Why K-3s take longer than K-1s?

[daboyz 36]

I know many people might disagree, but in a country that protects and respect families, already-formed families should be given a priority over still-to-be-formed families.

Well - that ain't gonna happen because that simple fact alone is a non-criteria.

Here's a link to a very important PDF - you may open it and say 'oh that's old' and that'll be true. It's congressional testimony from 1986. Why would you care to read a 22 year old document? Because this testimony directly impacted the BIG re-write of the INA in 1986 where sweeping changes were made to family-based immigration. And the changes were not a relaxation of laws, but an extreme tightening.

Within the PDF, you'll read some of the scams committed by 'already formed families'. I think you might find that eye-opening.

As I've tried to explain to you before, a union that just happens to have already been blessed by matrimony is NO LESS POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENT than a relationship between those intending to marry. Here's the congressional record that proves it.

You need to accept that fact.

http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139298779.pdf

I guess you're not getting it. I think the question is why should a couple that is not yet married, get a visa quicker than a couple that is already married. I don't think anyone is saying that K-3s should get preferential treatment above K-1s, they are just wondering why K-1s are approved more quickly than K-3s.

Anyway no point in carrying this on. The system is what it is. It's not going to change in the near future. I think people are just frustrated that the process isn't distributed fairly between Service Centers (see spreadsheet) or between visa types.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p-9...mJHCw&gid=6

[Cassie 8]

I know many people might disagree, but in a country that protects and respect families, already-formed families should be given a priority over still-to-be-formed families.

Well - that ain't gonna happen because that simple fact alone is a non-criteria.

Here's a link to a very important PDF - you may open it and say 'oh that's old' and that'll be true. It's congressional testimony from 1986. Why would you care to read a 22 year old document? Because this testimony directly impacted the BIG re-write of the INA in 1986 where sweeping changes were made to family-based immigration. And the changes were not a relaxation of laws, but an extreme tightening.

Within the PDF, you'll read some of the scams committed by 'already formed families'. I think you might find that eye-opening.

As I've tried to explain to you before, a union that just happens to have already been blessed by matrimony is NO LESS POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENT than a relationship between those intending to marry. Here's the congressional record that proves it.

You need to accept that fact.

http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139298779.pdf

I guess you're not getting it. I think the question is why should a couple that is not yet married, get a visa quicker than a couple that is already married. I don't think anyone is saying that K-3s should get preferential treatment above K-1s, they are just wondering why K-1s are approved more quickly than K-3s.

Anyway no point in carrying this on. The system is what it is. It's not going to change in the near future. I think people are just frustrated that the process isn't distributed fairly between Service Centers (see spreadsheet) or between visa types.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p-9...mJHCw&gid=6

Aye, that's understandable.

[rebeccajo 14]

Sure, I understand your frustration.

The point I was addressing hasn't anything to do with why one visa type is faster than another or why one service center is faster.

I was only addressing the notion that a couple who is married is somehow more entitled to a speedy process.

[Karaoke 0]

That it is not doesn't mean that it shouldn't.. The Law is human, and it can always be improved. Politics drives this process (when it is not too busy worrying about dividing the spoils..)

Sure, I understand your frustration.

The point I was addressing hasn't anything to do with why one visa type is faster than another or why one service center is faster.

I was only addressing the notion that a couple who is married is somehow more entitled to a speedy process.

Edited June 26, 2008 by charisma1

[rebeccajo 14]

What doesn't mean that what shouldn't? If you are trying to make a point, I don't see what it has to do with my quoted post.

Did you read the testimony? I really didn't see any politics in it. I saw facts about marital fraud (and fraud with K1 visas also).

You'll find nobody more convinced than I that immigration law needs improved. But you will have to do better than merely insist you are right to convince me that based solely upon the fact that a couple has entered into matrimony they are entitled to more immigrant preference than they already receive. There are already no numerical limits to spousal and fiance visas; a quicker path to citizenship; and forgiveness of numerous immigration 'sins' only to mention a few.

