What our attorney told us

[rebeccajo 14]

I must ask RJ, why have you not involved a lawyer earlier?

Well, we've been trying to be reasonable. We were told at the interview not to be alarmed if it took a while. Once the delay became protracted, we became more aggressive in our inquiries because in order to file the Writ, you need to prove you've been pro-active on your own behalf. So compiling that evidence takes time.

Plus it's not cheap to file - probably a minimum of $1500.

And Shonnie - no you don't get your money back. It's just money you've invested in immigration!!

[knowledge 0]

I'll research it but I'm skeptical.

May I know what makes you skeptical? Overall, and I speak for myself, observing this process, so fascinating on one part by it's complexity but also having it's distorsions that hurts so much some people, makes me think of what some philosophers or other thinkers say about our world today: crazy and dehumanizing us...the communication level might bring some humanity in us, in them...With the new reinforcement of the security, the simple emplyees and not only might be living hell, like us here, with a lot of stress...so that's why trying to reach and emphisize with them might help, without too much menacing of the court or the law...But of course, i'm not advanced in the process and already the waiting time is hurting us..so i don't know if it might help...if anything...why not think in chorus here..of what to think and write...at least we'll spent some constructive time to imagine the best...why not!...I wish you the best!...right now, immediately... lol....

I'm skeptical because the process becomes more convuluted as your traverse it. At this point, our journey is stymied because there is more than one agency involved. These two agencies (DHS and FBI) not only don't share information, they are not SUPPOSED to share information as part of a checks and balances system. So yes while the employees are overwhelmed with work, their jobs are separate and apart from each other. Puzzle pieces that do not fit, if you will.

I'm also skeptical because I'm a member of more than one group who is caught in this process and I've never heard of this step before. It would be lovely to think that by giving defendants advance warning of filing the suit they would act in order to prevent the filing. The information I have (so far) is that the actual filing is the only thing which can bring closure.

Well RJ, it seems you are quite ready to file the suit. I ignore of course all the details and the work you have done till now...I assume you have written letters, made many phone calls, etc...without success...But, certainly this is a situation to talk about with a lawyer...a specialized one...and i'm not...This situation is also certainly of interest...thank you for sharing it with us!...and please be careful!

[rebeccajo 14]

I'll research it but I'm skeptical.

May I know what makes you skeptical? Overall, and I speak for myself, observing this process, so fascinating on one part by it's complexity but also having it's distorsions that hurts so much some people, makes me think of what some philosophers or other thinkers say about our world today: crazy and dehumanizing us...the communication level might bring some humanity in us, in them...With the new reinforcement of the security, the simple emplyees and not only might be living hell, like us here, with a lot of stress...so that's why trying to reach and emphisize with them might help, without too much menacing of the court or the law...But of course, i'm not advanced in the process and already the waiting time is hurting us..so i don't know if it might help...if anything...why not think in chorus here..of what to think and write...at least we'll spent some constructive time to imagine the best...why not!...I wish you the best!...right now, immediately... lol....

I'm skeptical because the process becomes more convuluted as your traverse it. At this point, our journey is stymied because there is more than one agency involved. These two agencies (DHS and FBI) not only don't share information, they are not SUPPOSED to share information as part of a checks and balances system. So yes while the employees are overwhelmed with work, their jobs are separate and apart from each other. Puzzle pieces that do not fit, if you will.

I'm also skeptical because I'm a member of more than one group who is caught in this process and I've never heard of this step before. It would be lovely to think that by giving defendants advance warning of filing the suit they would act in order to prevent the filing. The information I have (so far) is that the actual filing is the only thing which can bring closure.

Well RJ, it seems you are quite ready to file the suit. I ignore of course all the details and the work you have done till now...I assume you have written letters, made many phone calls, etc...without success...But, certainly this is a situation to talk about with a lawyer...a specialized one...and i'm not...This situation is also certainly of interest...thank you for sharing it with us!...and please be careful!

Well, we spoke with an attorney. That's what the thread was about.

I'd be interested in your elaborating on what you mean by 'please be careful'.

[knowledge 0]

I'll research it but I'm skeptical.

May I know what makes you skeptical? Overall, and I speak for myself, observing this process, so fascinating on one part by it's complexity but also having it's distorsions that hurts so much some people, makes me think of what some philosophers or other thinkers say about our world today: crazy and dehumanizing us...the communication level might bring some humanity in us, in them...With the new reinforcement of the security, the simple emplyees and not only might be living hell, like us here, with a lot of stress...so that's why trying to reach and emphisize with them might help, without too much menacing of the court or the law...But of course, i'm not advanced in the process and already the waiting time is hurting us..so i don't know if it might help...if anything...why not think in chorus here..of what to think and write...at least we'll spent some constructive time to imagine the best...why not!...I wish you the best!...right now, immediately... lol....

