TinTin and Samby

CFO is required for any Filipino leaving on an International flight

Not true. Only those Philipinos leaving the country with intention to emmigrate. For example, many Filipino university students go to Singapore or other countries to do internships. Obviously they require a passport, but do NOT require CFO stamps.

hi ive just done my cfo seminar last oct 5 i wen there by 3pm so dont need to go back..our seminar stared 3:30pm i thnk thats the best time to go there so dont need to go back to get the certificate u wi just wait.... they will ask me for the photocopy of the FF: nbi, birth certificate and cenomar.. and payments 250 pesos.. the next step is for the S1... for the picture taking... then i went to S3 for the small dicussion for what we need to do after we got the visa... the one on one interview and they will ask the photocopy of the divorce decree.. and thats all.. and after that they released my yellow certificate and they told me that i will just go to CFO office for the green certiicate..and the sticker caz i still dont have my visa..

reminder: fiancee need to know the middle name of her fiance (the family name of his mother before she got married) and they will ask u the telephone number they will not release the certificate if u dont know those thngs....

and dont worry no need to kiss thier ### caz they are nice.. and nothing to worry... only at the embassy based in my experience hehehe!!!!! hope it will help u...

Hi Jeraly & Weedebz,

This is Samby => now "TinTin & Samby" Just to confrm that my dates in the spreadsheet are correct. Thanks for all your work!

There is no problem to take the CFO class after she already has her passport and /or visa.

There is no waiting period required before she can leave the country after she completes her CFO certification and gets the CFO stamp in in her passport.

Congrats on getting your visa!

HI,

Im in a similar sort of situation. My fiance and I met in South Africa and I just moved back and got a job in July. After researching it here on this forum more, I decided that it would be best if we got another person to also sponsor my fiance. I make enough money, but havent been working that long and have no assets. I read about people getting turned away from the interview for not having the two years of tax returns (I read it more than once). To be safe, we've decided to get my dad to sponsor him as well as myself. I hope this helps. Best of luck to you.

Some consulates wont accept a co-sponsor like the Philippines.

"Some consulates wont accept a co-sponsor like the Philippines."

Is this really true??

Thanks for the links, Logres!

We're all in! Thanks!

delightful post! thank you. Congratulations and good luck!

youre splitting the statement at the wrong place.

applications postmarked on or after july 30th OR otherwise filed on.

you also are taking the otherwise filed on to mean postal delivery. thats not what they mean either. they dont even mean when they sign for it. Otherwise filed on means filed into their system.

their statement clearly reads in legal terms if your post mark is on or after july 30th OR if USCIS files your petition ON or after july 30th then the new fee increase applys. Doesnt say anywhere if your postmark is before july 30th then its good.

Chris

Clearly reads in legal terms?

Here is the original clause: Applications or petitions postmarked or otherwise filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

According to my dictionary otherwise when used as an adverb means 1. in another way; differently 2. under other circumstances 3. In other respects.

Now substitute any of those terms for otherwise:

a. Applications or petitions postmarked or in another way filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

b. Applications or petitions postmarked or differently filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

c. Applications or petitions postmarked or under other circumstances filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

d. Applications or petitions postmarked or in other respects filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

None of them is even close to your interpretation which if I understand it correctly is:

Applications or petitions postmarked or filed into the USCIS system on or after that date must include the new fee.

Sorry. I just can't agree with you. And evidence of some contract employees rejecting applications and petitions is not proof that they or USCIS is correct. I am not an attorney or an even an english major but I think I have a real good idea what the clause in question means. If USCIS wanted to say that all petitions and applications had to be received into their system before 7/30 than they should have said exactly that and never mentioned a postmark.

To anyone who knows: I had assumed there are also applications and petitions that were postmarked prior to 7/30 but received on 7/30 or after that were accepted with the old fees. Am I wrong?

Well, I have to say that my reading of USCIS's statement is exactly the same as Chris'. And with the utmost respect, I have to say, Bill, that, to me, your grammatical substitution exercise does the exact opposite as you suggest: It support's Chris' interrpretation.

