IllinoisDave

It's inevitable Larry. Some people save up a bladder full just for this topic.

Helpful? For her? Definately. For you? Sure. For your chances of getting pink? Maybe, maybe not. Good luck.

My wife reads a little of both. She's always had a fairly balanced take on what's happening in China. She's aware that what the gov't controlled media says is true and what is actually true are sometimes very different things. And yes, it's not only possible but certain that, on occasion, the gov't does not tell it's citizens the truth.

Have you tried the jelled pig's blood in hot pot? Still my favorite dish is noodles, wet or dry. Everywhere we go I try the noodles. In fact tonight I had Vietnamese noodles with charbroiled shrimp. My wife loves jellied pigs blood. The IT boys are NOT gonna be happy having to clean the barf outta my keyboard.

That is great news. Good job!!!

Just to be clear. I'm making no value judgements against those who eat dog, knowingly or unknowingly. It just ain't for me.

but you can knowingly eat beef, pork, chicken, and fish but only willingly eat certain parts If you lived during early american period, you'd add horse to that list above But I don't have any cows, pigs, chicken or fish living in my home nor am I on a first name basis with any. And none stare at me with big doey eyes when they're hungry or need to go pee. And I haven't raised any of them from 8 weeks old to 8 years. And none of them have stolen my wife's heart since she's been here or have kept her company every day while I'm at work. You get the idea.

I could not knowingly eat dog.

Just the opposite for me. Taste beets. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck15.gif Smell lima beans. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck15.gif Ok guys, tell me what you think of soybeans? My wife cooks them and they are oh so good!!! Never tried 'em. How does she cook 'em. She cooks them the same as any other bean. She presoaks them then seasons them with pork or beef bone. They taste similar to navy beans but they really rock when cooked with noodles. Ok, ya almost had me there til ya got to the tasting like navy beans part. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck15.gif

He takes little blue pills.

Just the opposite for me. Taste beets. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck15.gif Smell lima beans. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck15.gif Ok guys, tell me what you think of soybeans? My wife cooks them and they are oh so good!!! Never tried 'em. How does she cook 'em.

Just the opposite for me. Taste beets. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck15.gif Smell lima beans. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck15.gif

We use it too. My wife loves it. If your wife uses the phone a lot, this is a very good service as you have unlimited minutes for the monthly fee. And the free calls from China are a great bonus.

Love the retro avatar Rog.

When in Rome... If you don't like it, don't eat it. 99% of the food I saw/tried in China was delicious. The other 1% I either politely declined or tried only once. Black eggs come to mind.http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck15.gif I had no problem finding enough tasty food to keep my ample belly full.

yes, I can see it IL Dave,Don, Carl,Darnell,Tsaps, Joanne,Charles and last but not leat Toot all behind their windows May I see your passport please?

9 FAM § 42.41 N1 -- Establishing Relationship between Petitioner & Alien Beneficiary The approval of a petition under INA 204 (8 U.S.C. 1154) is considered to establish prima facie entitlement to status. The validity of the relationship between the petitioner and the alien beneficiary, familial or employer and/or employee, is presumed to exist. Unless you have specific, substantial evidence of either misrepresentation in the petition process or have facts unknown to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the time of approval, you generally would have no reason to return the petition to DHS. 9 FAM 42.43 N1 SUSPENDING ACTION IN PETITION CASES a. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) possesses exclusive authority over the approval and denial of immigrant visa petitions (except for those filed for aliens classifiable under INA 203© or 101(a)(27)(D)). You should bear in mind that the Department considers the approval of a visa petition prima facie evidence of the relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary. b. Therefore, it is your responsibility to review, not to readjudicate petitions. However, in the course of that review, if you obtain sufficient facts so that you know or have reason to believe that the beneficiary is not entitled to the status approved in the petition you will return the petition to the U.S Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) through the National Visa Center (NVC). 9 FAM 42.43 N2.2 Cases of Sham Marriages USCIS has minimum evidentiary standards that must be established before revocation proceedings in a case based upon a marital relationship may begin. These minimum evidentiary standards are: (1) A written statement from one or both of the parties to the marriage that the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes; (2) Documentary evidence that money changed hands under circumstances such that a reasonable person would conclude the marriage was a paid arrangement for immigration purposes; or (3) Extensive factual evidence developed by the consular officer that would convince a reasonable person that the marriage was a sham marriage entered into to evade immigration laws. The law is what it says. GUZ is disingenuous with the procedure and acts in bad faith. Again, not that this is going to change anything, but "Extensive factual evidence" of a sham marriage is the only basis that allows the consular officer to return an approved petition. Yes. With other key words/phrases being "entitlement to status" "presumed" "unless" "facts unknown" "generally" "however" "if" "sufficient facts" "not entitled" "you will return." I'm sympathetic to those who get white/blue and agree that GUZ's decision-making can often be called into question. But as others have pointed out, they have the technicalities of the law on their side. That's not to say that I think anyone should stop beating their head against the front door at GUZ or DHS to try and change things. Just have a big bottle of Tylenol ready.

Not exactly true. This common misunderstanding/misreading of the law can lead to a lot of misplaced anger at the process. http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm A minor, but important, distinction. All DHS has done is determine technical eligibility for a visa. As unfair as it may be, GUZ is the sole arbiter of what a "bona fide" relationship is.

+1 on that.

I agree. And maybe, as some other tactics/criteria seem to be, it's relative importance will be cyclical and fade with time.

Well ALMOST everybody was able to keep it balanced and in the spirit of the OP.

Some are of the opinion (and I agree) that one of the tactics GUZ uses is to deny in cases like these to see if the couple will come back a second time. The theory being that non-legitimate cases will likely give up and serious ones will keep at it. It sounds like you're definately in the latter category and should have a much better chance the second time around. Good luck.

historically... this is what we have said here on CFL.... to get a lawyer ASAP as they can get the case held and submit rebuttal evidence. We have seen conflicting ability to so now. David, Maybe one step in our preparation could be arranging for consul ahead of time. In what may be the single most important circumstance in our lives, why leave anything to chance? I never considered such an option but I am more and more. No matter how obvious to me the bonafides of my case. I am not Guz Jim I hate to say it but the best lawyer and the best paperwork in the world will have a very hard time overcoming a short meeting>marriage timeframe. From the pattern I'm seeing in the interview de-briefings over the last six months or so it seems pretty obvious that GUZ has decided to make this an extra large red flag. This wasn't nearly the issue when we filed (K-1) as it seems to be now. Unless couples can show a ton of communication before that first meeting AND have few of the other issues that may raise flags (divorces, large age differnce, little spoken English etc) they would be much better off putting some time between the meeting and the marriage. Just my two cents.

Now truer words HAVE been spoken.

Nice write-up Doc. Congrats again.