tigretigre

Coffee gives you cancer

I'm prescribing some suppositories

You aren't TOO fat

Tigre? Sallie Mae calling...

Check the expiration date?

Your account is overdrawn

We're still early in our process, but we are prepared for the possibility of having to file a waiver.

To make a long story short, my fiance is recovering from severe depression, which at one point involved some self-harming behavior and a suicide attempt. He is doing very well--about 20 months with no incident, will be about 2 years by the time he gets his medical. He is doing very well, in spite of receiving the most appallingly negligent psychiatric care from NHS. It is my firm belief that his illness would not have gotten nearly so severe had he been given appropriate care as soon as he sought treatment. This care will be available to him in the U.S.

I've read all the laws and regulations, so I don't need an update on what does/doesn't make someone admissible when it comes to mental disorders. I know that a remission period of 2 years means he should be good to go, but self-harm is a very poorly-understood problem and a lot of stigma attaches.

Our plan is as follows. When he goes for his medical exam, he will take with him:

A letter from his GP stating that he is not a danger to himself or others.

A letter from his psychiatrist stating that he is not a danger to himself or others (that doctor's kind of a dumb-dumb, but he's got the certificate that says he's a doctor).

A letter from me stating that I am aware of his mental health history, that I am very proud of the progress he has made, that I know him to be a rational, peaceable and non-threatening person, and that I am committed to supporting him while he continues his treatment in the U.S.

A copy of my health insurance policy indicating the availability of both spousal coverage and mental health treatment coverage.

If possible, a letter from my primary care physician or psychiatrist (yeah, I've had some tough times myself) stating willingness to provide a referral for my fiance to an appropriate specialist.

A statement from my fiance declaring his intent to participate in appropriate treatment will in the U.S.

Getting any medical records of his would be very unpleasant for him. He doesn't want to relive those dark times any more than he has to, so we won't submit those unless they are demanded.

With this information available to the examining doctor, we are hoping he can avoid a Class A (inadmissible) designation and make it into Class B (admissible but has issues). Then it will be up to the CO's discretion.

My question is two-fold: one, has anybody else here ever been in this sort of situation (especially with the London Embassy) and what was your experience? And two, did you have a 601 ready to go just in case, and what was in it? I do not want to prepare the waiver unless I'm fairly sure it will be necessary, to spare my fiance the pain of dredging up those records if possible. The exam will be intrusive enough.

If a waiver is needed, I have some fairly decent hardship arguments...but that is for another time.

Let me know your thoughts.

A very protective Tigre

Nothing is particularly clear about any of this, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the best way to find out what will happen is to wait until it happens.

I really, really do.

If it turns out your particular prediction was correct, have an "I told you so" party afterwards.

There's no way to tell right now if anybody here has "better" information than everyone else.

Hang in there.

Foreign businesses operating over the Internet worldwide are sued and prosecuted in United States courts all the time.

There are lots of ways a company can be considered to be "doing business in the United States" without actually being located there, and "doing business" there gives the U.S. jurisdiction. Some ways to do that are to solicit customers in the United States, sell them products, provide them with services, or conduct transactions with them. On the Internet, it's pretty easy to fall into one of these categories if you engage in global commercial activity--your company is on every desktop in every country around the world, including the U.S.

Foreign business that do not want to submit to U.S. jurisdiction restrict their activities accordingly. In the case of an international marriage broker, my guess is this would mean refusing to serve American clients for starters.

But remember--I'm not a attorney. Consider this information learned from extensive research, not information offered as legal advice. Get an attorney if you need legal advice.

Got my NOA1 in the mail yesterday, with an issue date of May 25th (they got my I-129F on May 19, so not bad turnaround there).

Got touched on May 31st and I didn't even notice because I didn't have my case number yet (NOA1 still in the mail).

Those sneaky punks, touching people while they're waiting for snailmail NOA1s...that's nawdy.

My first communication from the Department of Homeland Security...the NOA1

Maybe I'm a little too excited about this...it's only a NOA1. But now I can track this puppy!

The immigration thingy I got in the mail was my NOA1 from the VSC. At least now I have a case number and can keep track of their butts.

Having a NOA1 is better than not having a NOA1, that's what I always say.

Off to get my timeline on!

Looking at the draft of the new form right now. I really hope someone proofreads this mofo before it's issued!

Mommy says I have something at home in the mail from "immigration"...wonder what it is!

