cr1 Overseas foreign fiance to be married, want to bring her in. a few questions.

[Pennycat 880]

17 hours ago, chris12345 said:

Guys about number 3: please check this upon which i based my question: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-cuts-fiancee-visas-by-one-third

basically it says 33% were cut last year and also an additional 20% was cut in the interview stage which means more than 50% was cut last year!

 

 

That's a garbage paper quoting a man with a well-known agenda working for a "think tank" with a well known agenda that they do not attempt to hide. For someone allegedly as accomplished as he is, he cannot read statistics at all.... unless of course he is manipulating them to fit his narrative. I'm quite familiar with the report that this "newspaper" based their report on. I sent detailed corrections to the statistical read (just simple fact) and then sort of suggested that if his end goal is to have more vetting of people before they get green cards, than the K visa process should be considered preferable, as there are two stages of vetting before permanent residency is granted. Crickets, and no correction. Shocking.

 

Let's just start with the fact that this is the report in question. This is what this Washington Examiner "journalist" is accepting as truth on its face without doing any of his own legwork. Nice work if you can get it, I guess. 

 

https://cis.org/North/K1-Fiancee-Visas-Are-Now-Harder-Get-Why-Have-Them-All

 

This quote should set off alarm bells for anyone familiar with the process:

Quote

 

In a 2015 report, I noted that USCIS usually granted the petition (I-129f) that led to the K-1 visa without bothering to interview the citizen seeking it.

 

 

 

 

Yes, shocking that. The initial petition was and still is decided on without interviewing anyone (he's not even clear if "the citizen seeking it" is the American petitioner or the foreign beneficiary but it's sure making it sound like the foreign beneficiary... who has nothing to do with the I-129f in the first place). The interview happens for the visa itself, not the petition "unlocking" the ability for the foreigner to apply for that visa type in the first place. He quotes a Reuters article as some evidence that this has changed (it has not). Here's the Reuters quote:

 

Quote

 

USCIS has also put in place new interview requirements for U.S. citizens seeking to bring over their fiancés. In the first nine months of 2017, approvals of fiancé visas dropped by 35 percent over the same period a year earlier, the Reuters data review found

 

 

 

Ignore this "dropped by 35% for a moment, we will get to how this "data review" is severely flawed. Like, severely. Just focus on the "new interview requirements". This article was written in January 2018 so it seems they're referring to this change... ALL employment based and refugee relative based adjustment of status applications would require an interview (they, like K1 entrants would sometimes have their interviews waived). Which is funny because fiance AOS wasn't included on that but was included in May 2018 Policy Manual change. Perhaps there was some other announcement of an impending change around that time. Either way. This is not "new interview requirements" for the visa itself (which always was 100% interview based). It is ensuring 100% interview for adjustment of status. Whether this is a positive or negative can be debated until the cows come home (I personally think that couples who had been vetted by State within the previous 6 months and who are statistically at little risk of fraud should have the interviews waived so as not to add to the backlog, and therefore adding to the time it takes to catch the fraudsters who do actually exist. Some people would rather give the fraudsters an extra 6 months to a year in legal status just to make sure they don't miss a single one). 

 

Then, here's the big one.  He can't properly read the statistical report. Neither can Reuters, apparently.  (they make the same mistake). To be fair, he DOES admit that it is hard-to-read... But I think that he means because it is a PDF and small font. Not actually hard to understand.... which he fails out anyway. 

 

 

Quote

 

The K-1 decision numbers are now much different than they were in the past. There are two sets of them. The first deals with the initial step in the process, the petition. In FY 2016, USCIS approved 90.5 percent of the petitions it received; then in FY 2017, which was mostly under the Trump administration, that figure fell to 66.2 percent. (The data are from this hard-to-read USCIS statistical summary.)

 

 

 

 

So, here's the link to the page where you can find all the reports and get them in CSV format if you like (choose Q4 in years that don't have an annual summary, the data is the same). But I'll link just to FY2016 and FY2017 PDF .

 

Where Mr. North has gotten his "90.5% approval" in FY16 and only "66.2% approval" in FY17 is by taking the year-to-date (the last two columns) and dividing "forms approved" by "forms received". This would not be that amateur on its face, and in my opinion is more a failing of USCIS in how they present their data (shocking, that, USCIS doing something stupid) but it really is. Why? Anyone who knows the first thing about USCIS knows that there is a permanent backlog which is sometimes growing larger and is sometimes beaten back. The quarters reflect this in the "pending" statistics. Plus, forms received does not equal "decisions made". If you want an approval/denial rate, you've got to look at the total number of decisions made vs which are approved and which are denied. This isn't like college applications where every application for the year is due by Dec 1 and decisions are all out by April 1. This is a rolling kind of situation. The ones not approved aren't denied. They're just not YET approved because they're in "pending". 

