Why are people advising others that the K3 is obsolete?

[pushbrk 12,892]

ugh I did send you'll a Link ^^ inwhich the VJ member stated that she had recevied a letter from NVC telling her that they was going to kill her I-129.

Pushbrk, here is a VJ post that supports your statements. http://www.visajourn...0entry3903549

NVC closed their I-129 b/c the I-130 was recv'd at the same time.

Of course, they said they would and they have. That doesn't seem to carry any meaning for some in this discussion. They think they can get USCIS to hold the I-130 and just send the I-129F OR they think they can get NVC to change their mind, in their case or some cases. Either of those COULD be true or procedures MAY change but at the moment, it's only speculation.

[LIFE'SJOURNEY 970]

Of course, they said they would and they have. That doesn't seem to carry any meaning for some in this discussion. They think they can get USCIS to hold the I-130 and just send the I-129F OR they think they can get NVC to change their mind, in their case or some cases. Either of those COULD be true or procedures MAY change but at the moment, it's only speculation.

Just a correction since the link posted wasn't working. http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/254095-i-129f-petition-closed-by-nvc/page__pid__3903549__st__0entry3903549

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Consulates can only issue visas when they have a case file on hand. They get their case files from NVC. Both petitions (with rare exception) arrive at NVC together. When both petitions arrive together, the I-129F is administratively closed, so no Consulate is going to see it or be able to issue a visa based on it.

I said some of your information was old and the rest was from USCIS's point of view. Consulates are notoriously late in updating their websites. Many still ask for notarized affidavits of support even though that requirement went away some time ago too.

No sure who you mean by "they". It is DOS through NVC that has taken this action. If USCIS changes their procedures again and processes the petitions separately, this NVC action would become moot. Until or unless that happens K3 is for all intents and purposes, no longer available, regardless of what old information still exists on Consulate or USCIS websites.

I'm curious though about the purpose of your argument. I agree that this sucks for any of the few people that can really benefit from the K3, such as those who do not yet wish to be required to maintain permanent residence in the USA for whatever reason but DO wish to freely come and go as the spouse of a US Citizen. I don't agree with the NVC decision. I'm just very practical about what it means.

The NVC gets it from USCIS. Your argument revolves around both petitions arriving together at the NVC. In my own case the I-129F went to the NVC while the I-130 was held at USCIS. I can't speak for other cases since my case was processed or since the Feb 2010 date. The information I've provided was updated April 5th, 2010. If it's old then why is it updated on DOS's website since the Feb 2010 memo? Why does the K3 page on DOS's website not have a moving banner announcing the K3 is no longer an option & why haven't they removed or broken the links on this page to the paperwork? It seems according to DOS's own website the K3 is still available. I'm not talking about the Consulates website or USCIS's website. I haven't looked up any Consulate's websites to begin with as I was going off the information provided by Canadian members who've posted in this thread. The purpose of my argument is to question why people are advising others the K3 is dead and explore the facts behind the K3 being dead or not. All evidence to the contrary either suggests the government is entirely too slow in updating the various agencies and the people or the K3 is still a go.

The Feb 2010 memo is only practical in meaning and application for the first part:

Effective February 1st, 2010 (policy already in place), when both the I-129F petition for a nonimmigrant K visa and the I-130 petition for an IR-1 (or CR-1) spouse of a U.S. citizen visa have been approved by USCIS and sent to the National Visa Center (NVC), the availability as well as the need for a nonimmigrant K-3 visa ends. If the NVC receives both petitions:

– The nonimmigrant K visa will be administratively closed.

– The NVC will contact the petitioner and beneficiary with instructions for processing a IR-1 (or CR-1) immigrant visa.

However, it's the second part of the Feb 2010 memo that can be ambiguous to say the least.

