BaBamSam

Hi Everyone! I've been combing through VJ for the last month as my boyfriend (from the UK) and I decided to get married on his November visit to me and we now have the pleasure of going through the K-1 visa process. Extremely glad to have found this site as I was originally planning on blowing my savings on a lawyer...but no longer!
Anyway, I'm assembling the I-129F packet and here is what I am including (in the order I currently have it):
- G-1145
- Cover Letter
- Personal check (think it's $340)
- I-129F form
- I-129F question 18 supplement (there just wasn't enough space!)
- G-325A and passport photo in plastic bag (Petitioner/Me)
- G-325A and passport photo in plastic bag (Beneficiary)
- My US birth certificate copied front and back
- Letters certifying intent to marry (Both of ours)
- Proof of having met/ongoing relationship in the following forms
1. Airline tickets for my trips to UK (and one set of baggage tags)
2. Copies of passport stamps and UK student visa (mine)
3. Airline tickets for fiance's trips to US
4. Copies of his passport stamps
5. Photos (12 in total) from first trip together in 2010 through recent visit in Nov 2012
6. Affidavits (two) notarized by myself and my fiance detailing our relationship
7. Affidavits (two) notarized by each of our mother's as witnesses to relationship
8. Emails back an forth (approx. 1 conversation for each month for the last two years)
9. Text history excerpts from 2010 until now
10. FaceTime screenshots of video chatting
11. Facebook screenshots of relationship status/interactions
Now for my questions!
1. Do you think, from your experience, this is enough/an accurate packet?
2. How should I include the photos? I couldn't find any photo pages (tried a Staples, Rite Aid and CVS) so right now each "visit" is in its own plastic baggie and labeled.
3. Can I double hole punch at the top and put the fastener in? Or do I just fasten it with a clip?
Sorry for the length - I just tend to get extremely detail-oriented with these sorts of things and this time it's extremely important to me!
Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer

As some of you might remember, my fiance and I had opted to forego the I-134 in favor of him self-sponsoring (an option available at London). While it was an option, there was very little concrete info on how to do it. We basically had to guess at what they'd want to see, and he spent a lot of time in banks getting paperwork from them. For the benefit of anyone else considering this route, I thought I'd write up this post.
First, know that this is not the standard route at London. When my fiance got to the interview, the man asked for his I-134 and he replied "I would like to self-sponsor". This threw the man behind the counter off and he openly said that they don't get that often so, to my fiance, "all right, what do you have for me?".
Here is what my fiance had:
- A topsheet with a summary of the four main assets he was demonstrating, with an explanation at the bottom of how he was planning to convert said value into dollars (note: it is actually illegal in some states to transfer money from overseas into domestic bank accounts, and we acknowledged in that letter that California was not one of them)
- A signed and stamped letter from his savings bank with the balance in it
- A signed and stamped letter from his day-to-day checking/savings bank with the balance in it
- A signed and stamped letter with the value of his portfolio (dated within two weeks of the interview) and a brief summary of stocks/bonds that made it up
- A signed letter of valuation for his flat, along with the deed to prove ownership.
Here is what the interviewer was interested in:
- The top spreadsheet, after looking at which he said "all right, show me the savings account"
- The savings account letter, after looking at which he said "yeah, that'll be enough".
My fiance asked if he wanted to see info on the other accounts, or the deed/valuation to his flat, and the officer just flipped through the paperwork in about 2 seconds and said "yeah, it's fine".
So. That was it. Despite the officer only really being interested in the first two things, I would still recommend that anyone going this route bring as much info as they can - just in case.
If anyone has any questions, please ask away! I hope this helped someone on their journey.

