K-3 Resentment

[Sockmonkey 0]

I just wanted to vent this and see what others may have to say. In short - I'm really pissed about our I-129F/K-3.

The K-3 was designed to reunite couples sooner than the more involved CR-1 process would allow, so a lot of us who would naturally prefer the immigrant visa option go ahead and send in our $170 more as a safeguard than a preference.

In our case, our I-130 and I-129F forms apparently met up in California (see my signature) and the I-130 was pushed ahead, while over 30 days later as our CR-1 is rolling along nicely, the I-129F is still sitting untouched at USCIS. Money completely wasted.

It seems to be a full-on racket on the part of USCIS, to squeeze an extra $170 from nearly everybody who applies for a CR-1. If the K-3 isn't fulfilling it's intended purpose, fix the problem or eliminate the visa!

[riblet 0]

I know it's frustrating, but my understanding is that the I130 used to take MUCH longer, and that's why the K3 was needed. In a way it's a good thing that your CR1 is being processed faster, because that's the visa that you really want in the end I agree though that if the K3 isn't reuniting people faster on average, that it is useless.

Not to take away from your ranting or anything if it makes you feel better

[~Jackie~ 30]

Shouldn't your 129f for K3 be at MSC? That is what delayed our K3, it sat in Nebraska for a few months because our attorney sent it to the wrong place. I know this is a frustrating time for you. I hope your journey is quick.

Jackie

[Yodrak 7]

Sockmonkey,

An incorrect paraphrase. The K3 visa was intended to reunite couples while waiting for their I-130 petition to be approved, which used to take an inordinately long time. It was created by the US Congress, not the USCIS, due to complaints from the public that un-married couples were getting unfair preferential treatment since finace(e)s could enter the country more quickly as non-immigrants. So Congress gave married couples the non-immigrant option also.

The problem has been fixed to a great extent. I-130 petitions are now being approved in much less time than they were previously - sometimes, as in your case, even more quickly than the associated I-129f petitions.

It's your choice if you want to bet on the horses. Nobody forces you up to the betting window, they just give you the opportunity if you want to place a bet on which horse will win. My wife and I made the K3 bet, when it was new and a sure winner. Today, with the odds having evened out, we would not.

Yodrak

.....

The K-3 was designed to reunite couples sooner than the more involved CR-1 process would allow, ...

It seems to be a full-on racket on the part of USCIS, to squeeze an extra $170 from nearly everybody who applies for a CR-1. If the K-3 isn't fulfilling it's intended purpose, fix the problem or eliminate the visa!

Edited December 8, 2006 by Yodrak

[Jeff and Boo 0]

I just wanted to vent this and see what others may have to say. In short - I'm really pissed about our I-129F/K-3.

The K-3 was designed to reunite couples sooner than the more involved CR-1 process would allow, so a lot of us who would naturally prefer the immigrant visa option go ahead and send in our $170 more as a safeguard than a preference.

In our case, our I-130 and I-129F forms apparently met up in California (see my signature) and the I-130 was pushed ahead, while over 30 days later as our CR-1 is rolling along nicely, the I-129F is still sitting untouched at USCIS. Money completely wasted.

It seems to be a full-on racket on the part of USCIS, to squeeze an extra $170 from nearly everybody who applies for a CR-1. If the K-3 isn't fulfilling it's intended purpose, fix the problem or eliminate the visa!

hey... we are in the same boat.. but there's nothing we can do about it but to go on,, at least your I-130 been moving fast.. well let us just wait and hope a a good result in the end....being pissed off does not make any difference i know the feeling believed me.

Boo Wilson

[aussiewench 9]

Shouldn't your 129f for K3 be at MSC? That is what delayed our K3, it sat in Nebraska for a few months because our attorney sent it to the wrong place. I know this is a frustrating time for you. I hope your journey is quick.

Jackie

Jackie

No longer the case since the reshuffle. Whilst the petition still gets mailed as before, the I-129F petitions for a spouse are now being transferred to the service center where the I-130 is. Some have remained at NBC but I think this is possibly due to when they were filed and/or what stage the petition is up to.

[MrsWhizz 0]

sockmonkey,

I had the same rants, raves and feelings while awaiting our K3 to go through. It finally did, but our CR1 was already on the way to the embassy. To be truthful, I'm pleased as punch that it has worked out this way. We have had no real problems since my hubby arrived. He's ready to work and we're done, done, done until renewal time!

If you need anything, just PM.

[CutienPurg 0]

I was just telling my husband the other night that I think we filed our petitions at a frustrating time.

