visa denied

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

randy raises a good point... I think that the VO considered it a sham marriage... and he would base that on evidence we not yet aware of..

 

But why would he ask about the 'ex' being in the US and not marrying her, unless he believe the non-marriage was due to keeping her unmarried on purpose... for future reuniting with an "ex" in the US (?). yes, some speculation, but it seems the consulate has some angle on this we don't have.

 

This is why it's so very important to have all the facts before letting threads take off in a direction that confuses both the poster and readers. While there may be an occasional bad-apple VO or one that woke up on the wrong side of the bed, the vast majority are there to assist and make the experience a good one.

 

Everyone that posts on this site should be keenly aware that Visa fraud is a huge problem in the world, with some of the worst violations ocurring in China. It's the job of these VO's to weed out those that are attempting to cheat the system.

 

It's important to keep this in mind before, during, and after the interview. There are certain things that raise red-flags that fraud might be taking place. While some of these might take common sense to undertand, others might be a little more subtle.

 

Make sure all paperwork is complete, no blanks. N/A and None used where appropriate. All birthdates, place of birth, divorce dates, agree from one form to another. While some discrepancies are bound to happen, there are some that will send up a red-flag and leave your entire process open to conjecture. Be careful, thorough, and complete. While speculating what the government are thinking before a denial occurs can be helpful, it will do little to help your process afterward.

[IluvmyLi]

How about some evidence of fraud, rather then throwing out denials because they have a "feeling".

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

How about some evidence of fraud, rather then throwing out denials because they have a "feeling".

That's the point. They need no evidence of fraud only a suspicion that it is happening. This is why it's easier to fix before this happens than after. The only way to fix after this occurs is in the courts, in front of a judge.

[yuehan123]

You say you spoke with King the other day. You said your wife wants.... You asked do the prices seem reasonable?

 

If you base your decision about retaining an attorney on price alone, if you do what your wife wants (probably based on price), or if you abandon the K-1 for the K-3 you may always regret those decisions.

 

My wife, and some others, usually say 'just do it'

[david_dawei]

How about some evidence of fraud, rather then throwing out denials because they have a "feeling".

That's the point. They need no evidence of fraud only a suspicion that it is happening. This is why it's easier to fix before this happens than after. The only way to fix after this occurs is in the courts, in front of a judge.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this.. I'm sure that DOS particularly would not.. but I understand that USCIS and DOS/consulates are probably less an enthusiastic bed partners.

 

I'm sure that china has more returned than most countries and feel their expertise on such issues should be respected by USCIS.. who knows. But USCIS does not like to be pulled into ligitation nor waste people's time in general... (however much we might disagree with how inefficent we feel the system currently is).

 

One point: there's litigation that can result from revocations, and so over the years, USCIS has [attempted to] provided guidance to consulates concerning the return of cases to the US for revocation.

 

The bottom line is that they need solid evidence, well documented, etc. And the petitioner appears to have rights to the documented findings... but not sure if one must go to the consulate and request it.. hint hint..

 

 

I'll put in two links about revocation and guidance, but quote one section which is interesting since it comes closest to suggesting a 'pre-determined' state of the case (that if USCIS approves a petition, it really should be a done deal--provided everything really is on the up and up).

 

"In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification - which are examined in the petition process have been met. Where Congress has placed responsibility and authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for status which are examined in the petition process have been met, consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note

2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition"

 

 

GUIDANCE ON PETITION REVOCATION

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1415.html

 

GUIDELINES AND CHANGES FOR RETURNING DHS / BCIS APPROVED IV AND NIV PETITIONS

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1388.html

 

You say you spoke with King the other day. You said your wife wants.... You asked do the prices seem reasonable?

 

If you base your decision about retaining an attorney on price alone, if you do what your wife wants (probably based on price), or if you abandon the K-1 for the K-3 you may always regret those decisions.

 

My wife, and some others, usually say 'just do it'

 

 

Everyone's situation will offer a slightly different ability and path.. here is what I would do:

 

I'd Talk to king again..

 

Ask him how much time do you have before it is most likely going to be sent back to the US...

 

Ask about the rights to the documented findings of the revocation (I'm certain it mentions it in the links I provided)..

 

Ask him if you can assign him as legal rep to go get it or not... and what will that cost to retrieve it, review it and make recommendations.

 

If he cannot do this (either doesn't want to do part of a job or he is not allowed to pick it up), then I would consider to ask another lawyer or go to the consulate myself and ask for it..then take it to him or another laywer in GUZ to review and make recommendations.

 

I guess I'd want the findings first, if I truly had rights to it... Everyone, including a lawyer, is speculating a little without the write-up.

Edited August 31, 2006 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

David, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, or what may motivate a VO to recommend denial or revocatation of a visa. They have been given the authority to make those decisions in much the same way a traffic cop gives a ticket for speeding. Bitch all you want about getting the ticket, but the fact remains you got the ticket.

 

No-one likes being accused of something they didn't do, so that's why we have the court system. Once you get the ticket, they only way to prove innocence is to take your case to court, where you hope that you will have sufficient evidence to sway the court's opinion in your favor.

[MikeandRong]

Read up on this link. It stresses the importance of not following through on the K1 after motion to deny. Do not just think is goes away and you can just marry and go CR1/K3.

 

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

[david_dawei]

David, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, or what may motivate a VO to recommend denial or revocatation of a visa. They have been given the authority to make those decisions in much the same way a traffic cop gives a ticket for speeding. Bitch all you want about getting the ticket, but the fact remains you got the ticket.

