New need advice.....

[Ling Ling 22]

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.

OF COURSE, we can only speak of potential advantages and potential disadvantages, and relative to the current conditions.

OF COURSE, things can change.

I understand that after your long wait at USCIS, a few days doesn't mean much. In my case, and what could be the case of many others, it makes a huge difference.

Use my case as an example (but not the sole reason for my advocacy)...we have paid all fees at NVC (AOS & IV) and have sent in the AOS...however we won't be able to submit the PCC until at least Sept. 13th. NVC, The Tokyo Embassy, The Wizard of OZ, or whoever schedules interviews for the Tokyo Embassy, stops scheduling for October, either when their appointment slots are full, or by Sept. 20th. Because we pursued the K-3 path, we were able to set an interview for Oct. 6th. There's little likelyhood that an IV package received on Sept. 15th would result in a case complete in 5 days (possible, but I wouldn't bank on it). So that means that if we were to wait for case complete (which I will bank on being before Oct. 6) we would have to wait until November for an interview date. So we're saving 30 days of rent in Tokyo, 30 days of gas, electric, water, and phone bills. 30 days of individual meals. But more importantly, we're saving 30 days of being apart.

I know how to make more money, but I don't know how to make more time.

I don't see how you can't comprehend that there is a potential advantage to pursuing both paths in order to get an earlier interview date.

I don't see how you think telling someone not to pursue something that has an advantage, or not telling them of a possible advantage, is not good advice.

[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.

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.

Yes, the NVC has remote access to the Rio Embassy scheduling system. The scheduling system is ultimately managed locally by the Rio Embassy.

The Rio Embassy sets parameters for scheduling based on facility and personnel availability, which the Rio Embassy manages locally.

If NVC were actually mandating the schedules independent of the hierarchy in the Rio Embassy, they could schedule as many interviews at any time of day or night.

Since they can not, they are bound by the parameters set by the Rio Embassy hierarchy, therefore they are REMOTELY ACCESSING the Rio Embassy scheduling system.

If NVC can enter in any date and time, then THEY are scheduling. If NVC has to rely on dates and times made available by the Rio Embassy, then they are ACCESSING the Rio Schedule.

[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?

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.

Actually, you are advocating the potential advantages and I'm taking the more cautious historical view by weighing in the potential delays filing the I-129F could cause. We have to be careful about these recommendations. I've been through the two horses in the race scenario of which you speak, with the K3 horse winning by many lengths, but have also seen K3's administratively cancelled in cases with children where no I-130's were filed for the children. (causing tremendous heartache and delay) I've also seen the I-130's held, forcing the K3 or an extra 8 to 12 months to get the CR1 moving again. All these scenarios have been temporary but consistent USCIS policy for at least a few months to a year and all in the past three years.

We just don't know what USCIS is going to do next, so the safe bet, when working is the priority or when a couple extra months isn't a problem, or when overall cost is a major consideration, or any combination of those, is to seriously consider the immigrant visa path as the one and only path taken.

In our case, the K3 is what we wanted and needed. At the time, a CR1 was taking several months longer in China, AOS fees were much lower and my wife's English wasn't good enough to worry about working soon after arrival. Things change and circumstances vary.

Edited September 4, 2008 by pushbrk

[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.

Actually, you are advocating the potential advantages and I'm taking the more cautious historical view by weighing in the potential delays filing the I-129F could cause. We have to be careful about these recommendations. I've been through the two horses in the race scenario of which you speak, with the K3 horse winning by many lengths, but have also seen K3's administratively cancelled in cases with children where no I-130's were filed for the children. (causing tremendous heartache and delay) I've also seen the I-130's held, forcing the K3 or an extra 8 to 12 months to get the CR1 moving again. All these scenarios have been temporary but consistent USCIS policy for at least a few months to a year and all in the past three years.

We just don't know what USCIS is going to do next, so the safe bet, when working is the priority or when a couple extra months isn't a problem, or when overall cost is a major consideration, or any combination of those, is to seriously consider the immigrant visa path as the one and only path taken.

