New K3 Flowchart

[BelwinMills 0]

Thanks I like the new chart so much easier to read and understand

[meauxna 15]

Hi again!

I'm so glad that my post started a nice little discussion! However, I just realized that you can't edit posts in this forum, so I can't go back and modify my first post with the latest flowchart.

But, here it is, trying to take into account your comments. Captain Ewok, thank you for making a K3 flow on the site. I will try to complete updating mine as well, as it might help some people.

Some more questions:

1. Am I correct in assuming that the K3/CR1 process is the same after it's been sent to the embassy?

2. Does the Petitioner have nothing to do once the case is forwarded to the embassy?

3. Is an Affidavit of Support needed for K3? If so, which form, and when does it need to be submitted?

4. Is there a way to know exactly what the beneficiary must return in that package, and what needs to be brought to the interview?

Please let me know if I missed anything, or if it's not accurate.

Thank you all so much for helping out!!!

Wow, I'm impressed!

1-fundamentally yes, once the case is at the Consulate (and I would change out 'embassy' for 'consulate' thru out), there will be a packet of interview documents sent out, some communication from beneficiary to consulate, and one more packet of info that includes the interview date.

2-simply supply beneficiary with originals of any evidence submitted and send the affidavit of support (if for K-3)

3-Usually yes. The affidavit used for K visas is the I-134. It's submitted at the interview.

4-no, this is consulate-specific. You could include a general list (like you have).

I'd like to see the addition of the POST entry steps added on--this is a major area of confusion for K-3 folk.

IF they take the 'come to US early' option and use the K-3 visa, they still have to become Permanent Residents. This can happen by 1) letting the CR-1 continue thru NVC by paying the affidavit of support bill etc or 2) apply for AOS.

Including a few of the pros/cons to each would be good; that's another FAQ.

Great job~!

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Once you are done PM me and I will add it to the flowcharts .

[William33 110]

meauxna and everyone else,

An Embassy or Consulate is relevant, depending upon where in the country it is located.

Embassy = Capital City

Consulate = Other Major City

*Within either of the above, you have the "Consular Section". Then sub offices, such as IV unit, American Citizen Services and so forth.

Since joining this site, I have noted that nearly everyone incorrectly uses the generic "Consulate" for every application involving the immigration process.

Having personally worked in 63 Countries, over 125 Embassies and Consulates, you can take this fact to the bank.

Wow, I'm impressed!

1-fundamentally yes, once the case is at the Consulate (and I would change out 'embassy' for 'consulate' thru out), there will be a packet of interview documents sent out, some communication from beneficiary to consulate, and one more packet of info that includes the interview date.

2-simply supply beneficiary with originals of any evidence submitted and send the affidavit of support (if for K-3)

3-Usually yes. The affidavit used for K visas is the I-134. It's submitted at the interview.

4-no, this is consulate-specific. You could include a general list (like you have).

I'd like to see the addition of the POST entry steps added on--this is a major area of confusion for K-3 folk.

IF they take the 'come to US early' option and use the K-3 visa, they still have to become Permanent Residents. This can happen by 1) letting the CR-1 continue thru NVC by paying the affidavit of support bill etc or 2) apply for AOS.

Including a few of the pros/cons to each would be good; that's another FAQ.

Great job~!

[Elle 0]

Do you think we should put the application fee on the flowchart? Either way... great job!!

[Yodrak 7]

Captain Ewok,

Put the K3 activities and events in a 2nd column, parallel to the immigrant visa activities and events. They really are two parallel paths, with possible cross-over points, from the point of the I-130 Receipt Notice until LPR status is obtained.

Yodrak

I will have to see the best way to illustrate that. A K-3'r can leap to the other path at any time if their I-130 is approved. I may create a new flowchart for the IR-1/CR-1 and place a note that says if a person's I-130 is approved they can opt at that point to go to the other flowchart and start at step "X".

[meauxna 15]

meauxna and everyone else,

An Embassy or Consulate is relevant, depending upon where in the country it is located.

Embassy = Capital City

Consulate = Other Major City

*Within either of the above, you have the "Consular Section". Then sub offices, such as IV unit, American Citizen Services and so forth.

Since joining this site, I have noted that nearly everyone incorrectly uses the generic "Consulate" for every application involving the immigration process.

Having personally worked in 63 Countries, over 125 Embassies and Consulates, you can take this fact to the bank.

William, I defer to your job history! Any ideas for how to change this, wholesale? Is "Consulate" ever appropriate? Or only in the case of say, Vancouver Canada? Does it matter if people mix them up?

IOW, what is a good solution?

[William33 110]

meauxna and everyone else,

An Embassy or Consulate is relevant, depending upon where in the country it is located.

Embassy = Capital City

Consulate = Other Major City

*Within either of the above, you have the "Consular Section". Then sub offices, such as IV unit, American Citizen Services and so forth.