Oy, okay. I'll see about getting in touch with Hillary's and Chuck's offices this week. My Congressman is facing a tough race this November, so I'll contact him too and see how badly he wants me to vote Republican for once in my life.

GaryC, I find it disturbing that you belong to Rush 24/7. Not because it's Rush so much as because it's 24/7. Do you get updates on how Rush slept last night, or what he just ate for a mid-morning snack? Do they tell you when Rush is on the phone or in the bathroom? Okay that would actually be really funny. I'm no longer disturbed--just amused.

I think what was meant was that the legislation isn't the problem, it's the administrative failure that is slowing our petitions down. Once a law is enacted, the affected agencies usually have a specified window of time for promulgating new regulations to change their procedures in order to implement it. There is where we've gone wrong--they never got around to doing that.

Working at the legislative level by petitioning for the repeal of IMBRA really is taking the long way.

Let's suppose you were able to get enough support to convince some member of Congress that IMBRA has to go. Well, it's part of the re-authorized Violence Against Women Act, so this person would have to propose that Congress amend VAWA. That won't happen without a lot of debate on the House and Senate floors. Then the actual process of passing the amendments and getting the Prez to sign the amendments to VAWA. Congress is designed to move pretty slowly, and this wouldn't be likely to be a priority bill anyway. Assuming you even got to the floor (which could take years if it happened at all), I'd say 6 months, minimum, for Congress to act. Which is worth it if what you don't like is the law itself. But if your beef is with how everything's ground to a halt at the Service Centers, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree by petitioning for the repeal of IMBRA.

That, and the fact that with all the "male activist" buzz about IMBRA, your petition might end up getting filed with all the others from men's groups wanting the law repealed. The agenda at the legislative level isn't about hurrying the process along--it's about preventing regulation of the foreign bride industry and (they would say) the inappropriate disclosure of the petitioners' criminal histories to prospective wives. Might not slow the process down further, but it wouldn't result in anything moving faster either, because the people looking at it wouldn't be the people issuing the NOAs.

For whatever it may be worth, I received this email from the Ombudsman's office today. I sent my email Thursday night, so not a bad turnaround time, especially considering the holiday on Monday.

Dear Ms. [Tigre],

On behalf of the Ombudsman, Mr. Prakash Khatri, our office thanks you

very much for bringing the issue of the K-1 visa adjudication to our

office's attention.

Our office has received other inquiries, comments and suggestions of

similar nature. The information that you provided was reviewed by the

appropriate persons in our office, and it will be brought to the

attention of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

(USCIS).

Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, it is the CIS Ombudsman's

statutory mission to assist USCIS customers, to identify problem areas

in the immigration process, and to propose changes to the administrative

practices of USCIS. Process change recommendations from individuals like

you are the best source for identifying systemic problems in the

immigration benefits process. Again, Ombudsman Khatri thanks you very

much for brining this important issue to our attention, and for taking

the time to provide your suggestions and comments.

Sincerely,

CIS Ombudsman's office

Right, but there's no way to know for sure that THIS is the info we've been waiting for.

I think the information from the Federal Register that everyone is assuming refers to a new IMBRA-compliant I-129F is actually refering to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The PRA requires that they do this every so often, getting info on how long the forms take people to complete, how long they take to process, etc. I wouldn't necessarily assume it has anything to do with us.

This has been posted a few times...it states in a footnote that IMBRA guidance will come under a separate memorandum, so I don't know how much insight this one gives into their proceedures.

I think everyone needs to remember that NOBODY HERE KNOWS what will actually happen as a result of IMBRA.

When people here argue about whether they will do background checks, request records from petitioners, or ask petitioners to fill out a questionnaire, it's kind of pointless AND gives the (mis)impression of actual direct knowledge.

Nobody here should be speaking with any kind of authority on what will be done with our petitions.

Don't get so desperate for answers that you start making up your own.

A person's criminal history is part of the public record. They do not need the petitioner's authorization to share that information with someone else.

this is also sometimes a way used to bring women into the country for trafficking...many victims are actually here legally.

they do seem to have some kinks they need to work out, though, don't they?

It seems possible to me, rlt.

It definitely occured to me, some time ago, that this could well be a tempest in a teapot for a number of petitioners, including myself.

Time will tell.

I too would suggest waiting until additional information is requested, before sending anything extra to CIS.

I know this isn't easy. I don't think anybody here is saying it is.

But complaining to elected officials about administrative screwups and chaos on the one hand, and then sending a pile of unsolicited information on the other, doesn't make sense to me.

