I & B

Though conventional wisdom on this around VJ is that original signatures are required for the letters of intent, I believe this wisdom has been rendered obsolete by explicit changes in USCIS's own policies.

When I filled out my I-129F paperwork, the instructions read:

"5.B. Provide original statements from you and your fiance(e) whom you plan to marry within 90 days, and copies of any evidence you wish to submit to establish your mutual intent to marry." [Emphasis added]

Now, however, the instructions read:

"7.b. Submit evidence that you and your fiance(e) intend to marry within 90 days of your fiance(e)'s entry as a K-1. Evidence of your intention to marry may include a statement of intent to marry." [Emphasis added]

This change seems deliberately designed to take away the original signature requirement for the letters of intent. The problem, however, is that--as you may have heard around here or gathered from your own experiences--the USCIS is a behemoth bureaucracy that is slow to change and quick to make mistakes for which it will never be accountable. Instead of risking an RFE from an adjudicator who may have not read the policy change memo, I would probably still err on the side of providing letters with original signatures.

As far as G-325As go, I think the advice of others in this thread is on point. Original is the safest way, but they do apparently also accept copied and notarized versions, at least in some cases.

Instead of relying on google, why don't you inquire with the hospital about those doctors? See if you can make follow-up appointments with them to discuss the child over the phone.

As far as the rest goes, I'm sorry to say that it is very hard to follow your story. You obviously know your situation very well, but, being unfamiliar with the facts, it's hard to tell exactly what happened here.

I see you have a partially filled out timeline that suggests you had petitioned to bring this woman to the US on a K-1. You also state here that she apparently passed the interview and got the K-1. Ok. So how long has she been in Hawaii and why has she been there and not with you? And what is the timeline of her pregnancy claims? What is the broader timeline of your relationship?

Without knowing the story more clearly, it is difficult to give advice. It seems, however, that she came on a K-1 and, at this rate, is not going to fulfill the 90 marriage requirement in order to adjust status. She did, however, possibly give birth to a baby (possibly your baby, but maybe not) in the US very recently. So what will happen to her? Well, as a practical matter, she can continue to stay in the country illegally almost indefinitely unless she commits a crime, at which point she'll get on the radar of ICE. She will likely have a very difficult time adjusting legal status, but even that won't be impossible in the medium to long run if she marries someone else. If you filed sponsorship papers for her visa, you may be on the hook if she claims government benefits for herself and the child, even though you did not marry her.

Long story short--it sounds like you got into a bad situation and may even have been scammed. While you found out "early" relative to many who come to post their woes on this board, it seems you did not find out early enough because she is state side and that may cause you troubles. It's not popular around these parts (it seems many older men think it completely normal to "fall in love" with younger women over the internet and then petition for them after meeting them only one time), but I think good lesson from this sort of case is that anyone wanting to petition for a fiancee should first meet their fiancee and her family several times if at all possible. It's no coincidence that these types of stories all follow the exact same pattern. The pattern is pretty obvious if you aren't willing to blind yourself to it. (This is not to say that every person who only meets their erstwhile lover only one time is going to get scammed--there seem to be several relationships around these parts that are very successful despite limited pre-marital contact and I don't mean to take anything away from those--but it seems to me that almost every scam follows this type of arrangement.)

In any case, it seems you may have a fairly competent lawyer. I'd circle back to him about the implications of your fact-finding trip. But just get ready to feel relatively powerless as what happens next will be almost entirely out of your hands.

My wife and I are still waiting for her SSN and, since it doesn't seem likely it will get here by the 15th, we are planning to just file for an extension. When filing for an extension, you can write in "ITIN to be requested" for the alien's SSN. In most cases, extensions for six months are automatically granted. It seems easier to me than filing as MFS and later amending, but I suppose everyone's mileage may vary.

My Wife of 4 years is having an affair. Where do I stand with all the support I am obligated to .It's been awhile since I've been here and I forgot how to navigate the site so surely I'm posting in the wrong place..I am so emotionally drained now could someone direct me to the right thread?

You should probably start your own thread with the details of your situation.

LOL sue USCIS????!!! Really??? Haha, now good luck with THAT! LOL XD

It happens quite often. You think people just lie down and forgo the immigration benefits legally due to them because USCIS makes a mistake? You won't hear about it much on this forum but that's just selection bias as the most serious claims (i.e., the ones that would necessitate a lawsuit to resolve) are just going straight to attorneys' offices. Most of those cases (like any other type of case) are ultimately settled before final adjudication, but there are plenty of suits filed against the USCIS.

We just set two wedding dates and we waited to decide them until after my fiancee had arrived from abroad. The first was the legal wedding required to satisfy the conditions for adjustment of status within the 90 day window. The second was the real wedding for all our friends and family.

