K and K

I have not. It is in hand, included with I-485, waiting to be sealed and mailed at any moment.

Impulsively made air reservations yesterday for travel in 7 weeks just as I was dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the I-485.

Don't know what I was thinking, other than a honeymoon seemed like a good idea and the $200 fare to Puerto Vallarta seemed like a good deal.

My particulars: Married on 25 November. K-1 visa expired 2 December. Application, including AP, mailed today. Travel, which airline informs me

can not be refunded (even 18 hours after purchase) 18 February.

My main question: Will I be able to make an infopass appointment for emergency AP and not be subject to a separate $300 fee?

Cheers.

Nagi,

According to the OP, his one previous filing was in 1999 and resulted in a marriage that was terminated in 2006. If I understand IMBRA laws correctly, the OP would have no reason to request a waiver upon filing, would he?

-P

Correct, but I would get a lawyer involved and have the lawyer file a letter requesting a waiver to the multi K-1 rule on the grounds that it does not apply in this case.

You said it better than I did. That is exactly what I meant.The OP has to request a waiver.

Thank you all for bringing this post back on track.

No, I did not file a waiver with my petition as I interpreted that it did not apply in my case.

I am still thinking an overworked USCIS contract worker made a mistake in reading dates.

I will certainly file a waiver stating my filing history. Do you really think it is necessary to have a lawyer do this?

And should other requirements of the IMBRA not highlighted in the NOID be addressed (criminal history, which does not remotely exist and

our initial meeting through an international marriage broker, which is as clear as mud, and checked no on application)?

I would be pretty pissed if I moved to America from another country only to find out that my future husband has been living with his ex wife all along. LOTS of deception.

And by saying "my fiancee wouldn't understand the situation if I told her" do you mean that she wouldn't continue the relationship she has with you if she knew?

Hmmm, I hesitated adding that little detail. I only did because in trying to understand the NOID I speculated if a preliminary background check was conducted on my ex-wife and it was discovered she recently established a mailing address here. I am really only looking for help from anyone with advice in my dealings with the USCIS. I will try to manage my relationships. To clarify, however, my domestic situation is not one I asked for. My ex-wife has not lived here all along. She showed up one day five months ago, unannounced, over a year since I last saw her and after I was already engaged. She needed help. She helped me buy this house. I felt indebted to her. I was very clear to her from day one. I have also been in a mode for the past year of working every day all day and then making month-long excursions to see my fiancee. My ex-wife has been invaluable in caretaking the property. Soon, she will move out. She has a boyfriend. I wanted to tell my fiancee but you know long-distance relationships are tough. No, I haven't been as forthcoming to her. If I told her I am sure she would continue our relationship but with a lot of unneeded worry. I have not broken any trust of fidelity I have with my fiancee. In many ways, my ex-wife has helped me maintain this trust. It has been nice having a female confidant and someone I have been through this process with. My fiancee knows my ex-wife moved back to the area. Last time I saw her she introduced me to her ex-fiancee as they are involved in a property sell. I have always been suspicious of people with contempt for their past lovers. Assuming all goes well and she does make it here, she will meet my ex-wife. As I mentioned, my friends and family find the situation a bit odd as do some of you. Hang in there, perhaps you will be in a similar situation in the future of those you are currently enamored with. Post about it after you kick them to the curb. Meanwhile, anyone with useful information please?

Moving this to IMBRA forum where others who are more familiar may be able to give constructive comments.

We will need to know the exact wording of the NOID and not (as others said) your analysis.

OK, fair enough. The NOID states:

"USCIS intends to deny this petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 103.2 b (1) (An applicant must established eligibility for a requested immigration benefit. An

application form must be completed as applicable and filed with any initial evidence required by regulation...)

As of March 6, 2006, a petitioner must meet the requirements established by the IMBRA...Among other requirements, IMBRA imposes limitations on the number of I-129F K-1 petitions a petitioner may file of has had approved without seeking a waive of those limitations. USCIS records show the petitioner has filed, or has had approved, more than the permitted number of K-1 visa petitions without being required to submit a waiver.

