RFE

[Kjfray 0]

Hey everyone.

I sent my I-129F on February 13th, and received my NOA1 Februrary 22nd, and of course like everyone that hasn't received their NOA2 yet, I'm anxiously awaiting! I was browsing through here and saw some unfortunately received an RFE which is making me rather nervous! So I was just looking through one of the copies I made of my packet and noticed that on the letter, declaration of having met in person I didn't necessarily specify how we met, just when we met, stating "My fiancé and I met for the first time in person on November 24th of 2014, spending November 24th - December 24th together"... But we originally met on the infamous Internet through a mutual friend via Skype. Will this score me an RFE for lack of specifics? I'm kicking myself right now because on the original letter I specified this matter but decided it was unnecessary information.. Thanks

[A'n'L 735]

You'll be fine. I assume you added proof of meeting in person as well?

[Kjfray 0]

Hey everyone.

I sent my I-129F on February 13th, and received my NOA1 Februrary 22nd, and of course like everyone that hasn't received their NOA2 yet, I'm anxiously awaiting! I was browsing through here and saw some unfortunately received an RFE which is making me rather nervous! So I was just looking through one of the copies I made of my packet and noticed that on the letter, declaration of having met in person I didn't necessarily specify how we met, just when we met, stating "My fiancé and I met for the first time in person on November 24th of 2014, spending November 24th - December 24th together"... But we originally met on the infamous Internet through a mutual friend via Skype. Will this score me an RFE for lack of specifics? I'm kicking myself right now because on the original letter I specified this matter but decided it was unnecessary information.. Thanks

Also, I only stated that we first met in November of 2014, but I sent conversation logs via Skype dating from January of 2014. I'm doomed, aren't I?

[Kjfray 0]

You'll be fine. I assume you added proof of meeting in person as well?

How do you figure?

Yes, I provided boarding passes, pictures of us together, and receipts for our boarding passes along with passport stamps. What utterly has me worried is the fact that I also provided conversations from January of 2014 from Skype, but said our first meeting was in November.

Thanks for the response.

[A'n'L 735]

How do you figure?

Yes, I provided boarding passes, pictures of us together, and receipts for our boarding passes along with passport stamps. What utterly has me worried is the fact that I also provided conversations from January of 2014 from Skype, but said our first meeting was in November.

Thanks for the response.

You describe your meeting in person, which is the requirement. I've seen posters here who didn't even describe their first in person meeting (they picked their lengthier visit or something like that), and where fine.

Even if you got an RFE, you wouldn't be doomed!

Edited April 16, 2016 by A'n'L

[Kjfray 0]

You describe your meeting in person, which is the requirement. I've seen posters here who didn't even describe their first in person meeting (they picked their lengthier visit or something like that), and where fine.

Even if you got an RFE, you wouldn't be doomed!

Well, I hope this is the case. You're correct, not necessarily doomed, but just lengthening an already tedious (potentially frustrating) process. Crossing my fingers!

[A'n'L 735]

Oh, btw, for accuracy of your timeline... You have a WAC.... number, right? Then your case wasn't transferred from Texas to California, but routed directly to California. Many people confuse the lockbox in Texas with the service center, but they are not the same :-) No cases have been routed to TSC the last year.

Edited April 16, 2016 by A'n'L

[Kjfray 0]

Oh, btw, for accuracy of your timeline... You have a WAC.... number, right? Then your case wasn't transferred from Texas to California, but routed directly to California. Many people confuse the lockbox in Texas with the service center, but they are not the same :-) No cases have been routed to TSC the last year.

Oh, really? Because when I received my NOA1 it stated "Your case has been accepted and routed to the USCIS California Service Center for processing" so I figured that meant they processed it in Texas and were backed up, sending it to California? It confuses me.

[Kjfray 0]

You describe your meeting in person, which is the requirement. I've seen posters here who didn't even describe their first in person meeting (they picked their lengthier visit or something like that), and where fine.

Even if you got an RFE, you wouldn't be doomed!

Another thing, maybe you could help shed some light on?

