apnzz

As someone who was skipped from the feb/march cases, I wholeheartedly agree with this. We got skipped months before they moved offices so I highly doubt it's the reason for the skip. They claimed moving offices would help improve processing times and "streamline" the process but statistically you can see nothing but a decrease in processing speed and just an overall decline in productivity. They used to approve 200-300+ cases per day, now it's lucky if it hits over 120. (source: trackmyvisanow has a discord bot set up in the K1 discord to provide daily updates on case productivity every day). I 100% believe that they purposely skipped that feb/march section to make their data look better; they were approving April/May filers in under 90 days - hundreds of them even in under 40 days. So when you look to file at that time you're seeing under 90 day visa in hand be so common - you're naturally gonna wanna file then because it "looks" fast. But officially the processing times still are above 8 months. When I filed it was 14 months, when I was approved it had reduced to 9 months. They keep their official websites projecting those times on purpose; so they don't have to be held accountable. So you may see cases approved in 4,5,6 months but you can't do anything until your inquiry date passes (when I filed mine was May 2025, reduced to April 25 2025 around the 4months waiting mark). Congressmen and senators just give the same responses about it being normal and USCIS can proceed with no accountability. There's no way they didn't know about the feb/march skip - hundreds of us were calling regularly and complaining, pointing it out, getting congressmen and senators involved. They had to have known. It's such a specific skip too - it wasn't like a few cases were getting approved from that block, the entire block was skipped and not touched at all. We may never know their true processes and how they do things, but I refuse to believe such a specific period of skipped cases was an accident. and our skip definitely wasn't because of an office change because it happened months before the office change. Fingers crossed for you guys to hear back soon - I know first hand how awful this is. Please hang in there - there's a light at the end of the tunnel - I promise.

Usually, the embassy correspondence lists the evidence required. As most countries will ask for this (and some countries even want to see more evidence regarding the i-134 - it really is embassy dependent) it's recommended to bring the tax transcript regardless of country. Better to have something that is listed as required evidence, and not need it, than to not have it, and they ask for it. (Not to mention the i-134 instructions lists this as one of the forms of evidence) In addition, most embassy will send (either via email, physical letter or their website) the list of documents that they require (again, this can vary from country to country, but most of them will say I-134 and evidence). Some countries are known to not ask for it, or have a less chance for the officer to ask for it, but every officer is different and it's better to have it than to not have it and they ask for it. Regardless; many say the focus in general is on current income, but there are so many countries on here you can read interview experiences' for that state they were asked for the tax transcript.

Easiest way to see others' timeline on here in relation to interview is, go to immigration timelines, filter by country - Canada, click advanced search then sort by interview date descending. Then you'll see all the dates; noa2, nvc, embassy and interview date. Edit; upon doing this myself for Canada seems as if the average / shortest you can see is just under 2 months between Consulate received to interview date.

Same here, contacted USCIS and they told me a worker just used a generalised approval template, and that all i-129f / k1 go to NVC then the embassy and to ignore the generic template that didn't reflect the actual k1 process. My case also went from approved, to sent to DOS, through NVC then arrived at embassy.

Wow, I never actually knew this. It's actually terrible an organisation can do that. But then again there are only limited sources that can actually do something about their obscurity and inefficiency, and even when you contact Congressmen or senators, they usually accept any generic response USCIS provides. I never knew they hid data like that, thank you for sharing, but sorry that happened to you and others. Either way it's really terrible USCIS is able to do that type of thing without any consequences or accountability.

If you file when in the U.S, then you would answer those questions because it is applicable to you, because at the time of completing the form, you are in the U.S. If you are filing when in the U.S, and requires the i-94, then include the i-94 to show your entry. As, at the time of filing, your i-94 shows the entry, and you are in the U.S so it's accurate at the time of filing. Edit: if you're really worried about it, then you can always use the extra pages to include an explanation and just say you're leaving on X date.

As someone who was a part of that feb-march skipped batch, we tried literally everything and nothing worked. Congressional aid, senator aid. Calling USCIS. nothing worked. we even had screenshots and proof that they skipped the period - USCIS took the stance that they didn't skip any cases, that it's impossible that that happened and that there's no way for us to prove or know we were skipped because cases are processed in order of when they are received. Which we all know in reality this isn't true. We all know we had proof, but USCIS refused to acknowledge any of it. I know for a fact dozens if not hundreds of us called regularly and tried congressmen etc. They just essentially gaslight you on the phone lol. I'm fully aware the customer service people are only tier 1 officers and have nothing to do with adjudicating cases, but to us at the time we all felt like if they just put their hands up and said "hey, yea, you guys were skipped, we'll get back to it eventually" it would've felt less upsetting. But they just denied it was even happening and then any congressional or senator aid responses were "USCIS has informed us that you filed on [insert date] which is within normal processing times" and that I could re-request assistance after my inquiry date - as a March 4 filer, my inquiry date was April 25th 2025. At the same time, people who filed just a week after me, up to May filers were getting approved in under 90 days - so many even under 40 days. It was heart breaking. The situation now is with June/July filers is still the same in terms of being skipped, but generally processing times aren't as fast as they were in early 2024. It seems like they're slowing down. The initial feb/march skipped period filers speculated that we had been skipped to make their data look better; processing times looked so much faster but they had skipped over 3k cases from feb-march at the time. that could be what's happening here -who really knows haha. As much as it is upsetting and unfair, please hang in there. It isn't the first time it has happened, and unfortunately with how USCIS processing behaviour works, it is unlikely to be the last. For a bit of hope/motiviation; we got approved Aug 23, (I was extremely lucky compared to others skipped in this period, some of my friends from the same filing day as me had to wait until October or even November to get approved) and booked the 2 days ago for Jan 23rd. So there definitely is light at the end of the tunnel - we went into the process saying anything under 12 months would be considered a huge win for us, since the processing times for k1 were, in previous years, atrocious compared to what we have in 2024. Hang in there! ❤️

