New need advice.....

[000 0]

Actualy, expedite was at USCIS level, and it is interesting that you really dont know how things work, even if you file an expedite with USCIS you still have to file for one with NVC, which I did not, if I had I wouldnt have been at NVC, expedites with NVC as sent straight to the consulate. So when dealing with NVC timelines no it doesnt make a difference in comparing timelines, nice try though and either way if the K3s 129f was approved 1 month before the I130 i filed for my wife dont really think an expedite matters.

Interesting that you really don't know how things work, and why a K-3 should be faster to the Embassy than a standard CR-1.

We don't know why the K-3 case was slower to interview than your CR-1. Assuming they both reached NVC at the same time, the K-3, it just passes through NVC and goes to the Embassy, then it's up to the applicant to notify them of "Applicant Readiness" in order to obtain an interview. With the CR-1, you have to wait for a "Case Complete" from NVC, and THEN you will be given an interview date. Clearly IF a K-3 and CR-1 petition are approved at the same time, one would be able to get a K-3 appointment sooner than having to wait for the CR-1 to complete. Clearly if a K-3 was approved a month prior to your I-130 and passed through to the Embassy, and their interview was later than yours, THEY (the K-3 applicant) had a delay in notification of "Applicant Readiness" to the Embassy. Or am I missing something here?

Again a big no, the consulate makes the appointment for K3 interviews, NVC makes the interview for CR1. So while K3 applicants are at the mercy of the consulate (who has to work around what NVC schedules), before a CR1 applicant leaves NVC an interview is scheduled. And the K3 applicants packet was at the consulate when my wifes I-130 reached NVC, so the K3 applicant was only waiting on the embassy to do their part. And since everyone has all the information that they could ever need on this forum, if they are on this forum, being ready should be a given.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Guest

[Ling Ling 22]

Again a big no, the consulate makes the appointment for K3 interviews, NVC makes the interview for CR1. So while K3 applicants are at the mercy of the consulate (who has to work around what NVC schedules), before a CR1 applicant leaves NVC an interview is scheduled. And the K3 applicants packet was at the consulate when my wifes I-130 reached NVC, so the K3 applicant was only waiting on the embassy to do their part. And since everyone has all the information that they could ever need on this forum, if they are on this forum, being ready should be a given.

Big no to you sir.

The K-3 applicant notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness", and then the consulate schedules them.

On the CR-1 side, the NVC notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness".

Only the consulate can schedule either...NVC can not magically tell them to have an interview date available.

Therefore, the consulate can fall down on scheduling either applicant that has an approved petition and is ready for interview.

Bottom line is, there IS an advantage to applying for a K-3. Are you saying there IS NOT EVER an advantage?

[pushbrk 12,872]

The process of interview scheduling varies widely, so unless your assertions are Consulate specific they have little or no meaning.

If I were filing a petition for a spouse today, it's not likely I'd file an I-129F, even though I understand the potential advantage. This is because things have changed back and forth on how the combination of petitions ends up being adjudicated and there's just no predicting what would happen to a petition filed today.

A difference of opinion is just that. Since we don't know what will happen in the future there's really no telling whether advice to file or not file an I-129F is good or bad.

[Ling Ling 22]

The process of interview scheduling varies widely, so unless your assertions are Consulate specific they have little or no meaning.

If I were filing a petition for a spouse today, it's not likely I'd file an I-129F, even though I understand the potential advantage. This is because things have changed back and forth on how the combination of petitions ends up being adjudicated and there's just no predicting what would happen to a petition filed today.

A difference of opinion is just that. Since we don't know what will happen in the future there's really no telling whether advice to file or not file an I-129F is good or bad.

Pushbrk, are you saying that specific Consulates would hold an approved and ready K-3 applicant for a month, and schedule a CR-1 applicant (who is approved and ready a month later) ahead of said K-3 applicant based on that specific Consulates policy?

Also, since you understand the potential advantage of filing an I-129f under the current circumstances (and you agreed it was a "Good Plan"), what do you see as the potential disadvantage given the current circumstances?

000, how does one become "stuck" in a K-3?