I will prepare a snail mail version as well, just to keep everything rosy around here.

But, these were the instructions I followed, as I was not submitting a problem with an individual case:

Recommendations regarding systemic problems you have identified in the immigration benefits process should wherever possible be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word document format. Ideally, your recommendations for process changes should not only identify the problem you are experiencing, but should also contain a proposed solution that will not only benefit your individual case, but others who may be experiencing the same problem as well.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/edit...torial_0501.xml

The Ombudsman supposedly actually prefers to receive correspondence as a Microsoft Word document attached to email.

So I followed directions.

I submitted the following to the CIS Ombudsman about ten minutes ago.

Let us hope he answers his own email. And reads it.

I included my address, home, and office phone numbers. Maybe he will think I'm clever and want to talk to me.

Maybe I'll get a pony for my birthday this year.

May 25, 2006

Prakash I. Khatri, Esq

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

United States Department of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Mr. Khatri:

I recently filed a K1 fiance(e) visa petition (Form I-129F) with the USCIS Vermont Service Center on behalf of my husband-to-be, a citizen of the United Kingdom. According to the United States Postal Service returned receipt, my petition arrived at the Center on May 19. I have since heard some very distressing news from the Department of State concerning the processing of K1 fiance(e) visa petitions in light of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) (please see the Visa Telegram at http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_2927.html, dated May 6th, 2006).

This information included news of the recall of over 1,000 approved K1 petitions from their consular destinations, and provided the vaguest of explanations concerning the future of submissions currently awaiting processing at the USCIS Service Centers. I am writing to seek some general information on the current K1 visa processing situation at the Service Centers (particularly the Vermont Center, where the recalled petitions appear to have originated), and to offer my input on how the USCIS can best address the concerns and understandable anxiety of United States citizens and their fiancé(e)s abroad.

I write to you not only out of concern for my own case, but out of concern for other K1 petitioners who have shared their distress with me. People seeking family-based immigration benefits suffer anxiety and frustration resulting from separation from loved ones and the uncertainty of the process by which they are hoping to be reunited with their family members. It is not surprising that the World Wide Web is home to communities of family-based immigration petitioners and applicants who seek understanding and support during this difficult time. As a member of one such community, my thoughts as I write to you are as much of them as they are of my own situation.

My areas of concern include the following:

1) The relevant federal agencies (which include the USCIS under the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the Department of State), have failed to keep the public informed of the IMBRA-related developments and how they affect the way K1 petitions will be processed at the USCIS Service Centers.

2) The relevant federal agencies have failed to provide effective channels through which current petitioners and applicants can obtain reliable, complete information concerning their pending cases.

3) Officials at the relevant federal agencies, having made the grave error of failing to implement the required procedural measures for IMBRA by the legislative deadline, have compounded that error by requiring that petitions received after that deadline be processed in compliance with IMBRA when petitioners and applicants were not themselves informed of the need for compliance.

4) Officials at the relevant federal agencies have now released information (see the Visa Policy Telegram from the Department of State) stating that petitioners for K1 visas submitting on or after March 6, 2006 will be subject to new requirements when completing Form I-129F, but have failed to explain what information (if any) the petitioner will be required to supply. References to a “new Form I-129F” and “additional questionnaires” have triggered panic among petitioners and applicants, who envision massive delays as the petitioners collect the IMBRA information and turn it over to Service Centers for processing.

The situation has become untenable for those of us who have submitted a K1 petition we know or think will be affected by IMBRA, and some remedies are necessary. People who have resigned from jobs, sold or purchased homes, relocated, and made wedding plans upon receipt of an approval notice (or even upon approval at the foreign consulate) are now suffering financial as well as emotional hardship as their approvals are revoked. We who have not yet received an approval notice from our Service Centers are left to wonder anxiously about the future of our petitions, and to speculate on what information will be required from us in order to proceed (as well as how long it will take to obtain it).

We are United States citizens who have acted in good faith and conformed to the laws and regulations of the United States, and the requirements of the K1 petition process as published at the time of filing. To effectively penalize our petitions for an administrative failure we could not possibly have anticipated is rapidly eroding our faith in the ability of our Government to provide transparent guidance and competent administrative service.

My proposed solutions are as follows:

1) The Department of State and the USCIS must as soon as possible publish a notice describing any new requirements for the submission of K1 petitions due to IMBRA. The notice should include information on any new version of Form I-129F that may be forthcoming, and instructions for submitting K1 petitions pending new regulations or forms. In addition to any other forms of publication, the notice should be displayed prominently on the homepage of the USCIS website, and should also be available on the Department of State web page concerning visas.

