HKG

http://www.familybasedimmigration.com/foru...hread.php?t=386 shows a process after denial.

Fisher, what is the problem? I'm saying IF, do you undrstand IF? If non-boanafide is a legal ruling, which after reading some of these Post I find it may not be. Other than in a scam marriage.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Page 266, ISBN 0-314-76271-X: color of law: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188. When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort). Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law" for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229. Acts "under color of any law" of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law", the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì1983.

I fell out of my chair laughing about the Atlanta comment. As a USC I can only say "You are 100% correct!!" ... Oh I said this in public. Next the DHS will be at my door. It amazes me that in Atlanta the way they yell at you (USC and foreigners). Last time through I forgot to turn my cell phone off and as I am waiting for them to clear me at the desk it rings. As I am turning it off the woman asks sacrastically with an attittude "Are you turning it off or taking the time to text back" as she stops what she is doing and just looks at me. She then throws my passport in a folder, calls an officer, and sends me to the back room because, her quote, "I could not follow the instructions of the guards". Took me 45 minutes in the small room before I was cleared without a "welcome back to the USA" after 6 months in China. Everyplace has its good and bad points. But in USA so many people talk about China like it is a 3rd world country. I think you both are seeing the forest beyond the trees which is good insight as oppose to not seeing the forest because of the trees. VO's as soothsayers, aha!, yes.

I would think if you did not know the name of your husband or the country of the petitioner, red flag, anything else at interview purely subjective. nothing really definitive.

So we go full circle on the non-bonafide denial, is it a legal and valid denial as in a non-bonafide for a scam marriage? What will your defense be once it is sent back to the USA and MAYBE given a chance to answer your NOID or Revocation at USCIS, so they will send it back to GUZ. Or will we just have to accept a misrepresentation or fraud finding in our file. Then with that finding of fraud or misrepresentation in the file,how easy will it be to get another type of Visa .

Let me tell you, this I'm not posting to be personal with any of you, I'm posting to discuss options. Griz326 you got a "mouth" maybe just a GUZ lackey, possibly some of you are jailhouse lawyers or just people who put their tail between your legs and run off at that. I do notice that among you, none of you had a white slip but have all the answers for whatever. None of you need read my post if they upset you, just as I do not care to read of you defeatist postings to my postings. I realize there are other options, it is just thought, I have read of people marrying and still receiving non-bonafide rulings, one poster in particular Tsap Seui , So my GUZ consulate cheerleaders what is the answer?

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. If these non-bonafide relationships are not a legal premise then I would think this U.S.C Section 242 would apply. Further after the sign off then it would follow this would apply.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. If you got a White slip for non-bonafide relationship, then the full power of the US Government is now against you. What is your defense against, the fraud or misrepresentation they will enter against you once it comes back to the USA, if given a chance to address your "NOID" or revocation?

http://miami.fbi.gov/statutes/title_18/section242.htm Color of Law Something for Consulate Officers: Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1019 * United States Code o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE + PART I - CRIMES # CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04 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.

It means that anti-mixed marriage laws were unconstitutional. It had to do with race and the civil rights of two American citizens. You have no argument whatsoever using Loving v. Virginia. Everyday, the USCIS and the US consulates around the world approve visas for Chinese, and every race and other nationality. You do have it correct that Loving v. Virginia is about anti-miscegenation and civil rights, also the definition of Pursuit of Happiness was mentioned. I'm sure a US Supreme Court ruling is not a shallow undertaken. So if one would reason that applying the "light" of this ruling against these non-bonafide rulings that are, without merit and subjective as they are, quite possible this ruling exposes these non-bonafide rulings for what they are, racist decisions.

I would like to add to this post on, non-bonafide relationship rulings. A US Supreme Court ruling. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. It is my thoughts that if all requierments for a visa petition are met and still you receive a Non-bonafide relations ruling then this subjective ruling just may be a racist decision, being it intentional or un-intentional but non the less illegal if one applies the 1967 ruling on anti-miscegenation.

Do you remember when you were young or maybe not so young and a couple of bigger kids or friends got your ball and threw it to each, other with you in the middle? Well here is my point you are in the middle, I think if all is legal with your request, then very possible a racist decision is being made in your case. Study this 1967 Civil Rights ruling it may emcompasse your case. Supreme Court ruling. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute.

Not me, I even have vegetable soap for washing fruits and vegetables, once you see how dirty the water is, you will always wash.

So, people all the excuses for not supplying information or the difficulties therewith have nothing to do with the Civil rights movement of the 60's and more specific the,1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. To fight back you need to know what your fighting I would think, don't you think these, non-boanfide rulings without merit, have something to do with with miscegenation, and all the reasons not to supply the information requested, just goes hand in hand.

