defendo

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. It is only a valid reason if there is a factual basis for the determination. It is not valid if it is based on opinion and speculation. The fact that a beneficiary does not know every detail of a petitioner's life is not a factual basis. In fact, the INA specifically provides that in order to find that a relationship is not bona fide, the consular officer must rely on information that the relationship was entered into specifically for the purpose of evading the immigration law. Simply stating that a relationship is not bona fide without precise specification is analogous to some one being charge with theft, but not identifying what was stolen, when it was stolen and where if was stolen. There is a presumption of having met the burden of proof of a bona fide relationship with the approval of a petition by USCIS. If this presumption did not exist, why even have an approval process. GUZ is required to rely on relevant, substantial evidence in order to make a finding that a relationship is not bona fide. In that sense GUZ should be required to have a justifiable bases for the decision and without justification, they are bound by the USCIS approval.

Ok...so, lets say he is sucessful in getting USCIS to review petitions in a timely manner. That only applies to active petitions. Petitions that have expired are no longer subject to review. It will just take a bit longer for your petition to be received by the USCIS from GUZ. There, problem solved. It arrived expired...No further action necessary. Yea, the old misrepresentation argument again. Ok..here we go again...this is an administrative finding. You do have the right to petition for a waiver, so your right to answer the finding is fulfilled. They don't call it a crime and you are never indicted or charged, so there is no trial to get to fight over. I tell you what...you go find an attorney that will take a case based on your arguments and will take it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. You ask him what it will cost for you to have your "justice". You find out what it will cost to subpoena everyone, travel expenses for the witnesses, do the research, go to trial after trial, court after court, airfare for him and his staff, court costs, etc, etc, etc...and then you come back and let us know if you are going to get your "justice". Your arguments may have just a bit of validity, but very little, but the bottom line is this..you can't afford to fund the battle. So, your arguments are moot. You are obviously very angry and bitter. I am sorry that the actions of GUZ has caused you so much misery. But you are not alone. I agree with your assessment of a corrupt government that has all the chips stacked in their favor. The ordinary citizen certainly does not have the resources to fight back. What the law says and how it is administered in the real world are two different realities. But nothing is lost in arguing the correct application of the law. It is a crime to misapply the law and thier are sanctions that could be imposed. I likelihood of such action is practically nonexistent. You stated in your original reply to Splinterman that "the DOS foreign consulates do not answer to the US Courts" The point of the Bustamante decision is that the court recognizes that consular officers are liable for decisions if the decisions deprive an American citizen of his due process rights. It is irrelevant whether Bustamante won or lost. I for one believe that it is useless to initiate a legal proceeding unless it is a class action that shows a pattern of misconduct. So you and I share the same point of view. I would argue that it is misconduct to wrongly return a petition that does not have a valid basis for the return and that due process is required, even in administrative hearings. There is such a thing as the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. I never asserted that the government follows the procedures. But once again, I have nothing to lose by arguing what the law says. I am stuck in this situation until I either move to China or there is movement on my case. Chances are that, just like you, I will be living the rest of my life in China too. You are preaching to the choir! It is certain that America would still be under the control of England if our founding fathers had your attitude and ceased to resist. One thing is certain, no change will occur without effort. I have written many letters to the committees and subcommittees. Have you? Whether any letters will be effective remains to be seen, but at least I have made the effort. Obviously only a few letters will be ignored. That is why a collective effort is required. Your arguments regarding testimony is wrong. Video testimony has been permitted in many court cases. I am not saying that it will be permitted in a particular case, but your tendency to generalize each situation is not accurate. Yes, the reason for a denial must be "facially legitmate and bona fide". Which means there has to be a factual basis. Opinion, conjuncture and speculation do not fulfill this requirement. That doesn't mean the government has to follow the rules. Because the government routinely makes up its own rules as it goes. The situation at Guantanamo is a good example. But your hypothetical examples are invalid. They are simply predictions based on your own jaded perceptions. I am certainly not naive and I have not expectations. But that does not mean I will simply surrender without a fight. I will use whatever resources I can within my means and whatever arguments that might have some impact. But when it is all said an done, I will probably be living the good life in Chongqing.

