evergreen

Hints I would suggest from my interview experience:

1. Getting to the embassy early doesn't do you any good if you don't line up at the window that passes out "numbers" in the same order that you arrived at the embassy. You may be standing outside at 7am while another person comes in at 8am or even later - and the "numbers" window (in our case window 4) does not open until 8:30am. It's whoever is first in line at that window that is seen first, regardless of who arrived at the front door first.

2. Even consulate employees do not appear to be aware of many of the rules, laws, and directions on visa forms. Have your documents organized and keep any and all instructions in the event that they ask for documents that are not required or refuse to accept documents that meet standards. (In our case they insisted that we must have three years of tax returns, when only the most recent year was actually required).

*Although we brought original documents and three copies of each, the consulate did take some of our original documents, including my W2 and the original letter from my employer. They returned our original marriage certificate and birth certificates, but kept other originals including the police report.

3. Stay somewhere close to the embassy to make it easy to leave and come back for your visa, or bring the prepaid mailing envelope if you don't mind waiting for it to be sent to you.

4. Bring change for the snack/drink machine.

5. The payment window accepts U.S. and Canadian currency as well as credit cards, but not all U.S. credit/debit cards seem to work in Canada. There is a cash machine in the same building as the consulate, but you have to exit the consulate and go back through security if you leave.

6. They seem very selective about who can enter with you. It must be an attorney/representative, interpreter, or one U.S. citizen. It cannot be a roommate, parent, or relative (unless they are one of the former "allowed" as listed). Thus, a U.S. spouse or fiance would be allowed to enter with you. When we were there, an elderly Indian woman was not allowed to bring her daughter or husband in with her, and she seemed confused and afraid.

7. There is really no where to ask general questions - no information desk - so you have to really pay attention and keep up with what point you are at and where you go next.

8. The interview itself (at least in our case) is nothing compared to all the hell in the year before! I doubt that they look at even 5% of the documents you bring with you, if that. You gotta have 'em, just in case - and have them organized and easily accessible - just in case, but mainly, don't sweat the interview.

9. We had no problems crossing the border once they saw the actual visa. Before that the border patrol officer was snippy and interrogating as usual.

10. Now I gotta start working on the next step!

We're here in the U.S. moving into our new house already! Got to the U.S. Friday evening.

We got the Visa the same day as it had already been arranged by our Congressman's office and a supervisor in Montreal - our application had been expedited and they did not want us to have to have our appointment on Friday and come all the way back to Montreal on Monday. There were not guarantees that it would happen, but it must have been 45 minutes from "interview" to visa in hand.

I tried to move this or copy it to the Montreal interview/consulate "review" site, but couldn't figure out how.

Overall, the interview was NOTHING compared with the rest of the process. Anticlimatic, is how my husband termed it.

We had our "interview" appointment in Montreal on Friday.

Our appointment was scheduled for 9:30am, but we arrived a little before 7am. When we arrived, an older couple and their daughter were already waiting. They'd been there since 5am.

A small line formed behind us of maybe 4-6 additional people before they let us in the building at about 8am. They would only let the mother in of the couple and daughter before us.

We went through security, then up the elevator to the 19th floor.

Our window, #14, did not open until 8:30. That was the window where they give you your number, and that number determines your order in line. Because of this, being the earliest to arrive outside the building doesn't mean much - because when the window finally opens everyone rushes up to the window, regardless of what order they actually arrived in.

We were able, along with the other first three people in line outside, were able to get to the front of the line when the window opened, but only with some effort. A man who had arrived much later was extremely upset that he wasn't at the front of the line.

Anyway, we got our number (C2) and sat down to wait to be called to another window. When we got to that window, she sent us to Window 14 to pay.

When we tried to pay, my credit card did not work! I had to leave the consulate and go to a cash machine and come back to pay! That put us behind.