If the NVC does not receive an approved I-130 petition and I-129F at the same time, the NVC will process the I-129F petition. The NVC will then send the petition to the embassy or consulate in the country where the marriage took place. If the marriage took place in the U.S., the NVC will send the petition to the embassy or consulate that issues visas in the beneficiary’s country of nationality. If the marriage took place in a country that does not have an American embassy, or the embassy does not issue visas, the NVC will send the petition to the embassy or consulate that normally processes visas for citizens of that country. For example, if the marriage took place in Iran where the U.S. does not have an embassy the petition would be sent to Turkey.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I talked to someone in a management role a couple of weeks ago in person at the Consulate in Vancouver about the K3 visa. The consulate had not even received ANY official documentation about the I129F's being closed after Feb 1st, although they are aware it's the DOS's plan as they've read it on the DOS website too.

At that time, the consulate was still handling apps prior to Feb 1st, so it was too early to know what exactly will happen, and if any apps after Feb 1st would still somehow make it through. This manager was frustrated not even being advised of the change.

That's how wonderful our US govt is sometimes with communications between different departments. How much money is the USCIS spending for preliminary work on the I129F's prior to sending them to the NVC? They are wasting taxpayers money if they'll just be closed anyway!

This is good information that someone in management at a Consulate is aware of DOS's plan because they read it on DOS's website. Now I wish I knew what is what that they read too. I agree it's a waste of time if people are filing the paperwork out and it's not being updated that they're not going to process this paperwork anyways at the higher levels.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I no longer have links available for the current processing practices of USCIS but here is a link to the initial change. This was followed with a later procedure to process and forward both petitions together.

http://www.uscis.gov...e/PN_i-129f.pdf

Note from the above that this was a mutual agreement between USCIS and NVC. The recent action from NVC is unilateral.

These are only tangentially matters of law. Government agencies, not judges or immigration attorneys are responsible for interpreting and implementing the law, in this case, the Life Act that created the K3 visa.

Until February 1, DOS interpreted the meaning of "immediately available" as it pertains to the requirement to process an immigrant visa instead of the K3 to be when the I-130 case file was on station at a US Consulate abroad. The recent notice effectively changes that definition to indicate DOS considers an immigrant visa to be immediately available if the I-130 case file is at NVC.

I've been watching this process and changes to it for several years. It is my studied opinion that NVC has taken this action at least in part, in preparation for rolling out streamlined electronic processing of immigrant visa cases to most if not all countries as they now do for only China and Canada. USCIS has already streamlined the process of adjudicating I-130 petitions for the spouses of US Citizens, mostly rendering the K3 provisions of the life act, moot anyway. Part of this is a turf war between State and Homeland Security. State issues visas and they get to define what "immediately available" means with reference to the Life Act. If you don't know what I'm talking about find the "immediately available" clause in the Life Act.

Much of the discussion I see in this thread is from folks who are not looking at the whole process because they simply do not have the frame of reference to do so.

For instance, currently scheduled K3 interviews in India more than three months after February 1st are an not an indication of when I-129F petitions were sent from NVC to the Consulate, but rather an indication of when P3 checklists were returned by applicants.

If somebody can find a single report of NVC processing an I-129F for spouse received by them after February 1st, I'd like to see it.

The link provided describes that the I-129F will be sent to the NVC while the I-130 is stored at USCIS CSC starting in Nov. 2006. That explains what happened with my paperwork in Dec. 2007 at least.

The rest of this post is also good information in giving light to the background with what is going on with regards to the transferring of applications from paper to electronic processing and a fair explanation for how they interpret the LIFE Act based on visa processing and which is immediately available. In summary the beast of a process is attempting to become faster and more efficient. However, it seems the K3 being entirely phased out at this point remains to be seen as they are on the cusp of this implied process.

[Ready2Kl 1]

I no longer have links available for the current processing practices of USCIS but here is a link to the initial change. This was followed with a later procedure to process and forward both petitions together.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PN_i-129f.pdf

Note from the above that this was a mutual agreement between USCIS and NVC. The recent action from NVC is unilateral.

These are only tangentially matters of law. Government agencies, not judges or immigration attorneys are responsible for interpreting and implementing the law, in this case, the Life Act that created the K3 visa.

Until February 1, DOS interpreted the meaning of "immediately available" as it pertains to the requirement to process an immigrant visa instead of the K3 to be when the I-130 case file was on station at a US Consulate abroad. The recent notice effectively changes that definition to indicate DOS considers an immigrant visa to be immediately available if the I-130 case file is at NVC.

