Packet 3 back in the post

[TimsDaisy 0]

I was not patronizing you. I was patronizing devilette a bit since she jumped on your bandwagon looking for a fight, rather than to continue to exchange information as you and I had been doing. No offense toward you was intended.

I do not think it was a fluke, nor do I think I got lucky.

I have called them multiple times since NVC said they mailed the petition. Each time, I've received the same level of friendly service (kicks the pants of USCIS in terms of friendliness AND information).

I just looked up the state dept website too: http://travel.state.gov/about/info/how/how_308.html

VISA SERVICES

For information related to inquiries about visa cases and the application process, call 202-663-1225. For information about immigrant visa cut-off dates, call 202-663-1541. For inquiries about J waiver status, fax 202-663-3899 or use the J Waiver Status Check website. For immigrant visa inquiries, call the National Visa Center at 603-334-0700 or email NVCINQUIRY@state.gov. The Visa Office's e-mail box for quick, general information is: mailto:usvisa@state.gov To reach the Kentucky Consular Center, call 606-526-7500.

It is most definitely an available resource. And not completely unknown here on VJ since this is where I got the tip. In this subforum too.

[Dwarf_Ogress 0]

Congrats Daisy! You are well on your way and almost there!

[TracyTN 237]

FWIW, I called the same number as Daisy to find out that our case was already in London's system. It helped me cool my jets a bit in waiting for packet 3. Actually, I think I'm the one who gave Daisy the phone number. Don't remember exactly where I got it, but I know it was from a poster here on VJ. I think it may have been in a thread in the NVC forum about something totally unrelated.

If I used it and wasn't supposed to (since I'm not going for a J visa or an immigrant visa), then I apologize. But I remember that the guy on the other end of the phone asked me what type of visa it was and I said fiance. If its not for K1ers, then he would have been well within his rights to tell me that he couldn't give me any information.

I certainly didn't mean to 'start' anything. I thought I should say it was me that told Daisy (though I appreciate her not naming me directly).

*edited after reading RJ's post*

Edited May 29, 2007 by TracyTN

[rebeccajo 14]

Daisy, thanks for posting the link.

I notice it refers specifically to immigrant visas and J's.

The past position of DOS has been a hand-off of the non-immigrant visas to the consulates. Immigrant visas are treated a bit differently and I believe that is what this phone line is for.

I really do think someone gave out information they aren't supposed to. Why? A couple of reasons.

During the time I've been on this board, various other means of accessing information about the visa during consular processing have floated on this board. Did they work? Yes - for a while. I myself attempted to email a different address at the London consulate that gave out information for a few days. By the time the info floated downstream on VJ, the leak had been killed.

Secondly, even with updates in technology, I really can't see consulates standing for a stateside DOS clerk dispensing visa information so they can be hassled by USC non-immigrant visa petitioners. The consulate isn't dealing with the USC petitioner - they are dealing with the visa applicant themself. If that policy had changed, you would be getting mail from London. But that's not happening - they send it to your fiance - the visa applicant. It's his visa and his interview and that's how they see it.

I just tried an experiment and I'm going to try it again tomorrow during regular business hours. I tried dialing the number. It's too late in the day for me to make headway with the 1,0,0 combination. But I did follow through with the other prompts and I got the same rhetoric I've heard for nearly three years - the consulate will be dealing with your fiance, you shouldn't plan your wedding until the visa is issued, blah blah blah.

I'm going to try it again tomorrow and see what I come up with. Granted I don't have an current LND number to play with - but I'm resourceful.

I'll let you know what happens.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Okay, let us know.

A small correction, however. A number besides the one I listed here is offered for immigrant and other visas. There are a few sentences worth of information for various situations and for different sorts of information sought. ("For information related to inquiries about visa cases and the application process, call 202-663-1225.")

I'm still not exactly sure why this has turned into a discussion over the validity of the number, though, and getting less sure as the conversation continues.

So far, there are 3 of us that have posted that the 202 number works a treat. And I think I read it somewhere else before Tracy would've even pointed it out to me.

So long as the person calling as the case number and the beneficiary's name and DOB, I'm not sure why it wouldn't follow that the information would be forthcoming. Just like at the NVC stage when we call NVC for updates.

The K1 one, while a non-immigrant visa (hence the 90 day clock, the certain forms and procedures) is still a hybrid in the way it is treated. London filers stand in the immigrant visa line, right? The short one? That's what I've seen reported here. So I'm not sure the non vs. immigrant distinction weighs on one side or the other.

Lastly, and this is a non-factual argument, what is served by experimenting at all. Now I'm going to be completely hypothetical because I don't believe there was a fluke in the system, but say there is. Say your theory holds true and they shouldn't be giving out info. Your call gets through to a really procedure-wonk who is now alerted to an blip in the system. Supervisors are called. Memos are issued. An otherwise fine, reliable resources is shut down.

That helps what how?

I don't think that's the case. I think the number is good and I think it is available for these sorts of inquiries on the status of forms, etc.

To wit: a post from BuxtonBabe regarding calling to sort out the interview time: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...1&hl=buxton

I can't say for certain anymore, but I think I read in another BB post or via some PMs between us about the number and the process. Search isn't getting me to it anymore.