Since the petitioner has filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past, or previously had a K-1 visa petition approved within two years prior to the filing of this petition, the petitioner must aply for a waiver. To apply for a waiver, the petitioner must attach a signed and dated request for the waiver, explainaing why a waiver would be appropriate, together with any evidence in support of the petitioner's request. Examples of such evidence may include, but is not limited to: statements made by the petitioner regarding his/her filing history and outcome of all previous I-129F petitions filed.

Based upon the reasons stated above, the petitioner is afforded 30 days from the date of this notice to submit additional information, evidence or arguments to support the petition and in opposition to this denial. Failure to respond to this request will result in the denial of the petition."

Having filed what I considered a straight-forward I-129F in mid-July, and following the timelines here, I was expecting a notice in my mail box.

Yesterday's correspondence from the California Service Center, however, was a minor shock.

The 'Notice of Intent to Deny', (NOID) references the IMBRA, claiming I have not met its requirements to establish eligibility for my requested immigration benefit.

As I understand it, there are three parts to this act:

1) Criminal acts. (Part C, #2) No problem in any way with this question, thus checked 'no'.

2) Previous filings of I-129F for alien fiance (Part A, #11) I checked 'yes' and included a supplemental attachment, explaining:

My ONE previous filing was in 1999, resulting in a six-year marriage, terminated in 2006, at my wife's request, who expressed a desire to return to her native Japan,

in an uncontested no-fault divorce. I also mentioned I had lost contact with her for a couple of months but understood her intent was not to return to the USA, thus

forfetiting her green card. (One month after filing, however, and 364 days after she left the country (12 hours before her Green Card would have been confiscated at

a POE), she appeared on my front porch. Before inviting her in, I explained my current situation. Five months later, she occupies a spare bedroom, we are friends

only, providing assistance to each other as we prepare for our new lives apart. I mention all of this, which friends and family all think is a crazy arrangement, though we

are very clear, but she has established a mailing address at my residence and my fiancee is unaware of this situation as there is no way she could understand it).

At any rate, this is ONE previous K-1 filing from over eight years ago. The NOID mentions IMBRA requirements imposing limitations on the number of K-1 petitions which

may be filed without seeking a waiver. It claims I have had TWO or more petitions in the past or had a petition approved within two years and thus must apply for a

waiver.

This stipulation is the only condition of the IMBRA quoted from the NOID applying to my case. The third condition, however:

3) 'Did you meet through the services of an international marriage broker'? (Part B, #19) I checked 'no'. Though not ashamed to admit we met through a dating web site

(ThaiLoveLinks, headquartered in Australia with an office in England, which operates like most such sites I suppose, someone must buy a membership (and it was me for

$30) to receive email, which then quickly bypasses the site), which I felt is differentiated from a "mail order bride" marriage broker definition.

On the application, however, the preceeding question (#18, 'Have you met in the two-year period before the filing?') I checked 'yes', providing exhaustive documentation,

as suggested here, on our first two month-long encounters. I skirted, however, the prompt to this question, "Describe the circumstances under which you met" by not

making any allusions to the circumstances.

Again, no mention in the NOID makes reference to this condition.

My questions, therefore, are:

a) Is this all a bureaucratic formality, or is my petition in jeopardy? Why did I receive a NOID, which sounds more foreboding than a simple RFE, and also requires my

response in 15 days from my receipt of notice (which took 12 days to arrive), rather than 90 days for an RFE?

b. Am I misunderstanding the limitations on number of previous K-1 visa applications? Again, this is my second filing ever, the first from 1999.

c) Though the NOID makes no mention of a possible meeting through a 'international marriage broker', should I address in my waiver more detail of our initial meeting?

d) Is it possible that this snafu is an administrative error, the result of a backlog of applications resulting from an increase in fees in July, coinciding with wages reduced

for USCIS contract case workers, an overworked and unhappy lot with a high turnover rate, making the first touch of applications?

e) I am optimistic this will be resolved through the waiver I intend to submit in days but, even so, will this result in a delay of months my petition being ultimately

approved? Will my case go to the bottom of the heap again or am I on track?

f) I understand, at this juncture, the petition judges only my worthiness and eligibility. I have no doubts about my fiancee demonstrating her merits and stability later

in an embassy interview. However, assuming she is from a country with a higher incidence of visa fraud (Thailand, for instance), is my petition being subjected

prejudicially?

Thank you for any valued input to any of my concerns and continued happiness.