splinterman

CONGRATULATIONS on a wonderful beginning to the rest of your lives together!! Many Blessings! B)

Our I-129F for our K-3 was received by the CSC on 8/7/09 and it was approved by 9/23/09. NVC approval was then 10/2/09 for both I-130 and I-129F for K-3. See our timelines... BTW, you can register for online case status with USCIS at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/Dashboard.do or if that doesn't work just go to www.uscis.gov and hit on thelinks to register your case. you can then get online and even mobile phone alerts, for any updates to your case. You'll need your USCIS case number to register. Good Luck!! Splinterman

To sum it up, simply, they don't care. They have it, you want it; you'll wait for them.

CONGRATULATIONS!!! David, Just out of curiosity, can you tell us the questions that your wife was asked? Thanks!

There's some new information posted about K-3's and their headaches for the consulate on Attorney Roth's blog http://www.arctec.com/blog/ Might be worth reading if anyone is considering a K-3...

http://www.arctec.com/blog/ Check out the latest...

http://arctec.com/blog/ For the latest news on this story...

I particularly liked this comment: "I wish China's leaders were as stable as the U.S. dollar," said Chris Murray, president and principal of Murray Financial Group Inc. in Frederick .

It is not as unlikely or improbable as it may sound. We have CFL members whose beneficiaries have experienced this same scenario...that's all I'll say.

I've received some updated news from John Roth regarding the final results of his Complaint. I'm happy to report the following: As many people here know from the latest series results of visa interviews, there have apparently been some changes in Guangzhou. Attorney Roth has passed along that Goldberg is out and he has been replaced. There's now a new GC and also a new IV Chief in place-no name given so far-and that there is apparently a host of new attitudes being adopted by the consulate staff in Guangzhou, one of them being a willingness to commence improved cooperation with attorneys especially in meeting with them with regards to both policy AND in discussing individual cases. This can only result in good things for those couples who might have some flags in their cases which, under the Old Guard in GUZ, would have automatically resulted in at least a blue slip-and more probably-a deluge of white slips. For those folks who lent their support to Attorney Roth's Complaint, this is the vindication we have all been waiting for. The change has finally come. So many couples who have just started the process, and those who are about to, may never know how remarkably different their results will be because of Mr. Roth's efforts and the support given by the folks here on CFL. Congratulations to all, and a special 'thank you' to John Roth for all his hard work and dilligence in composing the Complaint was making sure it was noticed and acted upon by the right people. This didn't happen by accident. Splinterman

Yep, so much for responsive government representatives...

Just to let you know, I have been a member for only about a week. I recieved my P1 on April 7,2009. After reading this and other websites and reading the Roth memorandum, I wrote to both my Senators and representatives about this very thing. Asking only that they make them follow the rules that are already there. Just like the Government expectes us to do the same. Thank you for the support you've shown, and especially because you're a new member. Welcome to CFL! As you probably know from reading postings, you could be in for the wildest ride of your life. It's great foresight on your part to become involved in the process NOW which can help you at a future time. That's all we want-for 'everybody' to follow the rules. I should say the written rules because Guangzhou seems to make their own up as they go along...

Hearty CONGRATULATIONS and many wonderful wishes for your future as you get ready to start the most wonderful chapter of your lives-togetherness!!! Splinterman