Edited September 4, 2008 by Ling Ling

[000 0]

Again a big no, the consulate makes the appointment for K3 interviews, NVC makes the interview for CR1. So while K3 applicants are at the mercy of the consulate (who has to work around what NVC schedules), before a CR1 applicant leaves NVC an interview is scheduled. And the K3 applicants packet was at the consulate when my wifes I-130 reached NVC, so the K3 applicant was only waiting on the embassy to do their part. And since everyone has all the information that they could ever need on this forum, if they are on this forum, being ready should be a given.

Big no to you sir.

The K-3 applicant notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness", and then the consulate schedules them.

On the CR-1 side, the NVC notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness".

Only the consulate can schedule either...NVC can not magically tell them to have an interview date available.

Therefore, the consulate can fall down on scheduling either applicant that has an approved petition and is ready for interview.

Bottom line is, there IS an advantage to applying for a K-3. Are you saying there IS NOT EVER an advantage?

I can not see an advantage, and I will tell you why I think that way.

When the I-129f was created the immigration process was very slow, 1-2 years for a USC to petition for their children and spouses. Some time later USCIS had become more efficent and was now processing family based petitions between 3-6 months which was about how long it took for the I-129f to be processed, so when that happend you were only saving about 2-3 months becuse of the short stay at NVC only to assign a visa number. Now in using the online payment system for NVC and being able to clear NVC as a CR1/IR1 applicant in 22-30 days you really only save a month at best. And it takes what, 30-90 days to be able to work after coming over on a K3 visa? The only advantage that I could see in applying for a K3 was being here faster to help support your family, but when you take in to consideration that a CR1 applicant can start working when they arrive and dont have to wait for anything I dont really see the advantage anymore, I mean people can apply for it if it makes them feel better sure, but is 30 days and having to file a ton of paperwork as soon as their spouse gets here and then go through Adjustment of status really worth it? I found it funny when some people who did the K3 visa started asking if they could still go through with the I-130 since it was forwarded to the NVC (which does not always happen, the way it is supposed to work is that only 1 is forwarded to NVC) because the hassle of adjusting status seemed like too big a pain. I mean they were really thinking out if buying a new plane ticket and paying the fees for CR1 so their spouse could go back for a CR1 interview was worth it.

And with the K3 "applicant readiness thing, the K3 applicant i am talking about waited almost a month and a half for an interview to be scheduled after they had sent in all their paperwork. While all my wife and I did was send in our paper work to NVC and the day after they had seen approved our AOS and DS-230 we had an interview date.

[000 0]

The process of interview scheduling varies widely, so unless your assertions are Consulate specific they have little or no meaning.

If I were filing a petition for a spouse today, it's not likely I'd file an I-129F, even though I understand the potential advantage. This is because things have changed back and forth on how the combination of petitions ends up being adjudicated and there's just no predicting what would happen to a petition filed today.

A difference of opinion is just that. Since we don't know what will happen in the future there's really no telling whether advice to file or not file an I-129F is good or bad.

My statements are made about the Brazilian Consulate and the manner in which they handled my wifes and another K3 applicants who was going through the same consulate.

[Ling Ling 22]

Also wondering, if you understand that doing something (filing an I-129f petition) has a potential advantage,

and you advise someone not to do something with a potential advantage (without giving them knowledge of said potential advantage) or if you base your

advise on your personal opinion without giving them all the facts so they can make an informed decision...how can you say that you have been fair,

or that you have not given bad advice?

Advice weighted on personal preference, and without giving all known facts, is not optimal in my opinion.

I feel very strongly that good advice is unbiased, and informed of both potential risks as well as potential advantages.

[Ling Ling 22]

Again a big no, the consulate makes the appointment for K3 interviews, NVC makes the interview for CR1. So while K3 applicants are at the mercy of the consulate (who has to work around what NVC schedules), before a CR1 applicant leaves NVC an interview is scheduled. And the K3 applicants packet was at the consulate when my wifes I-130 reached NVC, so the K3 applicant was only waiting on the embassy to do their part. And since everyone has all the information that they could ever need on this forum, if they are on this forum, being ready should be a given.

Big no to you sir.

The K-3 applicant notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness", and then the consulate schedules them.

On the CR-1 side, the NVC notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness".

Only the consulate can schedule either...NVC can not magically tell them to have an interview date available.

Therefore, the consulate can fall down on scheduling either applicant that has an approved petition and is ready for interview.

