annie1526

Don’t think this will actually end up taking effect. It’ll probably end up getting blocked by the dozens of lawsuits that’ll take place.

Not that big of a deal.  We got approved for a spousal.   27 years difference.

That actually sent it to the wrong location......but I guess Chicago accepted it.  I would ask RapidVisa to check the I-130 instructions.

For clarity, I-130s 
They lied........average time for a spousal visa, as reported by other VJ members, is 471 days from filing to interview....and it appears that times are increasing.  Pakistan is known for quite long periods of AP.
 

 

Nothing has been approved yet. I suggest the two of you read about the process a lot more and understand how it works. 
 
Your petition (not your visa) has been accepted and is under review. That takes at least 6 months. Currently Nebraska is taking a year. Then the NVC stage, then the embassy stage (medical and interview). Unfortunately for you, you are in the demographic that experiences the longest AP of all - Pakistani male. I wouldn’t bet the farm on having your visa in your hands before summer 2021.

Everyone gets a receipt notice a few days after they file.
Your wife’s petition will be approved 6-8 months after you filed.
Then it will go to the NVC.  Processing there will take a few weeks.
Then it will go to the embassy and you can apply for a visa.  Your visa process there can take anywhere from a few weeks to 18 months.
Your visa is a minimum of a year to a year and a half away.

All rapidvisa did?  Charge your wife for simple forms she could have filled and mailed in herself.

Rapidvisa is a joke. You wasted your money. Nobody can speed up the time in immigration. You wait in line like everyone else. Spousal visas are taking a year and a half. And you could have done the process without paying a service if you would have found VisaJourney beforehand.
 
Rapidvisa is just another privately owned company looking for people to spend money on them. You can do a research and read all the info about them.

Can you see why your story made no sense to the CO?  

CO not the only one.

Your story somewhat changes slightly/timeline you gave doesn't make sense slightly---or at least, that's how it's coming across...
 
 
You said you met your fiancee in March 2018.
You said you applied for the B visa "early 2018" (while going through divorce proceedings) with your ex-wife.
 
You first said that you were planning on touring the USA with your ex-wife in hopes of reconciliation, etc.
Then you later said you and your ex-wife were not cordial with each other at the time the B visa was applied for together.
 
You said your ex-wife disappeared and is no where to be found, which is why you have custody of your son.
You also said last year you were planning a trip together?
 
We're not here to judge---that's the CO's job.  What we are trying to show you, is that if your story was mixed up during your interview/kept changing slightly, as it did here in the forums, then it's reasonable that the CO denied you...because the timeline/story probably didn't make sense to them, either.
 
Anyways---all water under the bridge now.  The petition is revoked, and will be sent back to die/expire.  Going forward, get married to your USC in Nigeria (or a 3rd country both of you can travel to), then she files the CR-1.
 

Nowhere to be found, and yet you attempted to obtain a visitor visa with her just last year?

Okay, let me rephrase that:  it is highly unusual to plan for travel with someone you are DIVORCING and no longer want to be with.

This is my thought, too.

It's a bit different in your case, though.  Seems the relationship beginning with the new fiancee overlapped the divorce proceedings in the OP's case.  And then there's the part of the OP and ex-wife (before the divorce was finalized) filing for tourist visas to travel to the US together after OP becoming engaged again.

Add in that the OP and his ex-wife were planning on visiting the USA where the OP's new fiance lives?  Would have also raised suspicion with the CO.
 
Perhaps the CO thought that the divorce was done only to obtain benefits with the USC fiance, quick US divorce, and then "remarry" the first wife and bring her over later on...unfortunately some people try to do this.

Big Issue.
 
You planned to travel with your ex-wife in the middle of a divorce? What was the reason for the travel? Usually, couples in the middle of a divorce are not that cordial to want to travel together.
 
The CO probably felt things did not add up. You will need plenty of evidence when you file the CR1 to remove that doubt.

Can't think of too many couples that file for divorce in 2017, and then afterward plan a tourism trip together in 2018...especially if one of the parties is all of a sudden engaged to someone else in the meantime.
 
CO probably thought that seemed somewhat fishy.

Does she have a support system in the USA?  How will she survive if she is alone?

Based on this: https://www.uscis.gov/archive/archive-news/fact-sheet-uscis-process-applications-widowers-deceased-us-citizens (it does say this page is archived but didnt see any updates, maybe someone else know?). It seems like she may not need an affidavit of support.
 
However...
Does she have any friends or relatives in the US or any life set up in the US? Why would she want to move to a foreign country when the main reason she was moving is no longer there? As she will still have to overcome the public charge rules its going to be very difficult, in my opinion, for a CO to approve her visa if she has no ties to the US

I agree. My only point is that we, nation of immigrants, should treat immigrants no different than we do ourselves. Give them access to the healthcare that we have. 
 
What the administration is doing is different. They're saying that immigrants must have healthcare coverage (which is fine) but they can't even buy it on the healthcare exchange like we all can. What's next -- barring immigrants from using the emergency room?

I'm all for following the rules as long as they are consistent, but this seems to be another example of making it harder for people who take the path of legal and legitimate immigration.  At the same time the government seems to ignore the problem of illegal immigration which is also a costly liability in terms of healthcare.
 
 
 

I agree. Health care should be a right. That means all people have that right: Let immigrants get health care the way we get care. Simple.

Evidently, yes.....

Lol. You and Trump care that much about Mexican immigrants?

Really? It's about immigration restriction under the guise of "healthcare" and "self-sufficiency."
 
Nice try, though.