White Slip

[HKG]

Well, white was issued after what seem some easy questions from a blue 221g slip, asking for an evolution statement and travel statement, which I sent but still received a white for non-bonafide a subjective call at best.

I wrote Guz and included two memos on the "prima facie" as it is called of an approved petition and the reasons for it to be denied, none of which apply to my petition, so it became subjective which I think is illegal. I also wrote my Congressman, and NVC and State Department for consular notes under the FOIA, "Freedom of Information Act". What bothers me, other than this denial is the Consulate saying by their action that I have lied and a party to visa fraud, maybe there is a law suit here for libel..

[Guest Rob & Jin]

Sorry to hear about the denial.

 

Are you re-petitioning or appealing ?

[Randy W]

Well, white was issued after what seem some easy questions from a blue 221g slip, asking for an evolution statement and travel statement, which I sent but still received a white for non-bonafide a subjective call at best.

I wrote Guz and included two memos on the "prima facie" as it is called of an approved petition and the reasons for it to be denied, none of which apply to my petition, so it became subjective which I think is illegal. I also wrote my Congressman, and NVC and State Department for consular notes under the FOIA, "Freedom of Information Act". What bothers me, other than this denial is the Consulate saying by their action that I have lied and a party to visa fraud, maybe there is a law suit here for libel..

 

 

You would first need to find a court that would have jurisdiction. To date, no one has.

 

"Not a Bonafide Relationship" is a valid reason for a visa denial, and is a subjective conclusion by the VO. This may lead to a court hearing for misrepresentation or fraud after the case is transferred to the US, but rarely does. You can file an FOI request at that time. In rare cases, some have been able to contest the findings (where a specific factual reason was given), and have the petition re-submitted to GUZ, usually with a pink slip resulting.

 

I'm sure some with white-slip experience will chime in shortly.

[georgeandli]

Of course it's a subjective decision. As far as a lawsuit, IMHO what would the grounds be? Pursuit of happiness maybe. I understand the security aspect of the visa process. What I don't understand is the lack of consistency after NOIDs. I was lucky and got a chance for a rebut. Some petitioners don't even get the curtesy of a letter with the reasons listed.

[HKG]

You know, the USA is a nation of law, I do not believe subjective law, when I applied for the Visa, I met firm legal requirements not subjective requirements, so I received an approved I-797. The consulates have to follow the same set of legal standards for a denial anything less is just being subjective.

[Randy W]

You know, the USA is a nation of law, I do not believe subjective law, when I applied for the Visa, I met firm legal requirements not subjective requirements, so I received an approved I-797. The consulates have to follow the same set of legal standards for a denial anything less is just being subjective.

 

 

A set of pre-defined objective standards would simply provide a check-list that could be met by anyone, scammer or legitimate.

 

Basically, the law says that the decision of whether to issue a visa or not is in the subjective eyes of the Visa Officer.

 

If you would like to help change the law, you could work with an organization such as American Families United.

[HKG]

You know, the USA is a nation of law, I do not believe subjective law, when I applied for the Visa, I met firm legal requirements not subjective requirements, so I received an approved I-797. The consulates have to follow the same set of legal standards for a denial anything less is just being subjective.

 

 

A set of pre-defined objective standards would simply provide a check-list that could be met by anyone, scammer or legitimate.

 

Basically, the law says that the decision of whether to issue a visa or not is in the subjective eyes of the Visa Officer.

 

If you would like to help change the law, you could work with an organization such as American Families United.

[HKG]

You know, the USA is a nation of law, I do not believe subjective law, when I applied for the Visa, I met firm legal requirements not subjective requirements, so I received an approved I-797. The consulates have to follow the same set of legal standards for a denial anything less is just being subjective.

 

 

A set of pre-defined objective standards would simply provide a check-list that could be met by anyone, scammer or legitimate.

 

Basically, the law says that the decision of whether to issue a visa or not is in the subjective eyes of the Visa Officer.