Sorry, but the reality is that this is simply not true. That is not what USCIS is doing. We can read anything we like into all the regulations, guidelines and directives we can find and draw whatever conclusions we like, but this will still not be the reality of the process. By this logic GUZ and every other consulate/embassy around the world would be rubber stamping for USCIS. They're certainly not doing that. Regardless of what we wish they were doing, or what we believe they're tasked to do, USCIS is at best doing cursory checks into the bona fides of relationships. As it stands now, they're leaving it up to the GUZs of the world to do any real scrutinizing of petitions and make the determination as to whether the US government believes them to have been entered into fraudulently or not. We may not like it and we may believe it to be against the letter of the regulations, insofar as anyone can understand the regulations, but in reality that's how the distribution of labor in this process is done for now. IMO the real controversy, at least here at Candle, seems to be not so much wherethis determination of a bona fide relationship is made, but whether it should be made at all given the subjective nature of it. An argument can and often has been made here that a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Vermont or a pane of glass in Guangzhou is no more qualified to recognize true love than the man in the moon. I doubt the bureaucrats would even argue with that. So the question becomes; Should they even try? If you believe they shouldn't/can't, then the process becomes much simpler and probably shorter. Just check to see that all the right spaces are filled in and proper boxes checked and basic requirements met. USCIS can just do this and pass it along to GUZ and GUZ can simply check to see that the beneficiary is who he/she claims to be, fill out the proper forms, hand over the visa and say "Welcome to the USA." But consider that this streamlined process wouldn't apply just to Guangzhou. It would also apply to Mexico City, Islamabad, Warsaw, Bogata, Minsk etc. If you're gonna take all petitioner's/beneficiary's words for it that their relationships are real in Guangzhou, then you'll be doing it at all the other consulates/embassies as well. Not saying this is good or bad, just something to keep in mind. If, on the other hand, you're of the mind that the gov't does need to somehow establish a bona fide relationship before granting a visa, then there's the question of where that part of the process should take place. Should it be stateside with USCIS and government employees sitting behind desks however many thousands of miles from a given consulate or embassy? Looking at raw forms with basic information provided by petitioners/beneficiaries? Without the benefit of meeting either one face to face? With limited knowledge of the culture or history of the home country of beneficiary? Or should that responsibility rest with the respective consulate/embassy actually located in the country of the beneficiary? With someone who, in theory at least, has taken a closer look at the petition and is meeting face to face with the person for whom that petition is intended? Someone who at least resides in that country and has, again at least in theory, some knowledge of the local culture and may be familiar with potential patterns of fraud? The process as it stands is far from perfect. Solutions have consequences that can be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint. Since I'll no doubt be accused of having some bias one way or another, I'll go ahead and give my viewpoint as to how it would work if I were King. Any attempt to determine whether a relationship is "bona fide" is inherently flawed given the obvious subjectivity involved. That's a given. But I believe some attempt should at least be made to do so. Otherwise we'd be flooded with "sham" marriages from ALL countries. So if we're gonna try, IMO the most appropriate place for it is in the home country of the beneficiary after the petition has left USCIS. The key, and this is far from a novel idea, is openness. I think the beneficiary's first interview can still be alone. If he/she is granted the visa based on what the VO has seen in the petition and heard in the interview, obviously no further action is needed. But, if the VO has any doubts, the petitioner, assuming he/she is present, should be allowed in immediately and the VO should be required to explain specifically what his or her concerns are. The petitioner should then be allowed to explain or clarify anything the VO has questions about. And should be able to present any documentary evidence that the VO may have overlooked or ignored during the one on one part of the interview. I also believe a supervisor should be required to be present at this "second chance" part of the interview as a sort of arbiter who can listen to the "evidence" and help decide if the VO has made the right decision based on the additional information or testimony the petitioner has presented. Then the VO and supervisor should determine if sufficient evidence has been presented to overcome the VO's initial concerns. If enough has been presented they can make the decision to grant the visa. If they need further evidence they should explain exactly what that evidence is and then issue a blue with RFE. If they conclude that in thier mind there is fraud then they should be required to fully explain in person as well as in writing why they suspect it and go ahead and issue the white and let the appeals process proceed. If the petitioner cannot be present at the initial interview then things are a little more complicated but should still be simplified and open. The VO would need to explain to the beneficiary, through an interpreter if necessary, the reason for a blue and what would be required to overcome it. This would be put in writing to both beneficiary and petitioner as well. If the overcome is as simple as missing documents then the process can play out as it does now except that possibly a mechanism would be put in place whereby re-submitted evidence due to blue is expedited. And if the petitioner wishes to have a "second chance" interview, one should be scheduled within a reasonable amount of time and he/she should be afforded the same opportunity to plead the case as the petitioners who were present for first interviews. Now I realize this is very wishful thinking and probably far from ever becoming a reality. But it's the best way I can think of to say that I think there is a need to have a system in place to combat potential fraud while acknowledging that there's probably a better way to do it than we have now. Dave, Overlooking some minor points of how you think the process should go, especially with regards to attendance by the petitioner, I think that your suggestion pretty closely follows what the process was intended to be like. INA 221(g) was meant to give the beneficiary and petitioner a chance to submit additional information/evidence to supplement the original application AND for the consulate to use as a tool to obtain more evidence if they thought the relationship was a sham. A Supervisor is also supposed to review the VO's decision regardless of whether or not the visa was issued, and a concurrence is supposed to be made before the VO's decision is finalized. But these things that are already established in law, policy guidelines, etc., is NOT what is happening in GUZ and therein lies the problem that results in so much debate in CFL. There needs to be some additional, precise training for the VOs as to what the 'reasonable person' standard really involves in 'nuts and bolts' terms, not just wording. As it stands now, the decisions coming out of GUZ are at best speculative and based on assumption. Again, this is not what is supposed to be employed as standards in making decisions on issuing visas or denying them. There are a lot of systemic problems built into the process as we now know it, mainly that two different government agencies who have no authority over each other are both involved in the decision process. USCIS ends up being help accountable for decisions made by an branch of the DOS, the consulate, while they have no authority to control how the consulate arrives at the decisions they render. IMHO, this is one area that family-based immigration reform must address and correct if there is to be any chance of improving what we are currently dealing with. The complaints by individuals over the decisions coming out of GUZ has been, by and large, of a small volume enough that has made it possible for the government to ignore the problems of their interagency conflict. But now these voices are beginning to become more focused through the channels of what Marc Ellis and John Roth are trying. These lawyers have the ability to focus the attention on what's needed through their lawsuits and other legal vehicles. There has been no better opportunity in the past to start the process for change than what we have going now. They may be small cuts and they may come at uneven intervals, but all of our efforts trying to focus attention now on what's going on in GUZ can have a cumulative effect on how 'business' is conducted in the future. The enemy of perverted government processes is exposure. No bureaucrat who enjoys total authority wants to have his little game scrutinized or have attention drawn to what he is doing. They're like vampires, and the light that destroys them is the attention given to their little bureaucratic world. Dave, we're firing Hillary Clinton and putting you in charge!!