It is tragic that people spread misinformation because they simply do not know what they are talking about. Perhaps a review of American history and a civics class would enlighten you. First of all, it is absurd to claim that the U.S. Consulates do not answer to the U.S. Courts. Read Bustamante v MuKasey. The courts reaffirmed exceptions to the non-reviewability doctrine in instances where the visa application process has denied an Amercian Citizen due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I have no doubt that my due process rights were blatantly denied by GUZ. I am a party to the actions taken by GUZ. Second, to say that the foreign national is the only person with a grievance is ludicrous. How about the American petitioner? I certainly have a legitimate grievance. Guz fails to follow the requirements of law and federal regulations and in doing so they have denied all of us our liberty to marriage and family. It is not a privilege, but a right. ¡°Freedom of personal choice in marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the due process law.¡± (Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart; Cleveland Board of Education v Lafleur, 1974) You are correct that there is specific right that entitles an American to obtain a visa for a foreign national, but there are laws that govern the process and if they are not fairly applied, them American citizens have the right to petition for redress. You apathy is disheartening. Our country was founded on principals of justice. Simply accepting things as they are, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the circumstances is an open door to tyranny. Perhaps everyone on this site should recall what Margret Mead once said: NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL COMMITTED CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD. defendo

Hey,my comment got thru,it is on the blog.It had to wait for approval,which is fine.....on the bottom of the comment box was a sentence in chinese,of course,i don't know much chinese,so i copy and paste to google translator,it said waiting for approval.So,if it seems like it isnt accepting your comment,its a good chance its waiting for approval. keep trying,and keep writing letters,i finished my letters,sending them tomorrow(saturday).Thanks to all,who are making an effort for change. Jimi Thanks Jimi, We need all the participation we can get in this effort. I am hopeful that the Obama people will change the way things are in GUZ. It is critical that we show that many U.S. citizens are being screwed by GUZ and their illicit procedures. As long as the government perceives that the denials are legitimately determined on a case by case basis, there will never be a change in policy. Defendo

I just saw this - but I"m missing one thing - WHEN was this put on the website ? I'm wondering if it's some type of 'spin control' or if it's solely coming in as a series of videos for the 'Know Yer Consular Official' Series. It is not spin control, it is just arrogance. This man doesn't give two shits about any of our relationships. He is responsible for the actions of his subordinates and for the deviation from law and federal regulation. His boss is also ignorant of impact these decisions have. Some people need to exercise power to feel important. Compassion and understanding is not part of their consciousness. Keep the faith, Defendo

Here is the link for the blog. We need to add our support for the efforts that Mr. Roth has made. Only a collective effort can demonstrate that what is going on in GUZ is a pattern affecting many. DOS is trying to portray a perception that GUZ is following policy and the each case is unique and is adjudicated fairly. Your silence will only perpetuate this myth. Peace, Defendo Link: http://www.arctec.com/blog/

Here is the link for the blog. We need to add our support for the efforts that Mr. Roth has made. Only a collective effort can demonstrate that what is going on in GUZ is a pattern affecting many. DOS is trying to portray a perception that GUZ is following policy and the each case is unique and is adjudicated fairly. Your silence will only perpetuate this myth. Peace, Defendo

What an arrogant, condescending and most of all, LYING prick...no doubt a political appointee... Splinterman, My feelings exactly and I could not have said it any better! I am sending out another packet tomorrow to the DOS IG that contains Mr Roth's memo and the articles written by Marc Ellis. He has described my situation with acute accuracy when he states, "DOS will remain free to return hundreds or perhaps thousands of petitions where the officers' conclusions are conclusory, speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant to the bona fides of the petitioned relationships. It can continue to be unaccountable to US Citizen Petitioners. And in those cases, US Citizen Petitioners will have to put their futures on ice in a massive bureaucratic deep freeze". Jay

Putting a face on the enemy. Check out this video. This is the person who is most likely causing our misery. What a joke! http://guangzhou.usembassy-china.org.cn/up...acobsenEng2.wmv

My personal opinion is that e-mail is not as effective as a physical letter. But it is an individual preference.

