Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Yodrak

  1. devilette,

    You did not get suspended for posting a dictionary definition. I told you why you were suspended in the PM that went to you.

    It is regretable that you were unable to receive the PM until after the suspension was over, should there be a next time I will try the e-mail option for notification.


    I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it's objectionable to point out....

    And I'm still waiting to know why I got a banned for posting a dictionary deifnition but many others have done it no problem.

  2. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it's objectionable to point out that many ex-prostitutes apply for K1 visas in the Philippines, but it's not objectionable to point out that it's not unusual (i.e. there are many instances) for women with boyfriends on the side, some pregnant by those boyfriends, to apply for K1 visas in the Philippines.

    They are equally distasteful states of affairs, in my opinion, yet one seems to touch 'hot buttons' and the other does not.



  3. smoke,

    no, i'm not ok w/ either.

    But you haven't voiced any objection to it, no "#######"?


    like it or not: you are a mod....you are held to a higher standard. but, it seems you feel being a mod gives you the ok to say whatever you feel like saying. I DO NOT.

    I am a VJ member, and I do have the right to express my opinions (within the bounds of the TOS) the same as any other VJ member.


  4. fwaguy,

    Yes, the nightlife industry may no longer be what it once was when the military bases were there, but it still exists, fueled by tourists. And if you re-read Steven's post you will see that he said as much. Wikipedia identifies Angeles City as one of the top sex tourist destinations in the world.



    I don't believe the comment I made was questionable. Nor was it made in the heat of the moment - there was no 'heat' at the point in the thread where the comment was made. Mister Fancypants' historical summary of the issue, provided by his Fillipina wife, demonstrates that there is a valid basis for the comment. As well as put the proper perspective on the issue, which other posters did not.

    I think if you re-read Steven's post he says that there may have been at one time a basis for that comment but that basis is long gone (Subic Bay ceased operating in November 1992).

  5. devilette,

    No one labelled the OP's cousin.


    You did label PI K visa seekers.

    And someone else also labeled PI K visa seekers:

    "Manila COs know that its not unusual for fiancees to have secret boyfriends, and some arrive in the US pregnant by the boyfriend."

    Edit: We have no idea if the OP's cousin's fiance was recently in the PIs or not so let's stop jumping to comculsions.

    No one is making any comment about the OP's cousin herself. Someone has pointed out an issue that is of concern to consular officers in Manilla, because it is a phenomenon that occurs in the Philippines.


  6. smoke,

    I don't believe the comment I made was questionable. Nor was it made in the heat of the moment - there was no 'heat' at the point in the thread where the comment was made. Mister Fancypants' historical summary of the issue, provided by his Fillipina wife, demonstrates that there is a valid basis for the comment. As well as put the proper perspective on the issue, which other posters did not.

    So, you're OK with putting forth the proposition that many Fillipinas keep boyfriends on the side, and some get pregnant by them, while waiting to immigrate to the USA and marry their fiances, but you're not OK with putting forth the proposition that many Fillipinas who are ex-prostitutes hook up with foreign men to emigrate? Being associated with the former is OK, while being associated with the latter is not?



    yordak: the problem people were having w/ that other thread is you never admitted the comment was questionable. we all read what your post said. "many" was the word you used. if you would have showed a little bit of grief or understanding that it may have been offensive...."maybe i worded that wrong"..."didn't mean to offend" would have cooled peoples fire. but, you didn't you went into defense mode. telling everyone the difference between all-many-most. & you're doing it again today.

    just admit it: you made a questionable comment in the heat of the moment, nothing wrong with it. we all do it.

  7. fwaguy,

    I explained what I meant by 'many' in the context of my post - "it means enough to be a noticeable phenomenon." It seems that many people either missed that bit of information or didn't want the facts to interfere with what they preferred to believe.

    I agree with you that no matter what word I used the reaction would be the same. So I wonder why the stark contrast in the reaction to what has been posted in this thread. Women who keep a boyfriend on the side and get pregant by him while they're waiting to get a visa to go to the USA and marry their fiance are so much more socially acceptable than ex-prostitutes that it's not an insult to be labeled such a woman?




    I didn't say "all" either, not in this thread nor in the other thread.



    True Yodrak eventhough you did not say "all", but you did say "many" and the American Heritage dictionary defines many as a large indefinite number: majority.

    I suspect that regardless of the word all, most or many, the resulting firestorm would not have been any different.

  8. bszoom,

    Yes, a few months back several VJers reported that they had mistakenly sent their I-130 and I-129f concurrently. I recall that several of them reported receiving their Receipt Notices, indicating that the applications had been accepted for processing. I do not recall seeing any reports of the the petitions being returned due to improper filing.