Would you have K1 visas be in some special category like 'undecided non-immigrant'? 'Non-immigrant with the option to ####### out'? Ok, fine. Then show me FACTS as to why a married couple should receive a quicker path than an engaged couple. Not a BELIEF shrouded in a legal act than requires fundamentally nothing more to transpire than two people willing to sign their name to a document. Because from what I read, you married folks aren't getting any stars in the honesty department over those who haven't said "I do" yet.

Fraud exists becuase the immigrant is claiming a relationship - period. Spouse or intending spouse. Being married already doesn't make your relationship 'less fraudulent'. It just makes you married.

That it is not doesn't mean that it shouldn't.. The Law is human, and it can always be improved. Politics drives this process (when it is not too busy worrying about dividing the spoils..)

Sure, I understand your frustration.

The point I was addressing hasn't anything to do with why one visa type is faster than another or why one service center is faster.

I was only addressing the notion that a couple who is married is somehow more entitled to a speedy process.

Edited June 26, 2008 by rebeccajo

[rin and john 71]

In the past two months, I-129F's are being processed faster for spouses versus fiance(e)'s (by an average of 30 days). I went to the "Immigration Timelines", "visa display options", "view all visas", then sorted by 129F - NOA2 date. Downloaded the last 300 I-129f approvals listed. Eliminated 36 records (31 of 300 had RFE's, 3 had no NOA1 date listed, 1 had an "expedite request" noted, and one was over 300 days - statistically an "outlier"). Of the remaining 264 records receiving 129F NOA2's since May 1, 2008, K-3's averaged 83 days and K-1's averaged 113 days.

I can only assume the three IR-1/CR-1 filed a 129f to keep their options open to go for either the IR-1/CR-1 or K3. In effect these should be combined with the K-3 statistics.

Also, three individuals listed Texas. I added them into the California data, but it did not significantly change the statistics.

A huge difference exists between California and Vermont in how they are currently processing K-1's versus K-3's (K-1's avg 73 days at Vermont; 133 days at California. K-3's avg 130 days at Vermont; 73 days in California). So the real question is "Why do K-3's take longer at Vermont than K-1's?"

129F_NOA1_to_NOA2_table.htm

I can empathize with those "caught up" in last year's K-3 delay. But current processing is only better for a K-1 if you are going through Vermont.

[Thai family 0]

I-129 processing may have speeded up for K-3s, but the official directions still say to wait until you have the receipt from the I-130 to file the I-129F for the K-3. We waited from November 20th to Feb 8th for that receipt. Just the I-129F processing times can mislead. They need to change the directions so that the I-130 and I-129F can be filed together in the same package, with one not having to worry about them rejecting it. Then the I-129F should not be delayed by the I-130 processing. That's what the intent of the law is. Sending out the receipt notices in a timely fashion helps, but what is going to prevent them from shifting resources and having another major receipting delay? I think processing should be at least as fast for K-3s as they are for K-1s. K-3 couples have made a commitment that is legally binding, so have more to deal with than love (which is a wonderful thing, and I'm not negating it in anyway)!

8+ months from filing to interview

Thai Mom

[daboyz 36]

In the past two months, I-129F's are being processed faster for spouses versus fiance(e)'s (by an average of 30 days). I went to the "Immigration Timelines", "visa display options", "view all visas", then sorted by 129F - NOA2 date. Downloaded the last 300 I-129f approvals listed. Eliminated 36 records (31 of 300 had RFE's, 3 had no NOA1 date listed, 1 had an "expedite request" noted, and one was over 300 days - statistically an "outlier"). Of the remaining 264 records receiving 129F NOA2's since May 1, 2008, K-3's averaged 83 days and K-1's averaged 113 days.

I can only assume the three IR-1/CR-1 filed a 129f to keep their options open to go for either the IR-1/CR-1 or K3. In effect these should be combined with the K-3 statistics.

Also, three individuals listed Texas. I added them into the California data, but it did not significantly change the statistics.

A huge difference exists between California and Vermont in how they are currently processing K-1's versus K-3's (K-1's avg 73 days at Vermont; 133 days at California. K-3's avg 130 days at Vermont; 73 days in California). So the real question is "Why do K-3's take longer at Vermont than K-1's?"