For me, the key is "or" and where it is located in the sentence. The 'or' provides for 2 possible ways that USCIC can utilize to accept or reject. The dlemma is that it is at the USCIS's discretion about which of those 2 options it wants to utilize. To me, I don't see any implied equality between the 2 "or'd" options - something that those that are questioning why USCIS would use the word 'postmarked' are implying.

One other aspect that comes to my mind as well, is the earlier words in the sentence: "Applications or petitions..." it doesn't stretch my thinking to imagine that USCIS has some uncommunicated and undocumented intention that it will apply either of the 2 "or'd" options on a consistant, but differing basis depending on the type of "Application of Petition" being submitted. ie, certain petitions are accepted based on postmark while others are accepted based on entering them into the USCIS's system.

The one thing we can all agree on is our desire and the need for USCIS, et al, to be much more precise in their instructions and documenation at each step in this journey. And to have a specific mechanism to be able to get a 'confirmation of understanding' or 'ruling' that customers can rely on USCIS to stand behind.

Thanks for the detailed post. Congratulations to you both!

Congrats, Kez! That's great news that things are moving for you guys!

Hi Teagan,

I just wanted to offer my perspective on your topic. I believe everyone has to make their own decisions about the concept of spirituality in their life. Admittedly, I may be an 'unconventional' thinker here, and there are many Catholics who would and could argue many points of my thinking...potentially to a conclusion that, given my beliefs, it is unreasonable to claim that I am, in fact, a Catholic.

That said - I believe that the best evidence of God's existence and his influence can be found in how humanity treats each other, in how fellowship exists, grows and thrives inside one's self, one's family, one's community and beyond. For me, the value of an organized religion, such as Catholicism, is in the coming together of these persons, families and communities to interact, broaden their horizons and grow/contribute from the experience. These are concepts that strengthen individuals and families and communities.

As an individual, there are plenty of things in the Catholic teachings that I believe in. Equally, there are plenty in which I do not. As another poster mentioned, shared experiences and rituals are valuable cornerstones for a family. Attending Mass on Sunday, having breakfast together afterward and talking about what each persons 'take-away' was from the readings, gospel or homily that week - whether in terms of God and Jesus, etc (religious) or just in terms of how people should act or react when faced with life's situations (not necessarily religious) can be a valuable shared family ritual that can bring stability, a sense of belonging and opportunities for communication. All of these are, in the end, good things, regardless of the strength of your Belief or acceptance of all of the corresponding organized religion tenets.

Thanks for your thought provoking post. Best Wishes!

Samby

Is there any reference here that lists the Standard Medical Questions that are asked during the K1 Medical Examination/Evaluation that occurs immediately prior to the Embassy Interview?

We maintained constant contact through mental telepathy and remote viewing. Sometimes it became too much like when showering or sitting on the can. We had to leave this part out of the interview though.

Too Funny!!!!!!! Great!!!

As for us, we chat 1 or 2 times per day - sometimes 15 minutes, sometimes 3 hours....it varies. Most days, or at least every other day, we spend 10-25 minutes on the phone as well. We were together in the Philippines for 6 months and I've been able to get back for another 3 week visit subsequent to that time. I hope the next visit back will be to sweep her off her feet and wisk her away on a jet plane to our new home together!

Hi SkyBlue06,

You can enter the USA at any POE you choose, incuding JFK, if that is what you want. Once you have been processed by immigration and entered the country, you are free to travel where you want, including another flight to Portland, Oregon.

By the way, we are thinking of a plan similar to yours. My gal will be coming from Manila to Portland. While we arent really interested in the EAD at JFK for working purposes, I beleive it may make many other things go more smoothly during the inital weeks - month here in the USA: things such as Drivers License, SSN Card, etc.

Best Wishes! Maybe we will see you guys around Portland sometime in the future!

My boyfriend just called to tell me that after I gave him all the information from here, he contacted an immigration firm. They think it shouldn't be a problem, but they agreed to look into it for us. So that means there's still hope that we can file this month

Sorry, but those sneaky USCIS folks really outdid themselves on the wording on this one for the 129F application.