Whilst there are mixed responses in the past on trackmyvisanow - my personal experience was that it was inaccurate.. The most appropriate advice and thing to keep in mind is that all of these website and services to track are essentially using data to make an estimation - when USCIS is historically known for being an unpredictable organisation in terms of their processing behaviours. So trying to predict when a case will be approved is going to have its limits when the organisation itself is so unpredictable; USCIS skips weeks, jumps back, speeds up, slows down - all on a regular basis. Best thing to do is to try and focus on work or hobbies, and take the tracking methods with a grain of salt. We've all been there, the wait is awful. But it'll all be worth it in the end!

Unfortunately not all immigration journey's are fast. Try to keep hold of the positive; approval is a wonderful thing and a big step of the way is now checked off, and it'll all be worth it in the end once you and your fiancé are together and getting married!

Whilst this is true this is on the rarer / less frequent side to happen. People have been religiously tracking and posting updates regarding cases being sent to DoS & even making little graphs/tables to share for everyone to keep up to date with what cases are being sent to DOS and when, across the facebook groups, reddit and k1 discord. Either way, it's taking an extremely longer time to get sent to DoS - averaging at around 50-60 days and that has been the case since October. (October it was taking around 40-45 but this has increased since then) and hasn't decreased since & so only waiting 2 weeks since approved is still too soon in these circumstances. Most recent cases that were sent to DOS were cases approved Oct 16, sent to DOS on December 5 & 6th.

That's still too soon for right now. Until your case status at USCIS updates as "case was sent to the Department of state", USCIS still has possession of your case and therefore NVC cannot help, all they will say is they don't have your case yet - which is natural as USCIS hasn't sent the case the case to DoS yet. The average right now is minimum 50 days. But for some it takes over 90 as per what USCIS states. The most recent cases I've seen sent to DoS this past week are cases approved Oct 9th - 16th sent this last week. So most likely you have several weeks of waiting- if not close to a few months.

We literally just said a small paragraph something like "We initially met through a gaming group chat in mid 2019. In late 2019 we started playing video games together daily and spending time together every day. This included watching movies and TV shows together, video calls, gaming and phone calls." I then said we physically met and listed all the dates and trips and times etc. Went into details and that's about it relating to written evidence. Then I included as much evidence and proof of physical meeting and the relationship as possible. I didnt use ant proof relating to xbox, i didnt think it wouldve been useful. I included 1 page of call log screenshot and 1 page of social media posts (one announcing the engagement and one from a family occasion). Amongst other evidence of course, but just was summarising here what i did in relation to xbox. The officers are still people, they will understand what you're talking about, I didn't feel the need to go into more detail, because that's basically how we met, that's what I tell people if they ask how we met anyway. We got approved with no RFE on Aug 23rd. (March 4 filed, initially part of the skipped period of cases). We are now at interview stage.

Yeah like others have said.. your job here is to essentially convince a random stranger whose job it is is to scrutinise and decide if a relationship is genuine, that your relationship is real. Naturally that would require strong evidence - I'd encourage physical evidence more; proof of physical meets, time spent in person - of course people include online things, that's common, and by all means, but imho the strongest evidence is always being physically together, travelling, doing activities etc etc. Like Edward and Jaycel, we included about a half page just quickly summarising how we met - online via xbox video gaming, just because I felt like not everyone would understand, then included photographs of physical meets (several different meets), boarding passes, the typical evidence etc etc. That's essentially what the "describe the circumstances under which you met" means. They don't need an entire relationship story or timeline, just tell them how you met. At the end of the day it's your job to try and convince a sceptical stranger that your relationship is genuine and real; what you include evidence wise is down to you, but most people will include how much they feel it is necessary to do so.

Just disclose all names used as you're supposed to & then perhaps include a short paragraph like you have here. Name change disclosure is most likely just to ensure they can carry out the relevant background checks on you. Disclosing every name you've ever had or used or gone by is the only logical way to proceed. If you feel the need to explain to them why your name was changed or the nature then write a paragraph explaining it.

Canada has a p3 and p4 process where they have to email some documents. They have to do that then wait for the status to update as a 2nd ready status. I don't recall the specifics but I remember my Canadian friend talking to me about it. Essentially the embassy has some sort process where once its ready at embassy the beneficiary should receive an email requesting certain things, they send it to the provided email address then once the embassy confirms they have it, they get sent p4 which details instructions for the interview and once they receive 2nd ready status then they can proceed. Something along those lines. I'd suggest the k1 discord OP, it has a channel dedicated to Canada and there's a whole thread on there about the updated Canadian process including p3 and p4 steps. My friend said she emailed the embassy herself because she didn't get p3, and a few days later they sent her p3(email) and she responded with the relevant docs, they then responded the following morning and she could proceed to book interview as soon as p4 arrived. I don't recall the specifics so I am sorry! I just remember my friend saying how different Canada was to the UK (I'm UK and she's Canada)