mute_at_work

I only sent one letter with my petition at the end of October. I am due for info on my
fiance's file any day now form the TSC. I have a sneaking suspicion that if you provide
enough supporting evidence they MAY overlook that, but I would be sure. I didn't even know
they revised that rule until just recently. Sol is going to have one notarized and ready
at the interview just in case, but then again, he'll be there face to face.

I will post right away if I hear any news.

Brianne & Sol (Can/Am) 50+ days, TSC.

> I am about to file my K-1 Petition in few days but I only have the one letter of
> bonifide intent to marry but not notarized. I am really anxious to get this thing filed
> and start the ball rolling for my fiancee to be here with me. Should I be concerned
> enough to delay my filing for at least another week and pay the cost of having her mail
> me a signed letter of intent to marry. I wish that I had been aware of the second letter
> being requested before now and the revision of the I-129F form back in October
> 2000..........James

James Stone

I am about to file my K-1 Petition in few days but I only have the one letter of bonifide
intent to marry but not notarized. I am really anxious to get this thing filed and start
the ball rolling for my fiancee to be here with me. Should I be concerned enough to delay
my filing for at least another week and pay the cost of having her mail me a signed letter
of intent to marry. I wish that I had been aware of the second letter being requested
before now and the revision of the I-129F form back in October 2000..........James

Michael Voight

IS this supposed to be filed with the I-129F or presented at the interview?

Michael

James Stone wrote:
>
> I am about to file my K-1 Petition in few days but I only have the one letter of
> bonifide intent to marry but not notarized. I am really anxious to get this thing filed
> and start the ball rolling for my fiancee to be here with me. Should I be concerned
> enough to delay my filing for at least another week and pay the cost of having her mail
> me a signed letter of intent to marry. I wish that I had been aware of the second letter
> being requested before now and the revision of the I-129F form back in October
> 2000..........James

Rita

Filed with the new 10/6/00 revised I-129F as per instructions.

James

INS also will accept the '99 version. I don't believe the two letters of intent are asked
for in that version. If you have it, go with that one instead and don't worry about the
letters of intent.

Rita

In article <[email protected]>,

> IS this supposed to be filed with the I-129F or presented at the interview?
>
> Michael
>
> James Stone wrote:
> >
> > I am about to file my K-1 Petition in few days but I only have the
one
> > letter of bonifide intent to marry but not notarized. I am really anxious to get this
> > thing filed and start the ball rolling for my fiancee to be here with me. Should I be
> > concerned enough to delay my filing for at least another week and pay the cost of
> > having her
mail me
> > a signed letter of intent to marry. I wish that I had been aware of
the
> > second letter being requested before now and the revision of the I-
129F
> > form back in October 2000..........James
>

--
The K1 FAQ is now at http://www.k1faq.com www2.apex.net/users/thehydes

RJLiles

Actually you are about to file the I-129F Fiancé(e) Petition, not the K-1 Petition. The
K-1 is totally separate and comes later after INS gives you permission to move on to the
K-1 phase. The K-1 is handled by the State Department where the I-129F is handled by the
Justice Department.

Anyway you should be ok with just one letter. The idea of 2 letters has not really caught
on yet with the service centers since it is relevantly new plus they are still sending out
old forms with the old instructions. But if it makes you feel better get the letter from
your fiancé(e).

Also note that the letters DO NOT have to be notarized.

> I am about to file my K-1 Petition in few days but I only have the one letter of
> bonifide intent to marry but not notarized. I am really anxious to get this thing filed
> and start the ball rolling for my fiancee to be here with me. Should I be concerned
> enough to delay my filing for at least another week and pay the cost of having her mail
> me a signed letter of intent to marry. I wish that I had been aware of the second letter
> being requested before now and the revision of the I-129F form back in October
> 2000..........James

christine_rosalee

Where does it state that you need two letters of intent? Do you mean one from the
petitioner and one from the beneficiary? Or do you mean two letters from one person? I
am confused. HELP!! I just sent in my petition for the I-129F and I submitted one letter
of intent from myself and one letter from my fiance, both signed but not notarized. Is
that right?

