USCIS response to USCIS ombudsman on revoked cases to the U.S.

[tiger2008]

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_..._2008-05-23.pdf

 

Memo about cases revoked back to the U.S.

Edited July 17, 2008 by tiger2008 (see edit history)

[Missingyou]

THANKS!! =)

[Randy W]

I found this interesting -

 

According to 8CFR 214.2(k)(5), an approved K-1 petition is only valid for four months. Consequently, in a number of cases, the K-1 petition will have already expired by the time DOS returns it to USCIS. Once a petition has expired, it may not be reviewed by USCIS. Furthermore, Petitions for Alien Fiance(e) (Form I-129 F) returned from a Consulate, Embassy, or NVC after approval may not be revoked, as there are no provisions in the law or regulation for revoking the approval of an I-129F.

[dnoblett]

I found this interesting -

 

According to 8CFR 214.2(k)(5), an approved K-1 petition is only valid for four months. Consequently, in a number of cases, the K-1 petition will have already expired by the time DOS returns it to USCIS. Once a petition has expired, it may not be reviewed by USCIS. Furthermore, Petitions for Alien Fiance(e) (Form I-129 F) returned from a Consulate, Embassy, or NVC after approval may not be revoked, as there are no provisions in the law or regulation for revoking the approval of an I-129F.

Very interesting, sounds like since it takes GUZ much longer to receive, interview, and approve/deny a K-1 than the origional expiration of the petition, that in cases where GUZ returns them to USCIS, that since this always happens more than 4 months after USCIS approves them, that USCIS condisers them to be essentialy expired anyway, sounds like they just close them without any review.

 

So either getting married and applying for CR-1/K-3 or perhaps applying for another K-1 may be an option.

 

I suspect the IMBRA part of K-1 about 2 or more petitions within 10 years may also not apply due to NO visa being issued.

[warpedbored]

Very interesting, I got the feeling that the USCIS politely told the ombudsman "thanks but no thanks. we don't want to change anything."

It also re-enforces reports that they let the K-1 expire intentionally without letting the beneficiary or petitioner know or the consequences there of.

[tsap seui]

Vedy, vedy interesting indeed. It pretty much shows what some have already seen with their getting married and starting a new application..and being successful on the next go around with their interviews.

 

Most will never know what the DOS denied them over.

 

It's gonna be close to three years before we make a new application, and that's an "if" on a new application. The big thing is, we will be living out our bona fide relationship as a family unit. The beautiful scenic and tranquil mountains of Pennsyltucky will still be here in 3 years should we make a new application and succeed.

 

This whole thing is but a game. A game that the DOS may be able to say where you "can't" live together, but they have no way to stop a true bona fide relationship.

 

Good luck to others stuck in the silly lil' game, it may hurt at first, but we aren't even two months away from our denial, and have never been happier, what with our new direction, and actual control of our own lives, once again. A denial from the DOS is FAR from the end of the world, it's only the opening of a new door. it's up to you to open the door and make your own happiness.

 

Best wishes to all....

 

tsap seui

[georgeandli]

So let me get this right. Basically DOS is thumbing their nose and saying things are fine the way they are? Don't ya just love turf battles. The 4 month deal is nothing to them and they routinely waive it when it's in their interest. We're too busy/overworked. What's the deal with not sending notification to the petitioner? How will that affect national security?

[Randy W]

So let me get this right. Basically DOS is thumbing their nose and saying things are fine the way they are? Don't ya just love turf battles. The 4 month deal is nothing to them and they routinely waive it when it's in their interest. We're too busy/overworked. What's the deal with not sending notification to the petitioner? How will that affect national security?

 

 

GUZ is DOS (the consulate). This memo is from the USCIS about how they deal with returned petitions. They are thumbing their nose at their own ombudsman

 

They are saying that the director or a consular official (DOS) can extend the expiration, but the USCIS cannot.

 

But they are claiming that they have mailed I-797C notices to the petitioner since Feb, 2006.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Randy W (see edit history)

[georgeandli]

There a some here that would beg to differ with that statement. Even if that were true, an I-797C notice isn't the same as getting a copy of GUZs reason for denial and/or enough time to rebut.

[Randy W]

There a some here that would beg to differ with that statement. Even if that were true, an I-797C notice isn't the same as getting a copy of GUZs reason for denial and/or enough time to rebut.

 

 

That's the claim they made in the memo (whether true or not) - and no, I think you are VERY much an exception to have gotten actual, rebuttable reasons from GUZ.

 

Since at least February 2006, a Form

I-797C, Notice of Action, is generated and forwarded to the petitioner informing him/her that DOS has returned their petition for review.

 

Your case seems to me to have been an extremely elaborate blue slip. Their claim that they didn't think you would get married within 90 days is just asking for the response, "Yes, we would!"

[david_dawei]

well, I couldn't sleep without looking up a few links...

 

Here is the original submission of the Ombudsman recommendations:

 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_...3_aug_24_07.pdf

 

In case you want the full [Ombudsman] monty...

http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/editorial_0769.shtm

 

 

Interesting to find in PART 205--REVOCATION OF APPROVAL OF PETITIONS:

 

8CFR 205.2.a

(a) General. Any Service officer authorized to approve a petition under section 204 of the Act may revoke the approval of that petition upon notice to the petitioner on any ground other than those specified in ¡ì205.1 when the necessity for the revocation comes to the attention of this Service.

Would see that a consulate is bringing it to the attention of USCIS...

 

 

Also interesting is that some NIVs do specifically spell out that revocation is allowed (employment example here), even after having expired:

 

8CFR 214.2.h.11.b

( B ) The director may revoke a petition at any time, even after the expiration of the petition.

 

This is the same stuff that USCIS pulled in regards to the K1 having work authorization or not... differentiating K1s from other NIVs and claiming there was no specific 'reg' to cover them, although most other NIVs have it.. This was a past Ombudsman issue...

[georgeandli]

Randy W, I wasn't referring to my case. White isn't an elaborate blue. Semantics aside, my gripe is the double standard of the time sensitive issue. "They" get around to it whenever but don't you be late. DOS doesn't follow their own timelines. I for one am very tired of them beating the "natonal security" dog. USCIS points out the problems and DOS says what problem?

[Starberry]

Is that mean that K-1 has no any chance to appeal?

US government waste our time and waste our money!

[georgeandli]

Dave Z, Thanks as always [i never say it enough] for the links. Good read. At the time I didn't think it was doing any good, but I got my congressman involved [he was speaker of the house at the time]. At least I was notified and had a chance to rebut and overcome. As per the guidelines.

[Randy W]

Randy W, I wasn't referring to my case. White isn't an elaborate blue. Semantics aside, my gripe is the double standard of the time sensitive issue. "They" get around to it whenever but don't you be late. DOS doesn't follow their own timelines. I for one am very tired of them beating the "natonal security" dog. USCIS points out the problems and DOS says what problem?

 

But I referred to your case as being highly unusual in two respects.

 

1. What I think of as a blue slip issue - whether you would get married within the 90 days (this should have been asked and answered, but apparently wasn't)

 

2. The opportunity you had to rebut and get it re-affirmed.

 

 

I don't think we have any figures on how many people get a chance to rebut like that, but I expect it's extremely low.

 

My guess is that the GUZ VO's have learned to give reasons that fit the law, rather than case specifics (hence the 'not a valid relationship'). I would also guess that they deliberately left you an opening to rebut.

 

This has bearing on those still waiting for their cases to be sent back to the US).