HKG

I have a couple of questions about filling in the I130; can anyone help? Question #7 Part C: Is this question for the newlyweds? In question 1 for alien relative I put her name (maiden) do you put this again in question 7? Question 8 Part C. Date place, If married, does this apply to the newlyweds? Section D, question 8: It ask if a petition has been denied, if a K1 was denied at Consulate do you say yes or if it was Approved by USCIS but denied by consulate do you say No? And finally; Place you and spouse last lived, if it was a hotel or her place for even a day do you put that address? this is question 21 Part C.

There is a song with the lyrics, "How long has this been going on?" So without question I believe we can apply those lyrics to this classic bureaucratic problem of non bonafide denials and the dark-hole that follows, I feel also we are a small group of people, trying to better a faulty system, maybe our voices are being drowned out by the roar of everything else in life, though at the same time it is the squeaky wheel that gets greased.

9 FAM 40.63 N10.1 Misrepresentation in Family Relationship Petitions. If USCIS just lets the denial collect dust and does not send the petitioner a letter to rebuke the Consulate, does this ban kick in by default? , How would that apply to the "famous" plan B, If you filed a I130 after marriage in China? Nasty business these non-bonafides.

I think you are giving to much to the Goverenment in this situation, too simple a thought. The government is under obligation to follow the law and state the reasons for denial, under a rule of law an illegal action does not become legal just because of a passage of time in which the illegality was accepted as legal.

While it probably applies, getting a court to step up and accept this case would be difficult at best as the evidence is so extremely subjective and comes down to knowing what a person was thinking at the time. Who is thinking what? What the VOs are thinking? These denials are supposed to be based on, fact, not thought! that is the law. And it is supposed to be documented the reason for denial, in detail! ellis-island points out the rules the Consulates and USCIS are to follow in the denials. Attorneys Marc-Ellis and Roth I feel are pursuing the means to the end also.

Splinterman, this Visa request is a personal matter, so when you put one's results on a public BB such as CFL, and are attacked for what you are thinking you sought of shy away from any more expression, myself I have supported your inquiry. There is this Attorney, ellis-island who posted under a post for non-bonafide relations about the rules that are supposed to govern this type of denial quite explicit. If only they were followed. So Congress has passed laws for both sides. One or more sides is not following their dictates. Which brings me to this gem of the US Code for the Consulates: Section 1019. Certificates by consular officers Whoever, being a consul, or vice consul, or other person employed in the consular service of the United States, knowingly certifies falsely to any invoice, or other paper, to which his certificate is authorized or required by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Does it apply for Non-bonafide denials, maybe if they are without merit. Again I like to point out the post by ellis island, in which he points out the duties of notification after a non-bonafide denial.

Apathy, to answer your question, maybe. Maybe we are in the minority with our denials. I do agree that "the hand over mouth" answers to the reasons for a non-bonafide denial is a cheap shot by the State Department, or any US Gov. agency involved to such a personal request in a pursuit of happiness.

What ever way a person deals with the Visa process, and the prospect of a second denial is a personal choice. "A shoulder to cry on" might sound romantically plausible, though the reality here is I believe is greater than that for the couples involved. It's easy if one receives a Visa on the first try, but the uncertainties if you do not, just continues a nightmare that doesn't end, so you prepare in your own way to say goodbye. May 1844, posted this in January, for them I hope things have worked out.

. tsap seui VA compensation and SSD are both OK, as a source of Income. It is just for tax purposes that VA benefits are not called "income" SSD can be taxed. If you went for a mortgage and had only VA and SSD you would qualify. And at 100%, you could get a mortgage for no money down, no PMI.

Having Roth handle this I think would be the best approach, then as Individuals we could contact him until ten of of did. I'am referring to a Class Action suit.

Thank you, Mr. Roth, my concerns exactly. I have forwarded the web address to the Congressman from my district.

After it is all done and over, in your mind you may be humming these lyrics: I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul" You load sixteen tons, what do you get Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store

Three hundred and forty dollars, at Fed. Express/Kinko a double sided color copy $1.00. Three hundred and forty begs the question, Why so much for a copy?

I believe they charge a couple of hundred for a duplicate, could be wrong, but I think I read that somewhere.

Falling prices, rising unemployment.

What you say about not hearing the otherside(USCIS,FBI/NVC,GUZ/DOS) is exactly the maddening point of this whole process, if they came about and gave the hard reason for a denial, instead of a vague and subjective one, then all involved could be at rest. What interaction is going on, in this interview that would compromise the system, are lights flashing on and off, is the person being interviewed treated like someone in Guantonomo? In finding the truth it is not the light that hurts but the darkness that is being dispersed. A video or even a tape recording would go a long way in leveling the playing field in an interview.

This is not my idea, but an Immigration Attorney's his name is Angelo Paparelli. I thought it was a good idea, so I passed it along. This is what he has to say about Video Recording the interview. "Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, could declare that all visa interviews by American consular officers would be video-recorded. This would help in two important ways. The federal government would capture biometric data on every interviewed applicant, thereby improving national security, and every consular officer (knowing that the interview could be viewed by superiors in Washington and by Congress) would have a (now-nonexistent) inducement to be fair in posing questions and allowing answers."

Think of the positive possibilities for the couples and the government.

Quite a long and demanding timeline you have, Best wishes to both of you on the 24th.

If you were serious about giving him your story you could pick up the phone and call or just send him an email directly. Instead you chose to use the firms public website and are offended by the standard message. It was a web page, it is not intelligent enough to know your intent and you should be intelligent to understand that. Fisher3, sometimes your post make about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine, that web page you speak of is dedicated to Roth's pursuit of finding "horror stories" and so is the email address in that web page.

I doubt it was a "braindead clerk". Why put the blame on an underling? whoever it may be, dedicated a complete web page on the subject an a specific email address.

That isn't clear in your original post. Istead of beating around the bush would you please tell us exactly what happened. If you asked for help in your case or if you were just sending him your story. As Sebastion asked, if you weren't asking for his help did you make it clear that you were just sending your story for his letter of complaint? Several members have sent him their stories. Yours is the only one so far that claims he asked for a consultation fee. I went to this web page http://www.arctec.com/guangzhou-problems.html and wrote to this address on the web page john@ttorney.com, and explained that I read he was looking for material on denials at Guangzhou Consulate, mentioned CFL..the email came addressed from, info@ttorney.com <info@ttorney.com>

Happy trails to both of you! I'll have a side of those frog legs..