While I was down getting money, a woman at Window 12 asked my husband for forms. The woman at Window 12 asked my husband several questions (while I was gone). She insisted that we must have all three years of tax returns, even though the directions on the I134 and I864 say that only the current year's tax return is required. Once I was able to come back through security, pay, and make it back to the window, I underlined this in their forms and gave her my 2005 tax return and W2 as well as a letter from my employer. She did not want my paystubs.

We then sat down to wait for our interview. We were really nervous because we were worried that we would be there until 2pm or 3pm due to the credit card fiasco (and our dog was at the hotel).

However, they did call us to an interview room (rooms 7 & 8) not long after that. There was no real interview (as in questioning) and they did not ask for any additional documents. They made my husband swear an oath (which I apparently accidentally joined in on) and then asked us to sit down.

It was about 20 minutes when my husband had his Visa (same day) and we were out of the consulate.

Instead of staying in Montreal to eat, we picked up our dog, checked out of the hotel, and drove straight to the border (on I89 between Quebec and Vermont). The I-194 issue was no problem after my husband showed his extension application, and they took his paperwork, stamped his passport, and we were off.

Now we're in the U.S. - thank god that's all over with!

We have an appointment on Friday morning at "officially" 9:30am in Montreal. If we show up really early, will we be seen earlier, or just wait around longer? Any way to guage how long we will be at the consulate? We're wondering if we will be out before we have to check out of the hotel or not? It's for an I130/CR1. Can't contact the consulate until after 2pm. I know we have to leave and come back for the visa, but as far as the initial visit, wondering how long it is?

Thanks!

Congrats on the big move and uniting!! Good to know about Sumas border. That is where I am planning on crossing!!

"Canadian citizens generally are not required to have a visa or a passport and may visit the U.S. for up to 6 months. However, Canadians must be able to prove their identity and citizenship to enter the United States. CBP will accept either a birth certificate, citizenship certificate or passport as proof of citizenship. If the Canadian citizen does not have any of these because they were lost or stolen, we emphasize that the burden of proof is on the traveler to prove that they are Candian citizens. Copies of correspondence requesting a replacement of documents, etc. might be accepted, but it is up to the CBP officer to determine whether or not such paperwork meets that burden of proof. Canadians coming as a Treaty Trader (and family), Fiances/Fiancees (and their children)and spouses and children of legal permanent residents are required to have a visa to enter the U.S.

Canadians may also apply for an additional stay of 6 months with the USCIS.

Residents of Canada who are landed immigrants generally need a passport and visa to enter the United States, unless they are a citizen of a country eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). If they are a citizen of a country eligible for the VWP, they are only required to have their valid passport. To obtain a list of countries eligible for the VWP, please reference the Department of State Web site at www.state.gov.

Also, Native American Indians born in Canada with at least 50% American Indian blood are exempt from having a visa and passport to enter the U.S. They should have their tribial identity card to present to the CBP officer. The burden of proof is always on the applicant.

There is no set period of time Canadians must wait to re-enter the U.S. after the end of their stay, but if it appears to the CBP officer that the person applying for entry is spending more time over-all in the U.S. than in Canada, it will be up to the traveler to prove to the officer that they are not de-facto U.S. residents. One of the ways to do this is demonstrate significant ties to their home country, including proof of employment, residency, etc. "

I didn't submit transcripts from the IRS - just a copy of my tax return from my files.

BUT I did get my W2 today! I called my former employer and they said that don't generate W2s, the corporate offices do, but they have all of their employees 2005 and later W2s on a website called www.w2express.com. So, I went on the website, printed copies of my W2, and I'm all set!

Friday Friday Friday I may be finally bringing my husband home to live with me for good!

I didn't submit transcripts from the IRS - just a copy of my tax return from my files.

BUT I did get my W2 today! I called my former employer and they said that don't generate W2s, the corporate offices do, but they have all of their employees 2005 and later W2s on a website called www.w2express.com. So, I went on the website, printed copies of my W2, and I'm all set!

Friday Friday Friday I may be finally bringing my husband home to live with me for good!

We have an interview on Friday for my husband's I130/CR1. I was going over all of our documents tonight, and I realized that, although I have paystubs, a letter from my employer, and a tax return, I do not have a W2!