Bottom line is, there IS an advantage to applying for a K-3. Are you saying there IS NOT EVER an advantage?

I can not see an advantage, and I will tell you why I think that way.

When the I-129f was created the immigration process was very slow, 1-2 years for a USC to petition for their children and spouses. Some time later USCIS had become more efficent and was now processing family based petitions between 3-6 months which was about how long it took for the I-129f to be processed, so when that happend you were only saving about 2-3 months becuse of the short stay at NVC only to assign a visa number. Now in using the online payment system for NVC and being able to clear NVC as a CR1/IR1 applicant in 22-30 days you really only save a month at best. And it takes what, 30-90 days to be able to work after coming over on a K3 visa? The only advantage that I could see in applying for a K3 was being here faster to help support your family, but when you take in to consideration that a CR1 applicant can start working when they arrive and dont have to wait for anything I dont really see the advantage anymore, I mean people can apply for it if it makes them feel better sure, but is 30 days and having to file a ton of paperwork as soon as their spouse gets here and then go through Adjustment of status really worth it? I found it funny when some people who did the K3 visa started asking if they could still go through with the I-130 since it was forwarded to the NVC (which does not always happen, the way it is supposed to work is that only 1 is forwarded to NVC) because the hassle of adjusting status seemed like too big a pain. I mean they were really thinking out if buying a new plane ticket and paying the fees for CR1 so their spouse could go back for a CR1 interview was worth it.

And with the K3 "applicant readiness thing, the K3 applicant i am talking about waited almost a month and a half for an interview to be scheduled after they had sent in all their paperwork. While all my wife and I did was send in our paper work to NVC and the day after they had seen approved our AOS and DS-230 we had an interview date.

ooo we are not debating that the CR-1 is a superior visa to the K-3. The subject at hand is, making a free petition of an I-129f having the POTENTIAL advantage of allowing an applicant to schedule an interview (alert the consulate of applicant readiness) ahead of NVC alerting the consulate of case completion, which at your own admission can take 22 to 30 days or more.

I'd be very interested to know who this VJer is who had their K-3 at the Rio Embassy a month ahead of you, and was ready in a time ahead of you, but was scheduled after you. That said, there are so many factors that we don't know. Even though they may have told you they gave immediate notice of applicant readiness, they may not have. Also, it could be that you were slotted into an interview date that suddenly "opened-up". We will never know.

But I find it highly illogical that a consulate would punish a K-3 applicant by not making any movement on their approved and ready application....but immediately schedule CR-1 applicants.

[pushbrk 12,872]

The process of interview scheduling varies widely, so unless your assertions are Consulate specific they have little or no meaning.

If I were filing a petition for a spouse today, it's not likely I'd file an I-129F, even though I understand the potential advantage. This is because things have changed back and forth on how the combination of petitions ends up being adjudicated and there's just no predicting what would happen to a petition filed today.

A difference of opinion is just that. Since we don't know what will happen in the future there's really no telling whether advice to file or not file an I-129F is good or bad.

Pushbrk, are you saying that specific Consulates would hold an approved and ready K-3 applicant for a month, and schedule a CR-1 applicant (who is approved and ready a month later) ahead of said K-3 applicant based on that specific Consulates policy?

Also, since you understand the potential advantage of filing an I-129f under the current circumstances (and you agreed it was a "Good Plan"), what do you see as the potential disadvantage given the current circumstances?

000, how does one become "stuck" in a K-3?

I'm saying exactly what I said. The process of scheduling interviews varies by Consulate. For example, you wrote...

The K-3 applicant notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness", and then the consulate schedules them.

On the CR-1 side, the NVC notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness".

...and you wrote it in response to a different assertion by another poster. You were probably both right based on a specific Consulate but Guangzhou, for example has no interviews of any kind scheduled for them by NVC.

What is correct regardless of how the interviews are scheduled is that a K3 interview appointment is required to become an immigrant (CR1 or IR1) visa appointment if the immigrant visa case arrives on station before the interview takes place.

The potential disadvantage is that USCIS changes policy yet again and the whole process gets delayed or they hold the I-130, or the conjoining of the two petitions gets delayed etc. etc. etc.

