IllinoisDave

Sorry, but the reality is that this is simply not true. That is not what USCIS is doing. We can read anything we like into all the regulations, guidelines and directives we can find and draw whatever conclusions we like, but this will still not be the reality of the process. By this logic GUZ and every other consulate/embassy around the world would be rubber stamping for USCIS. They're certainly not doing that. Regardless of what we wish they were doing, or what we believe they're tasked to do, USCIS is at best doing cursory checks into the bona fides of relationships. As it stands now, they're leaving it up to the GUZs of the world to do any real scrutinizing of petitions and make the determination as to whether the US government believes them to have been entered into fraudulently or not. We may not like it and we may believe it to be against the letter of the regulations, insofar as anyone can understand the regulations, but in reality that's how the distribution of labor in this process is done for now. IMO the real controversy, at least here at Candle, seems to be not so much wherethis determination of a bona fide relationship is made, but whether it should be made at all given the subjective nature of it. An argument can and often has been made here that a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Vermont or a pane of glass in Guangzhou is no more qualified to recognize true love than the man in the moon. I doubt the bureaucrats would even argue with that. So the question becomes; Should they even try? If you believe they shouldn't/can't, then the process becomes much simpler and probably shorter. Just check to see that all the right spaces are filled in and proper boxes checked and basic requirements met. USCIS can just do this and pass it along to GUZ and GUZ can simply check to see that the beneficiary is who he/she claims to be, fill out the proper forms, hand over the visa and say "Welcome to the USA." But consider that this streamlined process wouldn't apply just to Guangzhou. It would also apply to Mexico City, Islamabad, Warsaw, Bogata, Minsk etc. If you're gonna take all petitioner's/beneficiary's words for it that their relationships are real in Guangzhou, then you'll be doing it at all the other consulates/embassies as well. Not saying this is good or bad, just something to keep in mind. If, on the other hand, you're of the mind that the gov't does need to somehow establish a bona fide relationship before granting a visa, then there's the question of where that part of the process should take place. Should it be stateside with USCIS and government employees sitting behind desks however many thousands of miles from a given consulate or embassy? Looking at raw forms with basic information provided by petitioners/beneficiaries? Without the benefit of meeting either one face to face? With limited knowledge of the culture or history of the home country of beneficiary? Or should that responsibility rest with the respective consulate/embassy actually located in the country of the beneficiary? With someone who, in theory at least, has taken a closer look at the petition and is meeting face to face with the person for whom that petition is intended? Someone who at least resides in that country and has, again at least in theory, some knowledge of the local culture and may be familiar with potential patterns of fraud? The process as it stands is far from perfect. Solutions have consequences that can be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint. Since I'll no doubt be accused of having some bias one way or another, I'll go ahead and give my viewpoint as to how it would work if I were King. Any attempt to determine whether a relationship is "bona fide" is inherently flawed given the obvious subjectivity involved. That's a given. But I believe some attempt should at least be made to do so. Otherwise we'd be flooded with "sham" marriages from ALL countries. So if we're gonna try, IMO the most appropriate place for it is in the home country of the beneficiary after the petition has left USCIS. The key, and this is far from a novel idea, is openness. I think the beneficiary's first interview can still be alone. If he/she is granted the visa based on what the VO has seen in the petition and heard in the interview, obviously no further action is needed. But, if the VO has any doubts, the petitioner, assuming he/she is present, should be allowed in immediately and the VO should be required to explain specifically what his or her concerns are. The petitioner should then be allowed to explain or clarify anything the VO has questions about. And should be able to present any documentary evidence that the VO may have overlooked or ignored during the one on one part of the interview. I also believe a supervisor should be required to be present at this "second chance" part of the interview as a sort of arbiter who can listen to the "evidence" and help decide if the VO has made the right decision based on the additional information or testimony the petitioner has presented. Then the VO and supervisor should determine if sufficient evidence has been presented to overcome the VO's initial concerns. If enough has been presented they can make the decision to grant the visa. If they need further evidence they should explain exactly what that evidence is and then issue a blue with RFE. If they conclude that in thier mind there is fraud then they should be required to fully explain in person as well as in writing why they suspect it and go ahead and issue the white and let the appeals process proceed. If the petitioner cannot be present at the initial interview then things are a little more complicated but should still be simplified and open. The VO would need to explain to the beneficiary, through an interpreter if necessary, the reason for a blue and what would be required to overcome it. This would be put in writing to both beneficiary and petitioner as well. If the overcome is as simple as missing documents then the process can play out as it does now except that possibly a mechanism would be put in place whereby re-submitted evidence due to blue is expedited. And if the petitioner wishes to have a "second chance" interview, one should be scheduled within a reasonable amount of time and he/she should be afforded the same opportunity to plead the case as the petitioners who were present for first interviews. Now I realize this is very wishful thinking and probably far from ever becoming a reality. But it's the best way I can think of to say that I think there is a need to have a system in place to combat potential fraud while acknowledging that there's probably a better way to do it than we have now.