In our case, the K3 is what we wanted and needed. At the time, a CR1 was taking several months longer in China, AOS fees were much lower and my wife's English wasn't good enough to worry about working soon after arrival. Things change and circumstances vary.

I think we've both made good points, from which future readers can make an informed decision.

Thanks for your contributions, staying on topic, and keeping BS out of this thread.

I think we can both say this horse is not getting up.

[filirican 3]

godluck on the process..they told u everything u need to know alredy...God bless!

[000 0]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=149117 just wanted to link this post about what was told to another VJ member by NVC, so it would seem that they do block off a certain amount of time for NVC to make the interviews for CR1 applicants which has always been my impression from what others have said on this forum. No matter if they access the system or not, NVC is allowed certain amount of time to schedule interviews. And this would be why NVC told me my wifes interview date the day after NVC approved our DS-230 and the consulate in Rio had no information about my wifes case or interview date until almost 2 weeks later. So since they are allowed this time it could be said that the consulate does have to work around what NVC schedules, no matter of remote access or not. Now given that , lets just say that NVC is allowed 2 weeks out of the 4 weeks to schedule, since from what I have seen most CR1 interviews at the consulate in Rio are between the 1st and the 15th with a few spread out at the end of the month, so the case load that the consulate has is worked around that amount of time given to NVC to schedule the interviews for CR1/IR1. Doesnt matter if it is remote access to their system or not, NVC is given time to make interviews so again at some places you might have to wait in line until the consulate can get you in. The consulates that make the interviews and NVC are all just another arm of Homeland Security and USCIS so for both the NVC and the consulate, the rules that they need to follow are given to them just like any other government office. Just keep an open mind people because as Pushbrk has said the consulates vary in the way things work. I believe that all consulates considered Appointment Post are the ones that allow NVC time to schedule interviews, and the consulates called Consular Processing (I think thats right) do not give NVC any time to schedule the the interviews. If any one can correct me if Im wrong about the 2 types of consulates I would appreciate it because I dont remember where to go on the Travelstate.gov to get the exact name.

[pushbrk 12,872]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=149117 just wanted to link this post about what was told to another VJ member by NVC, so it would seem that they do block off a certain amount of time for NVC to make the interviews for CR1 applicants which has always been my impression from what others have said on this forum. No matter if they access the system or not, NVC is allowed certain amount of time to schedule interviews. And this would be why NVC told me my wifes interview date the day after NVC approved our DS-230 and the consulate in Rio had no information about my wifes case or interview date until almost 2 weeks later. So since they are allowed this time it could be said that the consulate does have to work around what NVC schedules, no matter of remote access or not. Now given that , lets just say that NVC is allowed 2 weeks out of the 4 weeks to schedule, since from what I have seen most CR1 interviews at the consulate in Rio are between the 1st and the 15th with a few spread out at the end of the month, so the case load that the consulate has is worked around that amount of time given to NVC to schedule the interviews for CR1/IR1. Doesnt matter if it is remote access to their system or not, NVC is given time to make interviews so again at some places you might have to wait in line until the consulate can get you in. The consulates that make the interviews and NVC are all just another arm of Homeland Security and USCIS so for both the NVC and the consulate, the rules that they need to follow are given to them just like any other government office. Just keep an open mind people because as Pushbrk has said the consulates vary in the way things work. I believe that all consulates considered Appointment Post are the ones that allow NVC time to schedule interviews, and the consulates called Consular Processing (I think thats right) do not give NVC any time to schedule the the interviews. If any one can correct me if Im wrong about the 2 types of consulates I would appreciate it because I dont remember where to go on the Travelstate.gov to get the exact name.

I believe the term "appointment post" is correct but am unaware of any title for those that are not appointment posts. Consular processing is what all Consulates do, so that's not the correct term.

[Ling Ling 22]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=149117 just wanted to link this post about what was told to another VJ member by NVC, so it would seem that they do block off a certain amount of time for NVC to make the interviews for CR1 applicants which has always been my impression from what others have said on this forum. No matter if they access the system or not, NVC is allowed certain amount of time to schedule interviews. SNIPPED

Looked at the post you referenced. A quote from that post. "if space is available at consulate".