I'm not confident your latest experience will be what happens three months from now. I suggested the OP seriously consider skipping the K3/I-129F. Reading our discussion would be an integral part of that "consideration". No?

Also wondering, if you understand that doing something (filing an I-129f petition) has a potential advantage,

and you advise someone not to do something with a potential advantage (without giving them knowledge of said potential advantage) or if you base your

advise on your personal opinion without giving them all the facts so they can make an informed decision...how can you say that you have been fair,

or that you have not given bad advice?

Advice weighted on personal preference, and without giving all known facts, is not optimal in my opinion.

I feel very strongly that good advice is unbiased, and informed of both potential risks as well as potential advantages.

Please note that I advised "consideration" adding the condition, "particularly if working anytime soon after arrival is important to him." Sentences and paragraphs, eh?

Edited September 4, 2008 by pushbrk

[000 0]

http://www.visajourney.com/timeline/profile.php?id=45762 Renatchi . i dont think that they are punshing K3 applicants, I just think that they allow NVC a certain amount of Interviews per month and they have to work around that, from the pattern that I have seen with Rio, the first 15 days are for the most part when the CR1 applicants get their interview with a only a few at the end of the month, those I think are the ones that a spot just opened up. Another VJer who was also going through Rio had her husbands Interview scheduled the day before mine on the 14th and we both left NVC around the same time (3-4 day difference), she too finished NVC in July which is after Renatchi was said to be done and waitng for the interview.

Im not only saying that it is the better visa, im tyring to explain why I think there are no advantages to pursue it. Again its no harm to file the petition, I dont think it makes a difference on when they start your case or not though. If people who were lucky enough to get both their I-130 and I-129f sent to NVC were really thinking about sending their spouse back to go to the CR1 interview after the K3 visa was approved and their spouse was here it makes one think why they didnt just wait the 30 extra days to go CR1 and K3.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Guest

[Ling Ling 22]

The process of interview scheduling varies widely, so unless your assertions are Consulate specific they have little or no meaning.

If I were filing a petition for a spouse today, it's not likely I'd file an I-129F, even though I understand the potential advantage. This is because things have changed back and forth on how the combination of petitions ends up being adjudicated and there's just no predicting what would happen to a petition filed today.

A difference of opinion is just that. Since we don't know what will happen in the future there's really no telling whether advice to file or not file an I-129F is good or bad.

Pushbrk, are you saying that specific Consulates would hold an approved and ready K-3 applicant for a month, and schedule a CR-1 applicant (who is approved and ready a month later) ahead of said K-3 applicant based on that specific Consulates policy?

Also, since you understand the potential advantage of filing an I-129f under the current circumstances (and you agreed it was a "Good Plan"), what do you see as the potential disadvantage given the current circumstances?

000, how does one become "stuck" in a K-3?

I'm saying exactly what I said. The process of scheduling interviews varies by Consulate. For example, you wrote...

The K-3 applicant notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness", and then the consulate schedules them.

On the CR-1 side, the NVC notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness".

...and you wrote it in response to a different assertion by another poster. You were probably both right based on a specific Consulate but Guangzhou, for example has no interviews of any kind scheduled for them by NVC.

What is correct regardless of how the interviews are scheduled is that a K3 interview appointment is required to become an immigrant (CR1 or IR1) visa appointment if the immigrant visa case arrives on station before the interview takes place.

The potential disadvantage is that USCIS changes policy yet again and the whole process gets delayed or they hold the I-130, or the conjoining of the two petitions gets delayed etc. etc. etc.

I'm not confident your latest experience will be what happens three months from now. I suggested the OP seriously consider skipping the K3/I-129F. Reading our discussion would be an integral part of that "consideration". No?

NOPE....ooo said NVC schedules CR-1 interviews....just as in Tokyo and Guangzhou, the CONSULATE schedules the interview after being notified by NVC that the CR-1 applicant is ready. Even while some consulates may allow NVC to access their scheduling system remotely, it is still being scheduled according to availability of the consulate.

You still haven't answered my question on the merits of fully informed suggestions for consideration versus partially informed and personally weighted suggestions for consideration.

Also wondering, if you understand that doing something (filing an I-129f petition) has a potential advantage,

and you advise someone not to do something with a potential advantage (without giving them knowledge of said potential advantage) or if you base your

advise on your personal opinion without giving them all the facts so they can make an informed decision...how can you say that you have been fair,

or that you have not given bad advice?

