White slip whereabouts

[chilton747]

Ok... so I will have to just accept missing the point here.

 

The I-130 is filed.. the K1 is now invalid... and the logic being stated is NOT to tell USCIS about their continued processing of an invalid case.

 

I say, tell USCIS that a petition which was once filed is not invalid due to a I-130 filing... DOS has nothing to do with this.

 

Or as is being said, let the I-130 filing eventually cancel it... Does it matter if the I-130 cancels it or the petitioner cancels it? I would wonder about a petitioner who files again without cancelling the first one...

 

As to the "why"... my wife often says, "no why.. just do".. and I've come to accept that.

Ok David I will try and clear up this "mysterious" point for you. The DOS (GZ) recommends to the USCIS that the petition be revoked due to their findings. If the USC decides at this point, before receiving the NOID letter from the USCIS, to withdraw the petition formally in writing then perhaps the USC's intention might be to bail out before being accused by the USCIS therefore indicating the strong possibility that fraud does exist. Think about this for a moment. If a person is willfully trying to circumvent the process in a fraudulent manner then the logical choice is to bail out as quickly as possible to keep from trying to get into deep trouble. There are fines associated with this and they are very stiff. It is my feeling that to withdraw the K1 with written notice and simply stating that the CR1 will be filed is only heresay until the actual CR1 is filed. It is well know that filing the CR1 automatically cancels the K1. So in this case the petitioner is showing intent that the relationship is indeed bona fide by the action of marriage.

Now this could also backfire as well but it also gives the petitioner another chance to prove that their love is indeed real and evidence can be submitted to the USCIS in the form of a rebuttal for the K1 added to the CR1 petition. The problem is that I could only speculate what there findings were. My interview with my lawyer gave him a strong opinion as to what he thought they were. He helped me understand what they were thinking, therefore the post in my other thread.

The fact remains that there are couples like my wife and I that are truly honest and do wish to live together in a bona fide state of marriage.

Keep in mind that the VO that issued the denial often does this with their gut feelings based on what has been presented. You also know that there are many gray areas in a relationship that the VO could easily misinterpret. It is much easier for the VO to err on the side of caution because they do not face any consequenses for their actions in this particular circumstance.

My lawyer has seen several cases wherein the petitioner withdraws the petition and therefore the case is thrown into automatic revocation. He is simply advising me of the pitfalls seen from other cases.

I have one last shot at being able to bring my wife here to live with me. I soooooooo much want to give her the chance to come here and experience my way of life here. We have talked volumns of this and I feel she is prepared as well as she could possibly be. I really need to know the real allegations written in the denial so I can have a chance to clear the misunderstandings. If the visa gods determine otherwise then I will go to China.

As always, I respect your opinions and welcome them very much. You have been a great help to me and I can never repay you enough.

[chilton747]

As to wanting to know why????????? Of course I do. This is human nature. David's wife says "no why, just do." This is very appropriate thinking. But given the complication of my case, knowing "why" can only help me at this point. My wife's and my future depend on this. But what can I say? Let the chips fall where they may. I could easily live in China. But then my wife would not get to experience my way of life here. I think we both deserve that chance.

Thank you for your support guys. It means much more than you could ever imagine.

[RLS]

Chilton, sorry to hear all of this. I would think your lawyer could do something. After all, he's probably getting paid good money. Keep up the fight, Chilton.

[chilton747]

Chilton, sorry to hear all of this. I would think your lawyer could do something. After all, he's probably getting paid good money. Keep up the fight, Chilton.

Thanks Ron. Great avatar man

[LeeFisher3]

Chilton, sorry to hear all of this. I would think your lawyer could do something. After all, he's probably getting paid good money. Keep up the fight, Chilton.

The recommended time for an NOID to be returned to the US is 30 days according to DOS communications with the consulates.

 

Unfortunately, getting GZ to handle the NOID in the time recommended by the DOS and not "Deep Sixing" (DOS term) the petition is out of the control of much of anyone, including the USCIS and obviously the DOS is not too concerning about this mismanagement.

 

Only a Congressional committee who controls the funds for DOS and/or consular affairs could get their attention, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on Washington when legal immigration is not the hot topic in the news cycles.

[david_dawei]

Ok... so I will have to just accept missing the point here.

 

The I-130 is filed.. the K1 is now invalid... and the logic being stated is NOT to tell USCIS about their continued processing of an invalid case.

 

I say, tell USCIS that a petition which was once filed is not invalid due to a I-130 filing... DOS has nothing to do with this.

