Requesting expedited K-1

[javadown2 308]

45 minutes ago, ali1632 said:

Traveling together, we have twice the free baggage allowance. He will be maxing his allowance already. 

 

Re: your speculation about needing to show a percentage of income or something, I doubt that and have not heard an example. The criteria do not specify any kind of hardship needs to be caused in order to qualify a loss, but I guess it's possible.

After reading the post about someone from 2011...I'm thinking you may have a chance...good luck, keep us posted!

Edited January 7, 2017 by javadown2

[Avery Cates 1,141]

So whether nor not there's an approval you're going to use the tickets anyway.

 

That's not a loss.

[geowrian 22,337]

6 hours ago, Unidentified said:

Wonder how much he makes in a week. 

No idea....other than he did use an I-134.

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by geowrian

[ali1632 10]

On 1/7/2017 at 9:15 AM, Unidentified said:

You completely wasted the time of USCIS that they could have spent looking at an actual hardship expedite request. You're not in any hardship, why would you even think you're eligible? If $900 is a hardship for you then you're not ready for this process. You're not ready for all the fees concerning immigration, wedding, housing/rent etc. 

 

Sorry to be harsh. Yes, you have every right to apply I'm not saying you're not. But yeah, you wasted your time and others. 

I believe you are misreading both the guidelines and my intent. At no time have I claimed any hardship. And Hardship is not part of the criteria for proving a financial loss. I could have $10M in the bank, and if I can prove an impending loss of $1000, I believe they would approve it. This discussion continues to drift back to a moral judgment about wasting someone's time and assumptions about my financial state, no matter how many times I explain the criteria. 

 

I really want to break this down. Let's look at the individual criteria and see what we are really talking about. I know the people who haven't got the point so far will probably not read this, but it's worth a shot. 

 

USCIS doesn't care if you are pregnant. That clearly does not meet the criteria because it has been declined many times. Living in an unsafe country clearly doesn't either because I've seen examples of that declined over and again. What they are looking for is literal documented proof that one of the criteria applies specifically to you, the individual, or some corporate entity if they are filing on your behalf.

1. Severe financial loss to company or individual: We do not know what "severe" means to them, but it seems to be less than a week's unpaid vacation. This criteria is about an actual dollar amount that is documented. It is not about whether or not the individual will suffer because of that loss. This is as black and white as tax law. It has nothing to do with hardship or anguish or percent of income or whether you can afford to take that loss in stride; it only matters whether you can meet the burden of proof to document that a specific amount of money is definitely contingent on the timing of the decision. Honestly I don't even know if it matters if the loss was preventable by the individual. We'll see. 
2. Extreme emergent situation: We don't know what "extreme" means to them, but we do know that having a child is not considered an extreme emergency. People have millions of babies every day, and it is not typically life threatening. I'm sure that if there are complicating circumstances that put someone in harm's way, that will get closer to the mark, but it has to be documentable, like a medical diagnosis, 6 months to live, or your physician writes a letter recommending a life-saving procedure that you can't get anywhere else but the US. You have to produce paperwork that proves you or the beneficiary will most likely (not just maybe) come to harm if the decision is delayed. 
3. Humanitarian situation: from what I have read, this applies to situations where an individual is being specifically targeted, persecuted or threatened or literally is already a refugee. They have to have some actual proof that your situation is one that requires extraction. 
4. Nonprofit status of requesting organization in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States: "The show must go on." A non-profit may advocate for a beneficiary, for instance if they need them to be present for a social or cultural event. 
5. Department of Defense or National Interest Situation (Note: Request must come from official United States Government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to our Government): I highly doubt this applies to anyone here, or they wouldn't need to be using VJ. 
6. USCIS error: Good luck proving that one. 
7. Compelling interest of USCIS: *Shrug* - I can't imagine what this would be, but they're reserving the right to expedite anyone if they benefit from doing so. 

Financial "hardship" does not fit within ANY of the above criteria. If you are experiencing hardship and therefore wish to request expedited processing, you must prove that a specific dollar amount is contingent on the decision date. USCIS does not care at all about the motivation for why you are applying; you could prove a loss because you are in hardship or because you don't feel like waiting if you don't have to, or because your cat told you to do it. If you have a documentable loss, give it a shot. If you are in dire straits, but somehow can't furnish documentation of a specific dollar amount lost, then that really sucks, I am empathetic, but it's not what the system was designed for. 

 

So to the folks who continue to insist that I should be ashamed for submitting a request over such a small amount, and gnashing their teeth about all the people who've been declined with worse situations, I have to point out that if those people could have met the burden of proof of an actual, contractual loss (not a theoretical amount) contingent upon the date, or imminent physical harm directed at the individual, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED. The fact that they weren't means their situations did not meet the burden of proof. And as the criteria says, that burden of proof is on the individual. They will not coach you or prompt you or read between the lines of your heartfelt letter. You need affidavits, receipts, contracts, medical records, court transcripts, documentation of cause, whatever. There's some evidence out there that you can get a little creative with this, too. Like the example posted - her vacation time she would have lost was not even paid vacation - it simply had a documentable value of $xx.xx! They didn't seem to scrutinize that, they just took it at face value because she had a dollar amount documented by a letter from her boss. 

