K and L

Julian, you would do America and it's residents a huge favor by staying in the UK. If you insist on coming to the US, at least have the common courtesy and manners to respect the fact that you are a guest in this country, and do not offend your hosts. If you come to the US and insist on flapping your jaw the way you have been in this thread, I expect one of those fat Americans is going to punch you in the face.

You didn't consider all the advantages and disadvantages of the visas did you? Someone told you the K-1 was faster and you went for that.
Once he enters the US on a K-1, if he leaves before obtaining an Ap or his green card he will be deemed to have abandoned his request for permantn residency and it will be denied. Since he is a UK citizen he can come back and enter on the VWP but he cannot adjust status.
Plan on postponing your honeymoon OR going ONLY to the US Virgin Islands instead.
Then go for a CR-1 visa. It IS your choice.

Well, if I really wanted to be rude about it I would have said her fiance was acting like a spoiled brat, and throwing a tantrum over a requirement they should have known about before they submitted the petition. He seems to feel he's being treated unfairly, and I wanted to remind him that he will be treated far more fairly than many others who are also waiting for a visa, for no other reason than the country he happens to come from. He should be grateful that his visa journey will likely be relatively painless. In that light, I think the comparison is a fair one to make.
Remember when your mom used to say "You should be thankful you HAVE spinach and cauliflower. There are kids starving in China!"

Since you are asking for people's advice here on behavior, after reading this - I think it's a bit too early for you (or him) to be on an immigration website considering the two of you haven't even spoken over the phone yet, let alone met in person. And given the fact that you two met through a dating website, there's a good chance that he is conversing with other women as well, which is normal and he also might be thinking you are conversing with other men. Maybe you have a different idea in your mind about what a boyfriend means because he could just be considering you a girl friend.
Maybe it will all work out for you but you might want to consider everything and perhaps slow things down a little, especially if this is the very first guy you conversed with online from another country, and you know very little about who he really is.

It shouldn't be. The price hike was announced in December and again in February. As someone who joined VJ in November and didn't apply for your K1 until May, you should have been aware of and expected the larger fees.
The people from October, however, are the ones who really got screwed. There's a few UK people who are in June, one Honduras who USCIS really screwed over by taking four months after her NOA2 approval to actually send it to NVC, and another with a really late NOA2 who applied well before the announcement and are going to have to pay an extra ~$220 for the interview because of things completely out of their control.

Honestly? If you can get #1 to delay two weeks or give you alternative scheduling the first two weeks, I'd take both. Why not? I see no reason you shouldn't look for a job you love and making contacts doing a job you love (#1), and the two weeks with the lesser job will help pad your pocketbook, enabling you to look longer. And if you're offered job #2 full time, by all means, talk to #1 to see if an alternative schedule could be possible (since it's only part time).

According to Mexico Law (which may not be an accurate website for law in Mexico, given it IS in English and all), only civil weddings are legally binding. So, like in the US, there's a licensing/certification process that you must go through to legally get married. If they didn't get a license, they aren't civilly married, and they are good to go.
If the priest insisted on a governmental license, they're out of luck: restart the visa process as a spousal visa, or they need to get a quick divorce.
ETA: wilfinance, church ceremonies without a license are NOT legally binding in the US.

If you're afraid that the age difference may result in a denial, the USC attending can help nip in the bud the bonafides, even if they can only sit in the lobby during the interview. Typically, an older man doesn't have many problems (though, I'll be honest: 40 years may be pushing things, from the consulate's point of view as that age difference is *very* uncommon in the US), and it's an older woman (5+ years) where you will see issues at many consulates - MENA, especially.
Legally, they CANNOT deny you for your age difference, because it's something that USCIS and the NVC was aware of when your petition went through the approval stage.
However, it is a red flag, and if there are any other red flags (mismatching stories, limited communication, only one or two visits, unusually fast engagement, not disclosing criminal/martial history, too many K1 applications, how you met, etc), you very well may see yourself being kicked into AP, kicked back to USCIS for reaffirmation, or flat out denied.
If your fiancé cannot be at the interview, make sure you are well prepared and all your documentation is in order. Make sure that any other potential red flags can be addressed with evidence or thoroughly explained.
Be prepared that you might have to fight for your visa.

I think the reputation section should be kept in, at 100 percent functionality, without ANY restrictions.
Sure - it can seem 'high-schoolish' - but all that is, is a transfer of the already 'high-schoolish' functions by the 'high-schoolish' members.
I love being able to neg rate a post - come on - bring it back !
Warmest Regards..