 

The way you see the number of decisions made vs approvals/denials is add up the approved/ denied by quarter and THEN divide by "approved". For FY16, the total decisions made by USCIS on I-129fs was 55,456 with 47,898 approved, an approval rate of 86.4% (if you just divide "received" by "approved", you get Mr. North's 90.5% but remember, received doesn't mean anything to approval/denial rates as received does not mean "decided"). In FY17, 42,218 decisions were made with 32,998 approvals, a rate of 78.16%. LESS, yes. But not 90% to 66%, far from it. His 66% came from again dividing approved by received. That just hints more than anything that the I-129f backlog was allowed to grow in that fiscal year (and looking at the numbers in "pending" at the ends of Q4 of those respective years, that would seem to be the answer. 14k pending at the end of FY16, 25k pending at the end of FY17, and with fewer decisions having been made in FY17 than FY16).

 

The approval rates, by the way, seem to fluctuate over time as well. FY13 (63,839 decisions, 49,154 approvals was just a hair under 77% approval rate). 

 

Reuter's mistake was looking at the denials in FY17Q3 vs denials in FY16Q3. They divided denied vs received instead of denials divided by decisions made (approvals plus denials)-- that would be 14% denial in FY16Q3 and 19% in FY17Q3. That is not an increase of 35%. 

 

THEN, Mr. North goes on to State Department statistics. 

 

Quote

The second step — the one involving the overseas interview — showed in the latest data available that in FY 2016 the denial rate was about 20 percent, a huge increase from the 2015 rate of less than 1 percent. Bear in mind that the 20 percent denial rate was laid on cases that had been 100 percent cleared by USCIS. The two agencies are moving in the same direction with, State backstopping DHS.

 

He's more or less right on that "denial rate about 20 percent". (83.3% were approved or overcame denial). But note how he didn't link to anything from 2015 to back up that "less than 1 percent" claim? Here is the same report from 2015.  86.4% were approved or overcame denial. I can't even work the numbers to try to get anything resembling over 99% approval (less than 1% denial). It looks like the sourse of this less than 1% denial he is referring to this previous article of his (which he mentions and links in his third paragraph). in that 2015 article, the "99.7% approval" is from 2014 (so his 2018 article is him already incorrectly citing his own work but that's the least of our problems).  If you click on the link in THAT article-- the 2015 article--(the lengths to which he will go to bury the primary sources he works with and misunderstands or perhaps intentionally misreports is pretty impressive) , he links to the 2014 State Department table of non-immigrant visas we've been working with this whole time. Add up approvals, plus waived/overcome approvals, divide by total workload (which is correct and which is what he himself did to get "denial rate about 20% for FY16) and you get an overall approval rate of 87.8%.

 

He attempts to explain how he got to 99% ... "304 issuances for every denial" which "if you put that in percentage terms, that was a 99.7 percent approval rate). I don't see it. If anyone can point to me where in the numbers he linked he gets 304 issuances for every denial, I'd be happy to hear it. I can't really get that to work out (not even using 30.4 ). 

 

So, it looks like in 2014 he really bungled the reporting of a statistic (or completely made it up), quoited himself on it in 2015, and then quoted himself quoting himself again in 2018. Then a "journalist" from a "newspaper" goes and takes his analysis on face value and reports it without fact checking. That's not how journalism OR academics works. 

 

 

A final aside about the 99.7% claim. I searched the CIS website for 99.7%. One thing that popped up was this article (of Mr. North's, again). The 99.7% approval is from a Rapid Visa advertisement that he's apparently getting on his web browser (and when you go to Rapid Visa, it is for Removal of Conditions). The article is from 2018 and his first claim of a 99.7% approval rating is from 2014. But CIS has been getting confused by Rapid Visa since 2014. I do not have time to dig for it, but I have been following CIS for a while now. Back when the San Bernardino attack happened, and it was discovered that the man had brought the woman on a K-1 visa, CIS wrote about the shortcomings of security with the K-1 visas and pointed to, again, a Rapid Visa advertisement about how quickly they could get the visa (2 weeks, no interview). At the time, Rapid Visa was advertising that *their* turnaround is 2 weeks. 2 weeks for them to do the paperwork and file for you. Not 2 weeks to approval. And that they don't require an interview. I can't help but wonder if this is a repeat of that and he's spent the past 4.5 years quoting himself quoting a Rapid Visa advertisement. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Pennycat

[geowrian 22,337]

8 minutes ago, Pennycat said:

He attempts to explain how he got to 99% ... "304 issuances for every denial" which "if you put that in percentage terms, that was a 99.7 percent approval rate). I don't see it. If anyone can point to me where in the numbers he linked he gets 304 issuances for every denial, I'd be happy to hear it. I can't really get that to work out (not even using 30.4 ). 

 

...

 

A final aside about the 99.7% claim. I searched the CIS website for 99.7%. One thing that popped up was this article (of Mr. North's, again). The 99.7% approval is from a Rapid Visa advertisement that he's apparently getting on his web browser (and when you go to Rapid Visa, it is for Removal of Conditions). The article is from 2018 and his first claim of a 99.7% approval rating is from 2014. But CIS has been getting confused by Rapid Visa since 2014. I do not have time to dig for it, but I have been following CIS for a while now. Back when the San Bernardino attack happened, and it was discovered that the man had brought the woman on a K-1 visa, CIS wrote about the shortcomings of security with the K-1 visas and pointed to, again, a Rapid Visa advertisement about how quickly they could get the visa (2 weeks, no interview). At the time, Rapid Visa was advertising that *their* turnaround is 2 weeks. 2 weeks for them to do the paperwork and file for you. Not 2 weeks to approval. And that they don't require an interview. I can't help but wonder if this is a repeat of that and he's spent the past 4.5 years quoting himself quoting a Rapid Visa advertisement. 

