Responding to RFE with Attorney Explanation Letter

[Eric The Wait 40]

Hello:

I sending an RFE response on Monday Sept 14th. I have three practical questions.

1. I am enclosing a Japanese divorce notification document regarding my fiancé PLUS a Japanese Lawyer's letter explaining the divorce documentation is valid proof of divorce in Japan. The Japanese lawyer's letter is in English and he made an English letterhead so no translation would be required. BUT, I do NOT want USCIS to think that this lawyer from Japan represents us for purposes of the I-129f. We want USCIS to respond to me, and not the Japanese lawyer who provided the letter of explanation. Any suggested language on how to explain to USCIS that the Japanese lawyer is providing an opinion only regarding the documentation and is not representing us before the USCIS. We have NOT had any attorney for this process.


2. (Somewhat related to number 1.) On the RFE papers from USCIS we are supposed to put a certain page on top which asks us to check a box regarding a G-28 form. There are two choices: 1. Yes there is new G-28. 2. No, there is not a new G-28. The G-28 form is for Notice of Appearance of an Attorney. I never had any attorney file any Appearance for us before the USCIS. Should I check the box that says: "No, there is not a new G-28" or should I leave this blank?

3. I have to send this RFE response to a P.O.Box in Texas. I want to track it, be able to prove they received it, and I also want to get it there as quickly as possible. I know a certified letter can't go to a PO Box because there is no one to sign for it. Any suggestions on best way to mail an RFE response so I can track it, prove they received it AND get it there quickly.

I really appreciate any suggestions.

Eric

Edited September 12, 2015 by ericapplebaum

[Shauneg 762]

You have to have a translation, you don't get to the option to have a lawyer explain it like you wrote.

[Eric The Wait 40]

You have to have a translation, you don't get to the option to have a lawyer explain it like you wrote.

Thank you for your response. Yes, I have a complete translation. However, other people with Japanese fiancés who received a so called Kyogi Rikon (Mutual Consent) divorce and who then applied for a K1 visa have recommended (and they have submitted) an attorney's letter of explanation. The reason for this is because Mutual Consent divorces are NOT done in Court. 90% of all Japanese divorces are done by Mutual Consent which is accomplished solely through the appropriate Municipal Office and the Divorce Certificate is issued by the Mayor's office. There is no Court Decree for these types of divorces. I have been told that USCIS recognizes these divorces but all the people on this forum in a similar situation that I could find enclosed a letter of explanation along with the Japanese document and the translation.

To Repeat: I am enclosing the original document, a certified translation, as well as the attorney's letter.

With respect to my specific three questions, does anyone have any thoughts?

Thank you.

Eric

[Shauneg 762]

Thank you for your response. Yes, I have a complete translation. However, other people with Japanese fiancés who received a so called Kyogi Rikon (Mutual Consent) divorce and who then applied for a K1 visa have recommended (and they have submitted) an attorney's letter of explanation. The reason for this is because Mutual Consent divorces are NOT done in Court. 90% of all Japanese divorces are done by Mutual Consent which is accomplished solely through the appropriate Municipal Office and the Divorce Certificate is issued by the Mayor's office. There is no Court Decree for these types of divorces. I have been told that USCIS recognizes these divorces but all the people on this forum in a similar situation that I could find enclosed a letter of explanation along with the Japanese document and the translation.

To Repeat: I am enclosing the original document, a certified translation, as well as the attorney's letter.

With respect to my specific three questions, does anyone have any thoughts?

Thank you.

Eric

I just misunderstood what document you were talking about didn't need a translation.