I'd like you to take a few moments and review the language in these two USCIS Administrative Appeal decisions regarding the consulate imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship and also the non-requirement for the beneficiary to know all details & aspects of the petitioner's life history. AAO opinions, January 08 2007, [LIN 05 023 53986] and February 02, 2007, [LIN 05114 54677] They can be found on the USCIS website under Administrative Decisions, choose catagory D6 and then select these individual cases by number. Below is a brief synopsis of the consular-imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship: The petitions noted in these AAO decisions were returned to USCIS for review after the K-1 visa interview. The consular officer had concerns that these relationships were not bona fide. Upon review, the district director denied the visa petitions. However, the AAO found that in denying these petitions, the district director ¡°appears to have imposed an additional requirement to the petitioner ¨C establishing the genuineness of [the] relationship to the beneficiary.¡± It is not the function of the USCIS to make that determination. [Jan. 2007, LIN 05 023 53986]. It also goes on to say in the other opinion that a beneficiary need not know in intimate detail the petitioner's life history simply to demonstrate there is a true relationship. So for quite a while now, Guangzhou has been ignoring the published decisions of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office about requiring a showing of a bona fide relationship in order to be awarded a visa. Splinterman How about because they can get away with it and will continue to do so until enough people stand up and challenge this behavior. Who knows it might only take one more person joining the fight to tip the scale and make this a distant memory. Now wait a second - we're talking about two different departments - USCIS and DOS - doing two different things. Neither has any control over the other. The USCIS' interest is only in the petitions filed by US citizens and LPR's. The DOS' interest is in (subjectively) approving or denying a visa application from a foreign national. Neither has any interest in following any policy of the other. My own opinion is that returning the petitions to the US is a sham, serving no purpose. The USCIS cannot and should not evaluate the evidence gathered by the consulate, when the consulate is not a party to any legal action taken in the states. In almost every case, the evidence passed back is going to be insufficient, and no further questioning (or evidence gathering) occurs. There are different standards for determining what is a bona fide relationship here in the states and for immigration purposes. The USCIS can only say, "looks good to us", and pass the petition along to the consulate for a final (and very subjective) determination. The standard for revoking a petition is another matter entirely Randy, what I was trying to address is the fact that it has already been shown that having a 'bona fide' relationship is no longer a plausible argument for GUZ to make in determining visa applications. Yes, you're right about the interests of the DOS and the USCIS being different when it comes to dealing with each other. I wasn't trying to comment about that-that's a known fact and there's nothing we can do about it until the government re-organizes itself with respect to the visa process. I'm sure that GUZ already knows that having a bona fide relationship is not a requirement for being issued a visa, but they still continue to deny on those grounds because they are taking advantage of the inability of the USCIS and the DOS to come together and work with each other. And we, as the petitioners and our beneficiaries, get caught in the middle. They can get away with it under the current structure of the government, so they do. In the other Admin decision it shows that the USCIS holds that it is also NOT a requirement for the beneficiary to know all the details of the petitioner's life in order that she/he be issued the visa. Many of our beneficiaries have been denied visas because they did not answer these type questions with answers that were acceptable to the VOs. Again, they deny on those grounds because they can get away with it. What has to happen is a governmental reorganization of the authority for visa processing. Until that happens, or something else like a successful lawsuit, these things will continue to happen and we and our beneficiaries will continue to get caught in the middle. Our cases will continue to get 'deep sixed' with no concern because Guangzhou has far too many cases to look at that particular day. I was simply trying to show that it is NOT a requirement to have a bona fide relationship nor does the beneficiary need to know all intimate details of our lives before being given a visa. I've pointed out this conflict between DOS and USCIS in my letters to Obama, Clinton, Jacobs, etc., as a continuing reason for the denials coming out of Guangzhou so they see the need to fix the part that's broken that is allowing the travesty in Guangzhou to perpetuate itself every day and throwing hundreds of us into a bureaucratic purgatory. Splinterman

