AOS from K1 in LA, checking NCSC info -OR- I'm panicking, help please!
Nov 18th 2003, 12:41 pm
#16
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: AOS from K1 in LA, checking NCSC info -OR- I'm panicking, help please!
Originally posted by Matthew Udall
When sending the K-1 and or AOS forms to my clients for signatures, I make it a point in my cover letter to warn them to make sure the notary actually signs his or her section of the affidavit of support (whether it be an I-134 or an I-864) and “NOT� to let the notary instead use a California All-purpose Acknowledgment.
I once had an affidavit rejected (but it was so long ago now that I don’t recall if it was an I-134 rejected at the Consulate or an I-864/AOS submission rejected by the legacy INS) for this very thing, and ever since then I’ve made it a point to warn my clients about this so it won’t happen again.
When sending the K-1 and or AOS forms to my clients for signatures, I make it a point in my cover letter to warn them to make sure the notary actually signs his or her section of the affidavit of support (whether it be an I-134 or an I-864) and “NOT� to let the notary instead use a California All-purpose Acknowledgment.
I once had an affidavit rejected (but it was so long ago now that I don’t recall if it was an I-134 rejected at the Consulate or an I-864/AOS submission rejected by the legacy INS) for this very thing, and ever since then I’ve made it a point to warn my clients about this so it won’t happen again.
In the FWIW department, I find the term "legacy INS" being used in place of "former INS" to a pet peeve. Look up the definition of "legacy."
It seems to me that the "Legacy INS" would be the USCIS and the portions of the USICE & USCBP that were part of the "INS".
I have observed that the term seems to have orginated with the CBP people who were rolled into the former Customs Service instead of becoming a seperate agency like CIS and ICE.
Nov 19th 2003, 8:44 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AOS from K1 in LA, checking NCSC info -OR- I'm panicking, help please!
Oh not to worry, we got the I-864 notarized specifically, THEN got the
all-purpose acknowledgement to "cover" everything else, just to be
sure.
Olivia
Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Originally posted by Olivia
>
> > I know, it seems odd to me as well, but she watched me sign papers and
>
> > then gave us a "California All-purpose Acknowledgement".
>
> >
>
>
>
> When sending the K-1 and or AOS forms to my clients for signatures, I
> make it a point in my cover letter to warn them to make sure the notary
> actually signs his or her section of the affidavit of support (whether
> it be an I-134 or an I-864) and ?NOT? to let the notary instead use a
> California All-purpose Acknowledgment.
>
>
>
> I once had an affidavit rejected (but it was so long ago now that I
> don?t recall if it was an I-134 rejected at the Consulate or an I-
> 864/AOS submission rejected by the legacy INS) for this very thing, and
> ever since then I?ve made it a point to warn my clients about this so it
> won?t happen again.
all-purpose acknowledgement to "cover" everything else, just to be
sure.
Olivia
Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Originally posted by Olivia
>
> > I know, it seems odd to me as well, but she watched me sign papers and
>
> > then gave us a "California All-purpose Acknowledgement".
>
> >
>
>
>
> When sending the K-1 and or AOS forms to my clients for signatures, I
> make it a point in my cover letter to warn them to make sure the notary
> actually signs his or her section of the affidavit of support (whether
> it be an I-134 or an I-864) and ?NOT? to let the notary instead use a
> California All-purpose Acknowledgment.
>
>
>
> I once had an affidavit rejected (but it was so long ago now that I
> don?t recall if it was an I-134 rejected at the Consulate or an I-
> 864/AOS submission rejected by the legacy INS) for this very thing, and
> ever since then I?ve made it a point to warn my clients about this so it
> won?t happen again.