I've been watching this process and changes to it for several years. It is my studied opinion that NVC has taken this action at least in part, in preparation for rolling out streamlined electronic processing of immigrant visa cases to most if not all countries as they now do for only China and Canada. USCIS has already streamlined the process of adjudicating I-130 petitions for the spouses of US Citizens, mostly rendering the K3 provisions of the life act, moot anyway. Part of this is a turf war between State and Homeland Security. State issues visas and they get to define what "immediately available" means with reference to the Life Act. If you don't know what I'm talking about find the "immediately available" clause in the Life Act.

Much of the discussion I see in this thread is from folks who are not looking at the whole process because they simply do not have the frame of reference to do so.

For instance, currently scheduled K3 interviews in India more than three months after February 1st are an not an indication of when I-129F petitions were sent from NVC to the Consulate, but rather an indication of when P3 checklists were returned by applicants.

If somebody can find a single report of NVC processing an I-129F for spouse received by them after February 1st, I'd like to see it.

Push,

The indian consulate my wife used did not have a P3 requirement. They directly schedule the interview once the paperwork is received by them from NVC(in about a week to 2 weeks they get it from NVC). The consulate expects you to bring all the completed forms directly to the interview insteading of mailing the P3 and waiting for an interview date. That in my opinion was a good one cuz it saves time for the applicant.

I however do agree that being given an interview slot in MAy is not an indication that the consulate received the application after Feb 1st.

[pushbrk 12,892]

The NVC gets it from USCIS. Your argument revolves around both petitions arriving together at the NVC. In my own case the I-129F went to the NVC while the I-130 was held at USCIS. I can't speak for other cases since my case was processed or since the Feb 2010 date. The information I've provided was updated April 5th, 2010. If it's old then why is it updated on DOS's website since the Feb 2010 memo? Why does the K3 page on DOS's website not have a moving banner announcing the K3 is no longer an option & why haven't they removed or broken the links on this page to the paperwork? It seems according to DOS's own website the K3 is still available. I'm not talking about the Consulates website or USCIS's website. I haven't looked up any Consulate's websites to begin with as I was going off the information provided by Canadian members who've posted in this thread. The purpose of my argument is to question why people are advising others the K3 is dead and explore the facts behind the K3 being dead or not. All evidence to the contrary either suggests the government is entirely too slow in updating the various agencies and the people or the K3 is still a go.

The Feb 2010 memo is only practical in meaning and application for the first part:

However, it's the second part of the Feb 2010 memo that can be ambiguous to say the least.

Yes, my argument revolves around USCIS sending both petitions to NVC at the same time. That has been the policy since some time in 2007. In late 2006 and early 2007, USCIS was holding the I-130 in these cases. Yours is an example.

You seem to be arguing that more clear and glaring notice should be given by both USCIS and DOS as to the EFFECT of the new NVC procedures and I certainly agree. But you are asking WHY people here are saying K3 is obsolete. It's because we DO understand the EFFECT of the notice on all but the rare few fluke cases that will end up having the I-129F forwarded ahead of the I-130. Bear in mind the I-129F cannot follow the I-130 after it has already been sent as an I-129F for spouse can only be approved when an I-130 is still pending. USCIS is actually reaching over the fence now to be approving them simultaneously.

There's no doubt the K3 visa is technically still available. You'll just play hell getting one.

[SPSguy 18]

Yes, my argument revolves around USCIS sending both petitions to NVC at the same time. That has been the policy since some time in 2007. In late 2006 and early 2007, USCIS was holding the I-130 in these cases. Yours is an example.

You seem to be arguing that more clear and glaring notice should be given by both USCIS and DOS as to the EFFECT of the new NVC procedures and I certainly agree. But you are asking WHY people here are saying K3 is obsolete. It's because we DO understand the EFFECT of the notice on all but the rare few fluke cases that will end up having the I-129F forwarded ahead of the I-130. Bear in mind the I-129F cannot follow the I-130 after it has already been sent as an I-129F for spouse can only be approved when an I-130 is still pending. USCIS is actually reaching over the fence now to be approving them simultaneously.

