to write a senator

[Yader&Sarah 0]

On Jan 6, 2009, after 148 days since receiving our NOA1, in desperation I wrote both Senator Claire McKaskil (D) and Senator Kit Bond ®. I sent the letters, which where similar (the only difference is in that to Bond, I mentioned being from the same small Missouri town), by both fax and snail mail.

Jan 7, 2009, I came home from teaching night school to an NOA2 email in my inbox, woohoo!! I felt a little silly for my letters to the senators and made a note to follow up concerning our new status.

But of couse in the new world of "After NOA2 Approval," I forgot. About a week later, I got an email from McKaskil's office saying they would look into it in 30-60 days.

On Saturday, Jan 24, 2009, I received two pieces of mail. 1) Letter from NVC and 2) Letter from Kit Bond's office.

The letter from Bond's office stated that they were happy to inquire about our case and included was the hard copy response sent by CSC USCIS. It was dated, Jan 7, 2009, and stated that our case will be with an adjudicated in 30-45 days and Happy New Year!

If I made this story too long and drawn out, sorry, I still find it intriguing. Not only did the senator's constituent office act, they acted FAST, within 24 hours of my fax, and as far as I'm concerned it worked!

We were approved 149 days after our NOA1, 1 day after sending a letter to the senator's constituent offices, and the same day as Senator Bond's office contacted USCIS.

and to think I almost didn't write a letter...

Edited January 26, 2009 by Yader&Sarah

[Hell0W0rld 10]

[Y's_habibitk 2]

congrats on your approval!

some offices act and other could care less, unfortunatly.

good luck on the interview and the rest of your journey

[Yader&Sarah 0]

congrats on your approval!

some offices act and other could care less, unfortunatly.

good luck on the interview and the rest of your journey

Thanks!

and just for anyone debating writing, it's easy, and I would have never thought that this particular senator or his office would be at all concerned with our puny little K-1, let alone be a proponent of immigration.

[Cacerez 19]

congrats on your approval!

some offices act and other could care less, unfortunatly.

good luck on the interview and the rest of your journey

Thanks!

and just for anyone debating writing, it's easy, and I would have never thought that this particular senator or his office would be at all concerned with our puny little K-1, let alone be a proponent of immigration.

Congrats and good to know! I sent an email to my Senator also but mainly just to complain about VSC being sooooooooo much slower than CSC. We'll see if I get a response!

[Brad and Vika 129]

Pretty funny

[sara..... 371]

congratulations :dance: :dance:

[Twisted K 2]

On Jan 6, 2009, after 148 days since receiving our NOA1, in desperation I wrote both Senator Claire McKaskil (D) and Senator Kit Bond ®. I sent the letters, which where similar (the only difference is in that to Bond, I mentioned being from the same small Missouri town), by both fax and snail mail.

Jan 7, 2009, I came home from teaching night school to an NOA2 email in my inbox, woohoo!! I felt a little silly for my letters to the senators and made a note to follow up concerning our new status.

But of couse in the new world of "After NOA2 Approval," I forgot. About a week later, I got an email from McKaskil's office saying they would look into it in 30-60 days.

On Saturday, Jan 24, 2009, I received two pieces of mail. 1) Letter from NVC and 2) Letter from Kit Bond's office.

The letter from Bond's office stated that they were happy to inquire about our case and included was the hard copy response sent by CSC USCIS. It was dated, Jan 7, 2009, and stated that our case will be with an adjudicated in 30-45 days and Happy New Year!

If I made this story too long and drawn out, sorry, I still find it intriguing. Not only did the senator's constituent office act, they acted FAST, within 24 hours of my fax, and as far as I'm concerned it worked!

We were approved 149 days after our NOA1, 1 day after sending a letter to the senator's constituent offices, and the same day as Senator Bond's office contacted USCIS.

and to think I almost didn't write a letter...

