Arazia

I don't know if it has slowed down statistically or not. I know theres a lot of people getting approvals and not posting here, though. If you go to the timelines and just sort it by NOA2, there are some good chunks of people getting approvals this week, just not the sheer volume of the mass-approvals before.

Well, baring in mind that the question itself is 'questionable'...

Everyone here is in a different situation, and a different point in their lives. There are those who have been together a matter of months, and those together for years. The dynamics in a relationship are different between the two. If you've become used to being appart for years at a time, then you probably are more likely to not view this process as much different. For those who aren't used to it, it's a lot harder. You've been with your beloved and now the US government is what lies in the way of being together again.

Equally, we have people from all sorts of social backgrounds. Some are introverts, some are extroverts, some are into a lot of things, some aren't. While some people take comfort in doing a lot of things to get their mind off of it, others look for the support of others in similar situations. That is what a lot of people are doing, at least it seems to me. They are emotional, as this is an emotional process, and looking for a few kind words of support from others in the same boat. Yes, it gets tiresome if it goes on forever and a day, but everyone copes their own way.

As for the sex thing... I'm just fine with Mr. Lefty for the time being. I miss the hugs from my beloved more than anything else.

Have had a dog before, have two cats now. Listed as 'cat person'. My fiancee' is a 'cat person' as well.

Once every day, not really the telephone but Skype.

Co-worker snoring in the next cubicle over.

While you sit and argue about it or not, our Ewok friend has already said it was uncalled for. He's the head honcho here, so maybe you should listen to him and not make such 'attention getting' remarks before you give advice...

Awesome!

Glad to see the approval!

Make sure to update your timeline for the statistics folks on the board.

Goodluck with the rest of the process!

the shitthead one is an urban legend being a teacher I've heard them all.

Eheh, my bad then. I'm one of those people that general believes things they are told by their teachers unless the teacher prooves to be an untrustworthy source. Oh well, chalk one up to teachers lying to students.

My fiancee's name is pretty bad. Especially the way his dad says it's supposed to be pronounced. Of course, this means nothing if you don't speak english but... his name is said like this: 'Hairy Cordweiner' spelled differently of course.

... mistake double post.

My teacher in gradeschool told us a story of a student she had in one of her classes. From the first day, she was always afraid to say his first name, so she'd call him by his lastname. Why? Because his firstname spelled out something not so nice. She found out from his parents later on that his name was pronounced Shi-theed. ... it was spelled s-h-i-t-h-e-a-d.

The way I understand it, applications for 2006 are accepted beginning October 2005. Winners are notified in the summer of 2006, and immigrant visa processing for these begins at the consulates in early October of 2006.

Ahh, I see! I was thinking about the current (2007-2008) lottery which is just starting next week. I see now how that carries over through the following year. Thanks for the info.

Great, thanks! It works! It says that the petition was received on 9/20. Is that my NOA1 date? (I need to know for the timeline.)

I'm pretty sure that's the NOA1 date. That date is usually your NOA1 notice date, which is what I used on my timeline. I'm not sure if that is the correct date to use, though. There is also a 'receipt' date that you will see when you get your actual paper NOA1.

Does anyone else know? Which date are we supposed to put on the timeline? The NOA1 notice date (date listed as received on the website) or the receipt date from the NOA1?

We're all impatient here, we all want to be reuinited with our loved ones. That's just the way it goes...

As for the topic of the post, would even the consulate be dealing with this at this point? I mean, the actual lottery doesn't start accepting applications until October 4th. Even then, it's all automated on a website. I could imagine in the spring when the winners are chosen and the NVC and consulates have to deal with these new visas that it would be a problem. I can't imagine it really having an effect right now though.

Of course, I could be totally off-base on this, just my logic.

I believe you are correct, it is the three-letter code of the service center followed by ten digits. In our case it was WAC06XXXXXXXX. You can always input the number into the USCIS website and it should show 'Petition for Fiance(e)' when you add it to your portfolio.