It looks to me like your tax return MUST be accompanied by a W2.

Help! Has anyone gone to an interview without a W2? What's the fastest way to get another copy of your W2? My employer is in town, but payroll is done at a corporate office several states away. There is an IRS office about 30 miles from me, but on their website they say they can only provide copies of tax documents in the event of emergency. Is this considered an emergency?

THANKS SO MUCH!

It looks like if I get a transcript directly from the IRS, I won't need the W2? I'm going to call my former employer and the IRS office first thing in the morning, but I wanted to check here as well (posting here has been very helpful with other problems).

I'm off to work (I work nights) - hope work keeps my mind off of this!

We have an interview on Friday in Montreal for my husband's I130/CR1. I was going over all of our documents tonight, and I realized that, although I have paystubs, a letter from my employer, and a tax return, I do not have a W2!

It looks to me like your tax return MUST be accompanied by a W2.

Help! Has anyone gone to an interview without a W2? What's the fastest way to get another copy of your W2? My employer is in town, but payroll is done at a corporate office several states away. There is an IRS office about 30 miles from me, but on their website they say they can only provide copies of tax documents in the event of emergency. Is this considered an emergency?

THANKS SO MUCH!

We have an interview on Friday for my husband's I130/CR1. I was going over all of our documents tonight, and I realized that, although I have paystubs, a letter from my employer, and a tax return, I do not have a W2!

It looks to me like your tax return MUST be accompanied by a W2.

Help! Has anyone gone to an interview without a W2? What's the fastest way to get another copy of your W2? My employer is in town, but payroll is done at a corporate office several states away. There is an IRS office about 30 miles from me, but on their website they say they can only provide copies of tax documents in the event of emergency. Is this considered an emergency?

THANKS SO MUCH!

Nope.

How can you penalize an engaged couple and refuse the fiance entry under a K1 visa for an alleged "marriage" when the evidence of this alleged "marriage" would not be sufficient for the couple to qualify as "married" for a K3 or CR1?

It's a double standard and puts the couple in a catch-22 situation.

You'd also put them in a situation where they have no way to disprove your allegations.

How do you prove that you're NOT married? You can't. That's like charging someone with murder when there is no missing person, no body, no weapon and no complaint by anyone. How could they prove that they had NOT murdered someone?

In court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff or the prosecutor - to prove that the accused did commit the crime or act, not on the defendant. I feel it should be the same here. You can't just make an allegation without sufficient evidence of a legitimate marriage.

It seems to me that you could only justly refuse entry if there is evidence that a supposedly engaged couple actually has a marriage that would be recognized by the USCIS, U.S. law, consulate, etc. Anything else would be unjust.

Since having rings on or even calling eachother husband and wife (lots of people do this even though they aren't married) or having a ceremony that is not recognized by law as "marriage" would NOT be recognized as a marriage by the USCIS, how can you use that same "marriage" to deny an engaged couple entry?

Common law marriage isn't normally automatic - you have to meet a number of requirements and then ask the that the marriage be recognized.

What next? Every woman who crosses the border who ever wrote the title Mrs. before a high school jock or movie star name will be ineligble for entry under the K1 because she's "married" to whose ever name she wrote years ago? I know that's an exaggeration, but I believe it's the same idea. There has to be evidence of a legal marriage to claim that a couple is married.

It's crazy.

When we go to our interview at the consulate, we must have a valid marriage certificate. We cannot present ourselves at the consulate with wedding rings and obtain a K3 or CR1 visa.

So is it fair to refuse admission based on an alleged marriage, when that same alleged marriage would not be recognised as a lawful marriage by the USCIS or consulate in order to obtain a marriage related visa?

I still find it really weird that law enforcement has authority here that is not overseen by the judicial system. The judicial system is what keeps law enforcement honest and holds law enforcement to the same laws that we are all held to. If people accused of or charged with crimes were not able to enforce their constitutional rights and be heard before a judge/jury (if it were only up to cops), every person ever arrested would be in prison, innocent or not. I realize we aren't talking about U.S. citizens here - but aren't the rights of the U.S. spouse violated when a law enforcement agent (not a judge) makes a decision without sufficient evidence where there is no recourse for those accused?

