LeeFisher3

We do appreciate your input, especially in the more difficult areas of the process. Thanks for the heads up.

Yep, you might start with "8 CFR", then "Other Immigration CFRs" and on down the page.

I am sure that after a proper period of time GUZ will resolve the junk mail filter and virus software blocking issues. Then we only need to wait for them to resolve the customs requirements associated with the Great Firewall which I'm sure only allows a specific number of cases from NVC to pass through each day. Those in the know are supportive of Congress approving the purchase of a new product from Crisco Shortening the firewall delays so that everything slides through cleanly.

Prepare the application and have an extremely trusted friend mail it about 2 weeks before you will be home, but if you are concerned they might just dump it in the mail early just wait until you get home, but have it waiting to go out first thing.

I'll pass on the promotion thanks. I just wanna be clear that the main point of my post was in response to the notion that bona fide relationships are decided at the USCIS stage. We can cite chapter and verse of what the rules and regs say all we want, but the reality remains that whether or not a relationship is bona fide is being decided at GUZ, at least for the time being. I just want any newcomers to the process to know this going in and that they should file their petitions and prepare for their interviews with it in mind. The rest is just my opinion. You're right, we need to be sure that people don't prepare for their interview based on the USCIS requirements of a relationship as GUZ has their own special view on what the rules "should" be and hold visas hostage based on their rules. GUZ is it's own special place in the world where the laws of Physics, Time and the US Government are somehow warped into something new and exciting. Maybe we could get someone to do a TV reality show based on the life and times of VO's in GUZ.

It is truly a case of "paper cuts", enough of them and a person can bleed out. This is like a poker game, both attorneys are playing the game and now it's time for USCIS and DOS to raise or fold, got to let them make their play. Once they do the next step can come into play, but as a good poker player you don't show your cards or give an indication of your next step until it's your turn. You are right the media needs to get involved, but first the door needs to be slammed shut by either DOS or USCIS before the media will see an injustice and show an interest. ME has a half a dozen or so petitions in the works on this, no guarantees, but he's doing what he can to change the system in regard to future processing of NOID cases. He's doing it pro bono and knows that it will benefit his clients as well as others to make life a little easier for those on the NOID trail.

Those idiots!!! Here are a few FAQ's from SSA, the answers in these provide the ammunition you need to resolve the matter. I am in the U.S. on a temporary visa. Can I get a Social Security number? Can a noncitizen obtain a Social Security number to get a driver's license? Do foreign students need a Social Security number for college? Print off these FAQ's and walk in and visit with your HR department. Insurance for you and your spouse is one of your employee benefits and the provider is violating the law in this case, as the company contracts the insurance they need to get involved as their provider is refusing your benefits. The are not legally able to demand a SSN and refuse coverage. You want the insurance company to show you the Federal or State law that requires your non citizen spouse to have an SSN. Except for certain government insurance, such as retired military, it doesn't exist. Remind the insurance company that Congress enacted Social Security for the Federal Governments purpose and their demand that your non-citizen spouse provide an SSN for them to include her in your benefit package could be considered discrimination, racial discrimination, or at least that's how the Supreme Court has phrased it. You don't want to mention the word lawyer in this conversation as this is your employer and you don't want to make them feel threatened and find a way to get rid of you. If it moves on to you discussing it directly with the insurance company you will need to move up a few levels of supervisor and you can mention to them that if they are hell bent on requiring an SSN for your non citizen spouse, perhaps it might be necessary for you to retain an attorney to explain this to them in court, but you would prefer that they just follow the federal laws and save all of you the time and expense. Happy hunting, Kick their @$$ and take no prisoners.

The AAO can only review USCIS decisions. That is all they are doing here. The "cause" of the legal action was the fact that the USCIS chose to follow the recommendation of the consulate and revoke the petition. They got their hands slapped for doing so. The hearings referred to laws that affect petitions only, not the issuance of visas. I have great hopes that Atty Roth's GUZ Complaint will open some eyes at the DOS.

Jin, That is exactly what my wife says! My wife has the same view and I agree with most of them myself and have a number of things I would add to the list as well.

