TAB2TAB

Forgot to say. The instructions for the I-693 tell the K1 medical information. The USCIS link you were given is out of date. The form changed. The CS does not certify on Part 5, the last page. He certifies the vaccination part on page 1.
If you had chickenpox, he is supposed to take your word for it. Their instructions tell them Varicella is the only self reported thing they can accept. Not that they read their instructions and updates.
Here's a good memo to show the doctor http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/2012/May%202012/civil-surgeonQA-11-13-12.pdf. Read question 57.

I quote from http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-family/green-card-through-special-categories-family/k-nonimmigrant
"If you received a medical examination prior to admission as a K nonimmigrant, then you are not required to have another medical examination at time of adjustment as long as:
Your Form I-485 is filed within 1 year of your overseas medical examination
The medical examination did not reveal a Class A medical condition
If you did have a Class A medical condition, you received a waiver of inadmissibility and you have complied with the terms and conditions of the waiver."
I assume that at the very bottom of the DS3025 it says vaccination history incomplete and is eligible for blanket waiver? The I693 is asked "if applicable" only. If you fall in the categories above then a copy of your DS3025 should be enough. Just put in the table of contents that you are making that you have sent the I693 as per USCIS Form I485 instruction (specifically under Initial evidence 7-C).

I got mine done for $150 on the same doctor mentioned by VJ-er and they got it done for $30. They price might have increase? Who knows

You won't qualify on your DS-3025 as you described it. Knightsbridge can not update. That ship sailed.
You can check prices at drug stores, a health department, or anywhere offering immunizations. Go with the best price and get documentation. Then take everything you have...DS-3025, records fromUK GP, drug store shots...to a civil surgeon.
Finding a CS is a nightmare. I have always read the problems people have, but didn't use one for AOS. Well recently a person PMed me asking questions. She was being treated unfairly and overcharged...TWICE. Her English was limited and she didn't know how to do anything. She was going to go back and pay again. So out of curiosity, I started calling Civil Surgeons in California just to see what they said. So infuriating!!!
They are clueless. Quote you the full medical price. Will not listen to the particulars of a K1s needs. Will not consider anything but the full price. I called down the list until I was so angry I quit. I ended each call with "please inform the doctor that I am reporting him to the US government for not studying his material and knowing what a K1 visa holder is and that they do not need anything but the immunization portion filled out. I will also report he is price gouging immigrants with limited English. I hope his Civil Surgeon designation is revoked."
So I got to quit. You unfortunately have to find one. Keep trying or cast a wider net.
I will say there was one lady named Sheila who was interested and wanted to know where to find the form instructions so she could learn more about it. She wrote down everything, saying it was the first time she had ever had anybody explain it to her. The rest wouldn't even listen. I hope you find a Sheila.

Jon and Sol, as much as I enjoyed your first reference to Dan Savage, you outdid yourself on your second post, which I suspect will be received even more obliquely than the first. From my vantage point, your last sentence may be the single most exquisitely ironic post I have ever seen on VJ.
Therefore, by the power vested in me, I thusly present you with a full 10 out of 10 points.

Jon and Sol, as much as I enjoyed your first reference to Dan Savage, you outdid yourself on your second post, which I suspect will be received even more obliquely than the first. From my vantage point, your last sentence may be the single most exquisitely ironic post I have ever seen on VJ.
Therefore, by the power vested in me, I thusly present you with a full 10 out of 10 points.

I called the customs supervisor at Houston and asked a few questions like do you need an itemized list or anything? Does it matter If my luggage allotment actually belongs to my fiancé? We had six bags, mostly his stuff. Anyway he said fill out the customs form saying Household Goods, no list, no values. If he buys anything duty free or brings gifts or bunches of British tea (like we did), then that should be listed with a value because that's not considered "household goods". Anyway... different airport, but our experience, if it helps. Getting your items searched is random so you never know if you will be picked.

I didn't bring any boxes but I flew from Brazil with 3 huge suitcases, a small carry on suitcase and a rather large handbag. You need to declare on the customs form if you have food, seeds, etc, and if you're bringing more than $10k. No one asked to check my bags but when I was being interview by the customs officer he did ask me again how much money I had and mentioned the $10k limit.
Oh the people who work at the Atlanta airport even helped me with my suitcases
Good luck to you two!

