urgent help

[ddx 0]

My problem is i read my K1 notice of action is valid till 9 of April 2006...so its means petition is valid for 4 months....i got packet 3.5 in feburary i sent all documents in march and the embassy schedule my interview 12 May of 2006..so its mean when i will show up for interview my petition will be already expired...now let me know please what i need to do now???

[john_and_marlene 162]

Don't panic. The consulate will extend it. You don't have to do anything.

[Ladylethal 12]

That´s automatic?

[flipside 0]

Yes..it's automatic.

[ddx 0]

so this happend usually or this only happend with me?? so u mean they will extend it without requesting anything from me or making any issue about it? thank u very much for ur rely

[Ladylethal 12]

And he doesn´t have to report this?

[john_and_marlene 162]

so this happend usually or this only happend with me?? so u mean they will extend it without requesting anything from me or making any issue about it? thank u very much for ur rely

with the current backlogs, this happens with almost every case. You are very much normal in this respect. Correct, you do not have to do anything.

Edited March 31, 2006 by john_and_marlene

[Jenn! 918]

Be careful. If your petition has expired, I would make sure your letters of intent are dated very close to the time of the interview. Read the following article:

(from http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm)

K-1 and K-3 visas are odd fish. They are non-immigrant visas. Yet they e processed at consulates as IV’s . Not only that, K-1’s and K-3’s have definite life-spans. A K-1 for instance expires after four months. It normally takes more than four months from the time of DHS approval for a beneficiary to be interviewed at the consulate. Thus, by the time the beneficiary in our fact situation shows up at the window, the petition approval is no longer valid.

41.81 N6.2 Validity of a K-1 Petition (TL:VISA-581; 09-03-2003)

An approved K-1 visa petition is valid for a period of four months from the date of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) action and may be revalidated by the consular officer any number of times for additional periods of four months from the date of revalidation, provided the officer concludes that the petitioner and the beneficiary remain legally free to marry and continue to intend to marry each other within 90 days after the beneficiary's admission into the United States. However, the longer the period of time since the filing of the petition, the more the consular officer must be concerned about the intentions of the couple, particularly the intentions of the petitioner in the United States. If the officer is not convinced that the U.S. citizen petitioner continues to intend to marry the beneficiary, the petition should be returned to the approving office of DHS with an explanatory memorandum. [see 9 FAM 41.81 PN7 for revalidation procedure.)

So in our fact situation above, let us assume the approval of her sponsor’s petition has lapsed at the time of the interview. And it will not be revalidated unless and until the consular officer is persuaded on the merits of her visa application.

Reading the above passage, the FAM seems to place a built-in presumption against the intentions of the couple if the processing time for the K-1 petition has been delayed, even for reasons beyond their control. That presumption grows more persuasive, the longer the petition is delayed. 9 FAM 41.81 N6.2 also mandates that if the consular officer does not believe the couple intentions, at the interview, he or she must return the already expired petition approval with an explanation to DHS.

What is the point of returning an expired petition to a DHS Service Center? It’s hard to say. Perhaps it’s simply an information exchange between the two agencies or perhaps it’s professional courtesy. But this is a part of the process that poses great danger for petitioners. This is the place in the process where a 212(a)(6)©(i)[1] Misrepresentation trap has been set by the FAM

Our beneficiary at this point is in danger of having a finding of misrepresentation entered into her record, even if neither she nor the petitioner have actually misrepresented anything.

[john_and_marlene 162]

And he doesn´t have to report this?

NO