As some of you might remember, my fiance and I had opted to forego the I-134 in favor of him self-sponsoring (an option available at London). While it was an option, there was very little concrete info on how to do it. We basically had to guess at what they'd want to see, and he spent a lot of time in banks getting paperwork from them. For the benefit of anyone else considering this route, I thought I'd write up this post.
First, know that this is not the standard route at London. When my fiance got to the interview, the man asked for his I-134 and he replied "I would like to self-sponsor". This threw the man behind the counter off and he openly said that they don't get that often so, to my fiance, "all right, what do you have for me?".
Here is what my fiance had:
- A topsheet with a summary of the four main assets he was demonstrating, with an explanation at the bottom of how he was planning to convert said value into dollars (note: it is actually illegal in some states to transfer money from overseas into domestic bank accounts, and we acknowledged in that letter that California was not one of them)
- A signed and stamped letter from his savings bank with the balance in it
- A signed and stamped letter from his day-to-day checking/savings bank with the balance in it
- A signed and stamped letter with the value of his portfolio (dated within two weeks of the interview) and a brief summary of stocks/bonds that made it up
- A signed letter of valuation for his flat, along with the deed to prove ownership.
Here is what the interviewer was interested in:
- The top spreadsheet, after looking at which he said "all right, show me the savings account"
- The savings account letter, after looking at which he said "yeah, that'll be enough".
My fiance asked if he wanted to see info on the other accounts, or the deed/valuation to his flat, and the officer just flipped through the paperwork in about 2 seconds and said "yeah, it's fine".
So. That was it. Despite the officer only really being interested in the first two things, I would still recommend that anyone going this route bring as much info as they can - just in case.
If anyone has any questions, please ask away! I hope this helped someone on their journey.

Thanks for the luck guys! He was approved! Managed to get home by 9:30am even! SUPER HAPPY

We're going to have a very quick courtroom thing in California upon his arrival (his mom and brother will be here, but my parents/family probably won't bother to fly out for it).
We are planning an ~actual~ ceremony for September 2013 that will be around 100 people and mostly just a celebratory weekend back in my home state of New York (upstate where things are pretty).

Some westerners don't know the difference between Thailand and Japan.

Honestly, your post was not very clear when it comes to it's sexist/gendered language. Being respectful and correct wording is very important - especially on the internet where it is hard to deduce intent from words alone. I am not trying to berate you or anything, but just wanted to make you aware that your post was worded in a way that was offensive to some readers so that you might better understand some of the hostile responses and approach a post with a bit more delicacy next time. For example, ask if the USC or the beneficiary filled out more paperwork rather than assuming couples adhere to stereotyped gender roles.
Also, most people on VJ are not rude - it's the opposite. Most of us on here are eager to help, supportive and patient with one another. Many of us may not be Christlike, but there are hundreds of religions and non-religions to appreciate on here. Yes, some people can be rude (whether naturally or because of a bad day), but they are not the majority on this forum.

Well they do work 273x harder, obviously.

I thought Texas was pro-life. Now I'm really confused.

I don't think its that cut and dry. Many abnormalities cannot be ascertained until the 20th week.
Forcing a woman to have a child that she didn't want to carry to term or that is carrying a severely disabled fetus is more barbaric than the aborting of the pregnancy.
Having men decide what women can do with their bodies is absurd; especially when there is no plan that involves what to do with the unwanted births other than make sure they are born. If you hate food stamps you should be for abortions right? Lock them up for life at 16, but don't curb unwanted pregnancies? It makes little sense to me.
The drive by the GOP to make this an issue is purely religious and thus makes it all the more ridiculous, especially when they decry the intolerant actions of other religions.
Religion has no place in US policy.

public education is such an untapped market..

Previous marriage to a foreigner will be a question and that's it - typically.
The second flag you have is not a flag - it's a wailing raid siren. Getting pregnant by another man while dating you and applying to come over to marry you is going to look like a textbook case of a sham marriage. I am not saying that it is a sham or that I don't believe you have a true loving relationship (it does not matter what I think or don't), but the officer will not see this as OK. I would immediately start preparing a Plan B because the odds of Plan A working are just so so so small if they find out the baby is not biologically yours.
Regardless, I wish you, your fiancee, and your soon-to-be child the best of luck with this difficult situation.

Yeah, just let them die if they don't have money for healthcare. Wasn't that the opinion in the dark ages? For some they'd love to return to a world like in the apocalyptic "Mad Max".
You could have health insurance and still get hit with an astronomical medical bill. Many file bankruptcy for this very reason. You shouldn't lose everything because of an illness or accident. That's just wrong in a first world nation.
There is always this straw-man that has loads of disposable cash, doesn't get healthcare and then ends up in the emergency room with no insurance. Believe me, it's not free, they go after you.
Most people working at s#itty low paying jobs aren't offered health care nor do they have the means to purchase health care. And the argument always is "they should get a better job". It's always easier said than done.
Conservatives live in the strange world where they actually have a mental picture of the people that they hate, an image of a person living off society...instead of a million and one different situations and each one being unique. It's always so cut and dry in their minds...when life rarely is.
I'd hate to be that full of disdain for your fellow man, but hey...whatever floats your boat.