Congrats, I am dealing with the same to senators, and I agree, Bond's office is much more responsive. Too bad he announced this is his last term in office. Hopefully we will all be finished with the process before it happens

[mikesocal 1]

On Jan 6, 2009, after 148 days since receiving our NOA1, in desperation I wrote both Senator Claire McKaskil (D) and Senator Kit Bond ®. I sent the letters, which where similar (the only difference is in that to Bond, I mentioned being from the same small Missouri town), by both fax and snail mail.

Jan 7, 2009, I came home from teaching night school to an NOA2 email in my inbox, woohoo!! I felt a little silly for my letters to the senators and made a note to follow up concerning our new status.

But of couse in the new world of "After NOA2 Approval," I forgot. About a week later, I got an email from McKaskil's office saying they would look into it in 30-60 days.

On Saturday, Jan 24, 2009, I received two pieces of mail. 1) Letter from NVC and 2) Letter from Kit Bond's office.

The letter from Bond's office stated that they were happy to inquire about our case and included was the hard copy response sent by CSC USCIS. It was dated, Jan 7, 2009, and stated that our case will be with an adjudicated in 30-45 days and Happy New Year!

If I made this story too long and drawn out, sorry, I still find it intriguing. Not only did the senator's constituent office act, they acted FAST, within 24 hours of my fax, and as far as I'm concerned it worked!

We were approved 149 days after our NOA1, 1 day after sending a letter to the senator's constituent offices, and the same day as Senator Bond's office contacted USCIS.

and to think I almost didn't write a letter...

[MGG032589 0]

C O N G R A T S

[pushbrk 13,167]

On Jan 6, 2009, after 148 days since receiving our NOA1, in desperation I wrote both Senator Claire McKaskil (D) and Senator Kit Bond ®. I sent the letters, which where similar (the only difference is in that to Bond, I mentioned being from the same small Missouri town), by both fax and snail mail.

Jan 7, 2009, I came home from teaching night school to an NOA2 email in my inbox, woohoo!! I felt a little silly for my letters to the senators and made a note to follow up concerning our new status.

But of couse in the new world of "After NOA2 Approval," I forgot. About a week later, I got an email from McKaskil's office saying they would look into it in 30-60 days.

On Saturday, Jan 24, 2009, I received two pieces of mail. 1) Letter from NVC and 2) Letter from Kit Bond's office.

The letter from Bond's office stated that they were happy to inquire about our case and included was the hard copy response sent by CSC USCIS. It was dated, Jan 7, 2009, and stated that our case will be with an adjudicated in 30-45 days and Happy New Year!

If I made this story too long and drawn out, sorry, I still find it intriguing. Not only did the senator's constituent office act, they acted FAST, within 24 hours of my fax, and as far as I'm concerned it worked!

We were approved 149 days after our NOA1, 1 day after sending a letter to the senator's constituent offices, and the same day as Senator Bond's office contacted USCIS.

and to think I almost didn't write a letter...

Looks like a little "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" thinking to me but congratulations.

[ThaitoUSA 15]

"post hoc, ergo propter hoc" - After this, therefore because of this.

Assigning causality to proximal antecedents is a human proclivity.

[pushbrk 13,167]

"post hoc, ergo propter hoc" - After this, therefore because of this.

Assigning causality to proximal antecedents is a human proclivity.

Yes, it's the most common of the logical fallacies.

[Old Dominion 26]

Of course, USCIS had already completed its work before you wrote either one, and there was the usual time lag between its approval and the notification from NVC that it was now in the hands of the Dept. of State. Usually, the senior Senator in any state is the best one to contact.

[Yader&Sarah 0]

"post hoc, ergo propter hoc" - After this, therefore because of this.

Assigning causality to proximal antecedents is a human proclivity.

Yes, it's the most common of the logical fallacies.

call it what you want to call it, as for me, I'm going to continue believing in miracles (how else could something like this have happened at the hands of a republican )