2) As soon as possible, the web pages displaying the visa processing dates at the individual USCIS Service Centers should provide a notice updating the user on the status of Form I-129F processing at the Center (i.e., whether all processing has been suspended, some processing is taking place, normal processing has resumed, etc.).

3) As soon as possible, the Departments of State and Homeland Security, as well as USCIS itself, should issue a notice providing the public with a single information resource for questions concerning the IMBRA situation as it affects pending K1 petitions. This resource should be able to provide individuals with, among other things, a) the current location and status of the individual's petition; B) any information that is still needed from the petitioner before the petition can be approved; c) an estimated timeline for approval of any petition recalled from a foreign consulate by the Department of Homeland Security.

4) Given that petitioners with cases currently pending at a Service Center, the National Visa Center, or a foreign consulate received no notice concerning any additional procedures or requirements for approval of their petitions or applications for visas, and that there is no guidance on the IMBRA requirements available for U.S. citizens contemplating a K1 petition, it may be argued that fundamental fairness requires that all K1 submissions be processed under the pre-IMBRA regulations until notice of new procedures and requirements can be widely disseminated by the relevant federal agencies. It is one thing to require that all petitions submitted after a specific date conform to a specific set of regulations made available prior to that date; it is quite another to subject all pending and future petitions to a set of regulations that do not yet appear to exist and therefore cannot be followed by petitioners, researched by attorneys, or explained to users by USCIS officials.

I recognize that USCIS and other Department of Homeland Security personnel work hard on a daily basis to provide the most efficient and thorough service possible, for the benefit of visa-seekers and for the protection of American citizens. It is disturbing, however, to witness at this critical point in the development of our country's immigration policies and procedures, such confusion and absence of transparency. I urge you to consider the issues I have identified here, and their accompanying proposals, and to recommend that USCIS take action as soon as possible. I very much appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Very truly yours,

[my name], J.D.

You can all start by giving me some feedback on my message to the Ombudsman.

With one exception, nobody here's been interested in offering any input, so I figured I'd post my draft and see what people thought.

Prakash I. Khatri, Esq

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

United States Department of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Mr. Khatri:

I recently filed a K1 fiance(e) visa petition (Form I-129F) with the USCIS Vermont Service Center; according the United States Postal Service returned receipt, my petition arrived at the Center on May 19. I have since heard some very distressing news from the Department of State concerning the processing of K1 fiance(e) visa petitions in light of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) (please see the Visa Telegram at http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_2927.html, dated May 6th, 2006). The information included news of the recall of over 1,000 approved K1 petitions from their consular destinations, and provided the vaguest of explanations concerning the future of submissions currently awaiting processing at the USCIS Service Centers. I am writing to seek some general information on the current K1 visa processing situation at the Service Centers (particularly the Vermont Center), and to offer my input on how the USCIS can best address the concerns and understandable anxiety of United States citizens and their fiancé(e)'s abroad.

I write to you not only out of concern for my own case, but out of concern for other K1 petitioners who have shared their distress with me. People seeking family-based immigration benefits suffer anxiety and frustration resulting from separation from loved ones and the uncertainty of the process by which they are hoping to be reunited with their family members. It is not surprising that the World Wide Web is home to communities of family-based immigration petitioners and applicants who seek understanding and support during this difficult time. As a member of one such community, my thoughts as I write to you are as much of them as they are of my own situation.

My areas of concern include the following:

1) The relevant federal agencies (which include the USCIS under the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the Department of State), have failed to keep the public informed of the IMBRA-related developments and how they affect the way K1 petitions will be processed at the USCIS Service Centers.

2) The relevant federal agencies have failed to provide effective channels through which current petitioners and applicants can obtain reliable, complete information concerning their pending cases.

3) Officials at the relevant federal agencies, having made the grave error of failing to implement the required procedural measures for IMBRA by the legislative deadline, have compounded that error by requiring that petitions received after that deadline be processed in compliance with IMBRA when petitioners and applicants were not themselves informed of the need for compliance.

4) Officials at the relevant federal agencies have now released information (see the Visa Policy Telegram from the Department of State) stating that petitioners for K1 visas submitting on or after March 6, 2006 will be subject to new requirements when completing Form I-129F, but have failed to explain what information (if any) the petitioner will be required to supply. References to a “new Form I-129F” and “additional questionnaires” have triggered panic among petitioners and applicants, who envision massive delays as the petitioners collect the IMBRA information and turn it over to Service Centers for processing.