At any rate - I'm just slack-jawed at how this is a big deal or something to be debunked in anyway. People can invest in the phone call or they can choose to email or to wait or to call the Scotland hotline at 1.20/min.

[robburnsefc 0]

Okay, let us know.

A small correction, however. A number besides the one I listed here is offered for immigrant and other visas. There are a few sentences worth of information for various situations and for different sorts of information sought. ("For information related to inquiries about visa cases and the application process, call 202-663-1225.")

I'm still not exactly sure why this has turned into a discussion over the validity of the number, though, and getting less sure as the conversation continues.

So far, there are 3 of us that have posted that the 202 number works a treat. And I think I read it somewhere else before Tracy would've even pointed it out to me.

So long as the person calling as the case number and the beneficiary's name and DOB, I'm not sure why it wouldn't follow that the information would be forthcoming. Just like at the NVC stage when we call NVC for updates.

The K1 one, while a non-immigrant visa (hence the 90 day clock, the certain forms and procedures) is still a hybrid in the way it is treated. London filers stand in the immigrant visa line, right? The short one? That's what I've seen reported here. So I'm not sure the non vs. immigrant distinction weighs on one side or the other.

Lastly, and this is a non-factual argument, what is served by experimenting at all. Now I'm going to be completely hypothetical because I don't believe there was a fluke in the system, but say there is. Say your theory holds true and they shouldn't be giving out info. Your call gets through to a really procedure-wonk who is now alerted to an blip in the system. Supervisors are called. Memos are issued. An otherwise fine, reliable resources is shut down.

That helps what how?

I don't think that's the case. I think the number is good and I think it is available for these sorts of inquiries on the status of forms, etc.

To wit: a post from BuxtonBabe regarding calling to sort out the interview time: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...1&hl=buxton

I can't say for certain anymore, but I think I read in another BB post or via some PMs between us about the number and the process. Search isn't getting me to it anymore.

At any rate - I'm just slack-jawed at how this is a big deal or something to be debunked in anyway. People can invest in the phone call or they can choose to email or to wait or to call the Scotland hotline at 1.20/min.

Well, I seem to have caught up with you now - my stuff went off today after I received it Saturday (actually I was in California at the time and my parents got it all - and of course some of the paperwork had changed from the ones I had prefilled - like the checklist).

It will be really interesting to see how things progress now - there are a couple of VJers who had interviews in 30 days from returning packet 3, and others much longer. I scheduled the medical for next Thursday. Who knows, maybe I can make the July wedding after all!!!!

Still no NOA2 officially by the way. Not that I care any more - I have that much evidence to go with the I134 and from the original package that I dont think they will even notice.

[rebeccajo 14]

Daisy, I sure hope when Tim gets here you can relax, cause you take a lot of stuff way too seriously.

I'm interested in finding out if this is a new procedure or not - plain and simple, no controversy, no egos. If it is and I can ascertain it for certain, I'm gonna post it up in the Consular Section, blaring it to everybody on the board. And I'm gonna give you and others credit for finding the tip of the iceberg.

With the super-secret cloaking that goes on with DOS/USCIS, I can see that, if indeed this is something 'new' they might not want to put up a Goodyear blimp advertising it. But a message board can.

If it's a fluke and my call happens to cut off the stream of info earlier than later - oh well - I'm not gonna lose sleep over that.

Edited May 29, 2007 by rebeccajo

[TimsDaisy 0]

Other references to the phone number and how it works: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...ost&p=88166

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=920378

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=643055

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=478009 (that one is from 9/26/06)

[TimsDaisy 0]

Daisy, I sure hope when Tim gets here you can relax, cause you take a lot of stuff way too seriously.

I'm interested in finding out if this is a new procedure or not - plain and simple, no controversy, no egos. If it is and I can ascertain it for certain, I'm gonna post it up in the Consular Section, blaring it to everybody on the board. And I'm gonna give you and others credit for finding the tip of the iceberg.

With the super-secret cloaking that goes on with DOS/USCIS, I can see that, if indeed this is something 'new' they might not want to put up a Goodyear blimp advertising it. But a message board can.

If it's a fluke and my call happens to cut off the stream of info earlier than later - oh well - I'm not gonna lose sleep over that.

I did some searching now and found a bunch of references. Feel free to post it wherever. I don't need credit. I didn't find it on my own, I found it from other VJers.

As ever, all I take seriously is preserving the reliability here on VJ. And yes, perhaps when my fiance is here, I will relax. But you'll forgive me if I remain attentive until that happens. I just dislike being made to feel like I don't know what I'm talking about. I wasn't conjecturing on options for another filer. Nor was I even necessarily offering advice - not at first anyway. I was simply relaying information when you expressed surprise at what I had posted.

A few more people imply that I'm silly, however, and . . . . even if that wasn't your intent, that's the implication that I read and it bothers me.

But I hope we can just let go the discussion now. Especially with the evidence from other forums on the site - some from back in 2006 - that confirm that the number is legit, useful, and available.

