Requesting expedited K-1

[Roel 7,192]

Actually when it comes to the immigration you are entitled to nothing. Immigration to USA is a privilege, not your right.

 

IMO claiming an expedite based on the "financial loss" of $900 is laughable. Its that much is a loss for you, how do you plan on affording AoS, medical, bio-metric fees?

 

The financial loss for the expedite has to be SEVERE. Quoting:

"USCIS may expedite a petition or application if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

• Severe financial loss to company or person;"

 

Im sorry, but this is a ridiculous request and as was stated before - it will just made others have to wait longer for their actually reasonable expedite.

[Unlockable 7,314]

Sure the OP can request it. I agree with you on that. But even the OP sounds skeptical of the legitimacy for the reason for the request. Seems to admit that the "financial hardship" is really a loss of finances due to poor planning.

 

If it wasn't for places like VJ tons of people would be sending in incomplete or improper petitions or mailing items to the wrong place or send the insufficient evidence. We contribute here to help others as the immigration process is already taxing and time consuming. I just think efforts like this only adds to the backlog of the immigration process.

 

But you are right, if the OP wants to throw it out there to see if it sticks then so be it.

[geowrian 22,337]

50 minutes ago, Roel said:

Actually when it comes to the immigration you are entitled to nothing. Immigration to USA is a privilege, not your right.

Yes it is a privilege, but you are entitled to make a request. You are not entitled to have it approved (or even investigated much).

Edited January 7, 2017 by geowrian

[ali1632 10]

I think still some commenters are misunderstanding my logic in making this request. I am not concerned about a "hardship" - and neither is USCIS. The guidelines are not suggesting that financial hardship is a consideration at all. The only real consideration (as was pointed out) is based on whatever they take to mean "severe". My research led me to believe that the threshold for consideration is not that high, based on other successful requests. So logically, if I have a qualifying, documentable loss, I'm going to try to leverage that for a faster decision. It's like when you are doing your taxes; you will of course take any exemption you qualify for (as long as the effort required to do so does not outweigh the benefit.)

 

I'm not at all admitting (as was suggested) that I'm worried about a financial hardship due to poor planning. I actually planned very closely every decision I've made so far. I am simply applying the logic that if they provide expedited service with proof of a financial loss, and I have identified a financial cost that is contingent on the approval date, then I should test the threshold to see if it applies to me. That is just me advocating for myself and my fiancé, not a sign of a disorganized budget. 

 

I understand the moral question that some are raising about a frivolous request making it harder for other people. In the case of a truly frivolous bid, I would agree 100%. But I'm not submitting a boohoo letter or asking for an exception to the rule; I'm submitting receipts and quotes and a signed affidavit from my boss. I think a lot of denials happen because people aren't able to produce actual proof-positive documentation of a qualifying expense, not because of the amount in question. I read in a legal article somewhere (sorry I can't source it atm, but I will look) that expenses such as non-refundable deposits on a wedding caterer or a venue were examples for such consideration because they were contractual and therefore documented. And even yet, as to a $900 loss being a joke or laughable or frivolous, or at best arbitrary, then I have to wonder how much you pay for rent. It has nothing to do with being able to afford the immigration process, or budgeting properly, etc.. Nobody has $900 to throw away, so at this point the concept of a frivolous loss is as undefined as that of a severe loss, and our opinions don't matter. I'm simply arguing to USCIS that it is a not-insignificant, documented, and avoidable cost. Even if I were to entertain that the plane ticket portion is totally on me, the other half is still more money than I would spend arbitrarily. So I don't think it's a frivolous request. It is self-advocacy, which is paramount when dealing with a government agency, and making use of their customer service system as it was designed to be used. I will use every legitimate administrative avenue available to me to get my fiancé here as fast possible. Isn't that the point of this community - informing each other about those efforts, so that we can all do exactly that?

 

So please continue if you want to point out the logical holes in my official stated request to USCIS - it will be good to anticipate how they might do the same, and their decision will maybe tell us something about those collective assumptions. But, while you all are wholly welcome to your moral diagnoses, I am not going to feel guilty for being my own lawyer. 

 

Cheers!