> > I am about to file my K-1 Petition in few days but I only have the
one
> > letter of bonifide intent to marry but not notarized. I am really anxious to get this
> > thing filed and start the ball rolling for my fiancee to be here with me. Should I be
> > concerned enough to delay my filing for at least another week and pay the cost of
> > having her
mail me
> > a signed letter of intent to marry. I wish that I had been aware of
the
> > second letter being requested before now and the revision of the I-
129F
> > form back in October 2000..........James
> >

Rita

in message

> > > I am about to file my K-1 Petition in few days but I only have the
> one
> > > letter of bonifide intent to marry but not notarized. I am really anxious to get
> > > this thing filed and start the ball rolling for my fiancee to be here with me.
> > > Should I be concerned enough to delay
my
> > > filing for at least another week and pay the cost of having her
> mail me
> > > a signed letter of intent to marry. I wish that I had been aware
of
> the
> > > second letter being requested before now and the revision of the
I-
> 129F
> > > form back in October 2000..........James
> > >
> >
> >
>

>

--
The K1 FAQ is now at http://www.k1faq.com www2.apex.net/users/thehydes

ms_bhon

When the INS sent the forms out to me they sent me the 1991 version. Are
> there any cases of them rejecting the use of this version?..................James

James- Y'know I asked that very same question last week when I realized I sent in a '91
form because that is what was given to me by my local INS office. I think scanning some
back posts I saw that a few people had used these older forms recently and had no
problems. The forms are exactly the same- only the font and the accompanying instructions
have changed... as mine is already in the works I'm hoping it won't be a problem (fingers
crossed...) Beth

Rita

When the INS sent the forms out to me they sent me the 1991 version. Are
> there any cases of them rejecting the use of this version?..................James
>
>
not that we have been made aware of. But do you want to chance it? The choice is yours.
The only true difference in the forms is the request for the letters of intent and the
fact that they tell you now to send copies unless originals are specifically requested.

Rita

--
The K1 FAQ is now at http://www.k1faq.com www2.apex.net/users/thehydes

RJLiles

Where does it state that you need two letters of intent?

It states on the instructions for the revised form 10/6/00.
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...rms/i-129f.htm

It is #5. letter D

Also for those that are wondering it states on the INS webpage that I-129F rev. 10/13/98
is also accepted. http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...orms/index.htm

jeffreyh1

All,

Perhaps it would help cut down on the volume of traffic on this issue if we took care to
be clear about distinguishing between the I-129f form and the instructions for submitting
that form. The Form and The Instructions are two different things, even though they happen
to come attached at the head (or is it the foot?) like siamese twins.

The I-129f form has not changed except for a little notation and the date at the bottom.
It still asks the same questions, in the same order, with the same layout. The one dated
10/6/00 is indistinguishable from the one dated 10/13/98 except for that date. The 91
version is distinguishable only by a change in the font used, not by the content or
layout. Nothing of any significance whatsoever has changed with respect to The Form.

The instructions for submitting The Form, specifically instructions for supporting
materials that are to be submitted with the form, have changed. It is now explicit that
copies of supporting materials are acceptable, originals are not required. And, it is now
required that evidence of a relationship must be supplied in the form of a letter from
each party to the relationship (the fiance and the fiancee, the USC and the alien, the
petitioner and the beneficiary, in whatever combination those terms apply to the
individuals involved) and whatever other evidence they may wish to provide to document a
valid engaged-to-be-married relationship - 1) we are free and able to marry, and 2) we
intend to marry.

Now let's move on to the two "do we hafta's?" Do we hafta use the 10/6/00 version of The
Form? No, you don't hafta do anything. But the INS says either the 10/13/98 or the 10/6/00
forms are acceptable. If you use the 91 version, and the examiner who gets your petition
notices the version date, he can have it sent back to youif he wants. Do we hafta send 2
letters of intent to marry, one from each of us? No, you don't hafta do anything. But the
INS says it wants these letters, even if it didn't tell you directly because it sent you
outdated instructions; the correct instructions are nevertheless posted and available. If
you don't send both letters, and the examiner who gets your petition wants both letters,
he can send you and RFE.

Do you hafta? No. Should you oughta? Up to you.

Regards, JEff there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

----------------------------------------------------------------
In article <OS%[email protected] t>,

>

> > Where does it state that you need two letters of intent?
>
> It states on the instructions for the revised form 10/6/00.
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...rms/i-129f.htm
>
> It is #5. letter D
>
> Also for those that are wondering it states on the INS webpage that
I-129F
> rev. 10/13/98 is also accepted.
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...orms/index.htm
>
>

--

Ellen

This is very nicely put Jeff. I have to admit that I don't follow all the K-1 posts, being
a DCF'er I don't feel I have much to contribute, but when something comes up a lot, like
this has lately, I pay attention. Has this been included on the K-1 FAQ? Not that everyone
starts at the FAQ but if it were there, that might help cut down on the volume too.