Without the judicial system (with all of it's imperfections, such as not being truly available to those with low incomes), we'd have essentially no enforceable rights. It would be a police state.

I don't anticipate being denied entry as we will have either the K3 visa or the CR1 visa, and we are legally married and have followed all the rules - but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick. No court in this country would find the wearing of rings as sufficient evidence to prove a marriage.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." is based on one person's opinion, and could be extremely subjective.

Judges and juries are required to be objective (as much as humanly possible, anyway).

That part doesn't make sense and I hope that there is just recourse for couples falsely accused or wrongly turned away (even if it rarely happens) so that they can appeal the decision of law enforcement via a higher authority or the judicial system.

As long as there is legal recourse available, then it protects people from being wrongly denied or wrongly accused, judged, etc.

It's good that the border agents can catch mistakes by the consulate and attempt to weed out those who may be legally ineligible to enter, but I would hope that they would require more evidence than a hunch, personal opinion (which is inherently bias, even on this forum and even in this post!) - is there no standard of evidence?

In a courtroom, evidence must meet certain rules - which weed out unreliable or biased evidence/accusations, etc.

In any profession there are those who abuse their power or violate rights - car mechanics who charge for repairs not done, medical professionals who charge for services not provided, doctors who molest patients, psychologists who take advantage of vulnerable clients, teachers who sleep with their students, nurses who drug other nurses (as in the news recently), correctional officers who abuse inmates, and cops who abuse their power as well (excessive force, brutality, unlawful arrest, etc).

Inevitably, at some point all of these sof power involve lies and denial by the person who committed them - so we can't rely on those abusing power to admit their wrongdoing.

As humans, border patrol agents/officers are not above abusing their power. No more so than any other profession. And no less.

Any person can have a really bad day and mistreat others by using what little power they have - a fast food worker might be rude or mess your order up (or maybe even spit in your food) - a receptionist could disconnect you or put you on hold and never come back - but when a worker with the power to make decisions that can destroy your life have a really bad day (or are simply corrupt) the consequences are more severe.

If there truly were no recourse to someone who was wrongly refused entry, it would be significant, at least in my book. We're all here waiting for our loved ones - none of us can honestly say we wouldn't be impacted greatly or that our relationships/marriages would not be subject to destruction if our beloveds were never able to join us here.

Man ... this issue bothers me so much I think I'm going to contact some immigration rights organizations and attorneys and see what they say as far as the legality and recourse available. If not, I'd be interested in trying to help change the system.

Justice is the most important thing in the world, when it comes down to it. Without it, we have no power and we have no rights.

I think most people don't understand that until they have to use the justice system to protect their rights.

I know I'm going off on a tangent.

It's helpful to hear your perspective and experience.

Thanks!

OOPS - can I delete some posts? I've posted the same thing!

I'd be interested in hearing other opinions as well.

Could a couple be turned away for being "married" (or accused of being married) for an alleged "marriage" that would not even be recognized in the U.S. as a legal marriage?

I still find it really weird that law enforcement has authority here that is not overseen by the judicial system. The judicial system is what keeps law enforcement honest and holds law enforcement to the same laws that we are all held to. If people accused of or charged with crimes were not able to enforce their constitutional rights and be heard before a judge/jury (if it were only up to cops), every person ever arrested would be in prison, innocent or not. I realize we aren't talking about U.S. citizens here - but aren't the rights of the U.S. spouse violated when a law enforcement agent (not a judge) makes a decision without sufficient evidence where there is no recourse for those accused?

Without the judicial system (with all of it's imperfections, such as not being truly available to those with low incomes), we'd have essentially no enforceable rights. It would be a police state.

I don't anticipate being denied entry as we will have either the K3 visa or the CR1 visa, and we are legally married and have followed all the rules - but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick. No court in this country would find the wearing of rings as sufficient evidence to prove a marriage.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." is based on one person's opinion, and could be extremely subjective.