I'd like you to take a few moments and review the language in these two USCIS Administrative Appeal decisions regarding the consulate imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship and also the non-requirement for the beneficiary to know all details & aspects of the petitioner's life history. AAO opinions, January 08 2007, [LIN 05 023 53986] and February 02, 2007, [LIN 05114 54677] They can be found on the USCIS website under Administrative Decisions, choose catagory D6 and then select these individual cases by number. Below is a brief synopsis of the consular-imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship: The petitions noted in these AAO decisions were returned to USCIS for review after the K-1 visa interview. The consular officer had concerns that these relationships were not bona fide. Upon review, the district director denied the visa petitions. However, the AAO found that in denying these petitions, the district director ¡°appears to have imposed an additional requirement to the petitioner ¨C establishing the genuineness of [the] relationship to the beneficiary.¡± It is not the function of the USCIS to make that determination. [Jan. 2007, LIN 05 023 53986]. It also goes on to say in the other opinion that a beneficiary need not know in intimate detail the petitioner's life history simply to demonstrate there is a true relationship. So for quite a while now, Guangzhou has been ignoring the published decisions of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office about requiring a showing of a bona fide relationship in order to be awarded a visa. Splinterman

Yes, I agree that the best way to get this problem brought to light and then get some action is by exposing what's been happening. But I think that the first steps that MUST be taken before trying that avenue is to exhaust all possible means to get some focus on the issue by those people who are in the positions that can and should be looking at the problems that are coming out of GUZ, DOS and USCIS. You have to give them the opportunity to fix themselves first before going to the outside world otherwise they will just disavow any knowledge what what's going on, and say "We never had a chance to fix it because nobody came to us first to tell us what was wrong.". So what we have been doing with the letters sent to Jacobs, Jacobsen, Obama Clinton, etc., is TELLING them what has been going wrong. That's also the purpose of Mr. Roth's Memorandum, and that is also why it is so vitally important for people to weigh in and post comments on his site in support of the charges he has made. There are at least 3 of us who I know of that have already contacted various investigative reporters or syndicated shows to report about this problem. If we can get them to agree to do a report on this, it could blow the lid right off. Part of the sensationalism of this topic that will really make the public indignant is all of the documentation that we collectively have where we have tried repeatedly to bring the problem to the government's attention, and how we've all been dismissed with cookie-cutter language and outright refusals to acknowledge what we all know has been allowed and condoned to come out of Guangzhou, the DOS, the DHS and also the USCIS. Mr. Roth's Memorandum is the perfect vehicle for doing that, and that's why we have asked as many people as possible to post their comments on his website to support what he has done. You MUST lay the groundwork for going public with a government problem by telling them what the problem is, giving them specific examples from a wide range of people and then giving them ample opportunities to correct it themselves. Then, you go public. I hope this makes sense to everyone who reads it and helps them to understand not only WHY it is so important to get behind Mr. Roth's and Mr. Ellis's efforts but also gives them an idea of how and what we are trying to build here. So please, I ask everyone again to kindly pay a visit to Mr. Roth's site and add your comments to his Memorandum. We're a few people who are trying to get things changed for everyone's betterment. Thank You! Splinterman

