u/Most_Perspective_598

All, I have an update on my case. So just a bit of a back story. I filed a K3 for my wife, 13 months 3 weeks and 4 days ago. After months and months of not hearing back I decided to take action and worked with the attorney to file my APA/Mandamus lawsuit. This attorney put an AWESOME LAWSUIT together. And after every one was served on 9/17 , I check My USCIS page and the approvals were in today. Side note, after realizing that the K3 was not getting adjudicated at the rate I expected I filed separate I-130's for my step children 18 weeks ago ( 4 months). I received approvals for all of the I-130's at the same time. So any one who is curious about my attorney's services feel free to reach out via DM. I was hesitant to take this route but I am so glad I did it , anyone who is getting anywhere with USCIS is doing so because they are taking action. DONT WAIT.

Another side bar, the lawsuit is not dismissed yet because the government still has to answer to the question posed as to why they are closing out K3's after I-130 approval, since there is no statute that permits them to do so.

God is good! on to NVC!

for the original post https://www.reddit.com/r/I130Suffering/comments/1vzx2n6/comment/pezborj/?context=3

NOT SPAM

Hello all, It's me again, talking specifically to my K3 folks. I was sitting here at my desk at work and thought about the route of this problem with the lack of K3 adjudications. So I thought, why not bring this problem to the elected officials. So I plan on bringing it to their attention as well as to others who I feel would be friendly to this cause. Below I'll attach my letter to my elected officials which I urge all of you to use when you reach out the your elected officials. If we all insist on this we can't be ignored. As always, stay safe and stay well.

**Re:** Proposed U.S. Citizen Family Unity Act - Restoring and Modernizing the K-3/K-4 Family-Reunification Process

Dear Senator Blumenthal:

I respectfully ask your office to consider sponsoring or supporting legislation to restore the K-3 visa to the family-unity purpose Congress intended: reducing prolonged physical separation between United States citizens and their foreign national spouses while permanent immigration processing is underway.

The K-3 is a nonimmigrant classification for the foreign spouse of a U.S. citizen. Congress created it in 2000 through the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act amendments. Its central purpose was to give a U.S. citizen's spouse a temporary route to enter the United States while the spousal immigrant petition and permanent-residence process continued. Qualifying children may receive K-4 classification.

The Department of State still describes the K-3 as intended to shorten physical separation between U.S. citizens and their foreign spouses. Yet current administration of the program can defeat that purpose. A citizen must first file Form I-130 and then may file Form I-129F for K-3 classification. If the I-130 is approved before the I-129F reaches the point where the K-3 can be processed, the K-3 route effectively ends. If the National Visa Center receives both approved petitions, it administratively closes the K-3 visa case and directs the family into IR-1/CR-1 immigrant-visa processing.

That practice may be administratively convenient, but Congress should clarify whether it is consistent with the family-unity objective of the K-3 statute. In my view, an agency's sequencing of two petitions should not be allowed to make a congressionally created classification practically unavailable. Congress did not create the K-3 merely as a race between two USCIS adjudications; it created an interim mechanism to reduce family separation.

**The Human Consequences of Current Processing Times**

As of late August 2026, current USCIS-published processing-time data compiled from the agency's case-processing system show approximately 24 months for standalone immediate-relative Form I-130 petitions at Service Center Operations and approximately 12.5 to 16 months for Form I-129F petitions covering K-1/K-2/K-3/K-4 classifications. A contemporaneous August 28, 2026 compilation of USCIS data reports an average of approximately 24 months for immediate-relative I-130s and approximately 12.5 months for I-129Fs.

These figures make the original rationale for the K-3 especially relevant again. In its 2009 Annual Report, the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman explained that Congress enacted the LIFE Act of 2000 in response to immigration-benefit processing delays and created K-3 so foreign spouses of U.S. citizens could obtain a nonimmigrant visa and more quickly reunite with their spouses. The Ombudsman warned that when I-129F processing equals or exceeds I-130 processing, the legislative intent of the K-3 is not fulfilled.

