen the timelines of the CR1/CR2. But, considering that our NOA2 came in fast, it could be presumed that the entire process at the NVC would be fast too. My husband called the NVC today and we already have a case number I would think that being that meticulous with our documentation could've been key. Hopefully, it works for the NVC process too.

[archie07 0]

My K3 petition was sent to the foriegn embassy by nvc and my wife already had her visa interview appointment when I received the I864 fee bill for the I 130. I ignored the I130. We adjusted status from the K3 petition and my wife received her green card. Almost two years later I receive a letter from the nvc asking what I want to do with the I130. I checked the box saying we adjusted status from another petition and sent a copy of the green card. NVC sent me a letter back saying thier records indicate my wife adjusted status or is a citizen and they are returning the I130 to the USCIS. Next the USCIS sends me a letter saying they received the petitiion back from nvc with a request they review it. I'm curious to know if this has happened to anyone that went the K3 route? I thought the I 130 is put into record storage.. ??? Perhaps Pushbrk you may know???

Sounds like a simple error to me. Just remind USCIS the beneficiary already has LPR status.

Thanks Pushbrk, that's what we thought too. We sent them a copy of the green card along with the form we filled out for the NVC.

[Ling Ling 22]

I haven't said that and there are potential reasons I can think of, why the K3 is a better path. I already mentioned one. What are your reasons? Knowing them might change my recommendation.

I agree that you haven't, but several others have.

Here is an example of how CR-1 is less optimal for me than K-3, aside from the processing time:

I work as a contract software engineer at a major U.S. company. Due to a contract stipulation that is unique to this company and state, I can only work for one year at a time, and then I must take a mandatory break (during which I cannot work for any competing companies). It just so happens that I am on my required break right now. That would be fine, and no problem, since I am quite used to this cycle for the past 8 years.

However, here is how it impacts my CR-1/K-3 situation:

As far as I can see, the CR-1 process appears to require all employment documents at the front end (i.e., now), which is very inconvenient, as I am not permitted to work now.

In contrast, the K-3 process appears to require all employment documents at the back end (i.e., several months from now), which would be optimal, as I will be back at work then.

So, if I want to follow the CR-1 track, it appears that I will have to immediately locate a new job that does not compete with my usual long-term employer.

So, that is just one example of why CR-1 is much less optimal for me than K-3, aside from any considerations of processing time.

Here's how I see your scenario. You're giving too much weight on your work cycle and not enough on your income and assets.

If you really don't think you can get approved with your income and assets, then find a co-sponsor that can. Seriously, from your situation, if you can't put together a strong I-864 now, then your I-134 would probably be weak as well, and eventually you would still have to submit an I-864.

Based on your logic of only wanting to disclose your support capability when your work cycle is on the up-swing, what would happen if you got a K-3 and when you were trying to do the Adjustment of Status to CR-1 your work cycle was on the down-swing? Would you then just abandon the process?

They may be a government agency, but they're not completely stupid. They can figure out that someone who is paid $100 per month, makes the same as someone who is paid $200 every other month...or in your case X dollars every other year.

They don't care how you're paid, as long as you can prove that your annual income (or averaged annual income) is 125% of the poverty guideline.

That's why they sometimes ask for 3 years of tax returns (or transcripts).

If you have tax returns for the last 8 years that show this cycle, and a letter from your employer stating the compulsory stop-work-cycle,

as well as stating that you will be coming back to work in a few months at X compensation, that should prove that you are capable of

supporting your spouse.

Echoing what others have said, you are VERY lucky to be approved to apply for a CR-1 in only 30 days. MANY others have been waiting a year or more.

If speed is what you want, then moving forward with the CR-1 is the way to go. NVC can be extremely fast if you use the shortcuts.

It's been almost TOO fast for us. We only entered NVC on Aug. 18th and we're nearly done.

If we had the police clearance certificate, our case would most likely complete next week...that's less than 30 days.

It's not because we did anything special except listen to the advice of people on this forum and use the proven shortcuts from members of this community.

When we were approved so fast, at first we felt shame for being processed ahead of others, but we realize it is a random process, no reason to feel shame or pride for something we could not control. Understand that you have been given some very special gifts (the love of your spouse & a fast approval). There are so many people that wish they had your problems. But you don't have any problems, only opportunities....it's a matter of perspective. It will be a shame if you don't take advantage of your opportunity when so many others are still waiting.

Good Luck

[filirican 3]

wow! good luck! i think its still better to follow the I 130 cheaper! and no more hassle...

[Thai family 0]

I would think that being that meticulous with our documentation could've been key. Hopefully, it works for the NVC process too.

Sorry. It's random. It is good to meticulous, though.