For the first, we just waited till I could get time away from work and then asked some family members to come to city hall and then go out to dinner. After that legal marriage, we just acted as if we were still engaged and set out to plan our real wedding, which we ultimately decided would need to wait almost a year.

I can't imagine trying to plan the whole real wedding ahead of arrival, honestly. I know people do it, but it seemed like too much hassle and risk for us, given that the 90 day window may wind up a moving target and I don't much like throwing deposits away.

I wonder what people's experience overall have been as to how close the actual received date was to the date the USCIS say that it was received? I'm filing pretty late in the window, so that really concerns me. There is only 10 days left until my wife's GC expires. This wasn't intentional, it's just the way things happened. But I don't recommend to anyone to file that late in the window, if there is any way to avoid it, because it will make you VERY nervous!

My NOA received dates for both the I-129F and AOS package were the the same as the delivery dates for those documents.

It will be the received date on the relevant Notice of Action. If there is a discrepancy between that date and the evidence you have of USCIS receiving a filing, and that discrepancy somehow works to your detriment, you can probably sue the USCIS to have the received date adjusted, but that will be costly and time-consuming. I imagine such claims would be reserved only for cases where the discrepancy in the received date by itself served to deny a petitioner an immigration benefit (such as where it pushed a petition from being received within the correct filing time frame to being late).

Just to update--we were able to apply for a number using her EAD card and her passport. The office said it would arrive at our address in 2-4 weeks.

Thanks all for the quick feedback and info. It sounds like we shouldn't have any issues and, if we do, I know what to tell the clerk.

I'll be sure to check back in after our visit to confirm success or not for posterity.

Hello,

So my wife came here on a last July, married me in early August, applied for a SSN in late August, and applied for AOS at the end of September.

We understood from reading these forums that she should have been able to get a SSN based on her status in August (K-1 who had married in the 90-day window), but, for whatever reason, the SSA spent about three months holding her application in limbo and then issued a denial. We received the denial in early December, after we already had filed the AOS papers, and the reason cited on the denial was that, "DHS says you have an application pending for Adjustment of Status. When you receive our updated DHS documents, contact us."

We believe that determination was likely improper, but, rather than fling ourselves at the windmill that is the combined bureaucratic incompetence of the SSA and USCIS, we decided we would wait until we had a green card in hand before returning to the SSA. Unfortunately, I now realize that was a bit short-sighted. I'd like to be able to file my taxes jointly with my wife this year, but our AOS interview is not until mid-April, which means there will be no chance that we can receive the green card and re-apply for a SSN before the tax filing date.

My question, then, is whether or not anyone has been able to receive a SSN by presenting an EAD card as evidence of legal immigration status. If so, were there any SSA documents you brought to cite to the SSA employees? We're planning on stopping by a SSA office this afternoon and would greatly appreciate any insight into how to best argue our case and get a number (assuming it is possible to do so given our current status).

Thanks!

"The marriage must be legally possible according to laws of the U.S. state in which the marriage will take place."

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/types/family/fiance-k-1.html

You should probably err on the side of caution and withdraw and refile based on this language.

I understand that there is a legal standard in the private sector, but remember this is for the US Federal Government. Everything they do must be documented and followed according to a standard. There is no speculation about whether or not a copy is acceptable of the letter of intent, however it may be hard to find the specific paragraph in USCIS docs that applies to this.

What version of the I-129F are you copying what I've highlighted in red? It is different than mine. I have the most up-to-date version of the wording.

You are right that I was looking at the older version that I had saved to my computer. The new version has different relevant language:

The problem with your contention is that it runs afoul of a very important rule of legal construction: that a term used in one place in a legal document should keep a consistent meaning when used elsewhere in the document.

Here the term in question is "original." Given that there are multiple possible interpretations of original (here it could be used to mean "of one's own creation" as you contend, or it could used to mean "the first copy" as most VJers contend), there is semantic ambiguity and we need to look elsewhere within the document to resolve which construction is more persuasive.

Here is the original text that gives rise to the letter of intent in the I-129F instructions:

5.B. Provide original statements from you and your fiance(e) whom you plan to marry within 90 days, and copies of any evidence you wish to submit to establish your mutual intent to marry.

Notice how even this statement itself goes against your construction as there is an internal distinction made between the "original statements" and "copies of any evidence." Why not copies of original statements? We have to suppose that they used the word "copies" deliberately due to another rule of statutory construction, know as the presumption against tautology.

The main point that undercuts your argument, however, remains in the text you quoted on 'original documents." That text makes very clear that USCIS is using original in the sense of the "first copy." Thus, absent any contrary language, we must construe original to be used in that sense consistently throughout the rest of the document.

The data I compiled re K-1 delays is still available here.

It would probably take a few hours for someone to go through and understand the method to my madness, but it may well prove worth the time as there is a lot of data and work already done. (It took me several days to get the spreadsheets as robust as they are, though a lot of their functionality is very K-1-centric and only really applicable to late 2012/early 2013, unfortunately.)