USCIS's own 2009 response is particularly instructive. USCIS acknowledged that Congress created the K-3 because historically lengthy I-130 processing, combined with consular processing, kept U.S. citizens separated from their spouses. USCIS defended its consolidated approach at that time by stating that it had drastically reduced the I-130 backlog, that processing times were no longer 12 months or more, and that the agency was committed to a six-month processing time. That factual premise no longer resembles current conditions: current I-130 processing is approximately 24 months, while I-129F processing itself can take approximately a year or longer.

For a U.S. citizen whose spouse lives abroad, these are not abstract statistics. Long waits can mean maintaining two households, repeated international travel, missed birthdays and holidays, separation from spouses, children and stepchildren, employment and financial strain, and the loss of ordinary married life while the federal government processes an immediate-relative petition for which an immigrant visa is not numerically capped.

The historical record therefore presents Congress with a straightforward policy question: if the reduced I-130 backlog was once USCIS's justification for why a faster K-3 process was no longer necessary, what happens when I-130 processing again reaches roughly two years? The underlying family-separation problem that caused Congress to create the K-3 has returned, but the statutory safety valve is no longer functioning as an effective expedited route.

**Proposed Legislative Requirements**

**1. 120-day K-3 adjudication deadline.** USCIS should adjudicate a properly filed I-129F seeking K-3 classification within 120 days, subject only to a documented national-security, fraud, or extraordinary investigative exception.

**2. Written justification for delay.** If USCIS cannot meet the statutory period, it should provide the petitioner a written notice identifying the specific reason additional time is required, the outstanding adjudicative step, and an estimated period for completion. Generic references to workload or ordinary processing times should not alone satisfy this requirement.

**3. Prompt Requests for Evidence.** If the record is insufficient but the deficiency can be cured, USCIS should issue any appropriate Request for Evidence (RFE) promptly rather than allowing a petition to remain dormant for months before requesting information the petitioner could have supplied earlier.

**4. Prompt post-RFE adjudication.** Once requested evidence is timely submitted, USCIS should be required to resume adjudication promptly and, absent exceptional circumstances, decide the petition within a defined period such as 30 to 60 days after receipt of the complete response.

**5. Preserve K-3 eligibility after I-130 approval.** Approval of the underlying I-130 should not by itself terminate the K-3 pathway while the spouse remains abroad and has not received an immigrant visa, adjusted status, or otherwise become a lawful permanent resident.

**6. Prompt interagency transmission.** An approved K-3 petition should be transmitted promptly to the Department of State, and agency handoffs should not be permitted to nullify the statutory adjudication deadline.

**7. Protect K-4 children.** Qualifying children should retain meaningful K-4 derivative eligibility during the same family-unity period so the statute does not reunite spouses while unnecessarily separating a parent from the children.

**8. Preserve screening and anti-fraud authority.** Nothing in the legislation should waive inadmissibility rules, criminal or national-security checks, marriage-fraud review, medical requirements, or USCIS and State Department authority to deny a benefit when statutory requirements are not met.

**USCIS Staffing and Dedicated Funding**

Congress should pair enforceable adjudication standards with the resources necessary to meet them. I respectfully propose targeted appropriations or other authorized funding for USCIS to recruit, train, and retain additional adjudicating officers assigned to family-based petitions, including I-130 and K-3/K-4 workloads.

The legislation could require USCIS to report to Congress on staffing levels, pending K-3 and immediate-relative I-130 inventories, median adjudication times, RFE issuance times, post-RFE completion times, and the number of K-3 cases rendered unavailable or administratively closed after I-130 approval. This would give Congress objective data to determine whether the family-unity mechanism it created is actually functioning.

Additional resources and accountability should operate together: Congress should give USCIS the personnel necessary to adjudicate cases promptly, while requiring the agency to explain case-specific delays rather than allowing families to wait indefinitely without meaningful information.