Yes, this thread and your comments backup what I already told you. NVC accesses the Consulate's schedule.

Again, if they schedule without being bound to NVC's facility availability and personnel availability, then yes, NVC is scheduling.

Otherwise, NVC is requesting an interview date on behalf of the applicant.

Scheduling connotates an ability to autonomously mandate a particular date. In the absence of autonomy, they are making a schedule request.

As pshbrk said, "This is a process where getting the details and semantics right is absolutely critical, so get used to doing so or risk costly errors."

[000 0]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=149117 just wanted to link this post about what was told to another VJ member by NVC, so it would seem that they do block off a certain amount of time for NVC to make the interviews for CR1 applicants which has always been my impression from what others have said on this forum. No matter if they access the system or not, NVC is allowed certain amount of time to schedule interviews. SNIPPED

Looked at the post you referenced. A quote from that post. "if space is available at consulate".

Yes, this thread and your comments backup what I already told you. NVC accesses the Consulate's schedule.

Again, if they schedule without being bound to NVC's facility availability and personnel availability, then yes, NVC is scheduling.

Otherwise, NVC is requesting an interview date on behalf of the applicant.

Scheduling connotates an ability to autonomously mandate a particular date. In the absence of autonomy, they are making a schedule request.

As pshbrk said, "This is a process where getting the details and semantics right is absolutely critical, so get used to doing so or risk costly errors."

No one ever said that NVC has full control of the consualte, all I have said is that NVC is allowed time to make interviews based on either X days or a Min. number per month. If the NVC agent had said (which they have said for a very long time) that CR1/IR1 cases are scheduled within the first 2 weeks of every month for the following month if their is availibility (meaning that they have not already exceeded the number of days/ interviews that are allowed, for example they had so many CR1 applicants for that consulate that they couldnt fit them all in those 15 days or whatever it may be) then they dont have to ask for permission, they are granted those days. So that means what I have told you, the embassy has to allow the NVC that time, whatever it may be, and so they can not just bump whatever NVC schedules, they cant just tell the NVC that they will not honor those days that they have scheduled and only schedule what they want as you seem to think they can, if the are required by DHS to allow for NVC to schedule interviews for CR1/IR1 then they have to follow that, just like NVC can not take full control and just make CR1/IR1 as much as they want. So according to your reasoning of scheduling I suppose that no one can schedule because the consulate does have to allow the time that is granted to NVC . DHS has control of the consulates, NVC and USCIS, you seem to be under the impression that they all get to make their own rules which is not the case. Until either one of us can show evidence from NVC or the consulate that supports what we say I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Ling Ling 22]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=149117 just wanted to link this post about what was told to another VJ member by NVC, so it would seem that they do block off a certain amount of time for NVC to make the interviews for CR1 applicants which has always been my impression from what others have said on this forum. No matter if they access the system or not, NVC is allowed certain amount of time to schedule interviews. SNIPPED

Looked at the post you referenced. A quote from that post. "if space is available at consulate".

Yes, this thread and your comments backup what I already told you. NVC accesses the Consulate's schedule.

Again, if they schedule without being bound to NVC's facility availability and personnel availability, then yes, NVC is scheduling.

Otherwise, NVC is requesting an interview date on behalf of the applicant.

Scheduling connotates an ability to autonomously mandate a particular date. In the absence of autonomy, they are making a schedule request.

As pshbrk said, "This is a process where getting the details and semantics right is absolutely critical, so get used to doing so or risk costly errors."