I'm skeptical because the process becomes more convuluted as your traverse it. At this point, our journey is stymied because there is more than one agency involved. These two agencies (DHS and FBI) not only don't share information, they are not SUPPOSED to share information as part of a checks and balances system. So yes while the employees are overwhelmed with work, their jobs are separate and apart from each other. Puzzle pieces that do not fit, if you will.

I'm also skeptical because I'm a member of more than one group who is caught in this process and I've never heard of this step before. It would be lovely to think that by giving defendants advance warning of filing the suit they would act in order to prevent the filing. The information I have (so far) is that the actual filing is the only thing which can bring closure.

Well RJ, it seems you are quite ready to file the suit. I ignore of course all the details and the work you have done till now...I assume you have written letters, made many phone calls, etc...without success...But, certainly this is a situation to talk about with a lawyer...a specialized one...and i'm not...This situation is also certainly of interest...thank you for sharing it with us!...and please be careful!

Well, we spoke with an attorney. That's what the thread was about.

I'd be interested in your elaborating on what you mean by 'please be careful'.

Well, i meant hiring an attorney...i know there are costs..but my opinion is it takes a solid one...By be careful, i didnt mean nothing else than that...if you file the suit...careful to articulate the words, etc...what else one says if another person is about to try such hard procedure?...what else to elaborate on those words?...Personnaly i would wait a bit more...as others here told you...

[rebeccajo 14]

I'll research it but I'm skeptical.

May I know what makes you skeptical? Overall, and I speak for myself, observing this process, so fascinating on one part by it's complexity but also having it's distorsions that hurts so much some people, makes me think of what some philosophers or other thinkers say about our world today: crazy and dehumanizing us...the communication level might bring some humanity in us, in them...With the new reinforcement of the security, the simple emplyees and not only might be living hell, like us here, with a lot of stress...so that's why trying to reach and emphisize with them might help, without too much menacing of the court or the law...But of course, i'm not advanced in the process and already the waiting time is hurting us..so i don't know if it might help...if anything...why not think in chorus here..of what to think and write...at least we'll spent some constructive time to imagine the best...why not!...I wish you the best!...right now, immediately... lol....

I'm skeptical because the process becomes more convuluted as your traverse it. At this point, our journey is stymied because there is more than one agency involved. These two agencies (DHS and FBI) not only don't share information, they are not SUPPOSED to share information as part of a checks and balances system. So yes while the employees are overwhelmed with work, their jobs are separate and apart from each other. Puzzle pieces that do not fit, if you will.

I'm also skeptical because I'm a member of more than one group who is caught in this process and I've never heard of this step before. It would be lovely to think that by giving defendants advance warning of filing the suit they would act in order to prevent the filing. The information I have (so far) is that the actual filing is the only thing which can bring closure.

Well RJ, it seems you are quite ready to file the suit. I ignore of course all the details and the work you have done till now...I assume you have written letters, made many phone calls, etc...without success...But, certainly this is a situation to talk about with a lawyer...a specialized one...and i'm not...This situation is also certainly of interest...thank you for sharing it with us!...and please be careful!

Well, we spoke with an attorney. That's what the thread was about.

I'd be interested in your elaborating on what you mean by 'please be careful'.

Well, i meant hiring an attorney...i know there are costs..but my opinion is it takes a solid one...By be careful, i didnt mean nothing else than that...if you file the suit...careful to articulate the words, etc...what else one says if another person is about to try such hard procedure?...what else to elaborate on those words?...Personnaly i would wait a bit more...as others here told you...

I appreciate your concern. We would not attempt such a procedure without legal counsel, so it won't be us wording the document. I also work for a small law firm so I'm somewhat familiar with the procedure and it is not a difficult one. It may seem daunting because defendant is the US Government but that does not bother us.

I also appreciate what you are saying about waiting a bit longer. While I didn't read others here encouraging us to wait longer (in fact I get quite the opposite impression) we most likely will purely for the fact that we have not been married two years yet. If we are going to spend the money on filing, I would also like to possibly skip the expense of lifting conditions.

[LaL 418]

I also did not receive feedback from our lawyer that there is any reason to wait to file WOM. We have met all criteria suggested to have a strong case. (ie: came in on K1, married w/in 90 days, filed prior to exp of 1-94, no any hiccups of any sort).