Judges and juries are required to be objective (as much as humanly possible, anyway).

That part doesn't make sense and I hope that there is just recourse for couples falsely accused or wrongly turned away (even if it rarely happens) so that they can appeal the decision of law enforcement via a higher authority or the judicial system.

As long as there is legal recourse available, then it protects people from being wrongly denied or wrongly accused, judged, etc.

It's good that the border agents can catch mistakes by the consulate and attempt to weed out those who may be legally ineligible to enter, but I would hope that they would require more evidence than a hunch, personal opinion (which is inherently bias, even on this forum and even in this post!) - is there no standard of evidence?

In a courtroom, evidence must meet certain rules - which weed out unreliable or biased evidence/accusations, etc.

In any profession there are those who abuse their power or violate rights - car mechanics who charge for repairs not done, medical professionals who charge for services not provided, doctors who molest patients, psychologists who take advantage of vulnerable clients, teachers who sleep with their students, nurses who drug other nurses (as in the news recently), correctional officers who abuse inmates, and cops who abuse their power as well (excessive force, brutality, unlawful arrest, etc). Inevitably, at some point all of these abuse of powers involve lies and denial by the person who committed them.

As humans, border patrol agents/officers are not above abusing their power. No more so than any other profession.

Any person can have a really bad day and mistreat others - a fast food worker might be rude or mess your order up (or maybe even spit in your food) - but when a worker with the power to make decisions that can destroy your life have a really bad day (or are simply corrupt) the consequences are more severe.

Man ... this issue bothers me so much I think I'm going to contact some immigration rights organizations and attorneys and see what they say as far as the legality and recourse available. If not, I'd be interested in trying to help change the system.

Justice is the most important thing in the world, when it comes down to it. Without it, we have no power and we have no rights.

I know I'm going off on a tangent.

It's helpful to hear your perspective and experience.

Thanks!

I still find it really weird that law enforcement has authority here that is not overseen by the judicial system. The judicial system is what keeps law enforcement honest and holds law enforcement to the same laws that we are all held to. If people accused of or charged with crimes were not able to enforce their constitutional rights and be heard before a judge/jury (if it were only up to cops), every person ever arrested would be in prison, innocent or not. I realize we aren't talking about U.S. citizens here - but aren't the rights of the U.S. spouse violated when a law enforcement agent (not a judge) makes a decision without sufficient evidence where there is no recourse for those accused?

Without the judicial system (with all of it's imperfections, such as not being truly available to those with low incomes), we'd have essentially no enforceable rights. It would be a police state.

I don't anticipate being denied entry as we will have either the K3 visa or the CR1 visa, and we are legally married and have followed all the rules - but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick. No court in this country would find the wearing of rings as sufficient evidence to prove a marriage.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." is based on one person's opinion, and could be extremely subjective.

Judges and juries are required to be objective (as much as humanly possible, anyway).

That part doesn't make sense and I hope that there is just recourse for couples falsely accused or wrongly turned away (even if it rarely happens) so that they can appeal the decision of law enforcement via a higher authority or the judicial system.

As long as there is legal recourse available, then it protects people from being wrongly denied or wrongly accused, judged, etc.

It's good that the border agents can catch mistakes by the consulate and attempt to weed out those who may be legally ineligible to enter, but I would hope that they would require more evidence than a hunch, personal opinion (which is inherently bias, even on this forum and even in this post!) - is there no standard of evidence?

In a courtroom, evidence must meet certain rules - which weed out unreliable or biased evidence/accusations, etc.

Thanks!

Our CR1 and K3 both ended up at the consulate stage at the same time. I think the CR1 saves somes steps in the long run/offers benefits that the K3 doesn't? Regardless, good luck!

I was just wondering, because I see so often statements that a visa does not guarantee entry, etc., and have read about people with AP being denied entry.