No one ever said that NVC has full control of the consualte, all I have said is that NVC is allowed time to make interviews based on either X days or a Min. number per month. If the NVC agent had said (which they have said for a very long time) that CR1/IR1 cases are scheduled within the first 2 weeks of every month for the following month if their is availibility (meaning that they have not already exceeded the number of days/ interviews that are allowed, for example they had so many CR1 applicants for that consulate that they couldnt fit them all in those 15 days or whatever it may be) then they dont have to ask for permission, they are granted those days. So that means what I have told you, the embassy has to allow the NVC that time, whatever it may be, and so they can not just bump whatever NVC schedules, they cant just tell the NVC that they will not honor those days that they have scheduled and only schedule what they want as you seem to think they can, if the are required by DHS to allow for NVC to schedule interviews for CR1/IR1 then they have to follow that, just like NVC can not take full control and just make CR1/IR1 as much as they want. So according to your reasoning of scheduling I suppose that no one can schedule because the consulate does have to allow the time that is granted to NVC . DHS has control of the consulates, NVC and USCIS, you seem to be under the impression that they all get to make their own rules which is not the case. Until either one of us can show evidence from NVC or the consulate that supports what we say I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Nah, we don't have to agree to disagree, but we can agree that you're trying to make up things I never said.

I simply stated that NVC must make schedule requests of the consulate, the same as a K-3 applicant. To wit, a certain number of days must also be set aside for K-3 interviews, just as they are alloted for CR-1/IR-1 via NVC. Your original position was contrary to such. Therefore we may also agree that my facts are in order.

[000 0]

I have always said that time was given to them, to schedule the interview, you must have me confused with someone else so no your facts are not in order. And we can not agree that I am trying to make up things you never said because you have spent so much time on here stating that NVC does not schedule the interviews for this that or the other that perhaps you have just lost track with everything that you have said and that I have as well, or maybe you just never understood what i was trying to say and we are burning both end of the candle sticks , I dont know, doesnt matter.

[Ling Ling 22]

Guess you "forgot" about this post you made....

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.

SNIPPED

[000 0]

Guess you "forgot" about this post you made....

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.

SNIPPED

How could I forget about that post? NVC does make the interview date for Cr1/IR1 visas for some consulates. Which is what i have been saying this whole time.......

[Ling Ling 22]

Guess you "forgot" about this post you made....

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.

SNIPPED

How could I forget about that post? NVC does make the interview date for Cr1/IR1 visas for some consulates. Which is what i have been saying this whole time.......

What part of K-3 applicants are no more at the mercy of the Consulate than NVC is, do you not understand?

What part of, either there are days available for an interview when the Consulate is notified of "Applicant Readiness", or there are NOT days available, do you not understand?

Nevermind...you just go on being right there buddy. It's alrighty.

[000 0]

What is there that you dont understand? NVC is given X amount of days or time to schedule the interview for CR1 applicants, so the consulate with its huge pile of K1 and K3 applications has to work around those days given. Have you ever seen an interview schedule list from a consulate? It is filled with K1 and K3 applications, for those consulates where the NVC is allowed to schedule the CR1/IR1 interviews it doesnt matter if the K3 or K1 was there a month or 2 before a CR1 application, if there is a backlog of K1 and K3 they have to wait their turn, its the same for CR1 applicants if the amount of time given for CR1/IR1 has been filled but there are far more K1 and K3 applicants than CR1/IR1 and since there are so many of them it does not matter if they were there before a CR1 applicant or not. Its not punishing the the K3 or K1 applicant , its just a simple matter of time. Take a look at an interiew schedule for a few consulates and you will have an idea of what I am talking about, while I will say that me using the term "at the mercy of" might not have been the best one it doesnt change the fact the time given to NVC to schedule the interviews is still there so there is not a first come first serve rule for all the applications. CR1 are allowed a certain amount of time no matter if there are far more K1 and K3 that got there first or not. So in a sense they are at the mercy of the consulate because the consulate can not take away the tme given to NVC to put some of those people who had been waiting before the CR1 applicant, they have to share the time with k1/K3 and all those other visa types that the consulate DOES make the interview schedule for.

And lets try to remeber that the first attack you made on my character trying to say that I was making an unfair comparison of timelines becuase you had thought that an expedite from USCIS means that it is expedited all the way to the consulate which was very wrong, so to say that all your facts have been in order is just plain wrong. In fact from some of your other post it shows that your still learning a lot of the process but yet instead of keeping an open mind and looking to see why people say what they say you start out being combative with out even knowing all the facts as you call them or even knowing a lot of what goes on. Instead of just saying "your wrong" do some looking around and put something on the table to show that something is wrong, or do some looking around to see why I might be right.