I did provide proof of us meeting in person (photos, passport stamps, plane tickets, receipts) but there is a bit of a problem with that because my fiancé resides in France, but the closest airport to him is in Belgium, for that we would commute via train. So whenever I would visit him, we would meet in the Belgium airport, then take a train back to France. So my boarding passes, boarding pass receipts, and passport stamps say Belgium, instead of France. And I don't have any proof that I went to France, because the train tickets were thrown away a while back. The only things I do have is grocery receipts and things of that nature, which I didn't provide. Maybe, I'm overthinking this entire process but seeing the RFE rate lately really makes me nervous. Any insight is appreciated regardless!

[A'n'L 735]

Oh, really? Because when I received my NOA1 it stated "Your case has been accepted and routed to the USCIS California Service Center for processing" so I figured that meant they processed it in Texas and were backed up, sending it to California? It confuses me.

Yes, confusing, but routed means (initially) sent to. It was never at the Texas Service Center. The lockbox is just a facility that receives the applications and forwards them. The TSC was veeery backlogged a year ago, so they stopped sending petitions there completely.

[A'n'L 735]

Another thing, maybe you could help shed some light on?

I did provide proof of us meeting in person (photos, passport stamps, plane tickets, receipts) but there is a bit of a problem with that because my fiancé resides in France, but the closest airport to him is in Belgium, for that we would commute via train. So whenever I would visit him, we would meet in the Belgium airport, then take a train back to France. So my boarding passes, boarding pass receipts, and passport stamps say Belgium, instead of France. And I don't have any proof that I went to France, because the train tickets were thrown away a while back. The only things I do have is grocery receipts and things of that nature, which I didn't provide. Maybe, I'm overthinking this entire process but seeing the RFE rate lately really makes me nervous. Any insight is appreciated regardless!

You are overthinking it! What you sent is plenty to get you through the petition phase. Later, the embassy in France, with local knowledge, will have no issues understanding that you flew into Belgium.

[acf 0]

Oh, btw, for accuracy of your timeline... You have a WAC.... number, right? Then your case wasn't transferred from Texas to California, but routed directly to California. Many people confuse the lockbox in Texas with the service center, but they are not the same :-) No cases have been routed to TSC the last year.

hi A'n'L, I am reading this post and see you mention that WAC numbers mean your I-129 was routed directly to California. Since we sent ours to Texas and then got a notice it was transferred to California, I assumed it was first routed to TSC. Apparantly this was not the case. So would it be better to adjust my timeline?

[A'n'L 735]

hi A'n'L, I am reading this post and see you mention that WAC numbers mean your I-129 was routed directly to California. Since we sent ours to Texas and then got a notice it was transferred to California, I assumed it was first routed to TSC. Apparantly this was not the case. So would it be better to adjust my timeline?

If you have a WAC number, your petition was routed to CSC, not transferred. I know there are very many people on here who are confused about this. You sent the petition to Texas lockbox, not TSC - they are not related. Please update your timeline when you get the chance - it will improve the processing estimates for you and all other K1's on VJ :-)

[Shauneg 762]

hi A'n'L, I am reading this post and see you mention that WAC numbers mean your I-129 was routed directly to California. Since we sent ours to Texas and then got a notice it was transferred to California, I assumed it was first routed to TSC. Apparantly this was not the case. So would it be better to adjust my timeline?

Every single person sends their petition to Texas as the instructions say. From there it goes to either California or to the Texas processing center. The place you sent it to in Texas is an intake facility the fact that they also process petitions in Texas (not at the same address) is purely coincidental.

[Kjfray 0]

Yes, confusing, but routed means (initially) sent to. It was never at the Texas Service Center. The lockbox is just a facility that receives the applications and forwards them. The TSC was veeery backlogged a year ago, so they stopped sending petitions there completely.

Got it! Thanks for clearing that up.

You are overthinking it! What you sent is plenty to get you through the petition phase. Later, the embassy in France, with local knowledge, will have no issues understanding that you flew into Belgium.

I hope so! I just don't know how strict they are with detailed information. Anyways, thank you!