There's no doubt the K3 visa is technically still available. You'll just play hell getting one.

My good VJ freind, PUSHBRK,

K3 being difficult to obtain is not the same as K3 being obsolete. It's not obsolete. The K3 process has been streamlined to cut out redundancy IN THE EVENT THAT BOTH THE 129F AND 130 ARRIVE AT NVC THE SAME TIME.

That's all there is to it.

When people like myself were filing and sending both petitions, in the same envelope, some high level potentiaries saw the light and recognized that it was a waste of time and money to be processing two things that could otherwise be done with one.

Everything else discussed is mere speculation. The only way to avert the matter is find ways to file your petitions so that both do not arrive at the same time. Perhaps a more conducive question ought to be, "What are the ways in which a petitioner can avoid having both petitions arrive the same day at the NVC?"

I'll start:

1. Request with a written letter for a delayed processing of the 130 and attache to both petitions.

2. Delay the filing of the 130 so that it doesn't arrive the same time.

3. Any RFE will certainly create a delay.

4. ?????????

[pushbrk 12,892]

My good VJ freind, PUSHBRK,

K3 being difficult to obtain is not the same as K3 being obsolete. It's not obsolete. The K3 process has been streamlined to cut out redundancy IN THE EVENT THAT BOTH THE 129F AND 130 ARRIVE AT NVC THE SAME TIME.

That's all there is to it.

When people like myself were filing and sending both petitions, in the same envelope, some high level potentiaries saw the light and recognized that it was a waste of time and money to be processing two things that could otherwise be done with one.

Everything else discussed is mere speculation. The only way to avert the matter is find ways to file your petitions so that both do not arrive at the same time. Perhaps a more conducive question ought to be, "What are the ways in which a petitioner can avoid having both petitions arrive the same day at the NVC?"

I'll start:

1. Request with a written letter for a delayed processing of the 130 and attache to both petitions.

2. Delay the filing of the 130 so that it doesn't arrive the same time.

3. Any RFE will certainly create a delay.

4. ?????????

That USCIS has routinely and purposely processed both petitions together and forwarded all but the rare exception to NVC at the same time for more than three years is not speculation. It is the hundreds of times a day expected and planned "event".

What IS speculation is that 1. above will have any impact.

2. Above is lunacy. You must file the I-130 first. Are you pulling this stuff out of thin air?

3. An RFE for the I-130 does not mean the I-129F will proceed but it COULD. Are you suggesting the way around NVC's policy is to intentionally leave something out of the I-130 package?

Why on EARTH, would anybody want to do ANY of this except in a very rare unique circumstance where the K3 solves some problem the CR1 or IR1 wouldn't solve better? I can tell you what that rare unique problem is and cite examples and have. Can you?

It has already been conceded that "obsolete" is not technically correct. It's just the practical reality.

[SPSguy 18]

Why on EARTH, would anybody want to do ANY of this except in a very rare unique circumstance where the K3 solves some problem the CR1 or IR1 wouldn't solve better? I can tell you what that rare unique problem is and cite examples and have. Can you?

Pushbrk, why on earth would anyone choose K3 if it didn't offer more advantages? What a silly statement from you. Of course people are choosing to do so because they have discovered that K3 in many cases ( not RARE as you seem to suggest ) does offer more advantages.

I'm a good example. LIVING PROOF that k3 works. And this was just two years ago. Not three years as you suggested.

It has already been conceded that "obsolete" is not technically correct. It's just the practical reality.

It appears your reality is different from others. We will have to agree to disagree. If I had listened to your advice about anything related to speeding up a K3, albeit sending both petitions together or not, I'd be disappointed just as many others that have chosen to be frieghtened by your advice.

[pushbrk 12,892]

Pushbrk, why on earth would anyone choose K3 if it didn't offer more advantages? What a silly statement from you. Of course people are choosing to do so because they have discovered that K3 in many cases ( not RARE as you seem to suggest ) does offer more advantages.