I don't think you are getting any responses on this because its not clear what is happening. Do you have an NVC number? Have you paid all fees? Sent from whom to whom and why would they send it back to you?
If you just have an approved petition from USCIS and hadn't paid fees entering into the NVC process, you might be able to "activate" your case by paying a fee or emailing NVC ?

An I-601 is an application for a waiver of inadmissibility. That "inadmissibility" doesn't go away just because you're married. If he's inadmissible now, he'll still be inadmissible after you're married, and you'll still need the waiver.
The I-601 requires that you (the petitioner) prove extreme hardship. It is possible that you may have a better chance of proving extreme hardship for being separated from your husband than you would for being separated from your fiance, but your evidence needs to be very strong in either case. With all due respect to your mother's government friend, most people in the government actually know very little about the law unless they are involved in interpreting and applying that law on a daily basis. If your mother's friend is an immigration judge or consular officer (for example), then they may be able to help you. Otherwise, you need the advise and assistance of good immigration attorney who is experienced with I-601 waivers.
Even if he'd stayed in the US and you had married him, he would not have been able to get a green card because of his illegal entry. USCIS will waive an overstay for the spouse of a US citizen, but only if they entered the US legally. I don't know if there was any other route to legal status available to him while he was in the US, but I rather doubt it. Leaving the US may have been the only way to get started on a path to legal migration. I don't think you made a mistake.
He probably has a 10 year ban. You probably should have consulted with a good immigration lawyer from the start. You would have had your I-601 application ready to submit immediately after the interview. In any case, you should consult with an attorney now.

When you return Package 3, you'll specifically be asked when you want your interview. There is a space right on the forms that asks when you want your interview date. If you want it in May or June, just specify that. I'd make a note if it's past the 4 month expiry of the NOA2, that you'd like it extended to accommodate that interview date. Vancouver is very good about giving you an interview date that you want. Not a problem.
You also don't need to get the medical done before returning Package 3. Once you get a date from Vancouver, it'll be easier to book your medical, especially since you're asking for it well in advance.

There are a lot of good ideas in this bill. I'm skeptical that some of this would ever be implemented the way it is laid out here.
As to the 4 pillars:
1. Essentially what this says to me is making social security cards so they are a little harder to forge than your average piece of cardboard. That to me is not a bad thing. However, I don't think it is really necessary. The reality of illegal immigrant employment in America is that illegals aren't conspiring to fool employers. Employers are co-conspirators.
Thus, we simply need to use the system already in place: e-verify. We don't need a new system and expensive new cards.
I would support the following: an employer who hires illegal aliens can be fined and jailed as proposed in the bill if he is found having illegals working for him or her. There should be no requirement that the employer knew the employee was an illegal. It is the employers responsibility to verify that the employee isn't an illegal. That is, he should have know. I would allow that if an employer used e-verify and somehow e-verify improperly verified the legality of the worker, then the employer would be absolved of responsibility.
Moreover, regardless of where the biometric information is stored, the reality is that this card, if used, would soon be required for much more than employment authorization. Although the government may not be tracking this information, other organizations might begin to require this and create their own databases, downloaded from individual cards. Once people are required to have this information, this would be the next logical step.
2. Strengthen the border patrol. No problem here. This needs to be done. But it should be approached from a national security standpoint.
3. No problem here. Admitting workers that have skills or can fill jobs is good for the economy.
4. The explanation of this pillar is too vague and has some obvious holes. According to pillar 1, illegals would not be allowed to work. How are they going to pay fees and back taxes? In my opinion, this pillar is meaningless as outlined. If the rest of this plan is implemented as outlined, you are talking about forcing illegals to pay thousands of dollars in fines and back taxes and then live 5+ years without a job. What are they going to live on?
I would replace this with the following: Illegal aliens willing to leave the US immediately by their own means could have any immigration bans due to overstays, etc. forgiven by paying a fine and back taxes. If pillar one is actually enforced to prevent illegals from working, and other measures are put into effect to prevent illegals from receiving government aid, illegals would leave of their own free will. How and why would they stay? If they want to come back legally, they could start that process with a clean slate by paying fines. Then, they would have the same chance as anyone else applying legally.

For K-1s the case number is not loaded on to the AVR.
You will need to speak to an operator to get that info.
Good luck!

I think the current 2 years is alright time for conditional green card and then applying for ROC. Not all foreign spouses or family members want to become citizens. Some will just remove conditions and keep their GC ( I do though) More sense of security that way. Specially with a USC hubby and child it makes more sense.