Lee, where's that keyboard?

Chengdu4me, let Marc Ellis and John Roth be concerned about whatever scenarios pop up. They're attorneys also and I'm sure they're very capable of anticipating what arguments and/or obstacles might be thrown in their path. Not to doubt you, but since you're a law school graduate also why don't you offer Marc Ellis a helping hand in preparing his argument, researching his case law and in general, getting the show on the road? I'm sure that he would welcome your professional assistance especially with regards to figuring out the enemy's 'battle plan' to try and thwart any assaults on the government's little Kingdom, since he is going at this pro bono. His Class Action lawsuit doesn't directly affect me since we went through the Vermont Service Center but I've offered him support in the way of a contribution towards his costs. The bottom line is, and you seem to have finally acknowledged it, is that a change from the ways things have been done for so long is needed. Small victories add up. Challenge the government's Gargantuan Behemoth on little issues that have already been set forth in law and policy statements, and make Jack's Giant die a slow death from a thousand cuts. If you don't start here, what will the future be like? You don't agree with the direction in which things have been going, do you? All we're asking for is everyone to contribute a little part in the effort. it doesn't require anything but what they do now-spending a little time in front of their computers and writing some emails or posting some comments in support of what Mr. Ellis and Mr. Roth are doing. For those who are more passionate and/or more able to do so, I'm POSITIVE Marc Ellis would greatly welcome a small contribution to defray his costs. Splinterman

I'm in complete agreement. And, the song is by Ace, yes?

And again I say to everyone on this site who doesn't like the taste of what is being shoved in their mouth, don't just lie down and give up because someone tells you the objective looks too insurmountable. Do what you need to do to develop your individual Plan B to get your lady here, and do what you can do to make a difference in the way things are now. Everyone can give a little so that no one has to give a lot.