 

If you would like to help change the law, you could work with an organization such as American Families United.

I do not know where you found this subjective explanation of the VO having this discretion, from what I read of State Department memos an approved I-797 is Prima facie evidence of fact.

[warpedbored]

I wonder if after getting information from the FOA if they point blank accused you, the American citizen, of visa fraud, if you would have a case for libel?

[IllinoisDave]

Sorry to hear about this. Do you have it in writing that they accused YOU of fraud? From your OP it sounds like you're saying that the mere fact they denied the visa means they're accusing YOU of lying and being a party to fraud. If that's YOUR personal conclusion you'll never win a libel case.

 

The sad but true fact is that GUZ has done enough of these to know how to cover their a$$es when it comes to denying visas.

 

Good luck nonetheless.

Edited December 30, 2008 by IllinoisDave (see edit history)

[Randy W]

(f) The records of the Department of State and of diplomatic and consular offices of the United States pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States shall be considered confidential and shall be used only for the formulation, amendment, administration, or enforcement of the immigration, nationality, and other laws of the United States, 1a/ except that--

 

 

(1) in the discretion of the Secretary of State certified copies of such records may be made available to a court which certifies that the information contained in such records is needed by the court in the interest of the ends of justice in a case pending before the court.

 

A visa can be refused only upon a ground specifically set out in the law or implementing regulations.The term ¡°reason to believe¡±, as used in INA 221(g), shall be considered to require a determination based upon facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the applicant is ineligible to receive a visa as provided in the INA and as implemented by the regulations. Consideration shall be given to any evidence submitted indicating that the ground for a prior refusal of a visa may no longer exist. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to establish eligibility to receive a visa under INA 212 or any other provision of law or regulation.

 

Don't confuse approval of the petition with approval/denial of the visa

The approval of such a petition shall not, of itself, be construed as establishing that the alien is a nonimmigrant.

 

The consular official is the only person who has met the alien face-to-face

41.81 Fianc¨¦(e) or spouse of a U.S. citizen and derivative children.

(a) Fianc¨¦(e). An alien is classifiable as a nonimmigrant fianc¨¦(e) under

INA 101(a)(15)(K)(i) if:

(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien is qualified under

that provision and the consular officer has received a petition

filed by a U.S. citizen to confer nonimmigrant status as a

fianc¨¦(e) on the alien, which has been approved by the DHS

under INA 214(d), or a notification of such approval from that

Service;

(2) The consular officer has received from the alien the alien's sworn

statement of ability and intent to conclude a valid marriage with

the petitioner within 90 days of arrival in the United States; and

(3) The alien has met all other qualifications in order to receive a

nonimmigrant visa, including the requirements of paragraph (d)

of this section.

 

In a nut-shell, the phrase "bona fide relationship" comes into play, where the determination of "bona fide" can only be made by the VO.

 

Good luck, guy! We're with you! There are plenty of people who have been there that I'm sure will tell you about their experience.

[Randy W]

Sorry to hear about this. Do you have it in writing that they accused YOU of fraud? From your OP it sounds like you're saying that the mere fact they denied the visa means they're accusing YOU of lying and being a party to fraud. If that's YOUR personal conclusion you'll never win a libel case.

 

The sad but true fact is that GUZ has done enough of these to know how to cover their a$$es when it comes to denying visas.

 

Good luck nonetheless.

 

 

Yes, they are accusing him of misrepresentation or fraud. There is no court anywhere where a case against the consulate can be filed. The court hearing (if one occurs - unlikely) would be held by the USCIS in the United States on whether to revoke the petition.

[IllinoisDave]

Sorry to hear about this. Do you have it in writing that they accused YOU of fraud? From your OP it sounds like you're saying that the mere fact they denied the visa means they're accusing YOU of lying and being a party to fraud. If that's YOUR personal conclusion you'll never win a libel case.

 

The sad but true fact is that GUZ has done enough of these to know how to cover their a$$es when it comes to denying visas.