We are going to wait it out for a bit longer in hopes that the 10 yr greencard is obtained. Other than that, we just plan on continuing with lobbying efforts to improve the system, as its quite busted up now!

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Rebeccajo...

I wish you the best, and I'm with you... Do whatever needs to be done in order to get things resolved. Like many things in life (and working with government agencies), people are not going to simply act on your behalf. Honestly, it seems that you are one of the few that has dealt with a competent immigration attorney.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

[rebeccajo 14]

Honestly, it seems that you are one of the few that has dealt with a competent immigration attorney.

Well, we don't recommend that around here for nothing....

[knowledge 0]

I'll research it but I'm skeptical.

May I know what makes you skeptical? Overall, and I speak for myself, observing this process, so fascinating on one part by it's complexity but also having it's distorsions that hurts so much some people, makes me think of what some philosophers or other thinkers say about our world today: crazy and dehumanizing us...the communication level might bring some humanity in us, in them...With the new reinforcement of the security, the simple emplyees and not only might be living hell, like us here, with a lot of stress...so that's why trying to reach and emphisize with them might help, without too much menacing of the court or the law...But of course, i'm not advanced in the process and already the waiting time is hurting us..so i don't know if it might help...if anything...why not think in chorus here..of what to think and write...at least we'll spent some constructive time to imagine the best...why not!...I wish you the best!...right now, immediately... lol....

I'm skeptical because the process becomes more convuluted as your traverse it. At this point, our journey is stymied because there is more than one agency involved. These two agencies (DHS and FBI) not only don't share information, they are not SUPPOSED to share information as part of a checks and balances system. So yes while the employees are overwhelmed with work, their jobs are separate and apart from each other. Puzzle pieces that do not fit, if you will.

I'm also skeptical because I'm a member of more than one group who is caught in this process and I've never heard of this step before. It would be lovely to think that by giving defendants advance warning of filing the suit they would act in order to prevent the filing. The information I have (so far) is that the actual filing is the only thing which can bring closure.

Well RJ, it seems you are quite ready to file the suit. I ignore of course all the details and the work you have done till now...I assume you have written letters, made many phone calls, etc...without success...But, certainly this is a situation to talk about with a lawyer...a specialized one...and i'm not...This situation is also certainly of interest...thank you for sharing it with us!...and please be careful!

Well, we spoke with an attorney. That's what the thread was about.

I'd be interested in your elaborating on what you mean by 'please be careful'.

Well, i meant hiring an attorney...i know there are costs..but my opinion is it takes a solid one...By be careful, i didnt mean nothing else than that...if you file the suit...careful to articulate the words, etc...what else one says if another person is about to try such hard procedure?...what else to elaborate on those words?...Personnaly i would wait a bit more...as others here told you...

I appreciate your concern. We would not attempt such a procedure without legal counsel, so it won't be us wording the document. I also work for a small law firm so I'm somewhat familiar with the procedure and it is not a difficult one. It may seem daunting because defendant is the US Government but that does not bother us.

I also appreciate what you are saying about waiting a bit longer. While I didn't read others here encouraging us to wait longer (in fact I get quite the opposite impression) we most likely will purely for the fact that we have not been married two years yet. If we are going to spend the money on filing, I would also like to possibly skip the expense of lifting conditions.

Oh no problem! i feel helpless because i'm not knowledgeable...i only can cross the fingers that you'll find the best way, research and knowledge to make the right decision!...

[rebeccajo 14]

Thanks. We may find it necessary to step up our efforts.

"............changes that would abolish the ability to file suit to compel the government to complete security clearances. This is the only check on this process, and the NY Times has reported that there are over 400,000 people waiting on security checks for naturalization cases alone. We waited on this process for over 3 years personally, and filing in federal court was the only remedy available.

I have a confirmation from an attorney who specializes in these cases that, "once the regulations are published (expected to be about 6 months from now), the US Attorneys will file motions to dismiss all WOM and 1447b petitions based on the new regs".

The full text is here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11...11/ua061009.txt

Here is the relevant abstract:

1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC

1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland

Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to

the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload

of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions

over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case

management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any

pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is

ongoing and background and security checks are still pending

completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS

may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline

for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This

interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of

naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination

will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or

judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (Act). The interim rule

also requires that background and security

checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an

alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization

and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of

the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case

adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration

or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or

required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction

of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration

benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose

a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:

________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR

Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07

Interim Final Rule Comment

Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02

Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland

Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536

Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86

Edited January 14, 2007 by rebeccajo

[knowledge 0]

Thanks. We may find it necessary to step up our efforts.