Advice weighted on personal preference, and without giving all known facts, is not optimal in my opinion.

I feel very strongly that good advice is unbiased, and informed of both potential risks as well as potential advantages.

Please note that I advised "consideration" adding the condition, "particularly if working anytime soon after arrival is important to him." Sentences and paragraphs, eh?

If we were discussing the merits of which is the superior visa (K-3 vs CR-1) then your condition would be valid.

However, we are discussing the potential advantage of filing an I-129f petition for the purpose of getting an interview date for a CR-1 sooner than a CR-1 on its own. Therefore "if working anytime soon after arrival is important to him", the potential for the proven and proposed process that I advocate, is that they would have a visa in hand sooner and thus arrive sooner and work sooner....if that's important to him.

[Ling Ling 22]

http://www.visajourney.com/timeline/profile.php?id=45762 Renatchi . i dont think that they are punshing K3 applicants, I just think that they allow NVC a certain amount of Interviews per month and they have to work around that, from the pattern that I have seen with Rio, the first 15 days are for the most part when the CR1 applicants get their interview with a only a few at the end of the month, those I think are the ones that a spot just opened up. Another VJer who was also going through Rio had her husbands Interview scheduled the day before mine on the 14th and we both left NVC around the same time (3-4 day difference), she too finished NVC in July which is after Renatchi was said to be done and waitng for the interview.

Im not only saying that it is the better visa, im tyring to explain why I think there are no advantages to pursue it. Again its no harm to file the petition, I dont think it makes a difference on when they start your case or not though. If people who were lucky enough to get both their I-130 and I-129f sent to NVC were really thinking about sending their spouse back to go to the CR1 interview after the K3 visa was approved and their spouse was here it makes one think why they didnt just wait the 30 extra days to go CR1 and K3.

So you do or do not understand that if someone pursues a K-3 path at the same time as their CR-1, that there is a POTENTIAL that they could get a CR-1 interview sooner than if they had only pursued the CR-1?

If you do understand that, how can you think there is no advantage?

[Ling Ling 22]

I'm saying exactly what I said. The process of scheduling interviews varies by Consulate. For example, you wrote...

The K-3 applicant notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness", and then the consulate schedules them.

On the CR-1 side, the NVC notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness".

...and you wrote it in response to a different assertion by another poster. You were probably both right based on a specific Consulate but Guangzhou, for example has no interviews of any kind scheduled for them by NVC.

What is correct regardless of how the interviews are scheduled is that a K3 interview appointment is required to become an immigrant (CR1 or IR1) visa appointment if the immigrant visa case arrives on station before the interview takes place.

The potential disadvantage is that USCIS changes policy yet again and the whole process gets delayed or they hold the I-130, or the conjoining of the two petitions gets delayed etc. etc. etc.

I'm not confident your latest experience will be what happens three months from now. I suggested the OP seriously consider skipping the K3/I-129F. Reading our discussion would be an integral part of that "consideration". No?

NOPE....ooo said NVC schedules CR-1 interviews....I say, just as in Tokyo and Guangzhou, the CONSULATE schedules the interview after being notified by NVC that the CR-1 applicant is ready. Even while some consulates may allow NVC to access their scheduling system remotely, it is still being scheduled according to availability of the consulate. Agreed, that some consulates may have different policies (X days for K-3 and Y days for CR-1) but the consulate ultimately schedules their own availability to interview. It is illogical to think that an entity thousands of miles away and in a different time zone, could mandate facility and personnel availability on a daily basis for the purpose of CR-1 interviews. I'm pretty sure NVC has better things to do than keep up with maintaining personnel schedules for any of the consulates.

You still haven't answered my question on the merits of fully informed suggestions for consideration versus partially informed and personally weighted suggestions for consideration.

[000 0]

http://www.visajourney.com/timeline/profile.php?id=45762 Renatchi . i dont think that they are punshing K3 applicants, I just think that they allow NVC a certain amount of Interviews per month and they have to work around that, from the pattern that I have seen with Rio, the first 15 days are for the most part when the CR1 applicants get their interview with a only a few at the end of the month, those I think are the ones that a spot just opened up. Another VJer who was also going through Rio had her husbands Interview scheduled the day before mine on the 14th and we both left NVC around the same time (3-4 day difference), she too finished NVC in July which is after Renatchi was said to be done and waitng for the interview.

