Interview not needed?

[Going through 5,671]

2 hours ago, Cammaray said:

Hello all,

I am a Canadian marrying a US citizen, we are not doing the K1 but applying for spousal sponsorship once we have wed. My immigration attorney mentioned to me that "with a well put together application, the interviews are being done away with" and I likely wouldn't have to do one. Has anyone else bypassed the interview stage? 

Thank you

I'm curious....is your immigration attorney a Canadian immigration attorney or a US-based one?

 

The *only* reason I can think of why this might have been said to you, is because the attorney may not understand that YOU are the one immigrating to another country, not your spouse immigrating to Canada.  And yes, spousal interviews are frequently waived---but in CANADA, not the USA.

 

I'm wondering if your attorney (if your attorney is based in Canada), was confused over who was actually doing the move to another country....

[Crazy Cat 42,734]

1 minute ago, Going through said:

I'm curious....is your immigration attorney a Canadian immigration attorney or a US-based one?

 

The *only* reason I can think of why this might have been said to you, is because the attorney may not understand that YOU are the one immigrating to another country, not your spouse immigrating to Canada.  And yes, spousal interviews are frequently waived---but in CANADA, not the USA.

 

I'm wondering if your attorney (if your attorney is based in Canada), was confused over who was actually doing the move to another country....

Ahaa!!  Thank you......that is very enlightening......

[Cammaray 1]

No, she knows that I am moving to the US. She doesn't work with immigrations to Canada, only to the US. Once the process has begun (after we are married) she works in conjunction with an attorney in the US.

[Going through 5,671]

4 minutes ago, Cammaray said:

No, she knows that I am moving to the US. She doesn't work with immigrations to Canada, only to the US. Once the process has begun (after we are married) she works in conjunction with an attorney in the US.

Possible she got mixed up with Canadian immigration law versus US immigration law when she gave you that info?....as others said, you cannot bypass the interview stage when it comes to US immigration.

[acidrain 325]

I have been married to my spouse for over 10 years, together for over 13 years and we have a 5 year old son. There was another poster who had the same NOA1 date as me. He was married to his wife for over 15 years. Both of us had to fly to Montreal for our interview but neither brought our spouse. It took both of us over a year to complete. The interview took no more than 10 minutes but they swear you in to ask any final questions. I was surprised it was still a requirement for my 5 year old son to attend who was going from a green card to citizenship (IR-2).

[geowrian 22,338]

No interview waiver is generally available for a spouse of a USC. You will have an interview regardless of what path you are taking.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

1 hour ago, Cammaray said:

No, she knows that I am moving to the US. She doesn't work with immigrations to Canada, only to the US. Once the process has begun (after we are married) she works in conjunction with an attorney in the US.

How long has she been doing this? Do you have testimonials from other clients?

[debbiedoo 2,339]

your attorney has NO CLUE what they are talking about.

 

 

[mrmvkjts 463]

WOW!

I wouldn’t trust this attorney at ALL!

you could fill out the forms easily by yourself

but f you guys do decide to go with a lawyer then please get one that knows what he or she is doing!

[Roel 7,193]

1 hour ago, Cammaray said:

No, she knows that I am moving to the US. She doesn't work with immigrations to Canada, only to the US. Once the process has begun (after we are married) she works in conjunction with an attorney in the US.

Are you reading all our responses? It sound like you're defending the lawyer and you're going to listen to her no matter what we say. If that's the matter then please tell us so we don't waste time. 

 

I130 process is easy. You don't need a lawyer. You won't bypass medical or interview. You'll wait as long as everyone else. 

 

If your lawyer is telling you otherwise then they are wrong. 

[Roel 7,193]

What visa are you even applying for? I see the post in k3 discussion but those visas aren't really issued anymore... is that another thing your lawyer suggested? 

[mushroomspore 3,044]

5 hours ago, missileman said:

I don't mean to sound rude, but this is the most outlandish "advice" I have ever seen attributed to an "attorney" on VJ........

I dunno, man...there's been some preeeeetty outlandish things on here that people have attributed to their attorneys.

 

@Cammaray There is NO way interviews are bypassed for the spousal visa (IR-1/CR-1). I hope that is the visa category you guys are applying for because you're in the K3 forum and K3's are basically defunct now.

 

In fact I'd argue the interview is THE most important step and the paperwork only serves as the lead-up to the interview and this is true across all the visa categories as well as adjustment of status (AoS, which is how people get green cards when they're already present in the US with a non-immigrant status). The whole point is that interviewing officer(s) can confirm that you guys actually exist and are a real couple in real life. ANYONE can fill out paperwork as somebody else and send it in, if they wanted to. It'd be dumb for governments to not confirm identities in person. They do biometrics but once again, the interview also confirms your relationship to the officer.

 

Have you yourself read this very informative guide right here and the forms and their accompanying instruction packets from USCIS.gov?? It also says here on the US Dept of State's website that interviews are conducted for spousal visas. 

 

Your lawyer is flat-out wrong.

Edited July 7, 2018 by mushroomspore

[Amadia 711]

Hi,

 

It sounds like your attorney is not too familiar with the entire immigration process. He/She is entitled to an opinion but facts will ALWAYS prevail especially in cases of immigration. A 'well put together packet' still needs to be looked at by the interviewing officer who is going to preside over your case.

 

Paperwork cannot speak for you....an interview with a person can speak volumes! 

 

Bottom line - to agree with the other posters -  try getting another, more experienced immigration attorney.

[Cammaray 1]

She has been practicing immigration law for over 20 years, I'm having a hard time believing that she would suggest anything that could result in trouble for her as well. She said I probably wouldn't have to attend one, not that I definitely wouldn't. But reading all the comments it seems so bizarre that she would suggest it's not necessary. The information package I was sent from her states that she will assist in preparation for an interview. I appreciate the advice and links sent, and the time taken to help me with my query. 

 

[Scandi 4,206]

On 7/7/2018 at 3:47 PM, Cammaray said:

She has been practicing immigration law for over 20 years, I'm having a hard time believing that she would suggest anything that could result in trouble for her as well. She said I probably wouldn't have to attend one, not that I definitely wouldn't. But reading all the comments it seems so bizarre that she would suggest it's not necessary. The information package I was sent from her states that she will assist in preparation for an interview. I appreciate the advice and links sent, and the time taken to help me with my query. 

 

Oh trust us when we say that this is far from the only story on here about "great immigration lawyers" and "award winning immigration attorneys" giving completely ###### up immigration advice and end up delaying the process for the applicants or even cause denials. We see this over and over, your story of bad lawyer advice isn't the first one and unfortunately not the last one.

 

Our advice - do it yourself, all you need is VisaJourney. Don't put something as important as your future in the hands of someone else, ESPECIALLY not this lawyer.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Ryan H
Reason for edit: to remove alternate spelling of profanity.