    Has anyone actually successfully filed I-129F & I-130 together in one mailing? Maybe the instructions on the USCIS and Department of State website are outdated...

  9. Captain Ewok,

    Data old enough to be from when the MSC was processing the K3 I-129f should not be re-assigned to a Service Center. It does not apply to the service center and will distort the stats for that service center. That data is now obsolete, but has historical value for comparing the efficiency (quickness) of the new system to that of the old system. It should stay MSC data.

    In the current system only 2 service centers are processing I-130 and I-129f for spouse (and fiance(e)s as well) - the VSC and the CSC. There should be no new data for the TSC and NSC for these petitions.


    Previously we had the summary stats for I-129f processing times for the MSC. I have converted all old data to reflect that I-129f's are sent and processed at the Service Center where the underlying I-130 was sent. This means that a single stat image is not enough and I split it up into all four Service Centers. For a short while the stat images will look the same as old data would track the same but as people file with the respective service centers I expect them to diverge in processing time.

    Any feedback is always welcome!

  10. garya,

    I didn't say "all" either, not in this thread nor in the other thread.

    Where were you when I needed someone to point these things out the other day!


    I don't question the morals of all Filipinas (my wife is one, and she's an angel), only some of them. One only needs to have direct knowledge of actual cases to know that there is a huge range of character of the women of the Philippines, as in many other countries (including the good old USA).
  11. Danny,

    It seems that some consulates ask for a separate I-134 for each visa applicant, others will accept one I-134 covering the the K1 and the K2s.

    Good question about the documentation in duplicate. My personal thought, based on my own experience and the anecdotal evidence that I've seen, is that this is an obsolete instruction that's never been changed, and only one set of documentation needs to be submitted to the consulate. One should be prudent, however, and be ready for a surprise.

    They want your income, not your business' income. You, not your business, are the sponsor. Line 22 on the 1040.

    Any information that you provide should be supported with appropriate documentation, otherwise the information will not be taken into account in the evaluation.


    I am heading to Russia next week and I thought I would bring documents with me, I suspect my 2nd notice will arrive during this travel period.

    Couple brief questions on the i-134

    I take question 10 at face value - list anyone who you have submitted a petition for. Although I have seen many people report that they put 'none' here and it has not been an issue.


    sec 1.A (instructions) states a separate affidavit shall be filled for each person.

    Should I assume a child riding on the mothers k-1 Visa does not require a separate affidavit??

    Section 2 says; a sponsor must submit in *duplicate*evidence of income and resources, as appropriate.

    What exactly does this "Duplicate" mean? Since I am self employed, should I print two copies of my 06 taxes?

    And Have my banker make two copies of the letter verifying account info?

    On the part of the i-134 to be filled out;

    at section 7. where it asks about my income (I have included a copy of my taxes) do they want my income after all deductions are made and I am left with my taxable amount?

    Of course there is also a place to include real estate value and mortgage balance. Is there no request for proof of this or are they "taking the applicants word" on this?

    As to question 10.

    It asks if I have submitted a visa petition on behalf of the following persons...

    Does this pertain to a possible person before filling for this K-1?

    I would *not* put my fiances name in there?

    Anyone than can help, in whole or part, I would be grateful,


  12. tito,

    That's perhaps the most common reason for not approving the application to adjust at the conclusion of the interview - a clean FBI report is required. If nothing else was said you can expect the application to be approved soon after the FBI report is received.

    As I wrote previously, telling the USCIS at this point that you would like the approval to be held up for a while may well result in the case being reviewed again. If you don't want to risk denial you might be best off trying to resolve your issues while the FBI checks are still in progress. (Most people dislike the delay that the FBI checks sometimes create, but perhaps the delay is to be welcomed in your case.)


    Thanks for the input.

    As to why they didn't issue the green card at or after the interview...I don't know. The interviewer said that there was a backlog of name searches and that they were still doing a security check or something. .....

  13. Caro,

    It will pass. The anecdotal evidence is that any answer to this question will pass. This is perhaps the most common I-134 FAQ, but despite the wide range of answers that people have given in response I've never seen a report of an answer that caused a problem.


    Justin sent me the affidavit of support, and for question 11 "indicate the exact nature and duration of the contributions"...He answered:

    "this is my fiancee and soon to be wife. I will support her for life"

    (big aaawww :wub: )

    but after several hours of saying aaww...I started thinking that this may not be an "exact nature and duration"

    Should I ask him to rewrite this? or do you think it will pass?



  14. garya,

    Nothing technical about it - the statement is correct.

    As to the related issue about paternity that you and others are cautioning girlfromphils about, be careful about raising issues ("Manila COs know that its not unusual for fiancees to have secret boyfriends") that can be interpreted as questioning the morals of Fillipinas. I did that the other day and the resulting firestorm may not yet be contained.