Here are my thoughts about a date. We need to do this while Mr. Roth's memorandum is current. The more time slips by, the less effective any campaign will be. In the military there is an acronym, OBE, which means OVERCOME BY EVENTS. We do not want to lose the momentum and have our efforts overcome by other events that might take the focus off any success we have. So my vote is the sooner, the better. Here is the the addresses on my mailing list: President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Secretary Hillary Clinton Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 James B. Steinberg Deputy Secretary of State Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 Jacob L. Lew Deputy Secretary of State Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 Patrick F. Kennedy Under Secretary for Management Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 Ambassador Janice L. Jacobs Assistant Secretary of State Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 Brian D. Rubendall Special Agent-in-Charge U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General Room 8100, SA-3 2201 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20520 Secretary Janet Napolitano Department Of Homeland Security 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, DC 20528 U.S. Senator Bill Nelson Landmark Two 225 East Robinson Street Suite 410 Orlando, Florida 32801 Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Chairman House Committee on the Judiciary 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Our first objective should be to change GUZ's conduct. But each one of us should also ask for expedient redress to our situation. The action by GUZ is not only unfair, but punitive as well. Someone in authority needs to expeditiously review all our cases and those petitions meet the requirements of law and policy. If we have met our burden of proving that our martial relationships are bona fide, we should be be subjected to a lengthy delay to set things right. Peace, Jay

Good idea, but depends on the amount of participation. Ten or more would be effective.

Individually we have no chance, we will fail. Collectively, we can overcome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0XmsUlz2hI

Yeah,I wrote to Martinez,he sent a letter to Guangzhou consulate,they blew him off, they said my file was already sent back to the states,Guz was full of crap,but he bought it,wrote me back,basically saying"i did all i can do".rrrrrrriiiiiiight!!!!!!! Write to Bill Nelson at his Orlando office, to the attention of Peggy Gustave. I am lobbying him heavily to get personally involved in this. Will do !!!!! just got done watching the movie the "changeling"with Angelina jolie,wow !!! one woman stood up to the corrupt 1928 los angeles police department,brought down a police chief.supposedly a true story,anyway,lets get this "Corrupt Guz Consulate",seeing straight again.So we, all us honest folks,who got denied,can all finally bring our love ones home,enjoy "our pursuit of happiness".For God sake,is that too much to ask?........i am hoping to see Guz, put this"suspicious" bullshit to rest,so we can all move on with our lives...in peace.....we all realize there are bad people in the world,but,stop swatting at flies blindfolded......my wife is not a terrorist,we are not members of a F**kin' smuggling ring,or whatever the hell you think we done wrong.my wife is a simple 47 year old lonely woman,and i am a 48 year old lonely man........Jesus,we're just people who want to live our lives together in peace .Lets put an end to Psychic VO's and their "psychic readings",claiming to know a "non bonafide relationship.Lets get this done.Lets get it done now. Even those who already have their wife here,please,write letters....raise hell.This is still America,we are all Brothers here,we all want our wife "s home safe where they belong. Well said Jimmi!

Yeah,I wrote to Martinez,he sent a letter to Guangzhou consulate,they blew him off, they said my file was already sent back to the states,Guz was full of crap,but he bought it,wrote me back,basically saying"i did all i can do".rrrrrrriiiiiiight!!!!!!! Write to Bill Nelson at his Orlando office, to the attention of Peggy Gustave. I am lobbying him heavily to get personally involved in this.

Writing your Senators and Congress is good. But keep in mind that it is the Department of State that has oversight over the Consulate. I recommend that copies of letters also be sent to President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Deputy Secretary James B Steinberg and Deputy Secretary Jacob J. Lew. I have also written complaint letters to Representative Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and to Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration. Up until now, each of our complaints has been considered an individual problem and the Consulate had the upper hand in credibility. I believe that collectively, we can demonstrate that the visa approval process as implemented in GUZ is in violation of law and policy. We actually could be considered a class in a Federal Law Suit. As U.S. Citizens we have standing in Federal Court. And as petitioners, our constitutional rights to due process has been denied. Section 1983, Title 41 of the U.S. Code specifically states in part: ¡°Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,..." Redress under this section is applicable if the conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Although government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity, immunity can be denied if the "act is so obviously wrong, in the light of preexisting law, that only a plainly incompetent officer or one who was knowingly violating the law would have done such a thing." I genuinely believe that as petitioner, our constitutional rights have been violated intentionally. The issue of the doctrine of consular non-reviewablity can be overcome by show a pattern of conduct. Considering the FAM and the guidence memos sent to the consulate, I do not believe they have a valid defense. I am aware some members have a different perspective, but the law is what it says. There are no loop holes with the language. The intent and meaning is clear. Just my thoughts. Peace, Jay