USCIS is reorganizing , new laws have been implemented and many other changes have taken place in the past several months, all of which should make for a positive future regarding immigration. Sadly, for many of us, we were caught up and possibly negatively affected by the process. The information we based our choices on is becoming outdated for the new times we're operating in.

So what to do? I think the best choice is to take what's left and move on. Yeah, some may have spent money unnecessarily for a petition they will simply not utilize but it worked as insurance and maybe even a little peace of mind that we were doing all we could to get our spouses home as quickly as we could. I think the changes being made in the area of immigration are awesome and much needed and in as much as they likely wont benefit our situation, I still applaud them.

All that being said , I do understand your frustration Sockmonkey and often find myself right beside you on the frustration couch.I think this ####### with the I-824 is more of a racket than anything..... "oh we wont give you a place to 'clearly indicate' your prefrence then we'll collect 200 bucks so you can later"

I can think of more frivolous ways to waste 170 bucks cant you?

anyway that's my 2 cents ( 2.29 cents Cndn)

[Robor007 0]

I just wanted to vent this and see what others may have to say. In short - I'm really pissed about our I-129F/K-3.

The K-3 was designed to reunite couples sooner than the more involved CR-1 process would allow, so a lot of us who would naturally prefer the immigrant visa option go ahead and send in our $170 more as a safeguard than a preference.

In our case, our I-130 and I-129F forms apparently met up in California (see my signature) and the I-130 was pushed ahead, while over 30 days later as our CR-1 is rolling along nicely, the I-129F is still sitting untouched at USCIS. Money completely wasted.

It seems to be a full-on racket on the part of USCIS, to squeeze an extra $170 from nearly everybody who applies for a CR-1. If the K-3 isn't fulfilling it's intended purpose, fix the problem or eliminate the visa!

Let me ask a question... I just submitted our I-130 petition on 11/27 and was planning to submit the I-129 petition once I get the NOA1 for the I-130. If the I-130's are getting approved as quick or quicker than the I-129's would I be wasting time/money doing that? If I understand the 'new' process correctly, the I-130's will be held at the Service Center unless the petitioner requests (and pays?) to have it forwarded to the NVC? Or am I totally confused...?

[riblet 0]

There are still people who's K3's get approved faster. In addition, the K3 basically just passes through the NVC and on to the consulate, while the IR/CR1 is often at the NVC for 2 months or so. At this point, if my husband's K3 was approved, he would probably be able to enter the states 2 or 3 months earlier than on the CR1 but he wouldn't be able to work, so it's probably not worth it for us at this point, but for someone who doesn't necessarily mind, that is 2 or 3 months faster.

Also, I've heard that some consulates schedule appointments much faster for one rather than the other, so it would make sense to look into that too.

Good luck with your decision.

[TomandLaura 2]

Not all I-130's are being approved before the I-129. My 130 application has been sitting untouched in VSC since July 7th, while the 129 is at the consulate and I'm just waiting for an interview date. I'm glad we took the gamble and paid the extra money for the K3, in our case it seems to have been the better option. Checking your service center processing times and the forums here before going ahead with a K3 may help others decide which way is better for them.

[CutienPurg 0]

If I understand the 'new' process correctly, the I-130's will be held at the Service Center unless the petitioner requests (and pays?) to have it forwarded to the NVC? Or am I totally confused...?

Actually it will be held at the NRC ( Nat'l Records Center?). I think the significant factor regarding the "holding" of the petitions will be whether there is an approved I-129F . The assumption that might be made is since the foreign spouse will be in the United States, more than likely before the I-130 does its thing at the NVC, they will simply adjust status rather than return to their country for the Cr-1 interview.

[Robor007 0]

Ah, okay so it is still a good idea for us to go ahead with the I-129 once I get the NOA1 on the I-130. Thanks for the clarification everyone!

[Asamu 0]

I need air! This is just a little bit to much, at the same time informative....

I haven't quite seen alot of people going through TSC - San Antonio and their timeline postings do not seem to help much - I am assuming that I will be in the same boat of having to gamble - approval sooner or loosing $200 bucks....

I wonder what it used to be at the Roman boarders?

-Asamu

[Jersey Girl 2]

With 20/20 hindsight -- and that's all it is, sockmonkey -- I should have gone straight for the CR-1, since it would have taken the same amount of time as the I-129f. But we all made the best decisions we could at the time, knowing what we knew then.

There was no conspiracy to take our money. It's just the way things turned out for us in 2006. It was different the year before, and it will be different in 2007. No sense wasting energy bellyaching, since there's no villain in the piece.