Ali

[goodlulck52 69]

The OP said:

 

"In total, the issue amounts to a documented loss of $927 that will be incurred ((from the flight & the shipping)) if I can't help him relocate during that week in early March."

 

But technically, the loss calculation seems problematic: the loss should only include the shipping had the OP not been able to squeeze her fiance's stuff in her luggage. Here is why:

 

1. The ticket in March is some cost that would be incurred regardless whether she can help him because that is the only time when she is available and she would go because their reunion is long over due. In other words, regardless of how fast USCIS is, the ticket is a sunk cost.

 

2. However, USCIS's speed would make a difference of whether her fiance's shipping fee will be saved. So what is at stake depending on USCIS's speed is only the shipping fee and not her flight ticket.

 

[Cathi 5,748]

54 minutes ago, ali1632 said:

I think still some commenters are misunderstanding my logic in making this request. I am not concerned about a "hardship" - and neither is USCIS. The guidelines are not suggesting that financial hardship is a consideration at all. The only real consideration (as was pointed out) is based on whatever they take to mean "severe". My research led me to believe that the threshold for consideration is not that high, based on other successful requests. So logically, if I have a qualifying, documentable loss, I'm going to try to leverage that for a faster decision. It's like when you are doing your taxes; you will of course take any exemption you qualify for (as long as the effort required to do so does not outweigh the benefit.)

 

I'm not at all admitting (as was suggested) that I'm worried about a financial hardship due to poor planning. I actually planned very closely every decision I've made so far. I am simply applying the logic that if they provide expedited service with proof of a financial loss, and I have identified a financial cost that is contingent on the approval date, then I should test the threshold to see if it applies to me. That is just me advocating for myself and my fiancé, not a sign of a disorganized budget. 

 

I understand the moral question that some are raising about a frivolous request making it harder for other people. In the case of a truly frivolous bid, I would agree 100%. But I'm not submitting a boohoo letter or asking for an exception to the rule; I'm submitting receipts and quotes and a signed affidavit from my boss. I think a lot of denials happen because people aren't able to produce actual proof-positive documentation of a qualifying expense, not because of the amount in question. I read in a legal article somewhere (sorry I can't source it atm, but I will look) that expenses such as non-refundable deposits on a wedding caterer or a venue were examples for such consideration because they were contractual and therefore documented. And even yet, as to a $900 loss being a joke or laughable or frivolous, or at best arbitrary, then I have to wonder how much you pay for rent. It has nothing to do with being able to afford the immigration process, or budgeting properly, etc.. Nobody has $900 to throw away, so at this point the concept of a frivolous loss is as undefined as that of a severe loss, and our opinions don't matter. I'm simply arguing to USCIS that it is a not-insignificant, documented, and avoidable cost. Even if I were to entertain that the plane ticket portion is totally on me, the other half is still more money than I would spend arbitrarily. So I don't think it's a frivolous request. It is self-advocacy, which is paramount when dealing with a government agency, and making use of their customer service system as it was designed to be used. I will use every legitimate administrative avenue available to me to get my fiancé here as fast possible. Isn't that the point of this community - informing each other about those efforts, so that we can all do exactly that?

 

So please continue if you want to point out the logical holes in my official stated request to USCIS - it will be good to anticipate how they might do the same, and their decision will maybe tell us something about those collective assumptions. But, while you all are wholly welcome to your moral diagnoses, I am not going to feel guilty for being my own lawyer. 

 

Cheers!

Ali

sill frivolous 

[theresaL 408]

However, your logic does not support your thesis. You haven't nor will you experience a severe financial loss based on the information you have provided. You purchased a RT ticket for yourself to travel to/from Spain which you stated you intend to use regardless of visa approval date. You will receive the benefit of this ticket therefore no loss has been incurred. The cost for your fiancé to ship personal belongings is  a normal and expected cost of immigrating regardless of who transports it or when and any cost would be minimal not severe. What you are really wanting is to travel together when you return from your trip to Spain and don't want to wait or be separated. Understandable, but not really a reason for an expedite.

 

I don't know what stage of your Grad program you are at, but I can tell from experience I had less than zero time for my fiancé (now husband) during my last semester and we actually waited for 2 months after his K-1 was approved before he arrived here since I was in the middle of Comp exams, degree papers and final course work. 

