I couldn't believe my eyes!

Old Apr 30th 2002, 4:40 pm
  #1  
Todd Carney
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default I couldn't believe my eyes!

Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of the
inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to this
one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from the NSC.
Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking for the names of
any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to answer N/A should there
be no applicability.

Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught to be
a law......
 
Old Apr 30th 2002, 4:40 pm
  #2  
Andy Platt
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

Yes I can believe this. It has been covered on this newsgroup before. N/A is
appropriate as a follow-on question; NONE is appropriate when the answer is none. For
instance, question 10 should be answered None, which would allow question 11 to be
answered N/A. One problem is that N/A is ambigious. I agree that the instructions are
bad though!

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination. "Todd Carney"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of the
    > inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to this
    > one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from the NSC.
    > Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking for the names
    > of any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to answer N/A should
    > there be no applicability.
    >
    > Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
    > disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught to
    > be a law......
 
Old Apr 30th 2002, 5:07 pm
  #3  
Concierge
 
Rete's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,423
Rete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

Yes as Andy said, that topic is covered in the FAQ pages and spoken of frequently on the NG. INS says one thing and then when you comply with the instructions tells you that a yes/no answer was the proper one to give instead of N/A

The rule of thumb is to ask yourself the question and if yes or no fits perfectly, then use that and not the N/A

Rita
Rete is offline  
Old Apr 30th 2002, 10:10 pm
  #4  
Todd Carney
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

Rete <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > Yes as Andy said, that topic is covered in the FAQ pages and spoken of frequently
    > on the NG. INS says one thing and then when you comply with the instructions tells
    > you that a yes/no answer was the proper one to give instead of N/A
    >
    > The rule of thumb is to ask yourself the question and if yes or no fits perfectly,
    > then use that and not the N/A
    >
    > Rita

Ya know I hear both of you. And you sound pretty reasonable to me. Andy - You're
absolutely right in theory however, you are absolutely wrong also! The instructions
are very clear..... they say to answer N/A if it doesn't apply. Nowhere on the
instruction sheet or on the I-129F petition does it ask you to write "None". Rete -
Likewise I agree with you too, however, for the same reason as noted above what's a
person to do? Damned of you do.... damned if you don't right?

We called the service 800 number and the officer we spoke with was extremely
perturbed that NSC would send us out such a notice as they too confirmed the
instructions do NOT ask you to right anything BUT "N/A" !
 
Old Apr 30th 2002, 10:40 pm
  #5  
Riri
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

Yes it seems clear to me: they couldn't figure out whether "N" or "A" was the first
or last name!

R "Todd Carney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of the
    > inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to this
    > one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from the NSC.
    > Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking for the names
    > of any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to answer N/A should
    > there be no applicability.
    >
    > Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
    > disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught to
    > be a law......
 
Old Apr 30th 2002, 10:56 pm
  #6  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 25
tomato is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

Mine is at NSC too...now I'm worried too! Hopefully this will be the only snag for you, though.

Out of curiosity, how long ago did NSC receive your petition?
tomato is offline  
Old May 1st 2002, 1:10 am
  #7  
Dabear?
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

My understanding was , by Canadian School standards LOL, that N/A was used with the
meaning that the noted did not apply to you e.g. Former Spouses, N/A , why because if
a person was never married then it would not apply. Am I right??

Todd Carney wrote:

    > Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of the
    > inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to this
    > one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from the NSC.
    > Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking for the names
    > of any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to answer N/A should
    > there be no applicability.
    >
    > Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
    > disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught to
    > be a law......
 
Old May 1st 2002, 1:40 am
  #8  
Dennis
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

[email protected] (Todd Carney) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of the
    > inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to this
    > one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from the NSC.
    > Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking for the names
    > of any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to answer N/A should
    > there be no applicability.
    >
    > Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
    > disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught to
    > be a law......

What does N/A stand for "Not Applicable" so they ask a question that needs an answer
not N/A and the answer is none if you have never had one so it is very Applicable. I
am sorry for you RFE but Do not blame them for your wrong answer especially since
this question has been written about since this NG started. Dennis
 
Old May 1st 2002, 3:10 am
  #9  
Shonokin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

My sympathies to you, because yeah, the INS and probably the rest of the government
too, is very difficult to keep up with. It's amazing large governments work at all.