Im not only saying that it is the better visa, im tyring to explain why I think there are no advantages to pursue it. Again its no harm to file the petition, I dont think it makes a difference on when they start your case or not though. If people who were lucky enough to get both their I-130 and I-129f sent to NVC were really thinking about sending their spouse back to go to the CR1 interview after the K3 visa was approved and their spouse was here it makes one think why they didnt just wait the 30 extra days to go CR1 and K3.

So you do or do not understand that if someone pursues a K-3 path at the same time as their CR-1, that there is a POTENTIAL that they could get a CR-1 interview sooner than if they had only pursued the CR-1?

If you do understand that, how can you think there is no advantage?

Getting a CR1 interview scheduled before the K3 has its advatages of course if you are able to pursue both, this does not always happen, what I am saying is that I dont think just because they filed a K3 application means that anything will happen any faster at USCIS. There are tons of examples of this from VSC and plenty of examples of I-130 with no I-129f from CSC being done in fantastic speed as well. And again as Pushbrk said , there is a possibility that someone who filed a I-129f wont have their I-130 sent to NVC. This is why I said they get stuck with the K3. If we were going with a system of +1 & -1 I come to no advantages because of the risk involved and the POTENTIAL to get stuck and not be able to pursue the CR1 as well out weighs the small time that seems really small once you are at NVC anyway. The worst part of this process for me was the waiting at USCIS, once my I-130 was sent to NVC the time flew by. I sent my application in November of last year VSC and several of people filed their I-129f at the same time yet we were all still waiting 6 months later. While I can say that YES if you have the chance to pursue both and your CR1 interview date comes first because of filing an I129f would be an advantage, I havent seen where the I129f made the difference in timing at USCIS.

[000 0]

I'm saying exactly what I said. The process of scheduling interviews varies by Consulate. For example, you wrote...

The K-3 applicant notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness", and then the consulate schedules them.

On the CR-1 side, the NVC notifies the consulate of "Applicant Readiness".

...and you wrote it in response to a different assertion by another poster. You were probably both right based on a specific Consulate but Guangzhou, for example has no interviews of any kind scheduled for them by NVC.

What is correct regardless of how the interviews are scheduled is that a K3 interview appointment is required to become an immigrant (CR1 or IR1) visa appointment if the immigrant visa case arrives on station before the interview takes place.

The potential disadvantage is that USCIS changes policy yet again and the whole process gets delayed or they hold the I-130, or the conjoining of the two petitions gets delayed etc. etc. etc.

I'm not confident your latest experience will be what happens three months from now. I suggested the OP seriously consider skipping the K3/I-129F. Reading our discussion would be an integral part of that "consideration". No?

NOPE....ooo said NVC schedules CR-1 interviews....I say, just as in Tokyo and Guangzhou, the CONSULATE schedules the interview after being notified by NVC that the CR-1 applicant is ready. Even while some consulates may allow NVC to access their scheduling system remotely, it is still being scheduled according to availability of the consulate. Agreed, that some consulates may have different policies (X days for K-3 and Y days for CR-1) but the consulate ultimately schedules their own availability to interview. It is illogical to think that an entity thousands of miles away and in a different time zone, could mandate facility and personnel availability on a daily basis for the purpose of CR-1 interviews. I'm pretty sure NVC has better things to do than keep up with maintaining personnel schedules for any of the consulates.

You still haven't answered my question on the merits of fully informed suggestions for consideration versus partially informed and personally weighted suggestions for consideration.

To this I say, the consulate in Rio did not even know about my wifes case until they recieved the package from NVC, they had no record of it, nothing until the package came from NVC, so, they must allow some number of days as I said 1-15th or something unless they schedule the interviews and then when they get the documents from NVC they bump people they had scheduled already. And their are different rules for the consulates , there are 2 different types of consulates if I remember right, appointment post and another one. So NVC has a lot of pull in Consulates like Brazil, if they didnt even know my wife had an interview or didnt even see her visa number then NVC is given a lot room to do as they want some way.