Fiancé(e) I-129F Petitions Recalled by DHS

[bobogirl 0]

is anyone who has not yet submitted the I 129F still planning to do so in the short term, or wait for new forms? i have been preparing my materials and was planning to send them in to VT next week... now i don't know if i should wait and see or just take my chances with the old forms. seems like there are no clear answers yet.

[ccmkoho 0]

is anyone who has not yet submitted the I 129F still planning to do so in the short term, or wait for new forms? i have been preparing my materials and was planning to send them in to VT next week... now i don't know if i should wait and see or just take my chances with the old forms. seems like there are no clear answers yet.

Personally, I would send it in now and at least you'll be in the FIFO processing queue

[Larry and Maria 0]

In addition to what Lorelle said on page 3, remember this because it's another reason why there's confusion.

The Feds, like commercial large corporations, have systems that do not talk with each other.

For years, they have talked about the concept of "interoperability" and that means business systems that need to share information talk to each other.

So you call a DHS entity like the USCIS and DHS isn't part of DOS and one hand doesn't know what the other's doing because it can't get the info.

Also, remember that there is probably a ban or restristion on who gives out what information.

Think of a large corporation: it has a corporate communication department that is responsible for releasing the "official" word and the Feds are the same. If everyone espoused their own opinions to the public, the rumor mill would be worse than it already is.

Not comforting ... just reality ... whether we like it or not.

ELECT NEW REPRESENTING OFFICIALS PERVASIVELY INCLUDING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND DON'T ELECT REAL POLITICIANS.

ELECT NORMAL COMMON PEOPLE!! THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE!! NOT SCREW THE PEOPLE WHO PAY TAXES AND TRY TO BE DECENT CITIZENS!!

[edsperfect 25]

Do you guys think the petitioners will receive only these documents to provide their criminal records or a whole new I129F will be needed later on?

Actually it all seems to be an excercise performed by the goverenment without any direction. The form they are drawing up would seem t6o be unnessary since immigration does an FBI check on all US petitioners. They have the information already so why waste time on the form?

[lisanne 0]

Do you guys think the petitioners will receive only these documents to provide their criminal records or a whole new I129F will be needed later on?

Actually it all seems to be an excercise performed by the goverenment without any direction. The form they are drawing up would seem t6o be unnessary since immigration does an FBI check on all US petitioners. They have the information already so why waste time on the form?

I may be wrong on this but I looked up the IMBRA law and what I think I understand is that it was made to protect women from violent men using Marriage Brokers. From what I understand men petitioners using a broker are the ones affected by this law. The official title is "To regulate international marriage broker activity in the United States, to provide for certain protections for individuals who utilize the services of international marriage brokers, and for other purposes."

I phoned USCIS and spoke with a officer who said that there are no new I129-f forms, so the ones I used off the USCIS website was good, the public would be notified when there were new forms. He also said that they do all their own background checks there, so there would be no need for a form to be filled out. After looking into this I felt better and don't feel that everyone will be affected by this other than in some extra time to fix the ones they need to.

[aussiewench 9]

Do you guys think the petitioners will receive only these documents to provide their criminal records or a whole new I129F will be needed later on?

Actually it all seems to be an excercise performed by the goverenment without any direction. The form they are drawing up would seem t6o be unnessary since immigration does an FBI check on all US petitioners. They have the information already so why waste time on the form?

I may be wrong on this but I looked up the IMBRA law and what I think I understand is that it was made to protect women from violent men using Marriage Brokers. From what I understand men petitioners using a broker are the ones affected by this law. The official title is "To regulate international marriage broker activity in the United States, to provide for certain protections for individuals who utilize the services of international marriage brokers, and for other purposes."

I phoned USCIS and spoke with a officer who said that there are no new I129-f forms, so the ones I used off the USCIS website was good, the public would be notified when there were new forms. He also said that they do all their own background checks there, so there would be no need for a form to be filled out. After looking into this I felt better and don't feel that everyone will be affected by this other than in some extra time to fix the ones they need to.

It affects every K nonimmigrant petition. The number you called is known as the 'misinformation line'. Proven time and time again.

[Ladylethal 12]

I´ve given up getting any info from NVC. I´ll wait for people getting through to congressmen and the likes, and for new updates on USCIS and DHS websites.

[rlt 0]

NVC has no information. They only fwd applications and assign case numbers.

USCIS is the one responsible for giving us news.

I just don´t think they will.

[Cristy 4]

I am really sorry for everyone who is going through this mess.

[doodlebugfor_u 0]

Does this mean the petitions filed after a certain date are affected? We filed in Sept 05....does this mean more checks after the interview? OR are we affected at all?

[aussiewench 9]

Does this mean the petitions filed after a certain date are affected? We filed in Sept 05....does this mean more checks after the interview? OR are we affected at all?

The IMBRA affects petitions with NOA1 receipt dates of March 6 2006 and after.

[elizaxyz 0]

Hi Y'all,

I just spoke to someone at the immigration customer service at 1-800-375-5283 number... She said that ... there has not been any recalls of application from the consulates. She said the new law does not have any delay on the applications...

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Not laughing at you, taye, but at the sheer idiocy of the situation. If USCIS is saying that not only is there no delay, but that there haven't even been any recalls, then I just throw up my hands.

[Karen_L 1]

Does this mean the petitions filed after a certain date are affected? We filed in Sept 05....does this mean more checks after the interview? OR are we affected at all?

The IMBRA affects petitions with NOA1 receipt dates of March 6 2006 and after.

A few people on the forum with NOA1 dates before 3/6 (some WAY before) got their petitions recalled. I wonder if, now that USCIS has released an official statement, those petitions will get bounced back to the consulate since technically the law shouldn't apply to them.

[aussiewench 9]

Does this mean the petitions filed after a certain date are affected? We filed in Sept 05....does this mean more checks after the interview? OR are we affected at all?

The IMBRA affects petitions with NOA1 receipt dates of March 6 2006 and after.

A few people on the forum with NOA1 dates before 3/6 (some WAY before) got their petitions recalled. I wonder if, now that USCIS has released an official statement, those petitions will get bounced back to the consulate since technically the law shouldn't apply to them.

I have wondered that myself because of those petitions dated prior. The act to my understanding is not retroactive. Then again really, the USCIS can do as it pleases if it feels it is warranted for whatever reason. Just like many of the things that are not a requirement to be included with a petition, yet an RFE can be sent for those exact same things. Time will tell.

Edited May 24, 2006 by aussiewench

[Larry and Maria 0]

Let's bubble the topic back to the top of the list for those who missed it.