I'm more inclined to believe he got that rate using the old DOS reporting data for K-1s. Years ago the report listing the # of K-1s issued, refused, and overcome/waived only counted non-immigrant unit statistics. There's an asterisk on the bottom of the "newer" reports noting this. Basically, the old reports counted refusals only with cases where the immigrant visa unit approved the visa but the non-immigrant visa unit found an ineligibility or inadmissibility afterwards. They weren't counting the vast majority of refusals as that's handled by the immigrant visa unit. So the approval rate on those reports was above 99%.

 

But that reporting oversight was corrected years ago...it just seems so irresponsible to use knowingly incorrect statistics.

[Pennycat 880]

Sorry, I was trying to edit for academic honesty here but it timed out. Correction: FY16Q3 denial was 19.7% denial rate, up from 14% that quarter the previous year (I said only 19%). That is an increase in the 30 percents in the rate of denial. But cannot  (honestly) be described as a 35% drop in approvals as Reuters does. 

[Pennycat 880]

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I'm more inclined to believe he got that rate using the old DOS reporting data for K-1s. Years ago the report listing the # of K-1s issued, refused, and overcome/waived only counted non-immigrant unit statistics. There's an asterisk on the bottom of the "newer" reports noting this. Basically, the old reports counted refusals only with cases where the immigrant visa unit approved the visa but the non-immigrant visa unit found an ineligibility or inadmissibility afterwards. They weren't counting the vast majority of refusals as that's handled by the immigrant visa unit. So the approval rate on those reports was above 99%.

 

But that reporting oversight was corrected years ago...it just seems so irresponsible to use knowingly incorrect statistics.

I thought that, too, but if you daisy-chain back through his articles quoting himself (3rd paragraph of this new one, first paragraph of the 2015 article), to , it lands on a 2014 article in which he is directly linking to the 2014 State Department NIV report (that reflects denials accurately) and I can't make 99.7% happen with any combination there. I find it a bizarre coincidence, too, that he himself also quotes a Rapid Visa ad with that same exact approval percentage. I can dig another time for those previous erroneous K1 reporting. Almost all that I just posted is a copy paste of the corrections I sent to CIS, plus a little extra digging about Reuters-- I'm on mobile at the moment and can't really do much. 

[chris12345 0]

Guys after all these comments I think a spouse visa would be my better choice. Now I am thinking how to start. I know that firstly need to take care of the marriage. A few questions:

1. Can this be in a third country or must be on her own (Ukraine)?

2. Can I then send the filled Form I-130 from abroad (while I am there)? (I am asking because I will be out for 5 weeks).

3. Do I need any other form for the initial application with the Form I-130?  

4. Do I need the translated marriage certificate before I send the I-130 or I can do it later?

 

Thanks!

[geowrian 22,337]

2 minutes ago, chris12345 said:

1. Can this be in a third country or must be on her own (Ukraine)?

2. Can I then send the filled Form I-130 from abroad (while I am there)? (I am asking because I will be out for 5 weeks).

3. Do I need any other form for the initial application with the Form I-130?  

4. Do I need the translated marriage certificate before I send the I-130 or I can do it later?

1. Anywhere is fine
2. Yup
3. Check the guide + I-130 instructions (checklist on the bottom): https://www.visajourney.com/content/i130guide1
4. It must be translated, but you can do that yourself if you are fluent in both languages: https://www.visajourney.com/content/translations

[TM92 527]

12 hours ago, chris12345 said:

Louisiana

Assuming you are a resident of Louisiana, she will qualify for in-state tuition at both LSU and ULM when you marry, through an exemption for spouses of Louisiana residents to the 365-day Louisiana residency requirement. I assume other Louisiana schools have a similar exemption. Thus, either CR-1 or K-1 with marriage after US entry are options for in-state tuition. I still advise to go the CR-1 route.

5 hours ago, chris12345 said:

1. Can this be in a third country or must be on her own (Ukraine)?

A legal marriage performed anywhere in the world is the requirement to begin the CR-1 process. Some couples even marry in the US with a tourist visa or VWP and then the beneficiary leaves the US and the petitioner files the I-130; it's 100% legal. If you are considering marriage outside of Ukraine, I recommend either Copenhagen, Denmark or Reykjavík, Iceland; plus no Schengen visa required for either of you: https://www.passportindex.org/comparebyPassport.php?p1=ua&p2=us&fl=&s=yes The process in both countries is straightforward:

https://www.visitcopenhagen.com/copenhagen/how-get-married-copenhagen

https://guidetoiceland.is/history-culture/getting-married-in-iceland

Edited November 6, 2018 by TM92