 

Or as is being said, let the I-130 filing eventually cancel it... Does it matter if the I-130 cancels it or the petitioner cancels it? I would wonder about a petitioner who files again without cancelling the first one...

 

As to the "why"... my wife often says, "no why.. just do".. and I've come to accept that.

It is my feeling that to withdraw the K1 with written notice and simply stating that the CR1 will be filed is only heresay until the actual CR1 is filed. It is well know that filing the CR1 automatically cancels the K1. So in this case the petitioner is showing intent that the relationship is indeed bona fide by the action of marriage.

now I'm confused.. your timeline says your already filed the I-130 and received NOA1... which means the K1 is automatically invalidated...

 

Why are they going to want to spend time on an invalidated case?

 

The minute they see there is a I-130 filed, they will stop reviewing it, won't they?

[chilton747]

Ok... so I will have to just accept missing the point here.

 

The I-130 is filed.. the K1 is now invalid... and the logic being stated is NOT to tell USCIS about their continued processing of an invalid case.

 

I say, tell USCIS that a petition which was once filed is not invalid due to a I-130 filing... DOS has nothing to do with this.

 

Or as is being said, let the I-130 filing eventually cancel it... Does it matter if the I-130 cancels it or the petitioner cancels it? I would wonder about a petitioner who files again without cancelling the first one...

 

As to the "why"... my wife often says, "no why.. just do".. and I've come to accept that.

It is my feeling that to withdraw the K1 with written notice and simply stating that the CR1 will be filed is only heresay until the actual CR1 is filed. It is well know that filing the CR1 automatically cancels the K1. So in this case the petitioner is showing intent that the relationship is indeed bona fide by the action of marriage.

now I'm confused.. your timeline says your already filed the I-130 and received NOA1... which means the K1 is automatically invalidated...

 

Why are they going to want to spend time on an invalidated case?

 

The minute they see there is a I-130 filed, they will stop reviewing it, won't they?

 

One would think that they would stop reviewing the K1 at this point. And indeed they should. This is exactly how the K1 should be invalidated. But it would be a mistake to withdraw it by any other means. How can they be reviewing something that they do not have?Also don't forget the fact that the USCIS does make mistakes. So who really knows what they are doing. Only time will tell.

I am simply trying to find out the written consulars findings if at all possible.

[chilton747]

Chilton, sorry to hear all of this. I would think your lawyer could do something. After all, he's probably getting paid good money. Keep up the fight, Chilton.

The recommended time for an NOID to be returned to the US is 30 days according to DOS communications with the consulates.

 

Unfortunately, getting GZ to handle the NOID in the time recommended by the DOS and not "Deep Sixing" (DOS term) the petition is out of the control of much of anyone, including the USCIS and obviously the DOS is not too concerning about this mismanagement.

 

Only a Congressional committee who controls the funds for DOS and/or consular affairs could get their attention, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on Washington when legal immigration is not the hot topic in the news cycles.

 

Interesting note: When I spoke with the DOS she made the statement "You know they are very busy there (GZ)." I replied "yes I know and I know you are busy as well."

This telegram to the consulates telling them no "Deep Sixing" only applies when they are not busy. Therefore, it is null and void at all times

[david_dawei]

Ok... so I will have to just accept missing the point here.

 

The I-130 is filed.. the K1 is now invalid... and the logic being stated is NOT to tell USCIS about their continued processing of an invalid case.

 

I say, tell USCIS that a petition which was once filed is not invalid due to a I-130 filing... DOS has nothing to do with this.

 

Or as is being said, let the I-130 filing eventually cancel it... Does it matter if the I-130 cancels it or the petitioner cancels it? I would wonder about a petitioner who files again without cancelling the first one...

 

As to the "why"... my wife often says, "no why.. just do".. and I've come to accept that.

It is my feeling that to withdraw the K1 with written notice and simply stating that the CR1 will be filed is only heresay until the actual CR1 is filed. It is well know that filing the CR1 automatically cancels the K1. So in this case the petitioner is showing intent that the relationship is indeed bona fide by the action of marriage.

now I'm confused.. your timeline says your already filed the I-130 and received NOA1... which means the K1 is automatically invalidated...

 

Why are they going to want to spend time on an invalidated case?

 

The minute they see there is a I-130 filed, they will stop reviewing it, won't they?

 

One would think that they would stop reviewing the K1 at this point. And indeed they should. This is exactly how the K1 should be invalidated. But it would be a mistake to withdraw it by any other means. How can they be reviewing something that they do not have?Also don't forget the fact that the USCIS does make mistakes. So who really knows what they are doing. Only time will tell.