We don't have a "nothing to declare" line like in Europe. You fill out your customs form and get it checked by the customs agent. Then they figure out if you need to pay anything.
As far as I know, personal effects do not need to be declared nor are they taxed. You can look over the US customs form here: http://www.cbp.gov/travel/us-citizens/sample-declaration-form

Jon and Sol, as much as I enjoyed your first reference to Dan Savage, you outdid yourself on your second post, which I suspect will be received even more obliquely than the first. From my vantage point, your last sentence may be the single most exquisitely ironic post I have ever seen on VJ.
Therefore, by the power vested in me, I thusly present you with a full 10 out of 10 points.

It isn't to 'garner money.' The fees you pay fund the immigration process, there's no profit being made.
I'll have to check out Dan Savage's 'Savage Lovecast' episode 244 that you mention, I don't remember that one.

Jon and Sol, as much as I enjoyed your first reference to Dan Savage, you outdid yourself on your second post, which I suspect will be received even more obliquely than the first. From my vantage point, your last sentence may be the single most exquisitely ironic post I have ever seen on VJ.
Therefore, by the power vested in me, I thusly present you with a full 10 out of 10 points.

Jon and Sol, as much as I enjoyed your first reference to Dan Savage, you outdid yourself on your second post, which I suspect will be received even more obliquely than the first. From my vantage point, your last sentence may be the single most exquisitely ironic post I have ever seen on VJ.
Therefore, by the power vested in me, I thusly present you with a full 10 out of 10 points.

Jon and Sol, as much as I enjoyed your first reference to Dan Savage, you outdid yourself on your second post, which I suspect will be received even more obliquely than the first. From my vantage point, your last sentence may be the single most exquisitely ironic post I have ever seen on VJ.
Therefore, by the power vested in me, I thusly present you with a full 10 out of 10 points.

Jon and Sol, as much as I enjoyed your first reference to Dan Savage, you outdid yourself on your second post, which I suspect will be received even more obliquely than the first. From my vantage point, your last sentence may be the single most exquisitely ironic post I have ever seen on VJ.
Therefore, by the power vested in me, I thusly present you with a full 10 out of 10 points.

"Free speech" doesn't apply to privately owned message boards. You can say what you like here as long as it abides by the terms of the TOS. Others can also respond to you in ways that may oppose your posts as long as they abide by the terms of the TOS. It's give and take.
But, as some friendly advice, I would recommend that as a recent joiner you might tone down the rhetoric. First, it alienates potential allies and helpful people who have meaningful advice. Second, this process costs what it costs, and takes as long as it takes. It's not a money making venture, and it isn't intended to torture people. It's an imperfect system, but it does a decent job most of the time. Lastly, bringing a relative to the States is a privilege, not a right, and can be helpful to remember this. We are free to marry whom we choose (with a few restrictions) but the US is not obligated to allow the entry of any non-US citizen. Please take what I say in the manner I intend it -- not as criticism, but as advice. I can see this thread already beginning to spin out of control and it needn't.

I am no fan of the immigration process in U.S. - not by a long-shot. However, I believe it really does cost that much, when you take into account all the employees and offices necessary to sustain the bureaucracy.
Yeah, sorry about if the Dan Savage reference was oblique to you. I sometimes erroneously assume that whatever informs my beliefs must be what informs everyone's beliefs.

Thank you mate good luck to you and thanks again for the support...the wife and I need it at the moment as we are still down over the "Denied Status" but am sitting filling the application again and getting a new package together

Thanks mate you would think after 50years married first time I would have learnt my lesson...A slow learner eh!

77 years old? No wonder you wanted to file early.
Just kidding.
Good luck to you!

Amazing..some people should consider leaving the US permanently...sorry to the OP, but you know nothing about our visa process...and your transparent attempt ('creative' was the word you used) to dump $$ into her account trying to fool the CO backfired...as it should...the next CO, seeing this sudden arrival of largesse, asked to see evidence that she earned it or inherited legitimately...and of course, there was no proof of this because the whole thing was a charade.
You also found out that trying to fluff your feathers did not work either.
Our laws are written in a very specific way regarding the issuance of tourist and other types of visas...in that every applicant is presumed to be going to the US to stay until they (and they alone, not some chest-thumping Amcit relative) convinces a CO otherwise. Documents do not and cannot prove intent. funneling money into a bank account to create the illusion of wealth has been tried so many times that the COs probably have a hard time keeping a straight face when they see this feeble attempt at misdirection.
Even the newest CO knows an infinite amount more about our laws and interviewing than you ever will.
The people to blame are those who 'forgot' to return or who decided to use a tourist visa to work in the US...period.
I doubt that the State Dept will be beating your door down anytime begging you to take over our embassies in the visa department.
BTW, just how did you determine the bona fides of all those waiting in line to be interviewed? Did you check their documents? Did you interview them? No on both questions. So, who knows more...a CO ... or you? answer: a CO. End of story.