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 The case directed at DOS is suggesting that the VO's in GUZ receive remedial training by the USCIS in the policies and rules as their actions are contradictory to the immigration laws of the US and DOS directives and guidelines. The case with CSC is concerning the stalling of re-filed K-1 petitions after an NOID where the USICS sits on it for a while. This can be used to send a message to GUZ that by not following procedures and allowing cases to expire due to their delays in returning them to the US removes the NOID as the case was expired before being received by the USCIS. Either one can have a affect on GUZ in different ways, but still getting the point across that they can be held accountable in some form. While neither is directly against GUZ they are the cause of the legal cases and that in itself has it's own reward. Embarrassing their boss at DOS can have unintended consequences for those in GUZ, who knows a VO who causes too much trouble might get posted in Iran or some other friendly place were Americans are loved and cherished.

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.

While you may not feel either of these situations are worth fighting why are you so intent on telling people just to roll over and die? It saddens me that some have challenged making any effort to change the system when we've got two different options available that might just make life better for them and others. But then why should anyone try, just give up and move.

The issue is that NOID's are returned and GUZ left them sit long enough without extending the petition so now it's returned, but the case is flagged awaiting information on the NOID, which was never sent to the petitioner. CSC doesn't know what to do because DOS will not process the new case because they are waiting for USCIS to respond to their recommendation. So these second petitions just get stacked up and wait because they don't know what to do with them, they don't get approved or denied, they just sit. Currently VSC reviews and approves these petitions to be sent back to GUZ for the next round, CSC won't do anything because of a Catch-22 so anyone re-filing just gets stuck in limbo. The objective is to get CSC to process these type of cases under the same rules the VSC does, until CSC does something with these cases the petitioner and beneficiary are on hold with no recourse.

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. The direction these attorneys are heading is meant to target specific issues that are a major underlying factor with NOID's issued in GUZ. Knock them down and they will change not because they believe it is right but out of the fear of the court system and the press.

While you are correct that congress writes the laws, each agency then chooses to interpret the laws to do their job. Currently the USCIS and DOS are not following the written regulations and adding their own twist to them. Saying we will change congress and how they deal with it is fine if you are taking the long view, say 5000 years or so, but it won't change anything quickly. The options available are targeted at two specific issues and only with a focused attack can the issues be resolved. Have no doubt that the USCIS and DOS will adjust and find a new way to make life more difficult, but that takes them a couple of years. For now we have an opportunity to nudge them in the direction the law says they should be doing.

Attempting to provide evidence that her previous non-bona fide relationship was an incorrect finding can only hurt your case because you want to prove YOU have a bona fide relationship, not the previous petitioner. The actions of her previous petitioner by not following through validate the finding by GUZ in her previous case, or at least in the mind of GUZ they do, otherwise he would have fought through the process and continued. The direction I would suggest is to include evidence with your I-129F or I-130 that addresses her situation and that you are fully aware of this situation. This would include a notarized statement from her as to her relationship with the previous petitioner and how he abandoned her after receiving resistance from GUZ to issue a visa. Use this as a way to somehow thank GUZ, without thanking them, for helping her to see that the previous petitioner was not true in his intentions and after a reasonable period of time she began to seek a TRUE relationship with another man. She will want to present a contrasting difference between the previous relationship and her true relationship with you and why she knows this to be the real thing. You on the other hand must present this evidence in a good light, showing she made this previous relationship known to you in the proper time and a full up to date evolution of your relationship. This is how you introduce her notarized statement. The evidence requirement for the USCIS is minimal in most cases to get an approval, but you are wanting to provide as much as possible to the USCIS to address this issue than the ordinary petitioner. You're evidence requirements will be much more than most in proving your relationship due to the previous case. The quantity of evidence is less important than the quality. You need to knock it out of the park on your first at bat. The idea is to remove the previous petition from the picture by having the USCIS approve it with full knowledge of it's existence and by doing this making it extremely difficult for GUZ to use it against you. There is no magic bullet to remove the previous denial from her record, but you can minimize it and make it difficult for GUZ to bring it up. I would be so bold as to use the A# previously assigned and a copy of the white slip with your evidence. The A# should be on her previous paperwork, hopefully she has not discarded it. Some will argue that you don't want to do this, but the previous denial links her to it so don't try to hide this from the USCIS, you want to make a bold statement that you have absolutely nothing to hide. Knowing that the bar will be set higher for you you need to begin preparing your evidence for the interview now. Things like multiple trips to see her, lots of pictures with the two of you with family and friends doing the normal things couples do, phone records, letters (real mailed ones), emails, a log of emails (how many each month or week) and anything else you can think of as providing for a real relationship are what you want to have for the interview. Maintain a journal of your relationship and start working on a letter showing the evolution of your relationship, both of you need to do this. Start keeping it now and organize well for the interview. Also, take a look in your background for anything that could be considered a red flag and address it with the initial petition as well. More is better for the petition, but it needs to be well thought out, not just a hundred emails that require the person reviewing the case to see how you love each other. Most attorneys will have no experience in this type of situation, PM me or Chilton747 for contact info for one who has experience with difficult cases.