Do like I did and for any question that I had the slightest doubt on, I searched
through this group on http://groups.google.com to see what other people had done and
what their results were. If I didn't find an answer in the archives I'd ask a
question about it. Worked like a dream!

I know it's a minuscule consolation for the trouble you now have to go through to
re-submit, but your post will help people who search this group's archives in the
future who seek out the same answer to this question.

Best of luck to you! Daniel

Todd Carney wrote:

    > Rete <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Yes as Andy said, that topic is covered in the FAQ pages and spoken of frequently
    > > on the NG. INS says one thing and then when you comply with the instructions
    > > tells you that a yes/no answer was the proper one to give instead of N/A
    > >
    > > The rule of thumb is to ask yourself the question and if yes or no fits
    > > perfectly, then use that and not the N/A
    > >
    > > Rita
    >
    > Ya know I hear both of you. And you sound pretty reasonable to me. Andy - You're
    > absolutely right in theory however, you are absolutely wrong also! The instructions
    > are very clear..... they say to answer N/A if it doesn't apply. Nowhere on the
    > instruction sheet or on the I-129F petition does it ask you to write "None". Rete -
    > Likewise I agree with you too, however, for the same reason as noted above what's a
    > person to do? Damned of you do.... damned if you don't right?
    >
    > We called the service 800 number and the officer we spoke with was extremely
    > perturbed that NSC would send us out such a notice as they too confirmed the
    > instructions do NOT ask you to right anything BUT "N/A" !

--
The Voice of the Mountains http://www.manlywadewellman.com
 
Old May 1st 2002, 12:10 pm
  #10  
Andy Platt
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

"Todd Carney" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Ya know I hear both of you. And you sound pretty reasonable to me. Andy - You're
    > absolutely right in theory however, you are absolutely wrong also! The instructions
    > are very clear..... they say to answer N/A if it doesn't apply. Nowhere on the
    > instruction sheet or on the I-129F petition does it ask you to write "None".

It's just a different interpretation of "apply". The question *does* apply so the
answer isn't N/A. Anyway, like I said, I don't agree with the way they do it -
particularly when others have done the same thing and not had a problem - but I to
"understand" where they are coming from.

I hope the rest of the process speeds by!

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
 
Old May 1st 2002, 4:10 pm
  #11  
Shelley
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

Almost makes me glad we both had a former spouse - so we didn't have this problem!
Take Care. Shelley

"RiRi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jeEz8.218$D%5.47@sccrnsc01...
    > Yes it seems clear to me: they couldn't figure out whether "N" or "A" was the first
    > or last name!
    >
    > R "Todd Carney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of
    > > the inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to
    > > this one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from
    > > the NSC. Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking for
    > > the names of any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to answer
    > > N/A should there be no applicability.
    > >
    > > Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
    > > disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught
    > > to be a law......
 
Old May 1st 2002, 9:10 pm
  #12  
Riri
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

Yeah I divorced because this tramp apparently married a lot of people!!

R "Shelley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected] ws.com...
    > Almost makes me glad we both had a former spouse - so we didn't have this problem!
    > Take Care. Shelley
    >
    > "RiRi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:jeEz8.218$D%5.47@sccrnsc01...
    > > Yes it seems clear to me: they couldn't figure out whether "N" or "A"
was
    > > the first or last name!
    > >
    > > R
 
Old May 2nd 2002, 2:10 am
  #13  
Charles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

[email protected] (Dennis) wrote in message
news:<[email protected] om>...
    > [email protected] (Todd Carney) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > > Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of
    > > the inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to
    > > this one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from
    > > the NSC. Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking for
    > > the names of any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to answer
    > > N/A should there be no applicability.
    > >
    > > Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
    > > disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught
    > > to be a law......
    >
    > What does N/A stand for "Not Applicable" so they ask a question that needs an
    > answer not N/A and the answer is none if you have never had one so it is very
    > Applicable. I am sorry for you RFE but Do not blame them for your wrong answer
    > especially since this question has been written about since this NG started. Dennis

Well I we just sent ours in and did the same thing put N/A where it was not
applicable to us as instructed by the instructions. But after ready this I looked at
the copy of our petition and relized I left SSN blank on the foriegn fiancee info now
wonder if we ar going to get the same.
 