Thank you to all that have written letters. It is critical that we expose this injustice while the pressure is on. Here is another person you may want to copy with your correspondence. Brian D. Rubendall, Special Agent-in-Charge U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General Washington, D.C. 20520-6817 I want to share my latest experience with GUZ. I requested the name of the consular officer who made the unjustified decision that my martial relationship was not bona fide. Not surprisingly, GUZ refused citing security reasons. This is a totally bogus reason, as the consulate has routinely published the names of various consular officers on their website. Once I pointed this out, I was told to contact USCIS because GUZ no longer had my physical file. This is so ludicrous. Unless these consular officers are involved covert operations, they should identify themselves just as any other governmental employee does. Just another example of how GUZ believes they are above the law. Please participate in this letter writing campaign. We need to show that these injustices are not isolated, but if a pattern of routine behavior. Thanks, Jay

Sorry, but one other suggestion. Those who live in Florida should write to Senator Bill Nelson. His office is acutely aware of my experience. Adding your complaint may inspire him to personally intervene. Martinez is a lame duck and writing him is a waste of time.

Now is the time to apply pressure. If everyone who has been hosed by the staff at Guangzhou will take the time to write a letter to your Senator and Congressman, maybe the consulate will start to comply with the law. Also include the inexcusable delays that result. It is hard to understand how in todays age of air travel it takes over three months just to return a file to USCIS. I've been writing letters non-stop since my wife's denial. I suggest that those who do write letters to copy President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Janice Jacobs. Attorney Roth has done us a big favor and now is the time to "seize the day" Peace, Jay

I handled the state income tax return by giving the same info that I gave with the federal return. I also sent them a copy of the W7 application that was sent with the federal return along with the notarized copy of her passport as well as a cover letter explaining everything. Everything went smooth. How did you get the notarized copy of her passport? I am living in China right now and the US Embassy will not just nortarize a copy of her passport even with me having the original. They say I have to get a Chinese nortary from our city. Then go to the province Foreign Affairs office and have the notary notarized and then bring both documents to ACS and they will nortarize the nortarized documents. Did you just get a notary public in USA to stamp a copy of your wife's passport? The US Embassy informed you incorrectly, unless China somehow is a member of The Hague Convention. Take the W-7 form along with the instruction sheet, her passport and highlight the following on page 2 Inform them that this is an IRS concerning a USC and their spouse and if necessary run this up through a supervisor or two, you are wanting this certified as a TRUE COPY and nothing else. Unless they are blind they should be able to do that simple task as certification of a true copy only states that they verified the copy is of the original. You might also ask the highly informative person who says to use a China notary to show you documentation as to when China signed the Hague Convention. FYI, The Peoples Republic of China became a member of the Hague Convention in 1984!

I handled the state income tax return by giving the same info that I gave with the federal return. I also sent them a copy of the W7 application that was sent with the federal return along with the notarized copy of her passport as well as a cover letter explaining everything. Everything went smooth. How did you get the notarized copy of her passport? I am living in China right now and the US Embassy will not just nortarize a copy of her passport even with me having the original. They say I have to get a Chinese nortary from our city. Then go to the province Foreign Affairs office and have the notary notarized and then bring both documents to ACS and they will nortarize the nortarized documents. Did you just get a notary public in USA to stamp a copy of your wife's passport? My wife & I did this at the embassy in Beijing last November, Maybe the Embassy or Consulate is hesitant to notarize a document that is in Chinese. You can go to local Chinese Notary Public Office and have the document notarized and translated into English. They will charge you a nominal fee, but it is worth it. Maybe the Embassy or Consulate is hesitant to notarize a document that is in Chinese.