While the consulate is insulated from the battle directly, the USCIS and DOS are not. Both of these actions are targeted at agencies that can be compelled by a court order to force proper behavior in relationship to GUZ's actions. With the slew of white slips we've seen being issued I'd recommend the members involved take advantage of the legal options that have recently shown up. In dealing with government agencies you don't always need to win to force a change because often the fear of more bad publicity when people are forced to fight to get people to do their jobs is enough to make a difference. Neither of the attorneys is offering a guarantee and both have their own reasons for charging hell with a bucket of water and are giving people affected by this the opportunity to do something productive. Remember, one paper cut won't kill you but millions will get the job done with lots of pain involved. Don't give away your chance to inflict a paper cut or two in GUZ.

Nice to hear something like this. BTW we won't tell USCIS that your phone voice is much nicer than in person, we'll let them discover that for themselves.

Thanks Guys. Yea, This is the first i have heard of this type of letter. So i guess this is out of the norm? Yes? I've never seen a letter like this, it appears to be something new. In the past the USCIS has stated with the issuance of the CR-1 green card that there would be no reminder and the card holder was responsible for filing at the appropriate time. The policy on expired CR-1's that have expired will probably not change due to not receiving a letter, but it sure is nice to see something coming out of USCIS that appears helpful. BTW this is the FIRST letter from USCIS I've ever seen that is marked "PLEASE FORWARD", that is a MAJOR difference. Also, you're coming up on two years, you might discuss with your wife if it's time to trade up for a newer model. I spoke with my wife about this and she informed me she was too tired for a younger husband.

We postponed our son's interview after they assigned an interview date without any issue. You might want to consider following through with the regular process and make the request after the interview date is assigned, you can even provide a target date you would like for the interview with this process. Also, after she receives the visa she has 6 months to use it for entry, so if she interviewed in October she could get the visa and stay around for mom's surgery. One thing to remember in delaying the process is that any of the documents that expire will need to be checked to be sure you won't need new ones before the interview.

Nope, your preparing for the first green card interview. The 21 month clock starts on the removal of conditions once they receive the first green card.

Be happy they are on the same day, his interview is dependent on hers and both of you are required to attend both. Be prepared, the IO may conduct both interviews together, but if not be sure to tell the IO when you go in for your sons interview that you are also here for your wife and they need to be sure to let the IO conducting that interview that you have arrived so they can work out any timing conflict.

There are times GUZ works on the weekend. You should have the tracking number on the EMS form that was completed before leaving the consulate. If it is going to the China Post near the consulate, have them just go over and try to collect it. They are even open on Sunday.

She can certainly get married in Xijiang, where she is registered. Also, she will probably need to go to Xijiang to get her notarial records that will be needed in the visa process. So ask her why you can't go to Xijiang together, meet the family and get married.

There is always the train and some of them are really really fast. Remember, she needs to have her medical exam complete before the interview, the morning of the 6th at the latest, since her interview is on a Monday.