The situation has become untenable for those of us who have submitted a K1 petition we think will be affected by IMBRA, and some remedies are necessary. People who have resigned from jobs, sold or purchased homes, relocated, and made wedding plans upon receipt of an approval notice (or even upon approval at the foreign consulate) are now suffering financial as well as emotional hardship as their approvals are revoked. We who have not yet received an approval notice from our Service Centers are left to wonder anxiously about the future of our petitions, and to speculate on what information will be required from us in order to proceed (as well as how long it will take to obtain it).

We are United States citizens who have acted in good faith and conformed to the laws and regulations of the United States, and the requirements of the K1 petition process as published at the time of filing. To effectively penalize our petitions for an administrative failure we could not possibly have anticipated is rapidly eroding our faith in the ability of our Government to provide transparent guidance and competent administrative service.

My proposed solutions are as follows:

1) The Department of State and the USCIS must as soon as possible publish a notice describing any new requirements for the submission of K1 petitions due to IMBRA. The notice should include information on any new version of Form I-129F that may be forthcoming, and instructions for submitting K1 petitions pending new regulations or forms. In addition to any other forms of publication, the notice should be displayed prominently on the homepage of the USCIS website, and should also be available on the Department of State web page concerning visas.

2) As soon as possible, the web pages displaying the visa processing dates at the individual USCIS Service Centers should provide a notice updating the user on the status of Form I-129F processing at the Center (i.e., whether all processing has been suspended, some processing is taking place, normal processing has resumed, etc.).

3) As soon as possible, the Departments of State and Homeland Security, as well as USCIS itself, should issue a notice providing the public with a single information resource for questions concerning the IMBRA situation as it affects pending K1 petitions. This resource should be able to provide individuals with, among other things, a) the current location and status of the individual's petition; any information that is still needed from the petitioner before the petition can be approved; c) an estimated timeline for approval of any petition recalled from a foreign consulate by the Department of Homeland Security.

4) Given that petitioners with cases currently pending at a Service Center, the National Visa Center, or a foreign consulate received no notice concerning any additional procedures or requirements for approval of their petitions or applications for visas, and that there is no guidance on the IMBRA requirements available for U.S. citizens contemplating a K1 petition, it may be argued that fundamental fairness requires that all K1 submissions be processed under the pre-IMBRA regulations until notice of new procedures and requirements can be widely disseminated by the relevant federal agencies. It is one thing to require that all petitions submitted after a specific date conform to a specific set of regulations made available prior to that date; it is quite another to subject all pending and future petitions to a set of regulations that do not yet appear to exist and therefore cannot be followed by petitioners, researched by attorneys, or explained to users by USCIS officials.

I recognize that USCIS and other Department of Homeland Security personnel work hard on a daily basis to provide the most efficient and thorough service possible, for the benefit of visa-seekers and for the protection of American citizens. It is disturbing, however, to witness at this critical point in the development of our country's immigration policies and procedures, such confusion and absence of transparency. I urge you to consider the issues I have identified here, and their accompanying proposals, and to recommend that USCIS take action as soon as possible. I very much appreciate your time and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

[my name], J.D.

Prakash I. Khatri, Esq

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

United States Department of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Mr. Khatri:

I recently filed a K1 fiance(e) visa petition (Form I-129F) with the USCIS Vermont Service Center; according the United States Postal Service returned receipt, my petition arrived at the Center on May 19. I have since heard some very distressing news from the Department of State concerning the processing of K1 fiance(e) visa petitions in light of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) (please see the Visa Telegram at http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_2927.html, dated May 6th, 2006). The information included news of the recall of over 1,000 approved K1 petitions from their consular destinations, and provided the vaguest of explanations concerning the future of submissions currently awaiting processing at the USCIS Service Centers. I am writing to seek some general information on the current K1 visa processing situation at the Service Centers (particularly the Vermont Center), and to offer my input on how the USCIS can best address the concerns and understandable anxiety of United States citizens and their fiancé(e)'s abroad.

I write to you not only out of concern for my own case, but out of concern for other K1 petitioners who have shared their distress with me. People seeking family-based immigration benefits suffer anxiety and frustration resulting from separation from loved ones and the uncertainty of the process by which they are hoping to be reunited with their family members. It is not surprising that the World Wide Web is home to communities of family-based immigration petitioners and applicants who seek understanding and support during this difficult time. As a member of one such community, my thoughts as I write to you are as much of them as they are of my own situation.