Ellen

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> All,
>
> Perhaps it would help cut down on the volume of traffic on this
issue
> if we took care to be clear about distinguishing between the
I-129f
> form and the instructions for submitting that form. The Form and
The
> Instructions are two different things, even though they happen to come attached at the
> head (or is it the foot?) like siamese twins.
>
> The I-129f form has not changed except for a little notation and
the
> date at the bottom. It still asks the same questions, in the same order, with the same
> layout. The one dated 10/6/00 is
indistinguishable
> from the one dated 10/13/98 except for that date. The 91 version
is
> distinguishable only by a change in the font used, not by the
content or
> layout. Nothing of any significance whatsoever has changed
with respect
> to The Form.
>
> The instructions for submitting The Form, specifically
instructions for
> supporting materials that are to be submitted with the form, have changed. It is now
> explicit that copies of supporting materials
are
> acceptable, originals are not required. And, it is now required
that
> evidence of a relationship must be supplied in the form of a letter
from
> each party to the relationship (the fiance and the fiancee, the
USC and
> the alien, the petitioner and the beneficiary, in whatever
combination
> those terms apply to the individuals involved) and whatever other evidence they may
> wish to provide to document a valid engaged-to-be-married relationship - 1) we are free
> and able to
marry,
> and 2) we intend to marry.
>
> Now let's move on to the two "do we hafta's?" Do we hafta use the 10/6/00 version of The
> Form? No, you don't
hafta do
> anything. But the INS says either the 10/13/98 or the 10/6/00
forms are
> acceptable. If you use the 91 version, and the examiner who
gets your
> petition notices the version date, he can have it sent back to youif
he
> wants. Do we hafta send 2 letters of intent to marry, one from each of
us? No,
> you don't hafta do anything. But the INS says it wants these
letters,
> even if it didn't tell you directly because it sent you outdated instructions; the
> correct instructions are nevertheless posted
and
> available. If you don't send both letters, and the examiner who
gets
> your petition wants both letters, he can send you and RFE.
>
> Do you hafta? No. Should you oughta? Up to you.
>
> Regards, JEff there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> In article
<OS%[email protected] t>,

> >

> > > Where does it state that you need two letters of intent?
> >
> > It states on the instructions for the revised form 10/6/00.
> > http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...rms/i-129f.htm
> >
> > It is #5. letter D
> >
> > Also for those that are wondering it states on the INS webpage
that
> I-129F
> > rev. 10/13/98 is also accepted.
> > http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...orms/index.htm
> >
> >
>
> --

Rajiv

Two points:

(1) A Letter of Intent from the petitioner is redundant, as a statement about being able
to and intending to marry within 90 days of arrival is included in the Certification
paragraph, just before the signature at the end of I-129F.

(2) I-129F instruction #5-D says original statements FROM you and the fiancee are needed,
but don't say WHAT the content should be and TO whom they should be addressed. So, I'm
including a copy of one of my fiancee's letter to me in which our marriage plan has
been adequately discussed.

It's strange that instruction paragraph #5 deals with the LEGAL ABILITY of marrying, and
then suddenly, sub-para D talks about INTENTIONS.

Rajiv

>

> > Where does it state that you need two letters of intent?
>
> It states on the instructions for the revised form 10/6/00.
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...rms/i-129f.htm
>
> It is #5. letter D
>
> Also for those that are wondering it states on the INS webpage that I-129F rev. 10/13/98
> is also accepted. http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...orms/index.htm
>

Onigiri

Two points:
>
> (1) A Letter of Intent from the petitioner is redundant, as a statement about being able
> to and intending to marry within 90 days of arrival is included in the Certification
> paragraph, just before the signature at the end of I-129F.

Yes; it is very much so. However, if the petition handlers are trained
( Ihope they have some training for these folks ) to look for items within a petition
packet and they are looking for 2 letters of intent one each from the petitioner and
the potential beneficiary, it is of great help for them to find a separate sheet of
paper with a very visible caption that says *letter of marital intent from -----*.
Being rational is great but it will be a handicap if it draws a RFE from an irrational
clerk at the INS. As for the petitioner ( with so much time on their hands while
waiting ) it would be an easy matter to give the INS another piece of paper.

> (2) I-129F instruction #5-D says original statements FROM you and the fiancee are
> needed, but don't say WHAT the content should be and TO whom they should be
> addressed. So, I'm including a copy of one of my fiancee's letter to me in which our
> marriage plan has been adequately discussed.

Please post as soon as you get approved or if you receive on RFE which asks for an
intent letter from your fiancee-beneficiary. It would be of great help to those dealing
with INS later.

> It's strange that instruction paragraph #5 deals with the LEGAL ABILITY of marrying, and
> then suddenly, sub-para D talks about INTENTIONS.

Aren't ability and intent are different?