Gary shows once again that he is unable to read. Figures. From the quoted article:
So no, Global Warming does not make people do stupid things - though it seems to make you post really stupid stuff - but it does make these wildfires whether started by natural or human causes so much bigger, faster spreading and thus harder to control and contain.

Yes, health insurance should be decoupled from employment altogether. Have employers - all employers - pay a percentage of their payroll into the fund that helps pay for coverage for everyone. Then it won't matter whether you hire full time or part time staff. You're on the hook for health insurance coverage one way or the other.
So you're one of the guys that cheered the idea that we leave a dying person at the side of the road if that person happens to be unable to afford to have his live saved?

4 analogies and all 4 fail. Awesome.

Only purchasing the receiver was illegal. The other parts are available online...hence the problem.
I suppose the answer is to do nothing because we can't of course control people building a weapon? It's online, how would we stop it!
With that logic lets just have open immigration policy, because of course people will still break the law and come here illegally? Just open the borders! Not more fences, less fences!
I see the solution for a defined problem is applied selectively?

This is true. It doesn't mean however, that you shouldn't make these things illegal. Otherwise, we can legalize burglary, rape, murder and theft and really get those crime rates down. Take down speed limits as well since they don't stop people from speeding. Get rid of red lights while you're at it seeing that people continue to run them anyways. Lets just throw up our hands and declare defeat to the criminal elements of society. Excellent!

You posted the wrong one..

I don't believe it is your intention, but this came off extremely judgmental. There is no way to predict the future. Divorce does happen. Not always, but it does often. Some people choose to be more prepared IF it come to that. Signing or not signing a prenup is not a sign that people are not ready for marriage. If anything, the discussion around it demonstrates an understanding of the complexity of the LEGAL bond about to be entered. Marriage is just as much legal as it is symbolic or religious.
I know I've discussed it because I don't want to burden my fiance with MY debt. He was not there for it, had no say in its accumulation, and it's not his responsibility. Whether we do one or not is still undecided.

Only a severely deluded person counts 20 murdered children as a win.
The NRA consists entirely of severely deluded persons using these crimes as membership drives. Disgusting.

I don't believe it is your intention, but this came off extremely judgmental. There is no way to predict the future. Divorce does happen. Not always, but it does often. Some people choose to be more prepared IF it come to that. Signing or not signing a prenup is not a sign that people are not ready for marriage. If anything, the discussion around it demonstrates an understanding of the complexity of the LEGAL bond about to be entered. Marriage is just as much legal as it is symbolic or religious.
I know I've discussed it because I don't want to burden my fiance with MY debt. He was not there for it, had no say in its accumulation, and it's not his responsibility. Whether we do one or not is still undecided.

I don't believe it is your intention, but this came off extremely judgmental. There is no way to predict the future. Divorce does happen. Not always, but it does often. Some people choose to be more prepared IF it come to that. Signing or not signing a prenup is not a sign that people are not ready for marriage. If anything, the discussion around it demonstrates an understanding of the complexity of the LEGAL bond about to be entered. Marriage is just as much legal as it is symbolic or religious.
I know I've discussed it because I don't want to burden my fiance with MY debt. He was not there for it, had no say in its accumulation, and it's not his responsibility. Whether we do one or not is still undecided.

I don't believe it is your intention, but this came off extremely judgmental. There is no way to predict the future. Divorce does happen. Not always, but it does often. Some people choose to be more prepared IF it come to that. Signing or not signing a prenup is not a sign that people are not ready for marriage. If anything, the discussion around it demonstrates an understanding of the complexity of the LEGAL bond about to be entered. Marriage is just as much legal as it is symbolic or religious.
I know I've discussed it because I don't want to burden my fiance with MY debt. He was not there for it, had no say in its accumulation, and it's not his responsibility. Whether we do one or not is still undecided.

i don't understand why people who work low paying jobs think they should be able to afford housing, utlities, food and transportation. duh, get a better job.