The 129F does not state that your divorce must be final (which in Wisconsin, it is on the day of the court decree - no waiting period required for the divorce to be final). Unfortunately, the wording on the 129F states that your must be "Free to Marry". This includes both having the Final Divorce Decree PLUS the expiration of any subsequent waiting period required before being able to remarry (and in Wisconsin, that is 6 months from the the date of the final divorce decree).

You're going to have to wait for the 6 months after the final divorce decree to elapse before you can file the 129F. Pretty much sucks...but, there it is. Best of Luck.

Samby (Wisconsin divorce - 2002)

As your teaching was more than 5 years ago, its not needed on the form.

Most USC's answer the "last occupation abroad (if not listed above)" question with 'none' - unless they indeed had employment abroad within the last 5 years (in which case, it is already listed 'above' on the form, and not needed again).

I don't beleive that is acccurate. My understanding is that the last work ourside the USA ("abroad" for a USC), if any, regardless of the number of years that have passed.

Perhaps one of the VJ experts can weigh in on this? Thanks!

Hmm. I think you're right. I opened the G 325a - thinking there were instructions with it to provide guidance on this subject, but there aren't any.

So I think the question as stated on the form indeed means whether or not the work abroad was 5 or 10 years ago - it says to list the last occupation abroad (if not stated above). So if I were a USCer who had taught ESL abroad, I would indeed list it there -- if I couldn't exactly remember the employer, I'd put 'employer unknown, see supplement' and then explain on a supplemental form that you know when and where it was (give the dates/location) but cannot remember the name of the firm that employed you.

I thought that the 'within the last 5 years' applied to ALL employment, including overseas employment. But that isn't how the form reads.

See - this is why I like coming back to threads I posted in and reading subsequent responses. Thank you!!!

Yep..me too! I certainly do learn more each day I come here...even if I have to sift through a lot of other people's attitude baggage to learn it. But, it's all good..that's the price of learning. Take care!

As your teaching was more than 5 years ago, its not needed on the form.

Most USC's answer the "last occupation abroad (if not listed above)" question with 'none' - unless they indeed had employment abroad within the last 5 years (in which case, it is already listed 'above' on the form, and not needed again).

I don't beleive that is acccurate. My understanding is that the last work ourside the USA ("abroad" for a USC), if any, regardless of the number of years that have passed.

Perhaps one of the VJ experts can weigh in on this? Thanks!

It was the foreign fiance that worked in Japan. Her last employment abroad is her current or most recent employment. If we were talking about a USC working abroad, you would be absolutely correct.

Thanks. If you reread, you will see that I actually did distinguish the relevant rule for both scenarios - the USC Petitioner and the Beneficiary (who is the subject of the OPs original request).

From my post above:

if the USC Petitioner *EVER* worked outside the USA (ie "abroad") - regardless if that was more than 5 years ago - , they are required to list the last such position in the "supplemental" section, unless it is already listed in the "main" section.

regarding the OP's Beneficiary, even if she is not 'technically' required to list her Japan employment on the G-325a, she WILL be required to have a Police Clearance issued from Japan if she was there for 6 months or more subsequent to turning 14 years of age.

It was not addressed in the post to which I responded. I didn't notice who said what before that post. It is still true that most USC's answer the question with "none" but if they ever had an occupation abroad, the last one is required to be listed. What a small subset must doesn't invalidate what most correctly do.

Huh??? Just feeling argumentative today or what?

Also, check fares from US to Singapore and US to Manila. then you can take a cheap local flight to cebu.

As your teaching was more than 5 years ago, its not needed on the form.

Most USC's answer the "last occupation abroad (if not listed above)" question with 'none' - unless they indeed had employment abroad within the last 5 years (in which case, it is already listed 'above' on the form, and not needed again).

I don't beleive that is acccurate. My understanding is that the last work ourside the USA ("abroad" for a USC), if any, regardless of the number of years that have passed.

Perhaps one of the VJ experts can weigh in on this? Thanks!

It was the foreign fiance that worked in Japan. Her last employment abroad is her current or most recent employment. If we were talking about a USC working abroad, you would be absolutely correct.