129F_NOA1_to_NOA2_table.htm

I can empathize with those "caught up" in last year's K-3 delay. But current processing is only better for a K-1 if you are going through Vermont.

That analysis is flawed, because you are basing your data on I-129F NOA2. I think most people with I-129F NOA1 in the last 6 months don't even have an NOA2 at Vermont. A better analysis, is to sample the last 6 months, look at K-3 for Vermont and California. Analyze what percentage of K-3 filers have an I-129F NOA2 in each service center. There's where you will find the large discrepancy.

For example, if Vermont approves 5 out of 100 I-129F in the last 6 months, and they average approval time is 60 days, by your analysis, the average approval time would be 60 days. What about the other 95 that don't have an NOA2?

[Ilya R. 0]

I know many people might disagree, but in a country that protects and respect families, already-formed families should be given a priority over still-to-be-formed families.

Well - that ain't gonna happen because that simple fact alone is a non-criteria.

Here's a link to a very important PDF - you may open it and say 'oh that's old' and that'll be true. It's congressional testimony from 1986. Why would you care to read a 22 year old document? Because this testimony directly impacted the BIG re-write of the INA in 1986 where sweeping changes were made to family-based immigration. And the changes were not a relaxation of laws, but an extreme tightening.

Within the PDF, you'll read some of the scams committed by 'already formed families'. I think you might find that eye-opening.

As I've tried to explain to you before, a union that just happens to have already been blessed by matrimony is NO LESS POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENT than a relationship between those intending to marry. Here's the congressional record that proves it.

You need to accept that fact.

http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139298779.pdf

I guess you're not getting it. I think the question is why should a couple that is not yet married, get a visa quicker than a couple that is already married. I don't think anyone is saying that K-3s should get preferential treatment above K-1s, they are just wondering why K-1s are approved more quickly than K-3s.

Anyway no point in carrying this on. The system is what it is. It's not going to change in the near future. I think people are just frustrated that the process isn't distributed fairly between Service Centers (see spreadsheet) or between visa types.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p-9...mJHCw&gid=6

###### dispeakable!

[daboyz 36]

In the past two months, I-129F's are being processed faster for spouses versus fiance(e)'s (by an average of 30 days). I went to the "Immigration Timelines", "visa display options", "view all visas", then sorted by 129F - NOA2 date. Downloaded the last 300 I-129f approvals listed. Eliminated 36 records (31 of 300 had RFE's, 3 had no NOA1 date listed, 1 had an "expedite request" noted, and one was over 300 days - statistically an "outlier"). Of the remaining 264 records receiving 129F NOA2's since May 1, 2008, K-3's averaged 83 days and K-1's averaged 113 days.

I can only assume the three IR-1/CR-1 filed a 129f to keep their options open to go for either the IR-1/CR-1 or K3. In effect these should be combined with the K-3 statistics.

Also, three individuals listed Texas. I added them into the California data, but it did not significantly change the statistics.

A huge difference exists between California and Vermont in how they are currently processing K-1's versus K-3's (K-1's avg 73 days at Vermont; 133 days at California. K-3's avg 130 days at Vermont; 73 days in California). So the real question is "Why do K-3's take longer at Vermont than K-1's?"

129F_NOA1_to_NOA2_table.htm

I can empathize with those "caught up" in last year's K-3 delay. But current processing is only better for a K-1 if you are going through Vermont.

That analysis is flawed, because you are basing your data on I-129F NOA2. I think most people with I-129F NOA1 in the last 6 months don't even have an NOA2 at Vermont. A better analysis, is to sample the last 6 months, look at K-3 for Vermont and California. Analyze what percentage of K-3 filers have an I-129F NOA2 in each service center. There's where you will find the large discrepancy.

For example, if Vermont approves 5 out of 100 I-129F in the last 6 months, and they average approval time is 60 days, by your analysis, the average approval time would be 60 days. What about the other 95 that don't have an NOA2?

These two links spell it out pretty well. They are gathered from data on this site.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p-9...V-SBw&gid=0

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p-9...mJHCw&gid=5

[Thai family 0]

How about using the date the I-130 was first received in the USCIS mailroom and the date the I-129F was approved?