    Being pregnant does not disqualify one for a visa.


    I'm posting for my cousin. She is 2 weeks pregnant and she is still waiting for her interview. In her medical she will be positive. Do you think she will be granted k1 fiancee visa?

    Technically that is correct. However, if the CO suspects that the fiance is not the father (based on visit dates), the CO can hold up the VISA for confirmation the the fiance knows about the pregnancy and still intends to marry her.

    I'm speculating on the exact reasons for the COs doing that, but I suspect it is because the Manila COs know that its not unusual for fiancees to have secret boyfriends, and some arrive in the US pregnant by the boyfriend. I suppose that sometimes this doesn't go over too well with the US fiance and she returns to her country or she goes TnT in the US.

  15. MIS,

    My impression is that the question is asking where you are presently residing, which would be at your wife's address since you've been there 7-8 months now and intend to stay there until your wife has her visa and is ready to come to the USA.

    It sounds like you have maintained your permanent residence in the USA and should have no trouble documenting that should the question be asked.


    Got married 12/31/2006.


    Since our marriage, I have been living with my wife.

    I have a permanent resident in US, all my financial document send to NVC

    shows my resident address in US.

    My questions:

    Form DS-230, line 14:

    Address of spouse (if different from your own). Should my wife put my US address

    OR local address?

    Interview concern:

    Should I be concerned about living overseas and filling with USCIS?

  16. Marlita,

    For your G-325A, are you a US citizen by birth or a naturalized citizen? It makes a difference.

    For your husband, will this be his first case with the USCIS or has he had any dealings with the USCIS (or its' predecessor INS) in the past, such as perhaps for a student visa or work visa? I makes a difference.


    I'm getting ready to put my I-130 packet together and have a question on the the G-325A.

    What does the "File Number" with the letter "A" mean on the first line? I dont have a file number right? Should I just put "none" here, or am I missing something?

    Thanks for any clarification.

  17. clow,

    You, as the petitioner, must be the Sponsor. Your mother would be the Joint Sponsor.

    Or, as MargoDarko points out, if you and your mother live together you could use your mother as your Household Member rather than as Joint Sponsor. (I'm not sure if you can use her as a Household Member solely on the basis that you are her dependent in the event that you do not live with her.)


    I am currently working on the I-864. I'm am the petitioner. My income does not meet the requirements for the 125%. My mom surpasses the 125% by a lot!!!

    Could I make her the joint sponsor only?


    Include myself with my mom as one of the two joint sponsors?

    P.S. She included me as a dependent, but my income does not show in the taxes because it was to low.

    Thank you!

  18. MargotDarko,

    Points of clarification:

    - Yes, it is possible to have 2 Joint Sponsors. But not in clow's situation.

    - An I-864A is executed by both the Household Member and the Sponsor.


    It isn't possible to have two joint sponsors. If you live with her, you would fill out the I-864 as the main sponsor, including her income, and she would fill out the I-864A as a household member.
  19. tito,

    The USCIS does not care if your marriage succeeds or founders, they care if it was bona fide at the time it took place. If you are having 2nd thoughts about it now that is your problem.

    If you were to request that a decision on the application be put on hold until you sort out your marital problems it may cause the USCIS to take another look at the case and possibly deny the application on the basis that it was not bona fide (assuming that as it is they are intending to approve the application). Do you know why approval was not granted at the conclusion of the interview?

    Once the application is approved there are only 6 ways for the I-864 obligation to be ended.

    - she dies

    - you die

    - she leaves the USA and abandons her LPR status

    - she accumulates 40 qualifying quarters of employment

    - she becomes a US citizen

    - she becomes subject to removal and in the removal procedings obtains a new grant of LPR status based on a new affidavit of support, if required.


    I realize that everyone is ANXIOUS to get the permanent resident status, and many questions concern that. BUT...what about where the tarnish of paradise keeps rearing its ugly head such that things might not work out as planned while the I-485 is pending, and while the sponsor would otherwise be on the hook for financial responsibility for what appears to be a long time once the green card is issued?

    Is there a way to have the immigration service HOLD THE FILE IN ABEYANCE, and DELAY final processing of the application?

    We filed in early February, and they're likely coming upon the final processing of the I-485 within the next few weeks. We had the interview...everything checks out OK. But...some potentially irrevocable problems have arisen and immigrant might want to stay in the US regardless. That won't work for the US citizen who has given so much up and paid out so much for the immigrant to be here for them to split while keeping the citizen on the hook. So, in this matter, time is needed to verify the situation.