Ok...so, lets say he is sucessful in getting USCIS to review petitions in a timely manner. That only applies to active petitions. Petitions that have expired are no longer subject to review. It will just take a bit longer for your petition to be received by the USCIS from GUZ. There, problem solved. It arrived expired...No further action necessary. Yea, the old misrepresentation argument again. Ok..here we go again...this is an administrative finding. You do have the right to petition for a waiver, so your right to answer the finding is fulfilled. They don't call it a crime and you are never indicted or charged, so there is no trial to get to fight over. I tell you what...you go find an attorney that will take a case based on your arguments and will take it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. You ask him what it will cost for you to have your "justice". You find out what it will cost to subpoena everyone, travel expenses for the witnesses, do the research, go to trial after trial, court after court, airfare for him and his staff, court costs, etc, etc, etc...and then you come back and let us know if you are going to get your "justice". Your arguments may have just a bit of validity, but very little, but the bottom line is this..you can't afford to fund the battle. So, your arguments are moot. Chengdu4me, I don't know why you're so bitter or adverse to trying to get some obvious wrongs turned into rights that have affected so many people. And really, just to state that they affect so many people is really an understatement, because we're talking about how these injustices affect people's LIVES! Nothing worth having comes easy. Can we agree on that? When I posted the first message in this thread the purpose was to try and get some more support for what I have seen since becoming a CFL member (albeit not that long ago...) as the very first attempts to get some injustices corrected that have at least a bona fide chance of succeeding (Oh DAMN! There's that term again-see how it comes back to haunt people?) And, this chance is being undertaken by legal professionals-people who understand the logic of what arguments to make and whom to make them to, as well as the language that should be used. Marc Ellis and John Roth are not RUBES and I have faith not only in their abilities but also in their reasons for the bites they want to take out of the government's ass. Let anyone argue with this: this CRAP that we on this website have been spoonfed by our government has gone on long enough! There, can anyone argue with THAT? What we are seeing here through Marc Ellis and John Roth might turn out to be a historic moment when it comes to Family-Based Immigration Reform. We need people to get in on the ground floor of this movement to give the effort some momentum. What we do not need right now are naysayers, fence-sitters or prophets of doom. America was once only disorganized colonies fighting against the most powerful country in the world, and all of us can thank God that there were people who recognized that individual effort is required in order to result in the collective good. That is what I am asking the good people of CFL to do now-provide a little bit of individual effort in a show of support for Roth and Ellis that has the potential to result in change that will benefit everybody. If you don't stand up and be counted on this and things go on the same way they've been happening, does anyone have any doubts that things will change for the worse? Don't you believe that the lack of opposition-for whatever reasons-to improper and illegal government practices will result in them getting a feeling of empowerment? So I'm asking everyone here on this site: what will it take to have had enough so that you want to try and change things? Right now you don't have to go it alone because there are other people willing to stand beside you to try and force a change. So join the ranks. There have always been those people standing way in the back with tiny voices saying 'It won't work'. Splinterman

This quote comes from Marc Ellis's article "Clash of The Titan Bureaucracies, The Sequel." : 9 FAM 40.63 N10 Miscellaneous 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1 Misrepresentation in Family Relationship Petitions (TL:VISA-313; 08-27-2001) Pursuant to 8 CFR 205, invalidation of a labor certification for fraud in accordance with the instructions of INS or the Department of State auto-matically revokes an employment-based immigrant visa petition. On the other hand, INS retains exclusive authority to disapprove or revoke family-relationship immigrant visa petitions. Thus, a misrepresentation with respect to entitlement to status under a family-relationship petition, e.g., document fraud, sham marriage or divorce, etc., cannot be deemed material as long as the petition is valid. Upon discovery of a misrepresentation, the consular officer must return the petition to the INS office having jurisdic-tion over the petitioner's place of residence [see 22 CFR 42.43]. If the petition is revoked, the materiality of the misrepresentation is established. The way DOS interprets this language is that any application for an immigrant or K visa which is later denied by an interviewing officer not satisfied by the evidence of the relationship, is a "¡­misrepresentation with respect to entitlement," and this triggers the entry of a preliminary 212(a)(6)©[8] fraud marker in the applicant's file. If the supervisor concurs in the denial, the petition file is returned to USCIS with the recommendation that its approval be revoked. Let that sink in for a minute. The mere act of submitting a visa application at a consulate that is later denied because an officer is not satisfied with the evidence - is a "misrepresentation with respect to entitlement". And a preliminary 212(a)(6)©(i) (aka a "P6C" marker), finding of material misrepresentation is noted in the visa applicant's file. If USCIS revokes or denies the original approval, this "misrepresentation with respect to entitlement" becomes a hard 212(a)(6)©(i) [9] material misrepresentation finding, making the beneficiary/applicant inadmissible to the United States for life - unless the petitioner obtains a 212(i) [10] waiver for the beneficiary. Lawyers and USCIS officers may be saying, "That can't be right. That's nutty." No. It's not nutty. It's how DOS interprets 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1. So as you can see, if the visa application is denied and subsequently returned, for whatever the reason the VO decides, now the beneficiary gets tagged with having 'misrepresented' something. And your position as the Petitioner is likewise affected due to your association with the Beneficiary in the visa process. This is an issue of the entitlement to Due Process that the Petitioner is guaranteed. You have the right to know what you're being accused of, not when the government thinks it is time to tell you, but at the time you get the label. Also, remember that the consulate officer is required by law to provide the factual and specific reasons for the denial at the time of the denial. They aren't doing that and if they would, it would make it much easier to address their issues of concern. But that is NOT what GUZ wants to have happen. They want to hold all the cards and they are resisting by any means possible having to disclose their reasons because they KNOW their reasons are not compliant with the ways the INA, the FAM and the CFR are written and interpreted by the government agencies who wrote them. I don't think Marc Ellis's first intention is to have a rule changed. I believe he said what he is after-to get a ruling on a particular point of law that whether or not the CSC is required to review returned petitions, and to do so in a timely manner. Getting a rule changed would be at some point after a ruling. There are many points of law that GUZ, the DOS, DHS and the USCIS are not in compliance with, let alone all of the Policy Letters, Directives, Cables etc. governing how they are to handle and process visa applications. All anyone here wants is for them to NOT choose which ones they will be responsive to, or in their own way, but to follow them all. It's not an issue of interpretation, because these written vehicles are clearly specific. It's actually following them they way they are written that is causing the problems. Splinterman