To us, that's all that mattered in that leg of the journey.

[rin and john 71]

In the past two months, I-129F's are being processed faster for spouses versus fiance(e)'s (by an average of 30 days). I went to the "Immigration Timelines", "visa display options", "view all visas", then sorted by 129F - NOA2 date. Downloaded the last 300 I-129f approvals listed. Eliminated 36 records (31 of 300 had RFE's, 3 had no NOA1 date listed, 1 had an "expedite request" noted, and one was over 300 days - statistically an "outlier"). Of the remaining 264 records receiving 129F NOA2's since May 1, 2008, K-3's averaged 83 days and K-1's averaged 113 days.

I can only assume the three IR-1/CR-1 filed a 129f to keep their options open to go for either the IR-1/CR-1 or K3. In effect these should be combined with the K-3 statistics.

Also, three individuals listed Texas. I added them into the California data, but it did not significantly change the statistics.

A huge difference exists between California and Vermont in how they are currently processing K-1's versus K-3's (K-1's avg 73 days at Vermont; 133 days at California. K-3's avg 130 days at Vermont; 73 days in California). So the real question is "Why do K-3's take longer at Vermont than K-1's?"

129F_NOA1_to_NOA2_table.htm

I can empathize with those "caught up" in last year's K-3 delay. But current processing is only better for a K-1 if you are going through Vermont.

That analysis is flawed, because you are basing your data on I-129F NOA2. I think most people with I-129F NOA1 in the last 6 months don't even have an NOA2 at Vermont. A better analysis, is to sample the last 6 months, look at K-3 for Vermont and California. Analyze what percentage of K-3 filers have an I-129F NOA2 in each service center. There's where you will find the large discrepancy.

For example, if Vermont approves 5 out of 100 I-129F in the last 6 months, and they average approval time is 60 days, by your analysis, the average approval time would be 60 days. What about the other 95 that don't have an NOA2?

I tried looking at it that way. That data is also skewed because a significant number of VJers enter a I-129F NOA1 date, then never update their timeline. So I looked at the "last updated" column and discarded anyone who had not updated since April 30th. I also discarded anyone who had a number of days for "I-129F date to present" of less than the average for their visa type and service center (otherwise someone who filed yesterday would show up as "1 day"). In doing this, I capture those without NOA2's that have waited longer than the average for their service center and visa type. The averages are different, but they remain directionally the same.

2008_129f_data.htm

I agree with Thai Mom, the bigger injustice is the "I-130 sent to I-130 NOA1" timing for those that filed between August 2007 and January 2008. Since April 1, 2008 this is averaging just under 9 days. A significant number of the 2008 I-129F NOA1's that are K-3 related are from individuals with "I-130 sent to I-130 NOA1" days ranging from 70 to 180 days. It would appear that has improved.

[Todd-Leah 0]

The bottom line is: USCIS is an organization that is not accountable for their actions and they use the laws to cover their butts.

How many marriage based visas they processed every year? What's the percentage of frauds uncovered among this numbers? Do we see USCIS published this data somewhere?

True, there is a need to filter out frauds. But, does leaving the files at a god forsaken place for six months before even looking at them actually filter out frauds.

Is it necessarily to have a blanket process applied to the majority of people who are genuine? Do frauds get filtered out with the current inefficient system? I am pretty sure majority of them get away while the genuine ones get caught in this.

Not to mention the archaic and low tech operation that disguise with "work within the requirements set by law".

There are marriage based immigration frauds in most of the countries (even in so called third world country like Malaysia!)

But most countries don't separate families like this.

In some countries, spouses are allowed to enter with visitor visas and apply within.

They have visitations when the documentations or the interviews raise red flags.

Are they able to filter ALL the fraudient cases?

No way near to that! But, so does the current system in the US.

[daboyz 36]

In the past two months, I-129F's are being processed faster for spouses versus fiance(e)'s (by an average of 30 days). I went to the "Immigration Timelines", "visa display options", "view all visas", then sorted by 129F - NOA2 date. Downloaded the last 300 I-129f approvals listed. Eliminated 36 records (31 of 300 had RFE's, 3 had no NOA1 date listed, 1 had an "expedite request" noted, and one was over 300 days - statistically an "outlier"). Of the remaining 264 records receiving 129F NOA2's since May 1, 2008, K-3's averaged 83 days and K-1's averaged 113 days.