Old May 5th 2002, 12:40 pm
  #14  
Daniel Sepke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

I think it asks for details of former spouses and then says, "if none, state so" or
words to that effect.

Dan. "Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Dennis) wrote in message
news:<[email protected] om>...
    > > [email protected] (Todd Carney) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > > > Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of
    > > > the inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to
    > > > this one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from
    > > > the NSC. Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking
    > > > for the names of any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to
    > > > answer N/A should there be no applicability.
    > > >
    > > > Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
    > > > disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught
    > > > to be a law......
    > >
    > > What does N/A stand for "Not Applicable" so they ask a question that needs an
    > > answer not N/A and the answer is none if you have never had one so it is very
    > > Applicable. I am sorry for you RFE but Do not blame them for your wrong answer
    > > especially since this question has been written about since this NG started.
    > > Dennis
    >
    > Well I we just sent ours in and did the same thing put N/A where it was not
    > applicable to us as instructed by the instructions. But after ready this I looked
    > at the copy of our petition and relized I left SSN blank on the foriegn fiancee
    > info now wonder if we ar going to get the same.
 
Old May 5th 2002, 5:40 pm
  #15  
Paul
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I couldn't believe my eyes!

In article <[email protected] >, Todd Carney
<[email protected]> writes
    >Now, we all know how this K-1 process is extremely stressful. Mostly because of the
    >inconsistent applicationof the procedural rules by the INS. Now, listen to this
    >one.... Yesterday we received a notice requesting further information from the NSC.
    >Why? Because we answered "N/A" instead of "NONE" under Sec 10 asking for the names
    >of any former spouses. The instructions CLEARLY instruct you to answer N/A should
    >there be no applicability.
    >
    >Can you believe this Sh*&$%!!!? So, be forwarned! I guess you're "supposed" to
    >disregard the instructions and write "NONE" in this box! Go figure! There aught to
    >be a law......

Which reminds me of a similar thing many years ago [text taken from
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/noplate.htm]

Claim: A man whose car bore personalized license plates reading 'NO PLATE' received
notices for thousands of unpaid parking tickets. Status: True.

Origins: This episode began in 1979, when a Los Angeles man named Robert Barbour sent
in an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles requesting personalized license
plates for his car. The DMV form asked applicants to list three choices in case one
or two of their desired selections had already been assigned. Barbour, a sailing
enthusiast, wrote down "SAILING" and "BOATING" as his first two choices; when he
couldn't think of a third option, he wrote "NO PLATE," meaning that if neither of his
two choices was available, he did not want personalized plates. "BOATING" and
"SAILING" had indeed already been assigned, and the DMV, following instructions
literally, send Barbour license plates reading "NO PLATE." Barbour was not thrilled
that the DMV had misunderstood his intent, but he eventually opted to keep the plates
because of their uniqueness.

Four weeks later he received his first notice for an overdue parking fine, from
faraway San Francisco, and within days he began receiving dozens of overdue notices
from all over the state on a daily basis. Why? Because when law enforcement officers
ticketed illegally parked cars that bore no license plates, they had been writing "NO
PLATE" in the license plate field. Now that Barbour had plates bearing that phrase,
the DMV computers were matching every unpaid citation issued to a car with missing
plates to him.

Barbour received about 2,500 notices over the next several months. He alerted the DMV
to the problem, and they responded in a typically bureaucratic way by instructing him
to change his license plates. But Barbour had grown too fond of his plates by then to
want to change them, so he instead began mailing out a form letter in response to
each citation. That method usually worked, although occasionally he had to appear
before a judge and demonstrate that the car described on the citation was not his.

A couple of years later, the DMV finally caught on and sent a notice to law
enforcement agencies requesting that they use the word NONE rather than NO PLATE to
indicate a cited vehicle was missing its plates. This change slowed the flow of
overdue notices Barbour received to a trickle, about five or six a month, but it also
had an unintended side effect: Officers sometimes wrote MISSING instead of NONE to
indicate cars with missing license plates, and suddenly a man named Andrew Burg in
Marina del Rey started receiving parking tickets from places he hadn't visited
either. Burg, of course, was the owner of a car with personalized plates reading
"MISSING."
--
paul 58-77 Sheffield 77-79 Coventry 79-88 Sheffield 88-97 Milton Keynes 97-99 London
99-00 Seattle 00-?? Fremont
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.