**Suggested Statutory Direction**

I respectfully ask legislative counsel to examine amendments to INA § 101(a)(15)(K), INA § 214, and related provisions to:

continue K-3 eligibility until issuance of an immigrant visa, adjustment to permanent residence, or another defined terminating event;

establish enforceable adjudication and post-RFE timeframes;

require individualized written notice when statutory adjudication deadlines cannot be met;

require prompt issuance of RFEs when additional evidence is reasonably necessary;

preserve K-4 family unity for qualifying children;

authorize appropriations and staffing increases for family-petition adjudications; and

require periodic public reporting to Congress on K-3 utilization, closures, processing times, staffing, and delay justifications.

**A Question of Equal Family Unity**

Federal immigration law recognizes family unity for several temporary worker classifications by allowing qualifying spouses and children to accompany or follow the principal nonimmigrant. A U.S. citizen should have an effective, screened mechanism allowing his or her lawful spouse to reunite with the citizen while permanent immigration processing continues.

This proposal would not create automatic admission or permanent residence. It would not weaken background checks or marriage-fraud protections. It would restore a temporary classification Congress already created, establish reasonable accountability when the government cannot act on time, and provide USCIS with additional adjudicative capacity to meet those obligations.

I respectfully ask your office to review this proposal with legislative counsel and consider introducing or supporting legislation to make the K-3/K-4 framework an effective family-reunification tool once again.

Respectfully,

NOT SPAM

Hello all, It's me again, talking specifically to my K3 folks. I was sitting here at my desk at work and thought about the route of this problem with the lack of K3 adjudications. So I thought, why not bring this problem to the elected officials. So I plan on bringing it to their attention as well as to others who I feel would be friendly to this cause. Below I'll attach my letter to my elected officials which I urge all of you to use when you reach out the your elected officials. If we all insist on this we can't be ignored. As always, stay safe and stay well.

Re: Proposed U.S. Citizen Family Unity Act - Restoring and Modernizing the K-3/K-4 Family-Reunification Process

Dear Senator Blumenthal:

I respectfully ask your office to consider sponsoring or supporting legislation to restore the K-3 visa to the family-unity purpose Congress intended: reducing prolonged physical separation between United States citizens and their foreign national spouses while permanent immigration processing is underway.

The K-3 is a nonimmigrant classification for the foreign spouse of a U.S. citizen. Congress created it in 2000 through the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act amendments. Its central purpose was to give a U.S. citizen's spouse a temporary route to enter the United States while the spousal immigrant petition and permanent-residence process continued. Qualifying children may receive K-4 classification.

The Department of State still describes the K-3 as intended to shorten physical separation between U.S. citizens and their foreign spouses. Yet current administration of the program can defeat that purpose. A citizen must first file Form I-130 and then may file Form I-129F for K-3 classification. If the I-130 is approved before the I-129F reaches the point where the K-3 can be processed, the K-3 route effectively ends. If the National Visa Center receives both approved petitions, it administratively closes the K-3 visa case and directs the family into IR-1/CR-1 immigrant-visa processing.

That practice may be administratively convenient, but Congress should clarify whether it is consistent with the family-unity objective of the K-3 statute. In my view, an agency's sequencing of two petitions should not be allowed to make a congressionally created classification practically unavailable. Congress did not create the K-3 merely as a race between two USCIS adjudications; it created an interim mechanism to reduce family separation.

The Human Consequences of Current Processing Times

As of late August 2026, current USCIS-published processing-time data compiled from the agency's case-processing system show approximately 24 months for standalone immediate-relative Form I-130 petitions at Service Center Operations and approximately 12.5 to 16 months for Form I-129F petitions covering K-1/K-2/K-3/K-4 classifications. A contemporaneous August 28, 2026 compilation of USCIS data reports an average of approximately 24 months for immediate-relative I-130s and approximately 12.5 months for I-129Fs.