I can only assume the three IR-1/CR-1 filed a 129f to keep their options open to go for either the IR-1/CR-1 or K3. In effect these should be combined with the K-3 statistics.

Also, three individuals listed Texas. I added them into the California data, but it did not significantly change the statistics.

A huge difference exists between California and Vermont in how they are currently processing K-1's versus K-3's (K-1's avg 73 days at Vermont; 133 days at California. K-3's avg 130 days at Vermont; 73 days in California). So the real question is "Why do K-3's take longer at Vermont than K-1's?"

129F_NOA1_to_NOA2_table.htm

I can empathize with those "caught up" in last year's K-3 delay. But current processing is only better for a K-1 if you are going through Vermont.

That analysis is flawed, because you are basing your data on I-129F NOA2. I think most people with I-129F NOA1 in the last 6 months don't even have an NOA2 at Vermont. A better analysis, is to sample the last 6 months, look at K-3 for Vermont and California. Analyze what percentage of K-3 filers have an I-129F NOA2 in each service center. There's where you will find the large discrepancy.

For example, if Vermont approves 5 out of 100 I-129F in the last 6 months, and they average approval time is 60 days, by your analysis, the average approval time would be 60 days. What about the other 95 that don't have an NOA2?

I tried looking at it that way. That data is also skewed because a significant number of VJers enter a I-129F NOA1 date, then never update their timeline. So I looked at the "last updated" column and discarded anyone who had not updated since April 30th. I also discarded anyone who had a number of days for "I-129F date to present" of less than the average for their visa type and service center (otherwise someone who filed yesterday would show up as "1 day"). In doing this, I capture those without NOA2's that have waited longer than the average for their service center and visa type. The averages are different, but they remain directionally the same.

2008_129f_data.htm

I agree with Thai Mom, the bigger injustice is the "I-130 sent to I-130 NOA1" timing for those that filed between August 2007 and January 2008. Since April 1, 2008 this is averaging just under 9 days. A significant number of the 2008 I-129F NOA1's that are K-3 related are from individuals with "I-130 sent to I-130 NOA1" days ranging from 70 to 180 days. It would appear that has improved.

I logon to this website multiple times daily. My last update on my timeline is May 18. Reason for that, is there is nothing to update, ie NOA, touches. So you will have alot of people that haven't updated their timeline, because there is nothing to update. They are in a blackhole waiting for I-129F NOA2 from VSC. Not trying to be a pain. Just want to get it right. I wish I was in BKK picking up my wife rather than having this conversation. No offense ;-)

[rin and john 71]

The bottom line is: USCIS is an organization that is not accountable for their actions and they use the laws to cover their butts.

How many marriage based visas they processed every year? What's the percentage of frauds uncovered among this numbers? Do we see USCIS published this data somewhere?

True, there is a need to filter out frauds. But, does leaving the files at a god forsaken place for six months before even looking at them actually filter out frauds.

Is it necessarily to have a blanket process applied to the majority of people who are genuine? Do frauds get filtered out with the current inefficient system? I am pretty sure majority of them get away while the genuine ones get caught in this.

Not to mention the archaic and low tech operation that disguise with "work within the requirements set by law".

There are marriage based immigration frauds in most of the countries (even in so called third world country like Malaysia!)

But most countries don't separate families like this.

In some countries, spouses are allowed to enter with visitor visas and apply within.

They have visitations when the documentations or the interviews raise red flags.

Are they able to filter ALL the fraudient cases?

No way near to that! But, so does the current system in the US.

There are links in this discussion (on here about two weeks ago) about the numbers of petitions processed by USCIS. No information on fraud (other than subjective posts).

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1929597

Lots of data if you want to go through it.

Regarding fraud, several interesting links (if you have a few days to read through them or are trying to cure insomnia):

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/kephart.html

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/178/

http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.us/GAOimmbenefits.pdf

http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.us/GAOI...nefitsFraud.pdf

John