 

And to @Boiler who said "Has there ever been a case on VJ that would not qualify for an expedite?"

Obviously, thousands. Or everyone would be getting those documents sent in and getting expedited! I hope more people can see their situations in this light and start thinking like a tax lawyer, and take better advantage of this process. 

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by ali1632
formatting error corrected

[aaron2020 11,651]

You've done enough research to know that the US Government advises not to make ANY travel arrangement until the visa is in hand.  You ignored that advice and bought a non-refundable ticket.

 

The cost of moving your stuff is a cost that is normally incurred when immigrating.  Everyone would like to ship for as little as possible.  You don't get an expedite because you would like to get to move your stuff in the cheapest means possible.

 

Best of luck with your expedite request.

[Boiler 45,517]

I would have thought it was fairly easy for every applicant to show some sort of financial loss, just a question of how much.

 

So the logic of this thread is that every applicant should request an expedite based on financial hardship, should be a standard part of the process.

[ali1632 10]

Just now, aaron2020 said:

You've done enough research to know that the US Government advises not to make ANY travel arrangement until the visa is in hand.  You ignored that advice and bought a non-refundable ticket.

 

The cost of moving your stuff is a cost that is normally incurred when immigrating.  Everyone would like to ship for as little as possible.  You don't get an expedite because you would like to get to move your stuff in the cheapest means possible.

 

Best of luck with your expedite request.

These two points offer a lot more reasonable scrutiny than most of the other comments I've gotten. The adjudicator may potentially say the same thing. 

 

But I'm hoping that the inflexibility of my schedule precluding travel at any other time justifies the ticket purchase in advance, as it did for the Jamaican example with the vacation time, and that the rule is more about documentation of an expense than it is about what that expense is for. If those hopes are unfounded, we'll know soon enough. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

The guidelines may not say hardship but that's pretty much what they're going by because everyone is going to have a "significant loss" of money. It's called immigrating to another country and it just comes with it. $900 for something you would have bought and used anyway is just not going to get your case expedited as shown. 

[aaron2020 11,651]

You are not required to travel to Spain for him to get an immigration visa.  You choose to travel, then it's on you.

[ali1632 10]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I would have thought it was fairly easy for every applicant to show some sort of financial loss, just a question of how much.

 

So the logic of this thread is that every applicant should request an expedite based on financial hardship, should be a standard part of the process.

NOOOOOOO Not at all!!!! Please stop making it about financial hardship, it has NOTHING to do with that!

The logic is that every applicant (or everyone who cares about how long it's going to take) should start the process by working out whether they can document that one of the expedience criteria applies to them.

 

AND it very well may be that it could be fairly easy for any applicant to do so. That is going to depend on their situation and their ability to produce proof. I hope more people try, and we can start learning about what documentation carries and what doesn't. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

Just now, ali1632 said:

NOOOOOOO Not at all!!!! Please stop making it about financial hardship, it has NOTHING to do with that!

The logic is that every applicant (or everyone who cares about how long it's going to take) should start the process by working out whether they can document that one of the expedience criteria applies to them.

 

AND it very well may be that it could be fairly easy for any applicant to do so. That is going to depend on their situation and their ability to produce proof. I hope more people try, and we can start learning about what documentation carries and what doesn't. 

So you're saying that everyone should request to have their case expedited? LOL, you're funny. Just accept that nothing in this process is short and sweet. Deal with it. 

[ali1632 10]

1 minute ago, Unidentified said:

So you're saying that everyone should request to have their case expedited? LOL, you're funny. Just accept that nothing in this process is short and sweet. Deal with it. 

If they can produce proof that one of the criteria applies, of course they should, yes. Not everyone will have that. Lots of things make a financial impact, but it is often really difficult to document that in advance of it happening. 

[ali1632 10]

7 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

You are not required to travel to Spain for him to get an immigration visa.  You choose to travel, then it's on you.

One would think, but the example of the girl who got expedited because she'd lose her vacation time was doing the exact same thing. She was not required to go to Jamaica to retrieve her fiancé, but they approved her request.

[Boiler 45,517]

2 minutes ago, ali1632 said:

If they can produce proof that one of the criteria applies, of course they should, yes. Not everyone will have that. Lots of things make a financial impact, but it is often really difficult to document that in advance of it happening. 

Using your definition of severe financial loss it would be an unusual case that did not qualify,

 

Very unusual.

 

Would it not be simpler for every case to be auto expedited rather than insisting on going through a meaningless application process?

[Unidentified 2,930]

3 minutes ago, ali1632 said:

If they can produce proof that one of the criteria applies, of course they should, yes. Not everyone will have that. Lots of things make a financial impact, but it is often really difficult to document that in advance of it happening. 

 

No, people need to realize that there are people going through thousands of files and they need to be patient and let people with actual emergencies get expedited. 

 

Because you do realize that if everyone sends in ridiculous requests like yours the whole system will get bogged down and then people with real emergencies like dying future spouses etc will not get a reply from USCIS before it is too late.