[ali1632 10]

1 minute ago, goodlulck52 said:

The OP said:

 

"In total, the issue amounts to a documented loss of $927 that will be incurred ((from the flight & the shipping)) if I can't help him relocate during that week in early March."

 

But technically, the loss calculation seems problematic: the loss should only include the shipping had the OP not been able to squeeze her fiance's stuff in her luggage. Here is why:

 

1. The ticket in March is some cost that would be incurred regardless whether she can help him because that is the only time when she is available and she would go because their reunion is long over due. In other words, regardless of how fast USCIS is, the ticket is a sunk cost.

 

2. However, USCIS's speed would make a difference of whether her fiance's shipping fee will be saved. So what is at stake depending on USCIS's speed is only the shipping fee and not her flight ticket.

 

I somewhat agree, but I included the flight just in case it helps. I'm also floating the idea that if the $$ spent on tickets for the purpose of helping him move does not actually facilitate me helping him move, then I've lost the intended benefit of spending that money... And yes, of course, making a largely pointless trip to use the tickets anyway might still be, in some small degree, its own consolation prize, but no need to discuss that in my RFE.

 

But based on your reading of the situation, yes, I can see how they are most likely going be judging based on whether $458 wasted is enough reason to push it. 

[Boiler 45,517]

I have seen some farcical expedite requests, and has been said no harm probably in trying, but this one may have taken the cake.

 

Do let us know how you get on.

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

37 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I have seen some farcical expedite requests, and has been said no harm probably in trying, but this one may have taken the cake.

 

Do let us know how you get on.

There was a recent post in AOS, where the OP got the response that due to the large increase in expedite requests, USCIS have increased the demands on such requests and therefore cannot grant the expedite. This is ofc not K1, but goes to show ofc it affects processing and approved expedites.
From the thread:

 

Got a letter in the mail today.

"Due to the high volume of expedites for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria (..). While your situation appears serious, you have not provided evidence of an extreme emergent need. (...) burden is on applicant to demonstrade that his/her case meets one of the following expedite criteria:

[lists criteria from the website]

If you believe that your case meets one of these, please send your request with supporting documentation to the attention of:

[field office director's address]

(...) We apologize for the delay.

We hope this information if helpful to you."

So, denied. Bye, job. Should have gone with CR1, I'd never do K1 again."

[JimJesDuma 472]

Requesting your I-129F petition to be expedited because of a $1,000 loss?

Total waste of CSC time.

If that were the case then we should all have filed expedite request before the end of last year because we need to insure our fiance(e) are here by end of year so that we can claim them on our taxes as an exemption currently worth $4050.

To others out there I would not be worried about this one poster taking much time of the USCIS. They can review an entire K-1 packet in 30 minutes, they will review the expedite request and issue denial that will take the rep maybe 15 minutes.

 

Here are the unintended consequences, expedite could be denied, case could then be put at the bottom of a pile, case could be flagged and scrutinized to address if the petitioner has financial resources to support the beneficiary at the US Embassy stage.

I see nothing good coming of this attempt but heck lets see where it goes.

 

Jim

Edited January 7, 2017 by JimJesDuma

[geowrian 22,337]

20 minutes ago, JimJesDuma said:

Requesting your I-129F petition to be expedited because of a $1,000 loss?

Total waste of CSC time.

If that were the case then we should all have filed expedite request before the end of last year because we need to insure our fiance(e) are here by end of year so that we can claim them on our taxes as an exemption currently worth $4050.

To others out there I would not be worried about this one poster taking much time of the USCIS. They can review an entire K-1 packet in 30 minutes, they will review the expedite request and issue denial that will take the rep maybe 15 minutes.

 

Here are the unintended consequences, expedite could be denied, case could then be put at the bottom of a pile, case could be flagged and scrutinized to address if the petitioner has financial resources to support the beneficiary at the US Embassy stage.

I see nothing good coming of this attempt but heck lets see where it goes.

 

Jim

Are we to scrutinize every low chance request as a waste of time? He's entitled to make his request and get a response...as we all are. There are plenty of reasons to complain about petitions/applications that are taking time away from my own, but there's no point because they are entitled to make their request and have it evaluated.