These figures make the original rationale for the K-3 especially relevant again. In its 2009 Annual Report, the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman explained that Congress enacted the LIFE Act of 2000 in response to immigration-benefit processing delays and created K-3 so foreign spouses of U.S. citizens could obtain a nonimmigrant visa and more quickly reunite with their spouses. The Ombudsman warned that when I-129F processing equals or exceeds I-130 processing, the legislative intent of the K-3 is not fulfilled.

USCIS's own 2009 response is particularly instructive. USCIS acknowledged that Congress created the K-3 because historically lengthy I-130 processing, combined with consular processing, kept U.S. citizens separated from their spouses. USCIS defended its consolidated approach at that time by stating that it had drastically reduced the I-130 backlog, that processing times were no longer 12 months or more, and that the agency was committed to a six-month processing time. That factual premise no longer resembles current conditions: current I-130 processing is approximately 24 months, while I-129F processing itself can take approximately a year or longer.

For a U.S. citizen whose spouse lives abroad, these are not abstract statistics. Long waits can mean maintaining two households, repeated international travel, missed birthdays and holidays, separation from spouses, children and stepchildren, employment and financial strain, and the loss of ordinary married life while the federal government processes an immediate-relative petition for which an immigrant visa is not numerically capped.

The historical record therefore presents Congress with a straightforward policy question: if the reduced I-130 backlog was once USCIS's justification for why a faster K-3 process was no longer necessary, what happens when I-130 processing again reaches roughly two years? The underlying family-separation problem that caused Congress to create the K-3 has returned, but the statutory safety valve is no longer functioning as an effective expedited route.

Proposed Legislative Requirements

1. 120-day K-3 adjudication deadline. USCIS should adjudicate a properly filed I-129F seeking K-3 classification within 120 days, subject only to a documented national-security, fraud, or extraordinary investigative exception.

2. Written justification for delay. If USCIS cannot meet the statutory period, it should provide the petitioner a written notice identifying the specific reason additional time is required, the outstanding adjudicative step, and an estimated period for completion. Generic references to workload or ordinary processing times should not alone satisfy this requirement.

3. Prompt Requests for Evidence. If the record is insufficient but the deficiency can be cured, USCIS should issue any appropriate Request for Evidence (RFE) promptly rather than allowing a petition to remain dormant for months before requesting information the petitioner could have supplied earlier.

4. Prompt post-RFE adjudication. Once requested evidence is timely submitted, USCIS should be required to resume adjudication promptly and, absent exceptional circumstances, decide the petition within a defined period such as 30 to 60 days after receipt of the complete response.

5. Preserve K-3 eligibility after I-130 approval. Approval of the underlying I-130 should not by itself terminate the K-3 pathway while the spouse remains abroad and has not received an immigrant visa, adjusted status, or otherwise become a lawful permanent resident.

6. Prompt interagency transmission. An approved K-3 petition should be transmitted promptly to the Department of State, and agency handoffs should not be permitted to nullify the statutory adjudication deadline.

7. Protect K-4 children. Qualifying children should retain meaningful K-4 derivative eligibility during the same family-unity period so the statute does not reunite spouses while unnecessarily separating a parent from the children.

8. Preserve screening and anti-fraud authority. Nothing in the legislation should waive inadmissibility rules, criminal or national-security checks, marriage-fraud review, medical requirements, or USCIS and State Department authority to deny a benefit when statutory requirements are not met.

USCIS Staffing and Dedicated Funding

Congress should pair enforceable adjudication standards with the resources necessary to meet them. I respectfully propose targeted appropriations or other authorized funding for USCIS to recruit, train, and retain additional adjudicating officers assigned to family-based petitions, including I-130 and K-3/K-4 workloads.

The legislation could require USCIS to report to Congress on staffing levels, pending K-3 and immediate-relative I-130 inventories, median adjudication times, RFE issuance times, post-RFE completion times, and the number of K-3 cases rendered unavailable or administratively closed after I-130 approval. This would give Congress objective data to determine whether the family-unity mechanism it created is actually functioning.