This is not the point. You have a right, as a USC, to be given the reason and evidence of non bona-fide relationship. The burden of proof is on the VO (and DOS). It is not right to just say NBFR and not explain or provide proof. This is similar to be arrested and then considered quilty before the trial. The VO officers assume all applications are a sham which is incorrect. The poster who will inform her senator and future SEC. of State about this situation has the right idea. For you individually you have to make plan b/c/etc. However to change anything for the future we all have to voice our opinion and displeasure at the system as it is to our represenatives. One would think the Immigration lawyers would also have similar thoughts but remember that they make more money when you are rejected. Most people dont use a lawyer until they get rejected. Every wonder why so many rejections (so many people in Congress are ?????? Lawyers!!). It is your USC right to know specific reason why your petition (YOUR petition not the benef.) was rejected. You are viewing the visa process as an entitlement, it's not, no one is entitled to a visa you must request a visa and provide evidence that you meet the legal requirements for that visa category. 9 FAM 40.6 BASIS FOR REFUSAL No Bona Fide Relationship is their way of saying you didn't provide the evidence that a "reasonable person" would expect to prove the relationship exists. The difficulty is in their interpretation of "reasonable person." The comparison between being arrested and denied a visa isn't valid. No one is sitting in jail for being refused a visa, they can go home and back to work but can not proceed to the USA. A better comparison would be with the issuance of a drivers license, if you didn't prove you could drive to the satisfaction of the examiner. They can tell you why you didn't pass in a clear or vague explanation, either way they have informed you as to why you didn't pass. Sure it can be subjective and unfair, but they are the gate keeper and their interpretation of the requirements is all that matters in the first round. Immigration lawyers would love to see the visa process made transparent, they could get more visas issued with less effort. As for them not taking on the system to force the government to provide clear and timely explanations for a visa denial, they would love this too, but to force the issue costs money, lots of money and will take a considerable amount of time and energy. Their job is to help secure a visa using the most expedient method available to them, not get side tracked trying to fix the system. One last point, the petition was not rejected if it made it to the consulate. Once it is approved by the USCIS the petition drives an application on the part of another person (beneficiary). The VO's make a ruling on the application for a visa that was derived from a petition, not the petition itself because they don't have the authority to make that decision. Seperate and divide such an old tatic, I appled for her and myself, a refusal to one is a refusal to both. What does the following mean to you? Supreme Court ruling. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute.

I think one should consider the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. This Court case declared prohibitions of marriage between different races, racist and found those prohibitions as unconstitutional and did go further and defined once against the pursuit of happiness. So, what is one to think, when you receive a a non-bonafide judgment with nothing substantial for reason of its issue, and you have knowledge of this Supreme Court ruling, I believe the word to consider here is "anti-miscegenation" and how it may apply to these non-bonafide, rulings with their implications of fraud on the couples they are given to. So my thoughts, these non-bonafide findings may be racist in nature and a smoke screen around the 1967 Supreme Court ruling on anti-miscegenation.

Your point is well taken.. But knowledge can be power, possibly by exposing the non-bonafide fraud being committed by these Consulates as opposed to what is right may help someone, someday. I may have to deal again with these people in the future, one person at the Consulate has denied a US citizen of a fundamental right, but please do not go off telling me they denied her, they denied, Us. So I will beat my drum, many people read this board, maybe someone can make a difference. It is quite possible that a non-bonafide relation ruling is running afoul of this Supreme Court ruling. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute.

The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. When I applied for this Visa, I did not agree to give up any of my birth rights or legal rights, so how does the Consulate in China, think otherwise. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man.

Thanks for your kind words. B) Well, this is the attitude of the Consulate, sorry.

NO, it does not matter, and neither does your "Pursuit of Happiness".

A right to know, what is wrong with a right to know why a petition is denied? Maybe because in "WE the Government" consider it a privilege to obtain a visa, like a drivers license. I hear GUZ is in need of walnut shells the old shells wear out quickly. Why is it "We the People" are the ones that are messing up in our paperwork or interviews or whatever in these highly subjective decisions?

I think a form of Secular Humanism is being applied in these non-bona fide decisions after reading some of the reasons why people seem to think, these rulings appear, non-secular.

Mostly a scam being run by Guz sort of like a shell game, really no knowing how many of anything will get you a "pink". One would think, if the beneficary did not know the name of the petitioner or the country of the petitoner then maybe a good arguement for a non-boanfide ruling, other than that it is what shell you pick.

I wonder if the State Department is crossing the line of the separation of church and state by using this non bonafide excuse they use, if one can show some communication, pictures, travel, letters so forth, are they not making a "moral" decision, when they say in essence what you have presented for your evidence of a relation is not true. I think that would be the fostering of a State sponsored religion.

The consulate doesn't readjudicate the petition - they evaluate the Chinese beneficiary's visa application. The visa is (supposedly) awarded or denied on the basis of the P3/P4 information, and the interview. This new information can be used to recommend that the original petition be revoked if it indicates that the original petition was not factual. "Fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition" are also potential factors. The white slip is apparently the written notification that the consulate provides the beneficiary. Any consular notes or more detailed information are considered privileged information until it gets back to the US. At that point, you may file a FOI request, or get an opportunity to voice your side in court. In George's case (again VERY unique) they contacted him directly with this information. The "no readjudication of petitions" provision is the reason some believe in "front-loading" - loading the petition with relationship evidence, which is then approved by the USCIS and sent to the consulate. The consulate cannot then turn around and use that evidence against the beneficiary. The problem with your approach, like I said earlier, will be to find a court which can take a case against the consulate.