I also compiled them in such a way as to ensure they they would be easy to update with newer data.

For further reference, here is the original thread where I described how to use the calculator functions I built into those spreadsheets.

Note, however, that the spreadsheets themselves are not terribly good for statistical analysis. To run regressions and such, I highly recommend using GRETL. If you browse the sheets in the file linked above, you'll notice that there are already some pages of export data prepared for use in GRETL.

Good luck and god speed!

Vjourneyuser:

I feel your pain, hang in there be strong. I'm from Boston as well, and my K-1 fiance is about to arrive in 8 weeks. Sometimes I feel I'm also being used. If you feel like getting a cup of coffee let me know I'm in Quincy.

Are you Vietnamese? Do you speak Vietnamese? I wish I can understand Viet so I know what the hell my wife is talking about. Shame on her family, not just her. I'm surprised they don't have a bigger plan, like using you to help sponsor more family members.

You should file for divorce ASAP. Do you own or rent? Are both of your names on the lease or deed? If her name is not on there, kick her out now. She's trespassing your property. Then she will have nowhere to go, and it's pretty cold today. She work or do you provide?

I actually got married in Nam and moved there. I had paperwork problems so I could not register for marriage or find a job. My wife's family actually likes me a lot so no issues with the family. But she's been acting really strange lately, sometimes I don't hear from her for 2-3 days. I also discovered she has a gambling debt, a new facebook page which she never mentioned to me, and a job which she did not tell me about. I don't think she has any grand plans to use me for a GC, when we got married we agreed to live in Vietnam. When we realized how tough it's going be did we decided to apply for K-1. But it's still shady. And when I called her yesterday, some guy picked up, twice. She said her phone died. Really.

Your wife must be pretty stupid not knowing you were listening in on her convo. Girl's got a pretty big mouth.

Maybe you need your own thread, man? But, in any case, I think everyone will just tell you what you already know: your relationship is almost certainly a scam and you need to run away as fast as you can.

All the advice in this thread has been very sound. Just remember that from this moment on she is your sworn enemy--the one person who can bring you to social and financial ruin on a whim. You must steel your emotions and stay ahead of her at every turn now. Just act as if your job, well-being, and good name depend upon it--because they do.

You owe her nothing in the way of explanations. But you need to stay calm and focused so as to not tip her off and give her an opportunity to go into full attack mode. If I were you, I would even go so far as trying to make up some excuse to stay with family (you can lie and say it is a business trip or your relative is sick or whatever) until you can legally force her out of your home. If you don't have friends or relatives in the immediate area who can let you crash with them, rent a cheap place for yourself and move everything valuable to you there at a time when she cannot confront you. The cost of those actions is far less than the cost of a protracted legal fight that includes VAWA allegations.

Keep your head. Be smart. She is now officially the enemy. She will destroy you given the chance. Don't give her the chance.

In cases like this, the safest thing to do is fill it in accurately (here that seems to be both boxes), and then note that they should see an attachment for a full explanation. On your attachment, just state the situation as you have here (but of course with more specific detail), and then also add any helpful additional documentation (shareholder certain, ex.) that corroborates what you stated.

No, I would not make him wait another year. One other poster told you it was unusual for someone to say he was going to file, in the future before you have even met in person. Nonsense! I met my now wife on-line in July 2012. I knew within days that I was falling in love with her. I went to meet her In Philippines on September 15, 2012. I proposed on the 18th. We got married on the 22nd. I knew her love for me was real the minute I looked into her eyes on that first in person meeting on Sept 15. We had a beautiful wedding. The rest is history. We are now together in Hawaii and I have never been happier in my entire life. Life is too short to wait around for things to happen.

Of course you must meet in person before he files and you should be certain if you love him once you meet and look into each others eyes.

Oh and one more thing...ALWAYS tell the TRUTH.

Mele Kalikimaka

Look, what worked for you is fine and dandy, but that doesn't make it normal in any sense. The vast, vast majority of engagements in the US are not committed to before the two erstwhile love bugs meet in person. Though perhaps marriages that will require a fiancé visa have a slightly higher rate of commitment without meeting, even a casual perusal of this board will show you that the vast majority of fiancé visa seekers met in person before they decided to marry.

In fact, is it too obvious to point out that even your story evinces that you did not decide to marry until you met? You had to look in her eyes, after all. So what's your point?

I don't think there will be legal problems as long as you keep good records of when your former petitioner filed the withdrawal of his petition.