Additional resources and accountability should operate together: Congress should give USCIS the personnel necessary to adjudicate cases promptly, while requiring the agency to explain case-specific delays rather than allowing families to wait indefinitely without meaningful information.

Suggested Statutory Direction

I respectfully ask legislative counsel to examine amendments to INA § 101(a)(15)(K), INA § 214, and related provisions to:

continue K-3 eligibility until issuance of an immigrant visa, adjustment to permanent residence, or another defined terminating event;

establish enforceable adjudication and post-RFE timeframes;

require individualized written notice when statutory adjudication deadlines cannot be met;

require prompt issuance of RFEs when additional evidence is reasonably necessary;

preserve K-4 family unity for qualifying children;

authorize appropriations and staffing increases for family-petition adjudications; and

require periodic public reporting to Congress on K-3 utilization, closures, processing times, staffing, and delay justifications.

A Question of Equal Family Unity

Federal immigration law recognizes family unity for several temporary worker classifications by allowing qualifying spouses and children to accompany or follow the principal nonimmigrant. A U.S. citizen should have an effective, screened mechanism allowing his or her lawful spouse to reunite with the citizen while permanent immigration processing continues.

This proposal would not create automatic admission or permanent residence. It would not weaken background checks or marriage-fraud protections. It would restore a temporary classification Congress already created, establish reasonable accountability when the government cannot act on time, and provide USCIS with additional adjudicative capacity to meet those obligations.

I respectfully ask your office to review this proposal with legislative counsel and consider introducing or supporting legislation to make the K-3/K-4 framework an effective family-reunification tool once again.

Respectfully,

Hello all, It's me again, talking specifically to my K3 folks. I was sitting here at my desk at work and thought about the route of this problem with the lack of K3 adjudications. So I thought, why not bring this problem to the elected officials. So I plan on bringing it to their attention as well as to others who I feel would be friendly to this cause. Below I'll attach my letter to my elected officials which I urge all of you to use when you reach out the your elected officials. If we all insist on this we can't be ignored. As always, stay safe and stay well.

Re: Proposed U.S. Citizen Family Unity Act - Restoring and Modernizing the K-3/K-4 Family-Reunification Process

Dear Senator Blumenthal:

I respectfully ask your office to consider sponsoring or supporting legislation to restore the K-3 visa to the family-unity purpose Congress intended: reducing prolonged physical separation between United States citizens and their foreign national spouses while permanent immigration processing is underway.

The K-3 is a nonimmigrant classification for the foreign spouse of a U.S. citizen. Congress created it in 2000 through the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act amendments. Its central purpose was to give a U.S. citizen's spouse a temporary route to enter the United States while the spousal immigrant petition and permanent-residence process continued. Qualifying children may receive K-4 classification.

The Department of State still describes the K-3 as intended to shorten physical separation between U.S. citizens and their foreign spouses. Yet current administration of the program can defeat that purpose. A citizen must first file Form I-130 and then may file Form I-129F for K-3 classification. If the I-130 is approved before the I-129F reaches the point where the K-3 can be processed, the K-3 route effectively ends. If the National Visa Center receives both approved petitions, it administratively closes the K-3 visa case and directs the family into IR-1/CR-1 immigrant-visa processing.

That practice may be administratively convenient, but Congress should clarify whether it is consistent with the family-unity objective of the K-3 statute. In my view, an agency's sequencing of two petitions should not be allowed to make a congressionally created classification practically unavailable. Congress did not create the K-3 merely as a race between two USCIS adjudications; it created an interim mechanism to reduce family separation.

The Human Consequences of Current Processing Times

As of late August 2026, current USCIS-published processing-time data compiled from the agency's case-processing system show approximately 24 months for standalone immediate-relative Form I-130 petitions at Service Center Operations and approximately 12.5 to 16 months for Form I-129F petitions covering K-1/K-2/K-3/K-4 classifications. A contemporaneous August 28, 2026 compilation of USCIS data reports an average of approximately 24 months for immediate-relative I-130s and approximately 12.5 months for I-129Fs.