Since joining this site, I have noted that nearly everyone incorrectly uses the generic "Consulate" for every application involving the immigration process.

Having personally worked in 63 Countries, over 125 Embassies and Consulates, you can take this fact to the bank.

William, I defer to your job history! Any ideas for how to change this, wholesale? Is "Consulate" ever appropriate? Or only in the case of say, Vancouver Canada? Does it matter if people mix them up?

IOW, what is a good solution?

All anyone would need to know, is what is available in the city they are planning process their petition.

If one wants to be correct, they only need to look up the particular Embassy or Consulate near them.

I suppose I could make a list, if Captain Ewok would be willing to pin it.

Let's take Canada for example:

Ottawa = Embassy

Halifax = Consulate

Quebec = Consulate

Montreal = Consulate

Toronto = Consulate

Winnipeg = Consulate

Calgary = Consulate

Vancouver= Consulate

Canada is a large country with significant US diplomatic presence. To my knowledge, they have more US Consulates than any other country in the world.

On a smaller scale, Thailand:

Bangkok = Embassy

Chiang Mai = Consulate

[Yodrak 7]

William,

Yes, but not all embassies and consulates have an IV unit. In your examples, there are several IV units in Canada but none of them are at the embassy. There is one IV unit in Thailand, and it is at the embassy, and it is also the IV unit that serves Cambodia where there is no IV unit.

I think that meauxna's question is in regard to the fact that most VJers write that they will be applying for their visas at 'the embassy' when in fact many of them will not be. So if we are to correct them, what is the proper correction? (As you know from previous discussion, I tend to use the term 'consulate' to mean 'consular section' whether at an embassy or at a consulate - close enough to being accurate, in my estimation, so as to not to create more confusion than I am trying to avoid.)

Yodrak

meauxna and everyone else,

An Embassy or Consulate is relevant, depending upon where in the country it is located.

Embassy = Capital City

Consulate = Other Major City

*Within either of the above, you have the "Consular Section". Then sub offices, such as IV unit, American Citizen Services and so forth.

Since joining this site, I have noted that nearly everyone incorrectly uses the generic "Consulate" for every application involving the immigration process.

Having personally worked in 63 Countries, over 125 Embassies and Consulates, you can take this fact to the bank.

William, I defer to your job history! Any ideas for how to change this, wholesale? Is "Consulate" ever appropriate? Or only in the case of say, Vancouver Canada? Does it matter if people mix them up?

IOW, what is a good solution?

All anyone would need to know, is what is available in the city they are planning process their petition.

If one wants to be correct, they only need to look up the particular Embassy or Consulate near them.

I suppose I could make a list, if Captain Ewok would be willing to pin it.

Let's take Canada for example:

Ottawa = Embassy

Halifax = Consulate

Quebec = Consulate

Montreal = Consulate

Toronto = Consulate

Winnipeg = Consulate

Calgary = Consulate

Vancouver= Consulate

Canada is a large country with significant US diplomatic presence. To my knowledge, they have more US Consulates than any other country in the world.

On a smaller scale, Thailand:

Bangkok = Embassy

Chiang Mai = Consulate

[William33 110]

Yodrak,

Agreed, all Embassies and Consulates do not have an IV unit. But the ones that do could be in either location. So, how about the Consular Section?

Irrespective of it's physical location (Embassy or Consulate), the title "Consular Section" would be accurate.

William,

Yes, but not all embassies and consulates have an IV unit. In your examples, there are several IV units in Canada but none of them are at the embassy. There is one IV unit in Thailand, and it is at the embassy, and it is also the IV unit that serves Cambodia where there is no IV unit.

I think that meauxna's question is in regard to the fact that most VJers write that they will be applying for their visas at 'the embassy' when in fact many of them will not be. So if we are to correct them, what is the proper correction? (As you know from previous discussion, I tend to use the term 'consulate' to mean 'consular section' whether at an embassy or at a consulate - close enough to being accurate, in my estimation, so as to not to create more confusion than I am trying to avoid.)

Yodrak

meauxna and everyone else,

An Embassy or Consulate is relevant, depending upon where in the country it is located.

Embassy = Capital City

Consulate = Other Major City

*Within either of the above, you have the "Consular Section". Then sub offices, such as IV unit, American Citizen Services and so forth.

Since joining this site, I have noted that nearly everyone incorrectly uses the generic "Consulate" for every application involving the immigration process.

Having personally worked in 63 Countries, over 125 Embassies and Consulates, you can take this fact to the bank.

William, I defer to your job history! Any ideas for how to change this, wholesale? Is "Consulate" ever appropriate? Or only in the case of say, Vancouver Canada? Does it matter if people mix them up?

IOW, what is a good solution?

All anyone would need to know, is what is available in the city they are planning process their petition.