I am simply trying to find out the written consulars findings if at all possible.

I think it's partly semantics..I'm not saying withdraw anything.. .it's invalidated in my mind anyway... just let them know it has been invalidated. Your saying, let them figure it out themselves... I was only saying to point it out to them...

 

At what point can you attempt to do FOIA to get the consulate findings?

[chilton747]

Ok... so I will have to just accept missing the point here.

 

The I-130 is filed.. the K1 is now invalid... and the logic being stated is NOT to tell USCIS about their continued processing of an invalid case.

 

I say, tell USCIS that a petition which was once filed is not invalid due to a I-130 filing... DOS has nothing to do with this.

 

Or as is being said, let the I-130 filing eventually cancel it... Does it matter if the I-130 cancels it or the petitioner cancels it? I would wonder about a petitioner who files again without cancelling the first one...

 

As to the "why"... my wife often says, "no why.. just do".. and I've come to accept that.

It is my feeling that to withdraw the K1 with written notice and simply stating that the CR1 will be filed is only heresay until the actual CR1 is filed. It is well know that filing the CR1 automatically cancels the K1. So in this case the petitioner is showing intent that the relationship is indeed bona fide by the action of marriage.

now I'm confused.. your timeline says your already filed the I-130 and received NOA1... which means the K1 is automatically invalidated...

 

Why are they going to want to spend time on an invalidated case?

 

The minute they see there is a I-130 filed, they will stop reviewing it, won't they?

 

One would think that they would stop reviewing the K1 at this point. And indeed they should. This is exactly how the K1 should be invalidated. But it would be a mistake to withdraw it by any other means. How can they be reviewing something that they do not have?Also don't forget the fact that the USCIS does make mistakes. So who really knows what they are doing. Only time will tell.

I am simply trying to find out the written consulars findings if at all possible.

I think it's partly semantics..I'm not saying withdraw anything.. .it's invalidated in my mind anyway... just let them know it has been invalidated. Your saying, let them figure it out themselves... I was only saying to point it out to them...

 

At what point can you attempt to do FOIA to get the consulate findings?

Ok now you made me have to look up a word that I do not understand Semantics - a study of meanings.

I hear what you are saying. You would opt to notify them of the withdrawal ahead of the CR1 filing. My attorney advises against this. You know where I am getting this from. We will see how this plays out in about another year or so.

I too am curious about the FOIA. You can bet that if the info can be had then I will get it. I was thinking that the info has to be reported for the FOIA to have a record. Perhaps when the consulate chief issues the memo concurring with the VO then it will go to record. I will study this and let you know what I find unless you or someone else here already knows this answer.

[david_dawei]

I hear what you are saying. You would opt to notify them of the withdrawal ahead of the CR1 filing. My attorney advises against this. You know where I am getting this from.

yes, I know.. and I guess it's a difference without a distinction.. I would of thought they are two different issues (to withdraw something vs to say it's been invalidated). But I follow your point and glad to see you can articulate the position... well maybe not too glad...

[bx26]

Charles, You're in that tough spot right now, just like we were, When it was interview time for us CR-1, I was convinced that we were going to get whiteslipped. When Zou came back smiling and said she passed, it was like i was stunned in disbelief for a minute or two, I had to ask her again, did you really pass? Your thinking is clear on this, just preceed with CR-1 wait it out. Lots of frustration and emotion for sure but remember feelings aren't facts. Take care buddy!

[chilton747]

Charles, You're in that tough spot right now, just like we were, When it was interview time for us CR-1, I was convinced that we were going to get whiteslipped. When Zou came back smiling and said she passed, it was like i was stunned in disbelief for a minute or two, I had to ask her again, did you really pass? Your thinking is clear on this, just preceed with CR-1 wait it out. Lots of frustration and emotion for sure but remember feelings aren't facts. Take care buddy!

 

Hey man you really just got the pink for the CR1?????????? Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!! Congratulaions and think you VERY MUCH for your post!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chilton747]

I talked with the DOS last Friday and they told me that the denial was sent back on February 21, 2008. Should I really believe that?

[miccor]

Hello, Back to the suggestion about issuing a FOIA, conveniently the US government has exempted FOIAs of reason(s) for the denial of visa. So do not waste your time. Sorry Charles, as "Bubba" use to say "I feel your pain". I spoke to Mr. Ellis and I am on the same path as you.

I will be going to get married in April or May, the filing an I-130 upon return. All you words and feelings about your bride are the same as mine for my soon to be bride. Our prayers are with you