You're missing the point by your own astronomical proportions. Personally, what I am doing now to reunite with my lady is separate and distinctly different than what Marc Ellis and John Roth are trying to do. These are two different matters which have nothing to do with one another. Its a dichotomy of issues. But they CAN affect my end result. Those people who carefully read Mr. Roth's Memorandum and also the recent post by Marc Ellis on what he is trying to do should be able to develop a good understanding of what they are undertaking, and why, and what they are expecting of their outcome. Only Marc Ellis is advocating legal action right now, with regards to getting the CSC to review and decide on returned petitions instead of what they do now-allow them to die without any review at all. As an American Citizen you have that Right to Due Process. What John Roth is trying to do is get the DHS to properly train and ensure that the visa officers execute petitions in accordance with the laws, rules, regulations, etc. that are already on the books. Can anyone here state that is properly being done now? That is what this is all about. Whatever those petitioners here are doing to be re-united with their loved ones is their business. All anyone here has been complaining about for the time that I have been a member is to have a level playing field where both sides play by the rules-the DHS, DOS and consulates on one side of the field and the petitioners and beneficiaries on the other side. In practice, only we have been held to following the rules, the government agencies have not. The laws and rules are already on the books, so they should follow them as we are held to do. THAT is the essence of the complaints. It's more than a sad day when people on this website agree that a change is needed but they give up the fight before it starts because it might be too tough of a fight. So it might require people to get off their asses and push for a change, and that's asking too much? Write a few letters, post a few comments for support-oh wait! Let me rest a little bit-that's taking too much out of people? Nobody can ever win against the Goliath, so why even try? That's a terrible attitude of failure and if humanity ever lived by that Neanderthal creed we would all still be living in caves, drawing on the walls and still dying by the thousands from diseases easily cured by penicillin. If you are not able, or willing, to lend some support for changing the way things are happening now that's fine. Sorry if you infer that I am attacking you-I'm not. But I also don't believe in adopting a Defeatist attitude or mixing apples with oranges. And I really don't believe that people here on this website believe in that either, or none of them would have ever begun the process to bring their fiancees or spouses to be with them. Splinterman

.....we provide an additional resource to aid and support each other along the way. That's the statement (partial) right off the front page of the Candle For Love webpage. Have you seen it? That means ones of CFL's purpose is intended to provide support. Without trying to be a smartass, I want to ask...where is everyone hiding? Where are all the people who have in the past posted about the raw deals that were flying out of Guangzhou in the past year or so? Where are those people who were once climbing over each other to post their comments and advice, and saying 'something should be done about Guangzhou'? Now there's an opportunity for everyone to band together and possibly make a difference and....where are they? Only a few write complaint letters and even fewer posts comments in support of an effort intended to try and change things. Has a tsunami of apathy struck the members of CFL recently so that nothing matters now? I'm shocked that out of all the people I've read their posts about needing help with GUZ's unfair decisions in the past year, the folks who've responded to the call for help can be counted on our hands, with fingers left over. We now have 2 attorneys separately attacking the injustices that petitioners and beneficiaries are forced to endure, and there is a noticeable lack of support from the very people who stand to benefit the most. Where is everyone?