My areas of concern include the following:

1) The relevant federal agencies (which include the USCIS under the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the Department of State), have failed to keep the public informed of the IMBRA-related developments and how they affect the way K1 petitions will be processed at the USCIS Service Centers.

2) The relevant federal agencies have failed to provide effective channels through which current petitioners and applicants can obtain reliable, complete information concerning their pending cases.

3) Officials at the relevant federal agencies, having made the grave error of failing to implement the required procedural measures for IMBRA by the legislative deadline, have compounded that error by requiring that petitions received after that deadline be processed in compliance with IMBRA when petitioners and applicants were not themselves informed of the need for compliance.

4) Officials at the relevant federal agencies have now released information (see the Visa Policy Telegram from the Department of State) stating that petitioners for K1 visas submitting on or after March 6, 2006 will be subject to new requirements when completing Form I-129F, but have failed to explain what information (if any) the petitioner will be required to supply. References to a “new Form I-129F” and “additional questionnaires” have triggered panic among petitioners and applicants, who envision massive delays as the petitioners collect the IMBRA information and turn it over to Service Centers for processing.

The situation has become untenable for those of us who have submitted a K1 petition we think will be affected by IMBRA, and some remedies are necessary. People who have resigned from jobs, sold or purchased homes, relocated, and made wedding plans upon receipt of an approval notice (or even upon approval at the foreign consulate) are now suffering financial as well as emotional hardship as their approvals are revoked. We who have not yet received an approval notice from our Service Centers are left to wonder anxiously about the future of our petitions, and to speculate on what information will be required from us in order to proceed (as well as how long it will take to obtain it).

We are United States citizens who have acted in good faith and conformed to the laws and regulations of the United States, and the requirements of the K1 petition process as published at the time of filing. To effectively penalize our petitions for an administrative failure we could not possibly have anticipated is rapidly eroding our faith in the ability of our Government to provide transparent guidance and competent administrative service.

My proposed solutions are as follows:

1) The Department of State and the USCIS must as soon as possible publish a notice describing any new requirements for the submission of K1 petitions due to IMBRA. The notice should include information on any new version of Form I-129F that may be forthcoming, and instructions for submitting K1 petitions pending new regulations or forms. In addition to any other forms of publication, the notice should be displayed prominently on the homepage of the USCIS website, and should also be available on the Department of State web page concerning visas.

2) As soon as possible, the web pages displaying the visa processing dates at the individual USCIS Service Centers should provide a notice updating the user on the status of Form I-129F processing at the Center (i.e., whether all processing has been suspended, some processing is taking place, normal processing has resumed, etc.).

3) As soon as possible, the Departments of State and Homeland Security, as well as USCIS itself, should issue a notice providing the public with a single information resource for questions concerning the IMBRA situation as it affects pending K1 petitions. This resource should be able to provide individuals with, among other things, a) the current location and status of the individual's petition; B) any information that is still needed from the petitioner before the petition can be approved; c) an estimated timeline for approval of any petition recalled from a foreign consulate by the Department of Homeland Security.

4) Given that petitioners with cases currently pending at a Service Center, the National Visa Center, or a foreign consulate received no notice concerning any additional procedures or requirements for approval of their petitions or applications for visas, and that there is no guidance on the IMBRA requirements available for U.S. citizens contemplating a K1 petition, it may be argued that fundamental fairness requires that all K1 submissions be processed under the pre-IMBRA regulations until notice of new procedures and requirements can be widely disseminated by the relevant federal agencies. It is one thing to require that all petitions submitted after a specific date conform to a specific set of regulations made available prior to that date; it is quite another to subject all pending and future petitions to a set of regulations that do not yet appear to exist and therefore cannot be followed by petitioners, researched by attorneys, or explained to users by USCIS officials.

I recognize that USCIS and other Department of Homeland Security personnel work hard on a daily basis to provide the most efficient and thorough service possible, for the benefit of visa-seekers and for the protection of American citizens. It is disturbing, however, to witness at this critical point in the development of our country's immigration policies and procedures, such confusion and absence of transparency. I urge you to consider the issues I have identified here, and their accompanying proposals, and to recommend that USCIS take action as soon as possible. I very much appreciate your time and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

[my name], J.D.