harryman

Ok.
It was a reduced fee just for a consultation, i guess in hope that we will follow through with further services.
None of the above apply to us. Good to hear it's the most straightforward of the available Visas.

Thank You for the Advice Ian.

harryman

Just want to run something by you guys.
The Attorney my GF went to see today,said that there is a long back log for the CR-1 process at the moment and that realistically it will take around 15 months and that this would be a similar duration (in so far as being able to apply for work) as the K1.
Is there anyone here who can corroborate this?

Much Appreciated

H

ian-mstm

He's full of shit... and she can tell him I said so! The CR-1 visa takes about 6-8 months; the K-1 visa takes about 8-10 months. With a CR-1, you have work authorization the day you enter the US. With the K-1 visa, you have work authorization upon entry for 90 days (although unless you're working for yourself, you have no proof of that authorization). Regardless, if you marry within a week of entering the US, you'll have permission to work about 2-3 months afterwards. Either way, the lawyer is wrong.

If working in the US immediately is important, go for a CR-1 visa. If working immediately is not important, go for a K-1 visa. Keep in mind that just because you have work authorization, you still might not get a job for 4-6 months.

Ian

RICH

From my reading on this site, there is no significant backlog, and if there were, resources would be diverted to cover. There has been no noticeable change in timelines for CR1 or K1 in many years.

Noorah101

All you need to do is look at the thread in this forum called "I-130 Filed in the USA -Timeline Only" to see some current, real-life time frames. None are taking as long as 15 months.

Rene

harryman

Right ok, thank you for that Ian.

harryman

Thank you Noorah. I tried the forum search function but can't seem to locate the I-130 thread you mentioned above.
Does anyone have a link?

I can find the Filed in London one but not the US one.

Thanks

harryman

Yeah, Iv'e also had someone else pretty much confirm what yourself Ian and Noorah have stated. Thank you for your reply.

BunnyGirl

http://britishexpats.com/forum/marri...e-only-763942/

Noorah101

Sorry, I can't do it from my phone. Instead of using the search function, just keep looking at past pages one by one, it should not be to far back, it's a popular thread.

Rene

Noorah101

Thank you, Bunnygirl!

Rene

harryman

Thank you very much BunnyGirl.

S Folinsky

My dear sanctimonious prick:

Lawyer talks to GF. GF talks to OP. OP talks to us. Too many links there to insure clean communication. None of us were flies on the wall in the consultation. Also, when I was in practice, I often found a divergence between what was said and what was heard. Also, expression of time RANGES often were misunderstood.

Bottom line -- may lawyer was wrong, maybe not. I would not venture to know.

ian-mstm

I doubt the information was misunderstood.

Ian

S Folinsky

I've mentioned before that when I was in practice, it was not uncommon for people to come in for a consultation for the purpose of obtaining a second opinion on what some lawyer said. I would obtain permission to talk to the other lawyer -- almost always one of two things had happened: 1) client misunderstood what lawyer had said or, 2) client has understood perfectly but there was that one undisclosed "little detail" that would have changed the advice had the lawyer known.

I learned that people are not always the best witness for their own case. In my current incarnation of providing services to other lawyers, I can't tell you how many times I've seen motions to reopen filed on an emergency basis without time to examine the written record and the Dark Forces and the Immigration Judges slam the client for "inconsistency."

[I'm involved in one case where the attorney had successfully obtained a reversal from the Court of Appeals, but on remand it turned out that the client had been lying through the teeth. The IJ expressed a strong belief that the lawyer knew about the fraud and referred her to the disciplinary authorities. In my opinion, what had happened was that the lawyer was too trusting of her own client which is not sanctionable.]