Thanks. If you reread, you will see that I actually did distinguish the relevant rule for both scenarios - the USC Petitioner and the Beneficiary (who is the subject of the OPs original request).

From my post above:

if the USC Petitioner *EVER* worked outside the USA (ie "abroad") - regardless if that was more than 5 years ago - , they are required to list the last such position in the "supplemental" section, unless it is already listed in the "main" section.

regarding the OP's Beneficiary, even if she is not 'technically' required to list her Japan employment on the G-325a, she WILL be required to have a Police Clearance issued from Japan if she was there for 6 months or more subsequent to turning 14 years of age.

As your teaching was more than 5 years ago, its not needed on the form.

Most USC's answer the "last occupation abroad (if not listed above)" question with 'none' - unless they indeed had employment abroad within the last 5 years (in which case, it is already listed 'above' on the form, and not needed again).

I don't beleive that is acccurate. My understanding is that the last work ourside the USA ("abroad" for a USC), if any, regardless of the number of years that have passed.

Perhaps one of the VJ experts can weigh in on this? Thanks!

Actually, For a USC Petitioner, only 5 years worth of employment history is required in the "main" section.

However, if the USC Petitioner *EVER* worked outside the USA (ie "abroad") - regardless if that was more than 5 years ago - , they are required to list the last such position in the "supplemental" section, unless it is already listed in the "main" section.

As others have mentioned, regarding the OP's Beneficiary, even if she is not 'technically' required to list her Japan employment on the G-325a, she WILL be required to have a Police Clearance issued from Japan if she was there for 6 months or more subsequent to turning 14 years of age.

Given this Japanese Police Clearance requirement (which has been reported can take up to 4 months to attain - apply early!), if It were my fiance's G-325a application, I would have her list it in the employment section. IMO, this provides more consistancy of all the interrelated information in the K1 Application package. For certain, someone is going to ask the question why is there a Police Clearance here from Japan? What was she doing in Japan? The answers will be more clear and self-documenting by providing a more holistic view of the history of the beneficiary by including the employment entry in the employment section in the initial application.

My fiance is thinking of applying for a tourist visa so he can come visit me. We sent in our I-129F already and still waiting for NOA1. Anyone from the Philippines dealt with this situation where your fiance flew her for tourist visa? He had a tourist visa before but it's expired. Will it take along time to renew the visa? Please let me know. Thank you so much.

Applying for tourist visa in the Philippines is a game of chance especially if you are single. He can try though who knows he might get one.

Good luck

He had a tourist visa before but it expired. I was wondering how long it will take again to re apply.

Pinaylang,

Generally, it is nearly impossible for the average pinoy to get a tourist visa to the USA - even less of a chance if he has a 129-F pending. The "Strong Ties" means test is such a huge hurdle - even for a Univesity Educated, Professionally Employed, Home-Owning Pinoy. This would describe a distinct minority of people in the Philippines and the vast majority of these people would still get denied a tourist visa.

However, you do mention that he had previously received a Tourist Visa to the USA. Some questions to think about:

1. How long ago was the previous visa issued?

2. Did he actually use the previously issued visa - did he actually travel and get admitted into the USA?

3. Under what circumstances was he granted the previous Tourist Visa? - Family abroad? Work? Traveling with Organized Group? Owns business in PI? Entertainer? Accomplished and Published specialist in a certain field, ie Medicine, Law, Engineering, etc...

4. Have his circumstances changed since when he last applied and was granted a tourist visa?

The process is such a pain in the neck and takes such a long time (4-6 months) to have changes made, even under the suppossedly simplified RA 9048 Clerrical Error Correction Act. IMO, its not worth it unless the information that is incorrect is specifically information about the Beneficiary - ie Name, Gender, Brith Date, etc. As you can see from the number of folks here who have had errors, ancilary information (for the the purposes of the US Immigration process) such as parents date of marriage, etc is not really of interest to them.

For many of the same reasons you state, We chose to renew TinTin's passport early. It was easy and inexpensive while still in the Philippines and when the visa is issued, it will go in the new one and we wont have to worry about carrying 2 passports around in the future.