I'm a good example. LIVING PROOF that k3 works. And this was just two years ago. Not three years as you suggested.

It appears your reality is different from others. We will have to agree to disagree. If I had listened to your advice about anything related to speeding up a K3, albeit sending both petitions together or not, I'd be disappointed just as many others that have chosen to be frieghtened by your advice.

Again, what is the advantage of the K3, currently or in your case two years ago? How was it better for you and why?

[SPSguy 18]

Again, what is the advantage of the K3, currently or in your case two years ago? How was it better for you and why?

Didn't I list them already? Okay, here we go again.....

1. My k3 was approved when cr1 was still waiting for nvc processing and interview. K3 petitions once approved fly through nvc, in my case less than 48 hours of arrival from uscis.

2. Today, just two years later, we have an approved IR1 with 10 year greencard, social # upon our next poe.

3. No need to lift conditions.

PUSHBRK, I'm not sure what your beef is about, but whatever it is you'll have to accept that some people do things differently than you. And it's as pratical to them as it is different to you.

[pushbrk 12,892]

Didn't I list them already? Okay, here we go again.....

1. My k3 was approved when cr1 was still waiting for nvc processing and interview. K3 petitions once approved fly through nvc, in my case less than 48 hours of arrival from uscis.

2. Today, just two years later, we have an approved IR1 with 10 year greencard, social # upon our next poe.

3. No need to lift conditions.

PUSHBRK, I'm not sure what your beef is about, but whatever it is you'll have to accept that some people do things differently than you. And it's as pratical to them as it is different to you.

I have no beef with any of that. That was then and this is now. Your suggestions about how to assure access to a K3 visa NOW are speculation. This thread is a discussion of the current realities since the recent NVC procedure change. Under what set of currently relevant circumstances would you suggest a new I-129F petition for spouse be filed today and for what benefit?

[astronaut 3]

The current reality is that none of us know for sure how these apps will be handled until they actually process them further. Could they delay the I130 and send the I129F ahead as my atty's firm requested? We need to wait and see. Others have talked about creating an intentional RFE on the I130 to allow the I129F to proceed first. This is not talk from average joes on the street trying to figure out the process. These are ideas coming straight from aila attys.

We are certainly ones who would find a K3 a much better benefit over the CR1. Two main issues include proof of domicile and the ability to travel 1 hour for the K3, rather than a flight to Montreal for the CR1.

[pushbrk 12,892]

The current reality is that none of us know for sure how these apps will be handled until they actually process them further. Could they delay the I130 and send the I129F ahead as my atty's firm requested? We need to wait and see. Others have talked about creating an intentional RFE on the I130 to allow the I129F to proceed first. This is not talk from average joes on the street trying to figure out the process. These are ideas coming straight from aila attys.

We are certainly ones who would find a K3 a much better benefit over the CR1. Two main issues include proof of domicile and the ability to travel 1 hour for the K3, rather than a flight to Montreal for the CR1.

Now those are some concrete reasons. I'll even add one more, in that you would interview months sooner in Vancouver than Montreal. Yours is one of the exceptions that make the K3 an attractive choice. Another exception I've mentioned several times is when the foreign spouse has no other way to legally enter the USA even to meet family but is not yet ready to immigrate and/or be subject to maintaining permanent resident status.

For the average couple wanting to be reunited with in the USA permanently, there is potentially a few weeks advantage, none or a delay in timeline to be weighed against the cost and hassle associated with adjusting status and waiting for work authorization. It's hardly a justification to start hanging your hat on USCIS honoring a procedural request or risking your whole process by intentionally creating the need for an RFE.

The subject line of this thread is telling. The question is "Why....?" The answer has been clearly given. For those to whom the answer doesn't apply or who wish attempt to find a way around the new NVC procedure, let them do so well informed as to the possibilities and realities of the situation.

I'll say again that my wife and daughter came to the USA on K3/4 visas and that I strongly disagree with NVC's decision to change their procedures. At the same time, I have a comprehensive and holistic understanding of both the K3 and IR1/CR1 processes and have given my assessment with that in mind.

Edited April 30, 2010 by pushbrk