Well I couldn't read the link so I'll take your word for what it says. B) But seriously Jesse, your company should be commended.

The study is about urban vs. rural, not across provinces There is a simple principle at play here that I thought everyone understood - the "One child policy" does not cause any births, does not cause any deaths, before or after child birth, and will NOT by itself affect the ratio of male to female births. The ratio at conception is 50:50 regardless of any previous or future births or potential births. The one-child policy does not change this, nor does it change the ratio at birth (usually considered to be 1.7 to 1). What DOES change this ratio is the number of selective abortions, or any other survivability factors. If a couple keeps trying, keeps having girls (or aborting them) until they finally have a boy, it doesn't matter - the ratio is the same for each one. Only the selective abortion of females can change this ratio. So his statement that …" the data suggests that it might actually only have a minor causative role, and that the bias is more a function of relative education standards and traditionalism" is of course true, simply because the one-child policy does not (directly) cause abortion. He did NOT study these factors across provinces, only between urban and rural. Exactly. And the stats I cited make no mention of the one-child policy, only the gender imbalance. And the study doesn't attribute that imbalance solely to the policy.

Not province-based according to further statistics from the study: http://www.slate.com/id/2216236/ Except this report states the opposite... http://www.insightbureau.com/insight_artic...urent.Nov08.pdf Statistics.... well... I think most know the saying.. but I do find this link is how I have felt... and I've asked in the past if anyone has heard of the Tb--son born relationship... which this link is one of the rare ones to mention. Maybe we look for stats which support our own views The source I cited indicated rises in gender imbalance were consistent across all provinces. I see nothing in your source that indicates the opposite, that it's limited to a few.

Not province-based according to further statistics from the study: http://www.slate.com/id/2216236/

Not so. It is not based on province. What happens is that in some provinces there are certain ethnic groups and any ethnic group that is not Han is legally allowed to reproduce like rabbits. Han Chinese in Yunnan are under the population planning rules. true and not true, china is not as rigid as usa govt control Not a very lucid statement that anybody who has been in China for more than 4 days would find true. When the Chinese government wants to exercise control, they can do it very rigidly and in the most brutal ways imaginable. Oh, really? Show us an example. As far as I know, when the fishing ship went to the coatline of Russia, the Russians fired at them, killing 7 out of 16. Last month, the same thing happened in the Chinese coast line by American so called research ship, did we kill the Americans? Negative. Why bother showing you examples? We could post countless examples of the Chinese government's brutality against it's citizens and you'd just label them all "Western media propaganda/bias" or just call them criminals and say they had it coming. Or use some completely non-sensical example about boats and ships that has no relation at all to the discussion at hand. Or claim that your having lived there trumps any and all facts that someone who hasn't may offer as evidence. Doesn't matter that those facts are well documented. All that matters in your world is that you lived there and we didn't so whatever you say must be factual and whatever we say must not. What credibility you think you have based on your status as a native you lose through intellectual dishonesty.