I wouldn't think that that has much to do with it really. I don't think the visa lottery is even processed at the service center level. It seems like it's all automated through the visa lottery website (as that's the only way you can submit an entry) so I doubt that could be what is holding things up.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/ty...types_1318.html

First, I recommend you look over at this site to give you more information on the condition and it's management: http://www.hepb.org/hepb/index.htm

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/Medical_Exam.htm

Explains some of the conditions that could cause a denial.

I'm personally not sure if her condition could be included, but it can be transmitted via bodily fluids so you should be careful to avoid transmission.

Glad to hear that NVC moved out your application so quick.

Cross my fingers for you that things keep going well.

You get sent your NOA2 when your case is approved. The second Notice of Action is your approval. So if you're approved on the website, it means your paper NOA2 will be on it's way soon and your application should be sent off to NVC soon.

Congratulations! Make sure to update your timeline for all our statistics folks to keep track of approvals.

Hope things continue to go well for you.

*huggle*

WEll. We're on a thread complaining about the wait for a K-1 to be approved. This person has already fioled a K-1 - doesn't want to wait...he says he has a tourist visa and they'd get married...

if that's not intent, I don't know what is...and that was my point. This pesron would CLEARLY be using a tourist visa to come get married.....

I think you might be confused. The OP (original poster) didn't say anything about a tourist visa. That was E&K mentioning the options and it was also E&K who just affirmed that the reason they did not chose that option is the exact reasons already mentioned.

3) Get married and go straight for the AOS-I have a tourist visa.

This is illegal, FYI.

As far as I know, it's only considered fraud if you enter on a tourist visa/VWP with the intent to get married, then get married and file for AOS. Of course, having a canceled I-129F form in your history would be a huge red-flag and I think it would be really tough to explain how you wanted to marry the person, then suddenly didn't want to marry them for the course of a visit, then got married anyways...

I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I've gotten from the boards.

From:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...34056&st=15.

Senator Mikulski's office called today. The lady working on my case is really cool. I told her the truth about having my congressman looking into it as well. She said that normally she would drop a case if she found out that someone was duplicating efforts due to the high volume of inquiries they perform. I'm lucky because she told me that she has already started working on this and wasn't going to drop me because I told her. She said that they both inquire to the same place and now the officer will have to respond to both of them. Man, I'm glad I took all of your advice and didn't do all 4!! I'd be screwed.

She said that sometimes it does slow there efforts when they have to respond to both people. She however said she would be hearing something soon. She did say that it's a much more in depth response than what I could ever get from the website or the customer service line. She said they act as a direct liason with VSC and can talk directly to them. So, I think I should at least hear something soon.

I just wanted to let others know not to duplicate efforts. It's not suggested. I acted on impulse, but she said I didn't do anything wrong and everything will be ok.

Good Luck to everyone!!!

I also think you'd be better off just waiting on your current application. Someone else posted recently that too many inquiries from outside sources can actuallys low down your progress or cause more problems to your application because the person working on your case has to answer every single inquirey separately.

In any case, you've already put in this much time, I think you have to ask yourself if it is worth it to start from scratch and possibly have to wait the same amount of time re-starting now to get that approval. In the end, it's up to you, but personally I'd give the K-1 a little while longer.

As far as I know, the answer is 'no', they can't and won't deny the application or do anything whatsoever just because the person is visiting. There is a possibility of being turned back at the border when visiting, but this really doesn't effect the process at all.

At least as far as I know, and I have my beloved coming to visit me this Christmas and I fully expect to still be in this process then.

While we don't have approval so I can't say much about levels of evidence they need... Harry and I didn't have our boarding passes either. Mine got tossed in a massive house cleaning and his mysteriously disappeared (along with his itinerary and the translation and certification - we think his mother found and tossed them). We sent pictures, one hotel receipt, a celphone bill with roaming in his country, letters from friends and family, and copies of passport entry/exit stamps and baggage claim tickets.