My husband married someone else a week before his interview. So needless to say. My journey ended April 15th, 2013.
That's why I am so passionate to helping others get their happy ever after. No tears. With pain in my heart your journeys help me heal.

I agree 200% with Boiler and The Maven (100% each) that the law as written allows for legal AOS from a visitor visa/VWP under appropriate and specific circumstances, and thus exercising this process as designed, is NOT a loophole. The challenge is effectively enforcing the law simply because a key condition for eligibility is the intent of the visitor - an intangible commodity. However, just because the law is challenging to enforce or can be broken does not mean the law itself has a loophole.
The VJ community does an incredible job of helping people navigate the complex legal process of immigration; we should focus on helping people through this process, and this sometimes includes alerting someone that they may be (unwittingly or not) taking a path that either breaks the law or may introduce legal scrutiny or other heartache. We do this very well.
On the other hand, we should try our best as a community to avoid speculating (or inviting speculation) whether or not someone's intent is to defraud the system, particularly if they have already clearly stated their intent and as long as their back story corroborates this. Shouldn't determining intent be the adjudicators' job, not VJ's?? Likewise, we shouldn't place value judgments on a fellow member's legal path to immigration, even if it allows them to have a shorter visa journey than ours. We all want our loved ones here with us as soon as possible.
Let's help the OP determine his best course of action, then let our fine United States officials make the judgment calls.

I agree 200% with Boiler and The Maven (100% each) that the law as written allows for legal AOS from a visitor visa/VWP under appropriate and specific circumstances, and thus exercising this process as designed, is NOT a loophole. The challenge is effectively enforcing the law simply because a key condition for eligibility is the intent of the visitor - an intangible commodity. However, just because the law is challenging to enforce or can be broken does not mean the law itself has a loophole.
The VJ community does an incredible job of helping people navigate the complex legal process of immigration; we should focus on helping people through this process, and this sometimes includes alerting someone that they may be (unwittingly or not) taking a path that either breaks the law or may introduce legal scrutiny or other heartache. We do this very well.
On the other hand, we should try our best as a community to avoid speculating (or inviting speculation) whether or not someone's intent is to defraud the system, particularly if they have already clearly stated their intent and as long as their back story corroborates this. Shouldn't determining intent be the adjudicators' job, not VJ's?? Likewise, we shouldn't place value judgments on a fellow member's legal path to immigration, even if it allows them to have a shorter visa journey than ours. We all want our loved ones here with us as soon as possible.
Let's help the OP determine his best course of action, then let our fine United States officials make the judgment calls.

I agree 200% with Boiler and The Maven (100% each) that the law as written allows for legal AOS from a visitor visa/VWP under appropriate and specific circumstances, and thus exercising this process as designed, is NOT a loophole. The challenge is effectively enforcing the law simply because a key condition for eligibility is the intent of the visitor - an intangible commodity. However, just because the law is challenging to enforce or can be broken does not mean the law itself has a loophole.
The VJ community does an incredible job of helping people navigate the complex legal process of immigration; we should focus on helping people through this process, and this sometimes includes alerting someone that they may be (unwittingly or not) taking a path that either breaks the law or may introduce legal scrutiny or other heartache. We do this very well.
On the other hand, we should try our best as a community to avoid speculating (or inviting speculation) whether or not someone's intent is to defraud the system, particularly if they have already clearly stated their intent and as long as their back story corroborates this. Shouldn't determining intent be the adjudicators' job, not VJ's?? Likewise, we shouldn't place value judgments on a fellow member's legal path to immigration, even if it allows them to have a shorter visa journey than ours. We all want our loved ones here with us as soon as possible.
Let's help the OP determine his best course of action, then let our fine United States officials make the judgment calls.