I assumed cases where a person with a valid visa was denied entry meant that they had some new criminal history that hadn't been caught before during prior checks, or that they did something illegal when trying to enter (like having weapons or drugs or something).

But I also worried that there might be an irritable border agent/officer who for whatever reason felt like denying someone entry.

I've also had what I consider unpleasant experiences at the border (which I took personally, but apparently are standard).

Our application is being expedited, so the consulate said that they would issue my husband's visa on the same day as our interview if at all possible. Our senator's office has been in communication with the consulate, and helped arrange that. Which reminds me, I need to send her a thank you!

We plan to enter the U.S. the same day as the visa is issued.

Nothing has changed since we applied for the visa, and we don't expect anything to change between the time we have our interview, get the visa, and cross the border.

It's just getting so close to the end I, I am having the "Murphy's Law" panic - thinking that somewhere, something just has to go wrong. Like I said, paranoia.

Thanks for the reassurance!

I reserved a hotel near the embassy, my husband picks up his medical exam results this Friday, and we have our appointment in Montreal next Friday!

I will be soooooooooooo happy if he is with me here in the U.S. next Saturday!!

Or if the CBP believes that the consulate made a mistake - which happened to a VJer in the UK about a year or so ago.

And even more recently to a VJer's fiance in Atlanta earlier this year when the CBP thought that a K1 was already married.

In this case, why did they think the K1 was already married? Were they wearing wedding rings? Carrying a marriage certificate? Just curious. And was the K1 already married or not?

It would be sad if the CBP wrongly denied entry based on a "hunch" and without any actual evidence.

What was the outcome? Did they have recourse?

We expect my husband to get either a K-3 or CR1 visa on September 29th (both our K3 paperwork and CR1 paperwork are at the consulate now).

We plan to drive to the U.S. that day.

For what reasons could they not allow him to enter the U.S. at the border?

Why would the consulate/embassy issue a visa to someone not eligible to enter the U.S.?

I know I'm probably being paranoid.

Thanks!

We expect my husband to get either a K-3 or CR1 visa on September 29th.

We plan to drive to the U.S. that day.

For what reasons could they not allow him to enter the U.S. at the border?

Why would the consulate/embassy issue a visa to someone not eligible to enter the U.S.?

I know I'm probably being paranoid.

Thanks!

I had the same in my packet - only the first part of the DS-230 and the DS156. No part II and no DS156K.

Mine, also, looked like a really crummy photocopy. There were no bar codes on it or anything really distinguishing it from the same form from another source.

I printed a DS-230 off of the Internet, found it was identical to the photocopy Montreal sent (except for the printed "K", which we wrote in), and filled my DS-230 out online and printed it out.

We got an interview, so I assume the form was okay.

Found this bed and breakfast for $75-$100 CAD per night, including a hot breakfast. Off street parking is $10 per night. They say that the US consulate is 15 minutes walk or 5 minutes by bus.

Please follow this link for some photos: http://www.studiosmontreal.com/b_and_b.html

Our B&Bs are centrally located downtown Montreal within walking distance to the main points of interest and public transportation.

If the cheap hotel across from the consulate is $100+ a night, I figure it might be worth it to use priceline and stay at a nicer hotel, or at a bed and breakfast. Anyone have any recommendations?

Thanks!

I spoke with the consulate, and they say that because my husband had a Canadian passport, had filed for an extension of his I94, left at the six month mark, was never denied entry, never notified of an overstay, never asked to leave the U.S., and never placed in deportation status, he is NOT considered an overstay! They seem to agree that the time he spent in the US while awaiting a decision on his request for an extenstion is not considered an overstay.

I spoke with the consulate, and they say that because my husband had a Canadian passport, had filed for an extension of his I94, left at the six month mark, was never denied entry, never notified of an overstay, never asked to leave the U.S., and never placed in deportation status, he is NOT considered an overstay! They seem to agree that the time he spent in the US while awaiting a decision on his request for an extenstion is not considered an overstay.

So we have our interview in less than two weeks.

Next step - looking for an affordable hotel in Montreal with safe parking!