And since VJ represents such an idddddybidddddy fraction of filers, I don't think we'll drown the office if we remind people how to check on their cases.

[rebeccajo 14]

Hey, hey - white flag already!

Good thread references. I do note the last one was regarding a CR1 immigrant visa.

I'd still like to make the call. And I'm not calling anybody 'wrong' - I have read about this before but as I don't see it being widely used, I previously dismissed it. Now I'm more than mildly curious. In any educated arena, I'm a big enough girl to admit I DON'T know it all.

One thing I'm curious to learn is whether or not this info is being generated by all the consulates, or just some. Doesn't hurt to try and find out, does it?

[Dan&Tiffany 0]

Daisy,

Thanks tremendously for your information and passing on a tip for those of us approaching this stage to utilize - if still available. Just want to let you know that it really is appreciated. Whether it works or not for us - at least we have something else to try. Seems as though trial, error, and waiting makes up a large percentage of this process.

Best of luck on getting the interview scheduled quickly.

[no name 1]

PS - Daisy, I like you but please don't patronize me as being 'out'. It's kind of condescending.

Yeah, no kidding, Daisy we only got approved in October 06. Geez.

[no name 1]

Daisy, I sure hope when Tim gets here you can relax, cause you take a lot of stuff way too seriously.

I'm interested in finding out if this is a new procedure or not - plain and simple, no controversy, no egos. If it is and I can ascertain it for certain, I'm gonna post it up in the Consular Section, blaring it to everybody on the board. And I'm gonna give you and others credit for finding the tip of the iceberg.

With the super-secret cloaking that goes on with DOS/USCIS, I can see that, if indeed this is something 'new' they might not want to put up a Goodyear blimp advertising it. But a message board can.

If it's a fluke and my call happens to cut off the stream of info earlier than later - oh well - I'm not gonna lose sleep over that.

Nice one RJ.

----

Also, as a FYI, from an old timer of late Fall 2006 (a whopping 8 months ago) - I used the embassy's email when I had a question & guess what, it worked! And in only 2 days.

Edited May 30, 2007 by devilette

[homesick_american 1]

Y'all quit.

Devilette, Rebeccajo....it does seem that visa-y things do change a lot over time. The sheets that are being sent out to applicants now are different from the ones we received in 2005-2006, and it does seem that USCIS/DOS/US Embassy - London are constantly changing the rules and moving the goalposts.

Daisy...I know you're a lawyer and you must love to argue...but this isn't one that anyone is going to win.

*ducks back behind the shed*

[TimsDaisy 0]

Daisy, I sure hope when Tim gets here you can relax, cause you take a lot of stuff way too seriously.

I'm interested in finding out if this is a new procedure or not - plain and simple, no controversy, no egos. If it is and I can ascertain it for certain, I'm gonna post it up in the Consular Section, blaring it to everybody on the board. And I'm gonna give you and others credit for finding the tip of the iceberg.

With the super-secret cloaking that goes on with DOS/USCIS, I can see that, if indeed this is something 'new' they might not want to put up a Goodyear blimp advertising it. But a message board can.

If it's a fluke and my call happens to cut off the stream of info earlier than later - oh well - I'm not gonna lose sleep over that.

Nice one RJ.

----

Also, as a FYI, from an old timer of late Fall 2006 - I used the embassy's email when I had a question & guess what, it worked! And in only 2 days.

Rad-freakin' tastic. I used the phone number and it worked. Repeatedly. And in only 2 minutes. Oh wait, once I was on hold for 5.

Devilette - you're coming in mid-stream here and not really helping anything. Rebeccajo and I have talked about the thread and we're both being level-headed about how to proceed with it and to answer anyone's question. There's no high-fiving. I'm not out to "get" rebeccajo. I'm just passin' along the information on the phone number.

Prior to October '06, the phone number worked and was discussed here on VJ, see my linked thread above. Probably prior to that date as well, I just stopped scrolling the hits generated by a google search of VJ specifically.

I'm just not sure why you, particularly, seem to want to scold people for deviating from your preferred method of getting information. Yay, you used email and had no trouble. Someone else uses the phone. How does one hurt the other, exactly?

p.s. I dislike lawyering and most lawyers. I dislike arguing. But I dislike roadblocks to getting out information more. rebeccajo wasn't trying to build one, but we were in disagreement about how to handle this phone number issue. I will always respond when I think that information isn't passing as freely as it could or should. With most arguments here on VJ, you're right HA, no one will ever "win." My frustration in this thread, however, was over the notion that anyone could win or lose. I wasn't arguing an opinion. I was sharing what I did and clearing up the fact that this number exists, it works, I got it from VJ, and no, not crazy! When it comes to facts about whether or not a number exists and it does what the State Dept says it will do, I think there CAN be a certain answer. That's not winning, it's just confirming a fact. There's so much in this process that the government will never give a certain answer on (weight of evidence can depend on an adjudicator's mood, for example). When something is pretty cut and dry, I'd just like to relay the information without the sky falling. But again, I believe rebeccajo and I have ironed things out and that we'll be seeing more people try this number and see what happens.

Edited May 30, 2007 by TimsDaisy