Jump to content

Randy W

Admin
  • Posts

    31,982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    837

Everything posted by Randy W

  1. I'll wait for the pictures (the models, that is)
  2. I was reffering to denail by Guangzhou not the USCIS. When you are approved by the USCIS, it is forwarded to Guangzhou. They are not supposed to "re-adjudicate" what has already been approved. This will often simply mean that they may scrutinize your case more closely and come up with other reasons for denial, but I think the multiple petitions is a concern for the USCIS and not for GUZ.
  3. This is really a good news. Maybe I will just let it be. The catch is you don't find out for sure until you apply for the next one
  4. I always recommend an accounting statement to show your true income. If you have a roof over your head, groceries, etc., etc., you have income. Your accountant (or you) should be able to show this. The tax return is NOT your bottom line. Summarize this with a cover sheet.
  5. Your question is very unclear - yes you can delay her case if you choose. Seems like it would depend on your personal circumstances. Nobody "waits at the consulate" for anything, unless you mean for an interview date? The two cases are independent, since you submitted them that way. Your wife's visa will be multiple entry. She can easily return to China if needed. If you're concerned about timing, I think she has six months to use the visa.
  6. Sounds like prejudice (Jackie) against mainlanders.
  7. Remember, though, that it's through his company. What THEY cover is a different matter entirely. It may not be a question of whether she can get coverage, but a question of who will pay for it.
  8. Ask your HR dept if they need a real SS #. It all depends on the terms of your policy
  9. 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.
  10. There are several different charges that can crop up. There's the fee per minute, that we all quote when we post about it. For some carriers, there's also a per-connect fee (which adds a little to the cost of a call), and/or a weekly or monthly fee. Watch for those. There's also a variation in the expiration dates. Some 3 months, some 6. Just check that your plan is good for your own style of usage.
  11. If I remember correctly, the real Catch-22 comes if they take longer than a year to process your I-751 and the extension expires.
  12. Update: I called DOS again today, the lady said "the last update in GUZ was on April 14th (the day after I found out my case was "approved"), your fiancee's case is still processing" April 14th at 12:00pm (Pacific time) GUZ replied to my email saying my case "has been reviewed and will be approved" and that "the letter will be sent out this week". Is DOS just out of the loop or something? Yes - they get their information ONLY when GUZ posts it to the network. Congratulations.
  13. 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 The point is that GUZ is not bound by ANY decision by USCIS. The USCIS approves petitions - anyone legally married or engaged should be able to get the petition approved. The standard at the consulates is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the relationship is bona fide. The INA is peppered with the phrase "bona fide relationship". It is at the sole discretion of the Visa Officer to make this determination. The USCIS likewise is not bound by any decisions made by consular officials. So when they revoke a petition based on the "bona fide relationship" standard, they get their hands slapped. That is the basis for the rulings by the AAO - there is nothing anywhere in these rulings that says that the visa should have been awarded. I don't mean to upend your soapbox. I'm on your side. It's just that "not a bona fide relationship" IS a valid reason for visa denial.
  14. 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
  15. A nice try, but they will often blue slip at the interview for a waiver. You cannot prepare for this in advance. Just play it straight, like you're planning, but be aware that you may get a blue slip anyway.
  16. You might try contacting the embassy directly. I did find the following on their Web site: Yes - but the question was about the bio-metrics, not the re-entry permit I don't think we've heard from anyone doing that for a permit issued in the states, but they do biometrics for the CR visas, so you may be in luck. Don't know for sure.
  17. Put "Still Practicing" In general, never leave a blank blank. I would say "None" is the answer here.
  18. Sounds like there was never any doubt - congrats!
  19. My fiancee checked the EMS # on the website and there is no record of that #. So they've paid the postage but have not yet sent the mail and that is why there is still no tracking record? They said "sent this week", and today is already Friday over there. Do they send on weekends? I think they buy pre-paid envelopes with the shipping ID already on it, which then gets scanned in when they receive it. It may be in the GUZ shipping room already, waiting for pick-up Once you see that the package has been shipped, that's it Like I said, keep your fingers crossed. It's pretty nerve-wracking, I'm sure.
  20. The EMS tracking number is issued when you pay the postage. As far as them backtracking, that may mean an "Oops wait a minute here". Keep your fingers crossed and watch the tracking number at the China Post website
  21. They have the option of ordering a second medical exam if they so choose. The only choice you get is to comply.
  22. In the past, we've always recommended AGAINST doing this because it puts you into a black hole with regards to your appointment date. Consider your priorities - can you change the date of the banquet?
  23. Hint - you may wish to post with a different color
×
×
  • Create New...