These figures make the original rationale for the K-3 especially relevant again. In its 2009 Annual Report, the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman explained that Congress enacted the LIFE Act of 2000 in response to immigration-benefit processing delays and created K-3 so foreign spouses of U.S. citizens could obtain a nonimmigrant visa and more quickly reunite with their spouses. The Ombudsman warned that when I-129F processing equals or exceeds I-130 processing, the legislative intent of the K-3 is not fulfilled.

USCIS's own 2009 response is particularly instructive. USCIS acknowledged that Congress created the K-3 because historically lengthy I-130 processing, combined with consular processing, kept U.S. citizens separated from their spouses. USCIS defended its consolidated approach at that time by stating that it had drastically reduced the I-130 backlog, that processing times were no longer 12 months or more, and that the agency was committed to a six-month processing time. That factual premise no longer resembles current conditions: current I-130 processing is approximately 24 months, while I-129F processing itself can take approximately a year or longer.

For a U.S. citizen whose spouse lives abroad, these are not abstract statistics. Long waits can mean maintaining two households, repeated international travel, missed birthdays and holidays, separation from spouses, children and stepchildren, employment and financial strain, and the loss of ordinary married life while the federal government processes an immediate-relative petition for which an immigrant visa is not numerically capped.

The historical record therefore presents Congress with a straightforward policy question: if the reduced I-130 backlog was once USCIS's justification for why a faster K-3 process was no longer necessary, what happens when I-130 processing again reaches roughly two years? The underlying family-separation problem that caused Congress to create the K-3 has returned, but the statutory safety valve is no longer functioning as an effective expedited route.

Proposed Legislative Requirements

1. 120-day K-3 adjudication deadline. USCIS should adjudicate a properly filed I-129F seeking K-3 classification within 120 days, subject only to a documented national-security, fraud, or extraordinary investigative exception.

2. Written justification for delay. If USCIS cannot meet the statutory period, it should provide the petitioner a written notice identifying the specific reason additional time is required, the outstanding adjudicative step, and an estimated period for completion. Generic references to workload or ordinary processing times should not alone satisfy this requirement.

3. Prompt Requests for Evidence. If the record is insufficient but the deficiency can be cured, USCIS should issue any appropriate Request for Evidence (RFE) promptly rather than allowing a petition to remain dormant for months before requesting information the petitioner could have supplied earlier.

4. Prompt post-RFE adjudication. Once requested evidence is timely submitted, USCIS should be required to resume adjudication promptly and, absent exceptional circumstances, decide the petition within a defined period such as 30 to 60 days after receipt of the complete response.

5. Preserve K-3 eligibility after I-130 approval. Approval of the underlying I-130 should not by itself terminate the K-3 pathway while the spouse remains abroad and has not received an immigrant visa, adjusted status, or otherwise become a lawful permanent resident.

6. Prompt interagency transmission. An approved K-3 petition should be transmitted promptly to the Department of State, and agency handoffs should not be permitted to nullify the statutory adjudication deadline.

7. Protect K-4 children. Qualifying children should retain meaningful K-4 derivative eligibility during the same family-unity period so the statute does not reunite spouses while unnecessarily separating a parent from the children.

8. Preserve screening and anti-fraud authority. Nothing in the legislation should waive inadmissibility rules, criminal or national-security checks, marriage-fraud review, medical requirements, or USCIS and State Department authority to deny a benefit when statutory requirements are not met.

USCIS Staffing and Dedicated Funding

Congress should pair enforceable adjudication standards with the resources necessary to meet them. I respectfully propose targeted appropriations or other authorized funding for USCIS to recruit, train, and retain additional adjudicating officers assigned to family-based petitions, including I-130 and K-3/K-4 workloads.

The legislation could require USCIS to report to Congress on staffing levels, pending K-3 and immediate-relative I-130 inventories, median adjudication times, RFE issuance times, post-RFE completion times, and the number of K-3 cases rendered unavailable or administratively closed after I-130 approval. This would give Congress objective data to determine whether the family-unity mechanism it created is actually functioning.