How many of them are K1/2's? The author conveniently does not say. (Male or female? What was the length of their stay in the US before the issuance? Were they legal/illegal before this issuance? And so what?) Again, so what? Is he implying that just because more Green cards are issued to spouses of Americans, that there is more fraud than in any other means of getting a visa? Nor does he go into how easy it is to get a normal visa into the US? Just look at the number of immigrants coming over sponsored by religious institutions such as the Catholic church. There are fewer restrictions on these visas than on a K1/2. Again, he has not established the basic premise that marriages with foreign nationals intrinsically causes fraud in the establishment of a Green card. And the possibility of a terrorist getting ANY visa is as great, even greater using another visa such as the H1 or L1. Just walk through any major corporation's back office and you will see how easy those visas are to get. And with little or no screening. . How does he know how many visas are fraudulent if they are not caught? Is there some hidden number of follow up statistics that he is not willing to publish? Of course, not. They don't exist. And what numbers does he have of couples that never met other than the Internet? He can't be talking about an K1/2 because they must have met to even got through the process. A first time meeting over the Internet does not intrinsically imply a fraudulent relationship. The author needs to apply his faulty logic to relationships that are advertised as successful in the US, such as eHarmony or Match.com. He has been out of the US too long. And only 5 years? That is not a qualification for being any kind of expert on immigration. Again, so what about language? Has the author looked into how many marriages occurred in the mid to late 1800's (never mind our earlier migrations) where families married between countries coming here and had no common language other than they wanted out of a dismal life? These people and the migrations before them made America the great country it is now. An issue for law enforcement since the premise starts with "ordered removed." It has nothing to do with identifying illegal and fraudulent applications from the start. You are kidding, right? A VO kills a petition just by saying the words: "You do not have a bona fide relationship." USCIS then sits on the petition and it dies a lonesome death. I don't think this guy is as experienced as he claims. Five years is not long enough to claim the "expert" category. I agree with a lot of points he makes, especially having the couple together for the interview, but I think he has the prejudice that most VO's have that comes from their own distorted view of what a successful marriage is or the pre-conditions necessary for abuse. The facts are that very few K1/2 visas lead to abuse when compared to abuse in the rest of America. Citing an array of cooked statistics the authors and proponents of the International Marriage Broker Act of 2005 attempted to portray an abuse rate of ¡°over 50%¡±. Further examination of the facts revealed it was a telephone survey of 175 agencies dedicated towards providing Spousal Abuse services where over 50% have offered (a key term) services to foreign women who entered the United States through a K-1 or K-3 visa. Given the rate of over 4000 marriages per year since the early 90s, that translates into a rate of 0.22% or 154 times less likely then the average American woman to be abused. Given the number of persons perpetrating immigration fraud each year claiming abuse, that number should have been higher. What is not revealed in their report is that during that same period of time over 4000 persons have engaged in defrauding the American government and unsuspecting US citizens. Proponents of the new laws readily claim the ¡°abuse victims¡± come from poor, economically depressed economies. What they don¡¯t wish to acknowledge is that desperate people often take drastic measures and immigration fraud is one of them. The more desperate the conditions in the country, the more you will have such visa requests. But looking further into our own observations of our own relationships, what are some of the questions that would help a VO not knowing what to ask? I would suggest asking what the beneficiary's life is like now and what events led to the interest in leaving the country. And then, listen as if it were the Art that listening Is. I am finding in this guys' article, no interest in knowing the cultural differences and conditions in the country that led to that interest to leave. I think those motivations are key to understanding why someone would want to be a beneficiary, much less a petitioner. But it's a job to him. It's only a passion after he gets out and tries to sell himself as an expert. The social and economic conditions in Guangzhou today compared to what they are elsewhere in China are remarkable to understand what the VO sees in his/her everyday life. I know your fianc¨¦es come from many parts of China but let's see if we ring a familiar chord. GZ is just a step up from Hong Kong and in some ways is quite similar. I am sure most if not all VO's in GZ, take a trip to HK regularly. HK is not China. It is one, if not THE, most prosperous cities in China. When my fianc¨¦ went to GZ for her interview, she was struck by the prosperity there. She was also stuck by the manner in which she was treated in general, not that she is a celebrity where she comes from. And the prevalent language is different in GZ. (Former name: Canton.) Some people may not know, that when the Tiananmen Square massacre occurred in 1989, the reason why the Chinese government delayed removing the students by violence was not just because they tried to avoid violence (the Politburo had already been debating its use), but because they spoke Mandarin, the same language as the troops then occupying the square. For days, there was little violence between the troops and the students because they spoke the same language and the students entreated the troops not to fire on their own people. The students put flowers in the barrels of the soldiers rifles. Some soldiers were pictured with arms around the students in the square. The Tank Man of Tiananmen Square would have been killed straightaway had he been speaking to a Cantonese squad of tanks. That tank shown in the pictures was commanded by a Mandarin speaking driver. (The leader of the tank group was related to Deng Zhao Ping.) So the Chinese government brought in troops from the south, near Shanghai and the more Southern areas, where Cantonese was spoken. Those troops did not understand the students and were told that they were rabble and needed to be removed. As a result, over 3,000 students (and some local non-students) were murdered on June 4. (See China Wakes by Nickolas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn or Red China Blues by Ann Fong.) Most of the people today applying for a visa have lived either under the Cultural Revolution in China and their parents lived under the Great Leap Forward, otherwise known as the Great Famine. Even though things in China are much better, there are still strong memories of those events. (Interesting that teenagers in China when asked what happened on June 4, 1989 at Tiananmen Square said they do not know. My fianc¨¦ had no idea either. That¡®s how good the Chinese government is at censorship.) In childhood, poverty is especially remembered. My fianc¨¦ remembers many days when there was nothing to eat. They had few clothes, maybe one change of clothes at all to wear. She lost her father in the Revolution, and her mother reared three daughters (after losing two older siblings to famine), one of whom was a Red Guard. That had to have been challenging, to say the least. By most accounts and despite China¡¯s prosperity today, 80-85% of China lives in poverty. Minimum, that¡¯s over a billion people. And the Chinese government even lies about that, witness: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2007/11/10/c...w-poverty-rate/ And why is it women that want to come to America? Obviously some men do too, but let¡¯s face it, women predominate. It¡¯s easy to understand when you consider women are still being sold like cattle or pigs in China today, some under the most incredible circumstances. http://www.stopvaw.org/U_S_Second_Circuit_...cial_Group.html http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/...n_sold_as_g.php Those are the conditions, and there are more. My fianc¨¦s ex-husband was a drunk, a gambler, and had several concubines and girl friends. When her mother was in her death bed, she told my fianc¨¦ to find an American man who was polite and treated her with respect. I do so happily, every day. So here are the questions and answers, Mister ex-VO-expert-on-immigration-issues. And by the way, love, a human right and the basis for the issuance of this visa, something you do not understand, has a lot to do with it. Now give me my pink slip, and I will go about the business of making her happy. RIGHT ON!!!! TELL IT LIKE IT IS!