 

Good luck nonetheless.

 

 

Yes, they are accusing him of misrepresentation or fraud. There is no court anywhere where a case against the consulate can be filed. The court hearing (if one occurs - unlikely) would be held by the USCIS in the United States on whether to revoke the petition.

Are you saying they're accusing him directly in this case, in writing, or simply by extension via the denial of the visa to the beneficiary which means they're accusing all petitioners who get denials? If they've put that in writing that's one thing. Otherwise, my take on denials has always been that it's more of an accusation against the beneficiary.

Edited December 31, 2008 by IllinoisDave (see edit history)

[Randy W]

Sorry to hear about this. Do you have it in writing that they accused YOU of fraud? From your OP it sounds like you're saying that the mere fact they denied the visa means they're accusing YOU of lying and being a party to fraud. If that's YOUR personal conclusion you'll never win a libel case.

 

The sad but true fact is that GUZ has done enough of these to know how to cover their a$$es when it comes to denying visas.

 

Good luck nonetheless.

 

 

Yes, they are accusing him of misrepresentation or fraud. There is no court anywhere where a case against the consulate can be filed. The court hearing (if one occurs - unlikely) would be held by the USCIS in the United States on whether to revoke the petition.

Are you saying they're accusing him directly in this case, in writing, or simply by extension via the denial of the visa to the beneficiary which means they're accusing all petitioners who get denials? If they've put that in writing that's one thing. Otherwise, my take on denials has always been that it's more of an accusation against the beneficiary.

 

That would make a difference only in a libel trial - which won't fly. They (the applicant and beneficiary) are both claiming a bona fide relationship, GUZ is claiming otherwise.

 

Libel is the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. This does not happen.

 

If a misrepresentation or fraud claim is pursued, it is done by the USCIS in the US court system, as has been written about by Marc Ellis. The hearing would be based on evidence supplied by the Dept of State (GUZ in this case), who is usually only interested in denying the visa, and not in any court hearing. Thus, there will normally not be enough evidence.

[heyjimi]

Sorry to hear about this. Do you have it in writing that they accused YOU of fraud? From your OP it sounds like you're saying that the mere fact they denied the visa means they're accusing YOU of lying and being a party to fraud. If that's YOUR personal conclusion you'll never win a libel case.

 

The sad but true fact is that GUZ has done enough of these to know how to cover their a$$es when it comes to denying visas.

 

Good luck nonetheless.

 

 

Yes, they are accusing him of misrepresentation or fraud. There is no court anywhere where a case against the consulate can be filed. The court hearing (if one occurs - unlikely) would be held by the USCIS in the United States on whether to revoke the petition.

Are you saying they're accusing him directly in this case, in writing, or simply by extension via the denial of the visa to the beneficiary which means they're accusing all petitioners who get denials? If they've put that in writing that's one thing. Otherwise, my take on denials has always been that it's more of an accusation against the beneficiary.

 

 

I agree,denial is against the beneficiary,Guz is careful,they got this game down to perfection,the accusation is going to be against the beneficiary,otherwise,there would be potential lawsuits.The Guz consulate,view our wife's and loved ones...oops...i mean beneficiary as a piece of crap....zero value.

 

as far as lawsuits,i am one who feels it is possible somewhere,somehow....but i spoke to a few lawyers,my congressman,senator,and i am blown away by the reaction,when i mention,the "Guangzhou Consulate".....the reaction is always.....OHHHHHHH !!!!! they know whats going on there,its power gone corrupt,no over sight,and most,so far ,are looking at"taking on Guangzhou"like taking on a Mafia Boss" or if i was asking them to overthrow a government,i haven't found anyone who wants to touch it.

Sorry to hear about the white slip,i know exactly how you feel,my wife recieved the white slip in October.I've gotten sick over it,i am getting better,but still not a 100%....and yes,i am keeping all my medical bills

i wish you the best of luck.

 

Jimi