On a practical level, however, it does seem a bit odd that he's already planning to petition before he even met you and will file after just one meeting. Perhaps those circumstances, combined with your previous withdrawal, will amount to a red flag. If the relationship is really legit, however, that can be overcome, but you two will probably have some heavy lifting in terms of photos and other documentary evidence. Keep good records.

at one point every single person in this country had ancestors who were immigrants, and our significant others ARE immigrants. Your point just doesn't make any sense. We all feel for people who have waited months BEYOND the projected processing times, but as aaron said, nothing in immigration is a guarantee. No one ever said that anyone was ever going to get through X amount of months, USCIS can only project based on the amount of cases being processed. The OP also started another thread saying that it is the governments fault that he cannot consummate his marriage as much as he would like, that's just grasping at straws. No one in the government EVER told him that he can't travel to see his wife to spend as much time with her as he wants.

The so called "illegals" who people on this site accuse of being given priority over everyone else are children who were brought here illegally by their parents when they were under the age of 18 , children who didn't have a choice in the matter. The Dream Act is giving these children the opportunity to become legal in a country that for many of them, is the only country they have ever known. It isn't like they are being handed a green card and being sent on their way. They still have a process to go through, and it isn't an easy for them either. They are people with hopes and aspirations and feelings like you and I, they are no less important than us, in my opinion.

We all understood when marrying someone from another country that the process of bringing them here was going to take time. Some have had to wait longer than others, it is what it is. My husband is from a so called "T" country and was given AP after his interview. This is something we both knew was a possibility, it meant an extra 10 weeks of waiting for us. We were lucky it was only 10 weeks, there are many more who have waited much longer. Never for one moment did I ever think of coming here and complaining about the black hole of AP, we understood it was part of the process, a matter of national security, and what right would I have to complain after seeing the years people from Pakistan are having to wait. Given the state of terrorism in the world who am I to complain about the government wanting to protect it's citizens?

Just a few small technical points because there are a lot of misconceptions about this--the Dream Act isn't doing anything because the Dream Act was never passed. After the Dream Act was rejected by congress, DHS implemented the DACA program, which follows the contours of the Dream Act, on its own. And DACA does not give the recipients of its benefit an opportunity to become legal, really. It merely provides them with a two year deferment deportation proceedings along with temporary employment authorization for that period. They still have no legal route to adjust status after the two years lapse. Given that DACA was only implemented through executive branch policy and not through statue, it's not clear that it would survive the next White House or even comprehensive immigration reform, should that ever pass.

Completely bananas. First of all, the plaintiffs in Kaplan were non-USCs who were already in the US, awaiting adjudication of their I-485 or their naturalisation. The OP's premise that a Kaplan-style class action would be applicable for the adjudication of I-130s/I-129Fs/pushing documents through the NVC/getting an interview date is inherently flawed. The Kaplan plaintiffs already had legal presence in the US; the putative plaintiffs in the OP's case do not.

Second, as (nearly) everyone has mentioned, having one's non-USC spouse join you in the US is a privilege, not a right. It doesn't matter if you don't think it's fair, or that this process is too long. It is what it is, and the bulk of VJ people who have "graduated" so to speak will tell you that the months (and years) of sadness they spent waiting to be reunited have faded in the face of the reality of being together. I've been on here for almost seven years and believe me, things are MUCH quicker than they used to be. Does it suck? Sure! But believe it or not things have improved and are improving. There have been weird periods of time when things accelerated, and when things slowed down beyond the norm. But it has improved.

Why? They increased the filing fees. More fees, more adjudicators. Here's a proposition -- how about everyone paying more money in increased fees so everyone can speed up? This isn't a taxpayer-funded enterprise. It is funded by the fees of those seeking visas and status. You get what you pay for.

Spot on.

The most efficient and effective way to improve the speed and accountability of the USCIS would be for them to up the fees. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for, and, in the big picture, those filing with the USCIS are not paying terribly much. Given that the long separations cost people many multiples of the filing fee amount--in both emotional and economic terms--this makes little sense.

Of course, we wouldn't want to turn the USCIS into a service that only the well off can make use of. I think the best system, then, would be one of allowing people to pay in tiers for various levels of expedited service. While many would balk at the idea that such a system could disproportionately help those with means, if the price structure was set up correctly, it could make the poorer filers better off as well.

For example:

Three tiers of filers:

I. Baseline, $1000 fee (100% of which goes to administration of own case)

II. Expedited (2x processing speed target), $2500 fee (80% of which goes to administration of own case, 20% of which is used to subsidize the administration of baseline cases)

III. Extra Expedited (4x processing speed target), $6000 fee (75% of which goes to administration of own case, 25% of which is used to subsidize the administration of baseline cases)

In this type of system, everyone would be better off. Those who value and can afford expedited processing times can receive them, and, at the same time, the baseline petitioner would get a boost too. In economic terms, it is sure to reduce deadweight loss. It frankly baffles me that this type of pricing structure isn't more widely used by government services. Then again, outside of those in the Antitrust division of the DOJ, I would venture few in government have spent much time considering the implications of Ramsey pricing.