Third Party Correspondence

[Randy W]

and, no, I don't think Mohammad Atta's ex-girlfriend should be able to disrupt his life unless she had some valid evidence about terrorist activities

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

and, no, I don't think Mohammad Atta's ex-girlfriend should be able to disrupt his life unless she had some valid evidence about terrorist activities

221754[/snapback]

 

I agree Randy. An allegation is one thing, but it must be backed up by evidence. It would be interesting to know the consulate protocol regarding third-party allegations, but because it's relating to national security they will never tell. As such, it's likely filled with a lot of stupid reasons for why they do it in a stupid way that needlessly delays and impacts the hearts and minds of law-abiding and loving couples.

[stacato]

The Problem is, one can't defend or prove wrong many of these allegations.

 

Someone sais something about you, I think THEY should have to prove what they say. Rumors are just what they are, rumors.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

The Problem is, one can't defend or prove wrong many of these allegations.

 

Someone sais something about you, I think THEY should have to prove what they say. Rumors are just what they are, rumors.

221756[/snapback]

Being accused of a crime in the US is just as serious as being convicted of it. In the US you are guilty until you can afford to hire an attorney to prove your innocent. Then, even after being proven innocent in court, the allegation will resurface for the rest of your life.

Edited June 5, 2006 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[Guest pushbrk]

Put me in charge of the consulate, and we'll both find out. I've said before, though, that I believe ANY blue slip issue should be brought to the attention of the applicant BEFORE the interview, so that they may bring overcome evidence with them. Blue slips are just another step in the process for the consulate, but potentially an EXTREME disruption to the applicant. To do this on the basis of a letter from a jealous ex is sick.

221752[/snapback]

I understand the emotion behind your response. However, we don't know the content of the letter or whether the letter clearly indicates that its author is a jealous ex. If WE presume the letter is a lie or lies, it could alledge pretty much anything and indicate pretty much any relationship between the author and petitioner.

 

Since the Consulate must make this determination, some criteria and established procedure must be used to do so. It would appear in this case that the correspondence came to light after the interview took place.

 

There are legitimate times to fault the Consulate. I don't think we have enough information to know whether this is one of them.

 

The "ex's" actions are sick. The Consulates are most likely prudent.

Edited June 5, 2006 by pushbrk (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

My beef for TPC is that it pursues the idea that your 'guilty till proven innocent'...

 

And I don't think that any one of us is against the idea of the consulate needing to investigate the allegation...

 

What I'm against is the lack of common sense that ought to be applied.. meaning, once the TPCer can be discredited or shown to have wrongly submitted any accusations, it still seems to take about six months for processing... and sometimes ends up going back to the US.

 

I've read on immigration lawyer sites that suggest that they consulates will let the cases sit for that period to truly get an indication that neither party is truly going to pull out. I don't state this as a factual action by the consulate, but it does bother me when even lawyers acknowledge this as possible... it just shouldn't happen that way.

[stacato]

If I am Favor, I sue this girl for everything she has, and then some.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

My beef for TPC is that it pursues the idea that your 'guilty till proven innocent'...

 

And I don't think that any one of us is against the idea of the consulate needing to investigate the allegation...

 

What I'm against is the lack of common sense that ought to be applied.. meaning, once the TPCer can be discredited or shown to have wrongly submitted any accusations,  it still seems to take about six months for processing... and sometimes ends up going back to the US.

 

I've read on immigration lawyer sites that suggest that they consulates will let the cases sit for that period to truly get an indication that neither party is truly going to pull out.  I don't state this as a factual action by the consulate, but it does bother me when even lawyers acknowledge this as possible... it just shouldn't happen that way.