CONGRATS!

A lot of good advice so far. I'd just add to what others have said that you should put some time between her previous denial and your engagement or marriage. Assuming you can afford to, I'd make at least one more visit before getting engaged and filing K-1 or getting married and filing K-3. TIME is your best friend in these circumstances IMHO. More time spent together and communicating and more time put between her petitions. It won't get you together faster but it may ultimately be the difference whan a VO takes a look at your case down the road. Best of luck.

Well deserved! Congratulations, and Welcome to America! Yeah, what he said.

Sorry for the blue. Hopefully the overcome will be as simple as it seems and faster than you think. Good luck.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-04...ent_7651949.htm

Can't wait to try it.

That's good to know Mike. Does the guard hand them out as you get there or what?

Good luck to all!

Not legally. I know you're probably kidding but be very careful about this sort of stuff. Any marks against her regarding the law, even traffic tickets, will not be looked upon favorably come time for AOS. You don't want to take any chances.

Welcome to CFL Auggie. Carl's given you the good poop so I'll just post so you can take a look at our timeline. It's just one, but it'll give you an idea of what you may expect.

Interesting Western perspective of the Chinese Hu Kou. I believe there may be something else going on here however. Like the Chinese partner perhaps maybe not wanting to be married in China? Maybe she's had a dream of being married in America. If someone is telling her there are problems or issues in her hometown, then, why not just travel there, straighten it out, and get married there? I wonder if she just misspoke or the OP misunderstood about not be able to marry in China and meant just not in Guangzhou.

This guy's info would seem to confirm that she would need to buy property in Guangzhou or go back to her hometown and marry. http://www.middlekingdomlife.com/guide/get...ed-in-china.htm

Best of luck!

She should bring her high school and college diplomas with her. And make sure she get's copies of her college transcripts while she's still there. If Cal is anything like the schools here, they'll need to do an evaluation of them to determine what the equivalency of her Chinese degree is here. We had to get certified translations of Christine's high school and college diplomas and of her college transcripts done here. We then, at our own expense, had to submit them to a company used by the school and they evaluated the classes taken and her grades and came up with what the US equivalent would be for her degree and GPA. If you can get copies of them before she gets here you can get that part of the process out of the way. That's how they do it here. Your mileage may vary.

damn, do I have to give up pizza? Nah. Just go with thin crust for awhile.

Since I can't remember to save me and for the OP and other's benefit, did mamabear present her letter at the interview or later for overcome? If at the interview did that avoid the blue slip? She presented the letter at the end of the interview when she got the blue slip. Since a waiver is required and more background checks done presenting the statement at the interview would not likely prevent a blue slip. I have heard reports of the VO letting it slide but it is rare. Thanks.

Since I can't remember to save me and for the OP and other's benefit, did mamabear present her letter at the interview or later for overcome? If at the interview did that avoid the blue slip?

If you are K-1 you won't see it on a form until you file AOS. They usually ask at the interview though. Actually, that's not true. The GNI-2 form requires a specific answer to that question. You can view all the K1 / K2 forms here: http://candleforlove.com/FAQ/Visa_Checklist_for_candle_K1.pdf Give me link to the actual form. I want to read it. The I-485 is explicit in asking "if you have ever been..." I read through all the K-1 forms listed on VJ, the only reference I saw to party membership was on the DS-230. If my wife had been a member of the CCP I would have rather dealt with it in the states while filing AOS. They don't always ask at the interview. I remember a post quite a while back where the beneficiary was prepared to answer truthfully if asked, since they didn't the visa was approved. Here's a link Carl. http://guangzhou-ch.usembassy-china.org.cn..._Form_GNI-2.pdf It isn't specifically worded that way. It asks for all organizations belonged to since age 16, including political. And then under those listed as ineligible it says "aliens who are, or at any time have been...members of or affiliated with any totaliltarian party..."