"............changes that would abolish the ability to file suit to compel the government to complete security clearances. This is the only check on this process, and the NY Times has reported that there are over 400,000 people waiting on security checks for naturalization cases alone. We waited on this process for over 3 years personally, and filing in federal court was the only remedy available.

I have a confirmation from an attorney who specializes in these cases that, "once the regulations are published (expected to be about 6 months from now), the US Attorneys will file motions to dismiss all WOM and 1447b petitions based on the new regs".

The full text is here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11...11/ua061009.txt

Here is the relevant abstract:

1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC

1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland

Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to

the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload

of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions

over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case

management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any

pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is

ongoing and background and security checks are still pending

completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS

may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline

for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This

interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of

naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination

will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or

judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (Act). The interim rule

also requires that background and security

checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an

alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization

and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of

the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case

adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration

or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or

required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction

of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration

benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose

a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:

________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR

Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07

Interim Final Rule Comment

Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02

Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland

Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536

Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86

Hi Rebecca, i didn't forget you, just trying to digest all these abstarct languages...and passing by to say Hi. Bassically what i understand is that, as your hubby comes from a country that is on their black list in regards to the security...and after a certain phase of the process, there is some confusion in the process they have to re-think in order to clarify for the approval...so that's why they take their time...How are you and any news?

[rebeccajo 14]

Thanks. We may find it necessary to step up our efforts.

"............changes that would abolish the ability to file suit to compel the government to complete security clearances. This is the only check on this process, and the NY Times has reported that there are over 400,000 people waiting on security checks for naturalization cases alone. We waited on this process for over 3 years personally, and filing in federal court was the only remedy available.

I have a confirmation from an attorney who specializes in these cases that, "once the regulations are published (expected to be about 6 months from now), the US Attorneys will file motions to dismiss all WOM and 1447b petitions based on the new regs".

The full text is here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11...11/ua061009.txt

Here is the relevant abstract:

1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC

1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland

Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to

the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload

of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions

over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case

management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any

pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is

ongoing and background and security checks are still pending

completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS

may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline

for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This

interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of

naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination

will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or

judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (Act). The interim rule

also requires that background and security

checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an

alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization

and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of

the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case

adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration

or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or

required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction

of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration

benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose

a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:

________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR

Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07

Interim Final Rule Comment

Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02

Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland

Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536

Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86

Hi Rebecca, i didn't forget you, just trying to digest all these abstarct languages...and passing by to say Hi. Bassically what i understand is that, as your hubby comes from a country that is on their black list in regards to the security...and after a certain phase of the process, there is some confusion in the process they have to re-think in order to clarify for the approval...so that's why they take their time...How are you and any news?

No my husband isn't on any 'blacklisted' country.

And there is no approval until the security check is done.

We have no news. Thanks for asking.

[knowledge 0]

Thanks. We may find it necessary to step up our efforts.

"............changes that would abolish the ability to file suit to compel the government to complete security clearances. This is the only check on this process, and the NY Times has reported that there are over 400,000 people waiting on security checks for naturalization cases alone. We waited on this process for over 3 years personally, and filing in federal court was the only remedy available.

I have a confirmation from an attorney who specializes in these cases that, "once the regulations are published (expected to be about 6 months from now), the US Attorneys will file motions to dismiss all WOM and 1447b petitions based on the new regs".

The full text is here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11...11/ua061009.txt

Here is the relevant abstract:

1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC

1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland

Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to

the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload

of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions

over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case

management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any

pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is

ongoing and background and security checks are still pending

completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS

may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline

for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This

interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of

naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination

will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or

judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (Act). The interim rule

also requires that background and security

checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an

alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization

and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of

the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case

adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration

or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or

required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction

of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration

benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose

a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:

________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR

Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07

Interim Final Rule Comment

Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02

Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland

Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536

Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86

Hi Rebecca, i didn't forget you, just trying to digest all these abstarct languages...and passing by to say Hi. Bassically what i understand is that, as your hubby comes from a country that is on their black list in regards to the security...and after a certain phase of the process, there is some confusion in the process they have to re-think in order to clarify for the approval...so that's why they take their time...How are you and any news?

No my husband isn't on any 'blacklisted' country.

And there is no approval until the security check is done.

We have no news. Thanks for asking.

ops! i put the foot in my mouth right? I told you i'm ignorant...In any case, know that you have all my support !!! and can e-mail me if need to vent or anything i can do!!! One for you and one for Hubby!