221760[/snapback]

The population of the US contains a large percentage of people that have been falsely accused of a crime. Many times these allegations are made by an angry ex-spouse or friend. Sometimes these allegations can be very serious. Make no mistake about it, they will also ruin your life, regardless whether they are true or NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited June 5, 2006 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[stacato]

Put me in charge of the consulate, and we'll both find out. I've said before, though, that I believe ANY blue slip issue should be brought to the attention of the applicant BEFORE the interview, so that they may bring overcome evidence with them. Blue slips are just another step in the process for the consulate, but potentially an EXTREME disruption to the applicant. To do this on the basis of a letter from a jealous ex is sick.

221752[/snapback]

I understand the emotion behind your response. However, we don't know the content of the letter or whether the letter clearly indicates that its author is a jealous ex. If WE presume the letter is a lie or lies, it could alledge pretty much anything and indicate pretty much any relationship between the author and petitioner.

 

Since the Consulate must make this determination, some criteria and established procedure must be used to do so. It would appear in this case that the correspondence came to light after the interview took place.

 

There are legitimate times to fault the Consulate. I don't think we have enough information to know whether this is one of them.

 

The "ex's" actions are sick. The Consulates are most likely prudent.

221758[/snapback]

"She apologized and said she wrote the embassy out of jealousy and promised to contact the consulate to ignore her correspondences."

 

Now Favor has to wait who knows how long to get (Maybe) his visa

[warpedbored]

TPC is one of the hardest things to overcome. It can take months to overcome, especially if it is sent back to the USCIS with recomendation to revoke. This is one of the few times I recommend getting an atorney. King comes highly reccomended here onCFL

[Yuanyang]

My beef for TPC is that it pursues the idea that your 'guilty till proven innocent'...

 

And I don't think that any one of us is against the idea of the consulate needing to investigate the allegation...

 

What I'm against is the lack of common sense that ought to be applied.. meaning, once the TPCer can be discredited or shown to have wrongly submitted any accusations,  it still seems to take about six months for processing... and sometimes ends up going back to the US.

 

I've read on immigration lawyer sites that suggest that they consulates will let the cases sit for that period to truly get an indication that neither party is truly going to pull out.  I don't state this as a factual action by the consulate, but it does bother me when even lawyers acknowledge this as possible... it just shouldn't happen that way.

221760[/snapback]

I agree, both parties are put into a position of disproving a negative. A ridiculous, no-win position!

[mercator]

A situation all the slimy having had an approved visa and then getting it pulled. So if my wife gets a visa and comes to the US, some jealous 'friend' could write a letter and they could pull her back?

 

If they'd had visa in hand and left, then what? Do our SO's need to lay low until they get on the plane, for fear of some a****le jealous jerk writing a letter?

 

I just hope we aren't getting the whole picture here, and things aren't as tenuous as that...

[frank1538]

Favor's case might be signaling a change in the consulate's approach to third party correspondence. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that most TPC cases have resulted in a return of the files to USCIS with a recommendation to revoke and without much opportunity to rebut the allegations. In this instance, it sounds like Favor is being given the opportunity to provide additional information while the files are still at the consulate - to me a better way to address the issue.

[Favor]

You are lucky they admitted who the third party was, in many 3rd party cases the consulate gives absolutely no information. 3rd party delays are not uncommon.

 

I wouldnt worry if they have not responded, they are overwhelmed. Set up the interview, give them any information they may require. I am not sure as to how quickly the interview will be once you call.

 

Have you or your SO recieved any written notice from the consulate?

221714[/snapback]

The consulate replied my e-mail today saying my SO should follow the instructions on her blue slip. I thought they were going to say that I should inform my SO to come for her visa since the third party had already wirtten the consulate eating her words.

[Randy W]

Favor's case might be signaling a change in the consulate's approach to third party correspondence.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that most TPC cases have resulted in a return of the files to USCIS with a recommendation to revoke and without much opportunity to rebut the allegations.  In this instance, it sounds like Favor is being given the opportunity to provide additional information while the files are still at the consulate - to me a better way to address the issue.

221958[/snapback]

 

 

I am under the impression that the only ones sent back to the US were the ones with actual evidence in them which could be corroborated with the applicant.

 

I think there have been other cases that were simply blue-slipped, but I can't think of whose.