If one wants to be correct, they only need to look up the particular Embassy or Consulate near them.

I suppose I could make a list, if Captain Ewok would be willing to pin it.

Let's take Canada for example:

Ottawa = Embassy

Halifax = Consulate

Quebec = Consulate

Montreal = Consulate

Toronto = Consulate

Winnipeg = Consulate

Calgary = Consulate

Vancouver= Consulate

Canada is a large country with significant US diplomatic presence. To my knowledge, they have more US Consulates than any other country in the world.

On a smaller scale, Thailand:

Bangkok = Embassy

Chiang Mai = Consulate

[meauxna 15]

Irrespective of it's physical location (Embassy or Consulate), the title "Consular Section" would be accurate.

hmm. I can't get down behind that one; it's too long. Maybe if we can brainwash everyone into writing "CS". Or how about ConSex? That would be popular here!

(ps; that would of course be the plural, ConSec being the singular )

[William33 110]

Too funny meauxna!

I guess the "Consulate" thing will stick here.

Oh well, I tried to bring accurate terminology to the table. As "unsexy" as it may be, it is accurate.

ConSec sounds good to me. Good thinking. Will it fly though?

Irrespective of it's physical location (Embassy or Consulate), the title "Consular Section" would be accurate.

hmm. I can't get down behind that one; it's too long. Maybe if we can brainwash everyone into writing "CS". Or how about ConSex? That would be popular here!

(ps; that would of course be the plural, ConSec being the singular )

[meauxna 15]

If you like it, and it's accurate, let's use it. Just start using it, explain it a couple of times, and it's like weed seeds---it'll catch on (especially when you use the plural, )

Don't 'oh well', I know Yodrak and I both like things like that to be 'right'.

Too funny meauxna!

I guess the "Consulate" thing will stick here.

Oh well, I tried to bring accurate terminology to the table. As "unsexy" as it may be, it is accurate.

ConSec sounds good to me. Good thinking. Will it fly though?

Irrespective of it's physical location (Embassy or Consulate), the title "Consular Section" would be accurate.

hmm. I can't get down behind that one; it's too long. Maybe if we can brainwash everyone into writing "CS". Or how about ConSex? That would be popular here!

(ps; that would of course be the plural, ConSec being the singular )

[Yodrak 7]

meauxna,

True, I like to be accurate (because it's a good habit to get into and being inaccurate can often cause problems), but like you 'consular section' seems to me to be too long. Further, 'consular section of the consulate' seems somehow redundant.

True, weed seeds catch on, but misinformation are the real weeds that can never be eradicated around here.

Yodrak

If you like it, and it's accurate, let's use it. Just start using it, explain it a couple of times, and it's like weed seeds---it'll catch on (especially when you use the plural, )

Don't 'oh well', I know Yodrak and I both like things like that to be 'right'.

Too funny meauxna!

I guess the "Consulate" thing will stick here.

Oh well, I tried to bring accurate terminology to the table. As "unsexy" as it may be, it is accurate.

ConSec sounds good to me. Good thinking. Will it fly though?

Irrespective of it's physical location (Embassy or Consulate), the title "Consular Section" would be accurate.

hmm. I can't get down behind that one; it's too long. Maybe if we can brainwash everyone into writing "CS". Or how about ConSex? That would be popular here!

(ps; that would of course be the plural, ConSec being the singular )

Edited October 3, 2006 by Yodrak

[meauxna 15]

Yeah yeah yeah, but what do you think of *this* weed seed?

PS: misinfo will never be eradicated. Just read a post where someone 'heard' that CIS takes a dim view of petitioner having the same address as his parents.

People talk. Out their you-know-whats, frequently.

Anyway, how about ConSec. Or just drop it? I don't William to feel unheard.

meauxna,

True, I like to be accurate (because it's a good habit to get into and being inaccurate can often cause problems), but like you 'consular section' seems to me to be too long. Further, 'consular section of the consulate' seems somehow redundant.

True, weed seeds catch on, but misinformation are the real weeds that can never be eradicated around here.

Yodrak

If you like it, and it's accurate, let's use it. Just start using it, explain it a couple of times, and it's like weed seeds---it'll catch on (especially when you use the plural, )

Don't 'oh well', I know Yodrak and I both like things like that to be 'right'.

Too funny meauxna!

I guess the "Consulate" thing will stick here.

Oh well, I tried to bring accurate terminology to the table. As "unsexy" as it may be, it is accurate.

ConSec sounds good to me. Good thinking. Will it fly though?

Irrespective of it's physical location (Embassy or Consulate), the title "Consular Section" would be accurate.

hmm. I can't get down behind that one; it's too long. Maybe if we can brainwash everyone into writing "CS". Or how about ConSex? That would be popular here!

(ps; that would of course be the plural, ConSec being the singular )