    I would imagine that one option is simply to WITHDRAW the application entirely, and/or the Financial Support Declaration. But...that would totally close the door on the prospective immigrant, and they'd be subject to removal and make them illegal aliens. That's permanent and very drastic, and even if we wanted to start over again, it would make it highly unlikely that the application would be approved regardless of circumstances.

    Another question is...once the green card (via I-485 application) is approved, is there a way to get out from under the financial responsibility aspect? Does not appear to be...but what's the scoop there in the event the citizen can't shake the prospective immigrant?

    So - short of pulling the plug entirely, will the immigration service put a 30, 60, 90 day hold on the application upon reasonable request so that the citizen can check into it? Or would the application have to be filed anew and start from scratch?

    Any comments appreciated.

  20. dearheart,

    You may not need to submit a financial sponsorship package if your parents are going to be the ones to sponsor your husband for his visa. It would be prudent for you to have one ready should it be asked for, but it may not be asked for.

    Only 1 way to find out - have your husband submit the package from your parents, perhaps covered by a note stating that they are being put forward as the sponsors because you have been living in Canada for the past 12 years and so do not have any US-based income.

    If they ask for your financial information anyway, he can pull it out of his back pocket and hand it over. If not asked for, he keeps it. Either way, you've learned something.

    Let us know what happens, if your information is asked for or not.


    I am doing a K3 application and I am in a similar situation. I am living with my Canadian husband in Canada and I have been for the last 12 years. I too have not filed with the US due to not earning enough to need to file.

    Our I129F has just been approved today so I am wanting to prepare for the next step. It is my understanding that since I have not needed to file due to my lack of income i can submit a letter of explanation along with the I-134. My parents, who live in the US, are planning to joint sponsor.

    my questions

    1. Do I understand correctly about submitting a letter of explanation.

    2. When we are ready to send packet 3, I am guessing that my parents will need to fill out thier I-134, get it notarized and then send it to me (living in Canada) and then I send both of the I-134s together in my packet 3.

    Thanks so much.

  21. Motu,

    Since the immigrant and his Sponsor wife live with the Sponsor's mother there are 2 ways that this can be done.

    1) The Sponsor wife prepares an I-864 that includes her financial resources, her husband the immigrant's financial resources, and her mother's financial resources. Her husband and her mother are Household Members. The Sponsor and the mother jointly execute an I-864A, allowing the Sponsor to use her Household Member mother's financial resources on the Sponsor's I-864. The Sponsor and her husband do not have to execute an I-864A because her husband is the immigrant being sponsored. The combined financial resources of all 3 people in the Sponsor's household must meet the income requirement

    2) The Sponsor wife prepares an I-864 that includes her financial resources and her husband the immigrant's financial resources. Her husband is a Household Member, as in option 1. If the combined financial resources of the Sponsor's household do not meet the income requirement then the mother prepares a separate I-864 that includes only the mother's financial resources. The mother is a Joint Sponsor in this case, and her financial resources alone must meet the income requirement.


    Yes Pushbrk I read it again - all 11 pages but its still clear as mud to me. So, His wife (the USC) files an I864 and includes his income on it - does she also include her mother's (the co-spondsor's) income on the form she fills out?

    And when her mother fills it out does she include her daughter and son-in-laws income on her form or leaves those out?

    Thanks for the help - if someone out there did a co-sponsor and filed already, help please.


  22. qbertz,

    They will look at your current income and employment as most important and look at your past income and employment to see if it sheds any light on whether or not the current income is sustainable.

    As Kang Lang wrote, the consulate in Bangkok looks at only the most recent tax return.


    Another question for all of you that have been through the process already now...as of now and the past 4 months, I am making well above the 125% poverty level needed to sponsor someone, but for my last 3 years tax returns I did not because I was either in university or working out of the country for 4-6 months at a time, never making a lot.

    My fiance will have for the interview:

    1-134 notarized

    Last 3 pay stubs for my current job

    Letter from employer stating current salary, etc.

    Last 6 months bank statements

    Last 3 years tax transcripts

    So my question is will they look at my current income as the most important and see that I have no problem supporting her, or will they look at those last 3 years tax transcripts and think uh oh, maybe he can't support her? Do you think the interviewer could potentially ask for a co-sponsor (even though I in no way need it)?

  23. Yager,

    Do you see any item on any form asking you to report what your mortgage payment is?


    I work in a business that has slow times and busy times. The last couple years it's been slow so I've only earned about 35K a year. My mortgage payment is a little high in relation to my income. Even though my income is sufficient, is there any chance of being denied because my mortgage payment is too high? I also have a long term roommate that pays me rent but that is not recorded on my W2 forms. Has anyone had experience with this?
  • Create New...