 

No-one likes being accused of something they didn't do, so that's why we have the court system. Once you get the ticket, they only way to prove innocence is to take your case to court, where you hope that you will have sufficient evidence to sway the court's opinion in your favor.

 

 

I agree with that.. Opps, we're not about agreeing or not

 

In the cops case, use of a speeding gun is probably strong evidence; to say the guy 'looked fast' might get it dropped by the court.

 

My point is only to the fact that they are supposed to recommend revocation based on concrete facts, not mere speculation... and it must all be documented for USCIS to review.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Read up on this link. It stresses the importance of not following through on the K1 after motion to deny. Do not just think is goes away and you can just marry and go CR1/K3.

 

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

Good link Mike. This is not the sort of thing that one should take on without the careful guidance of an extremely good and well-practiced attorney. The sort of attorney that won't be cheap.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

David, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, or what may motivate a VO to recommend denial or revocatation of a visa. They have been given the authority to make those decisions in much the same way a traffic cop gives a ticket for speeding. Bitch all you want about getting the ticket, but the fact remains you got the ticket.

 

No-one likes being accused of something they didn't do, so that's why we have the court system. Once you get the ticket, they only way to prove innocence is to take your case to court, where you hope that you will have sufficient evidence to sway the court's opinion in your favor.

 

 

I agree with that.. Opps, we're not about agreeing or not

 

In the cops case, use of a speeding gun is probably strong evidence; to say the guy 'looked fast' might get it dropped by the court.

 

My point is only to the fact that they are supposed to recommend revocation based on concrete facts, not mere speculation... and it must all be documented for USCIS to review.

 

Yup. This is why after it happens your only option is to prove your case under that guidance of a good and expensive attorney....

[IluvmyLi]

David, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, or what may motivate a VO to recommend denial or revocatation of a visa. They have been given the authority to make those decisions in much the same way a traffic cop gives a ticket for speeding. Bitch all you want about getting the ticket, but the fact remains you got the ticket.

 

No-one likes being accused of something they didn't do, so that's why we have the court system. Once you get the ticket, they only way to prove innocence is to take your case to court, where you hope that you will have sufficient evidence to sway the court's opinion in your favor.

 

"Excuse me Sir. I have a certain amount of blue slips, Ooops i mean speeding tickets, to give out today. Even though I have no proof of you speeding, here's a ticket anyway. Go to court and fight it if you don't agree. Cya".

 

Ok.

Edited August 31, 2006 by IluvmyLi (see edit history)

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

David, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, or what may motivate a VO to recommend denial or revocatation of a visa. They have been given the authority to make those decisions in much the same way a traffic cop gives a ticket for speeding. Bitch all you want about getting the ticket, but the fact remains you got the ticket.

 

No-one likes being accused of something they didn't do, so that's why we have the court system. Once you get the ticket, they only way to prove innocence is to take your case to court, where you hope that you will have sufficient evidence to sway the court's opinion in your favor.

 

"Excuse me Sir. It looks like you may have been speeding. Even though I have no proof of you speeding, here's a ticket anyway. Go to court and fight it if you don't agree. Cya".

 

Ok.

Baliff, whack his pee-pee. I think he's gettin it....

 

 

David, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, or what may motivate a VO to recommend denial or revocatation of a visa. They have been given the authority to make those decisions in much the same way a traffic cop gives a ticket for speeding. Bitch all you want about getting the ticket, but the fact remains you got the ticket.

 

No-one likes being accused of something they didn't do, so that's why we have the court system. Once you get the ticket, they only way to prove innocence is to take your case to court, where you hope that you will have sufficient evidence to sway the court's opinion in your favor.

 

"Excuse me Sir. It looks like you may have been speeding. Even though I have no proof of you speeding, here's a ticket anyway. Go to court and fight it if you don't agree. Cya".

 

Ok.

Baliff, whack his pee-pee. I think he's gettin it....

 

Just remember, people are arrested, charged, and even convicted every day based upon hearsay and suspicion. The VO is perfectly within their rights to deny, delay, and recommend revocation on suspicion alone....

[Randy W]

[Just remember, people are arrested, charged, and even convicted every day based upon hearsay and suspicion. The VO is perfectly within their rights to deny, delay, and recommend revocation on suspicion alone....

 

 

The problem I see in this case is that, if it was based on the interview, it was based on a communication failure. UNLESS it was determined (hopefully, erroneouisly) ahead of time that her ex is in the US.

 

It seems to me to hinge entirely on exactly where the interview went south.

[gman2531]

Chilton, if my memory serves me well, you posed a question on CFL a week or so before your interview date about whether having many previous marriages could negatively affect the outcome of your interview. Could you have a suspicion that someone, an ex, could be communicating some information to NVC or GUZ? Perhaps some new information came to light between the time you received your NOA2 and the interview.

 

Think, man think!

[jim_julian]

This is why after it happens your only option is to prove your case under that guidance of a good and expensive attorney....

 

 

I would caution that "good" and "expensive" do not necessarily equate and further that it is not unreasonable to expect a good attorney to have a reasonable fee structure.

 

I would not accept the need for retainers in the $3000-$5000 range without calibrating that figure with the other lawyer recommended in this thread and perhaps consulting with SmilingAsia who seems to know a lot about this subject.

Edited August 31, 2006 by jim_julian (see edit history)