 

Hmm...I'm not sure about all of those consequences. Do we have any evidence that suggests denied expedite requests result in a slower processing time? And I doubt the additional scrutiny as, if denied, then it was determined that the loss was NOT severe after all. Saying it's a concern that they can't support the beneficiary but also wasn't a hardship are not mutual exclusive (hardship vs severe loss), but they are related. Furthermore, the financial aspect will be evaluated based on income, assets, and/or sponsor(s) involved.

[JimJesDuma 472]

1 minute ago, geowrian said:

Are we to scrutinize every low chance request as a waste of time? He's entitled to make his request and get a response...as we all are. There are plenty of reasons to complain about petitions/applications that are taking time away from my own, but there's no point because they are entitled to make their request and have it evaluated.

 

Hmm...I'm not sure about all of those consequences. Do we have any evidence that suggests denied expedite requests result in a slower processing time? And I doubt the additional scrutiny as, if denied, then it was determined that the loss was NOT severe after all. Saying it's a concern that they can't support the beneficiary but also wasn't a hardship are not mutual exclusive (hardship vs severe loss), but they are related. Furthermore, the financial aspect will be evaluated based on income, assets, and/or sponsor(s) involved.

Never said he couldn't do it I just would not for the reasons I gave. Do we have any evidence to suggest that a frivolous request doesn't slow the processing time? Everything that happens on this case will have a history entry made and everyone involved further up the chain will know about it from NVC to the US Embassy Consular Officer but as I said lets see where this goes.

How know maybe he will have an approval by the end of next week.

 

Jim

[USC1961 251]

 

Quote

 

Expedite Criteria

USCIS reviews all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and requests are granted at the discretion of the office leadership. The burden is on the applicant or petitioner to demonstrate that one or more of the expedite criteria have been met.

USCIS may expedite a petition or application if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

• Severe financial loss to company or person;
• Emergency situation;
• Humanitarian reasons;
• Nonprofit organization whose request is in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States;
• Department of Defense or national interest situation (These particular expedite requests must come from an official U.S. government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to the government.);
• USCIS error; or
• Compelling interest of USCIS

 

4 hours ago, ali1632 said:

I somewhat agree, but I included the flight just in case it helps. I'm also floating the idea that if the $$ spent on tickets for the purpose of helping him move does not actually facilitate me helping him move, then I've lost the intended benefit of spending that money... And yes, of course, making a largely pointless trip to use the tickets anyway might still be, in some small degree, its own consolation prize, but no need to discuss that in my RFE.

 

But based on your reading of the situation, yes, I can see how they are most likely going be judging based on whether $458 wasted is enough reason to push it. 

Right there you just logically lost your argument.  There is no severe financial loss whatsoever in your case.  Loss of intended benefit from money spent on a plane ticket is not a severe loss.  This was simply very poor judgement on your part planning a move without even having your visa approved.  My cynical voice would tell me it seems like you simply don't want to wait it out like the rest of us, so you are trying to play the system in your favor.  

 

Having said that it's not the dollar amount that matters here.  It's the effect of said "severe" loss to your current situation. Let's be honest if a $980, or even a $458 loss is really that damaging (severe) to you at this point, there is no way you are financially stable enough to qualify for a K-1.  In other words you aren't going to be out on the street next week because you bought a plane ticket and had to incur shipping costs.  This request simply lacks any substance to it.

 

2 hours ago, geowrian said:

Are we to scrutinize every low chance request as a waste of time? He's entitled to make his request and get a response...as we all are. There are plenty of reasons to complain about petitions/applications that are taking time away from my own, but there's no point because they are entitled to make their request and have it evaluated.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  In all fairness the OP by posting on a public forum asking for feedback, got just what she asked for.  Perhaps it wasn't what she wanted to hear, but it has been civil honest feedback.   

       

[Neonred 3,562]

Looks to me like your actual loss is about $100.  You have a ticket to visit when you have your vacation.  You can still go, he just won't be comming back with you.  He won't be able to take advantage of your free luggage allotment, but he can take an extra suitcase when he does travel and will just have to pay for it.  Surely he can make the trip on his own.