Additional resources and accountability should operate together: Congress should give USCIS the personnel necessary to adjudicate cases promptly, while requiring the agency to explain case-specific delays rather than allowing families to wait indefinitely without meaningful information.

Suggested Statutory Direction

I respectfully ask legislative counsel to examine amendments to INA § 101(a)(15)(K), INA § 214, and related provisions to:

continue K-3 eligibility until issuance of an immigrant visa, adjustment to permanent residence, or another defined terminating event;

establish enforceable adjudication and post-RFE timeframes;

require individualized written notice when statutory adjudication deadlines cannot be met;

require prompt issuance of RFEs when additional evidence is reasonably necessary;

preserve K-4 family unity for qualifying children;

authorize appropriations and staffing increases for family-petition adjudications; and

require periodic public reporting to Congress on K-3 utilization, closures, processing times, staffing, and delay justifications.

A Question of Equal Family Unity

Federal immigration law recognizes family unity for several temporary worker classifications by allowing qualifying spouses and children to accompany or follow the principal nonimmigrant. A U.S. citizen should have an effective, screened mechanism allowing his or her lawful spouse to reunite with the citizen while permanent immigration processing continues.

This proposal would not create automatic admission or permanent residence. It would not weaken background checks or marriage-fraud protections. It would restore a temporary classification Congress already created, establish reasonable accountability when the government cannot act on time, and provide USCIS with additional adjudicative capacity to meet those obligations.

I respectfully ask your office to review this proposal with legislative counsel and consider introducing or supporting legislation to make the K-3/K-4 framework an effective family-reunification tool once again.

Respectfully,

XXXXXXX

For those of you who are doing a WOM has anyone consulted with an attorney prior to submitting it because I did and he hasn’t looked at it yet but after explaining my strategy, it seemed like he really wanted me to hire him. I explained that from what I can gather based on those who have filed a Mandamus here on Reddit. There are tons of people who are having a lot of success in getting their cases adjudicated even between the 15–18 month mark for their I 130s he made it seem like the government is insisting on knockout drag out litigation his first question was if I had filed the 130 prior to the 129F I explained that as per USCIS all forms must be filed together overall, I didn’t leave with a sense of confidence, but I will give him my WOM to take a look at. My mandamus is specifically for my wife’s K3 and as a result of hurricane granted her K3, my stepchildren would automatically be given k4 visas. He suggested that I file separate I 129f for the boys, which didn’t seem logical at all. What do you guys think?

Hey all, as you all know I'm prepping a case for a mandamus for my K3 petition for my wife. I have a strong case to submit when the time is right. I'd like to get even stronger evidence if possible, hence I'm coming to this lovely community. Does anyone know of or has been approved for their K3 between 10/2025 and now? This would absolutely help my case

Hey folks, By chance, does anyone happen to have a screen shot for the wait times for I-129f and I-130 from August 2025. I'm trying to build a case for a Mandamus.

Hey folks, By chance, does anyone happen to have a screen shot for the wait times for I-129f and I-130 from August 2025. I'm trying to build a case for a Mandamus.

Can anyone provide any guidance? My petition date is August 15, 2025. We are approaching the one year Mark and I filed a K3 for my wife. However, it seems like our case is stuck my worry is that the K3 will delay even further plus we have I 130s to worry about because they are not issuing immigrant visas in Brazil for now. The K3 is good to go though, they apparently are still issuing them. But has anyone else had any recent experience in these issues. Added detail, once we realize that the K3 was going to take a substantial amount of time I applied for my stepchildren separate I 130s but there is a 10 month time gap do you think USCIS can pull their receipt numbers and adjudicate them once they get to my wife’s I 130. My elected officials has said inquiries and I’m waiting on responses at this point I’m considering a mandamus towards the beginning of next year since USCIS website says 80% of cases are adjudicated by 12 months for K3 visas.