Hi Jay, I wrote a Letter of Evolution of Marital Relationship and had it notarized in GUZ before my wife's interview. Since you are going to submit another I-130,, you need to submit a Letter of Evolution of Marital Relationship with the I-130 and if you submit an I-129F submit it again with the I-129F. But I suggest that if you submit another I-130 you also submit an I-129F for K3,,this way if the K3 is denied you have the I-130 to fall back on. As far as English goes, I submitted this in the Letter of Evolution of Marital Relationship: "We bought a sentence electronic translator on my first visit to help our communication but now only use it when detailed questions are asked between the two of us. It is note worthy that Ling and I could even at first meeting communicate in simple English. This was because Ling had a fair grasp of written English that she could understand me. For communication we use a combination of spoken English, written English on a note pad and for detailed questions an electronic translator." Hope this helps,,feel free to write if you have any questions. Tom and Ling Thanks Tom, My plan is to file a I-129 Petition for a K-3 since I will not be charged another filing fee because I have already paid that when I filed my I-130 petition. Except I am heeding the advice I found on this site to "front load" the I-129. My I-130 is in a black hole somewhere. I have tried to trace it, but NVC says DHS has it and DHS says NVC has it. I would like to rebut the denial, but who knows when that opportunity will be given to me. I will also incorporate your suggestion to include an evolution of relationship letter. I would appreciate any feedback if my strategy of filing a subsequent "front loaded" I-129 petition is sound and appropriate. The only other option is to file another I-130, but I have read several post that discourage this approach while the original I-130 is still "pending". Jay