K-3 Denial Overcome

[SirLancelot]

You can bring a court action for constitutional violations. I am surprised that people who have had many issues have not commenced a court action. Court actions have a very good way of resolving issues.

 

Carlos.

Remind me. What part of The Constitution guarantees you or any of us the right to bring a foreign born spouse or fiancee to this country?

Or even to do it in a timely manner? This is the government we're dealing with. As others have said, they hold ALL the cards. You sue, they say "This is a homeland security issue", end of story/you lose. Or, they'll just decide that they suspect fraud. Who do you think a judge is going to listen to, you or them?

 

Now if these posts are just you blowing off steam then,by all means, blow away. Lots of people like to vent here to sympathetic ears. But if you're really serious then you're kidding yourself big time, not to mention wasting valuable time and energy better devoted to things you can actually control.

 

The members who've offered their advice/opinions to you so far are as knowledgable about this process as you'll find anywhere. Do yourself a favor and use it.

 

Good luck.

 

DavidZ, TY99, and I-Dave: I hear ya all and must agree with what you've all said, but there is another part of me that really wishes more US petitioners would indeed file lawsuits. DoS/GUZ really does need to be challenged more often. They get very little legal challenges as is, mostly based on the reasons you've all given. But I would like to see more legal challenges brought their way. They may prevail in the end, but wouldn't it be nice to let them know once in a while that we (the petitioners) are not all supplicants who must kow-tow to them all the time?

 

I'd support Carlos filing some kind of a lawsuit.

[IllinoisDave]

You can bring a court action for constitutional violations. I am surprised that people who have had many issues have not commenced a court action. Court actions have a very good way of resolving issues.

 

Carlos.

Remind me. What part of The Constitution guarantees you or any of us the right to bring a foreign born spouse or fiancee to this country?

Or even to do it in a timely manner? This is the government we're dealing with. As others have said, they hold ALL the cards. You sue, they say "This is a homeland security issue", end of story/you lose. Or, they'll just decide that they suspect fraud. Who do you think a judge is going to listen to, you or them?

 

Now if these posts are just you blowing off steam then,by all means, blow away. Lots of people like to vent here to sympathetic ears. But if you're really serious then you're kidding yourself big time, not to mention wasting valuable time and energy better devoted to things you can actually control.

 

The members who've offered their advice/opinions to you so far are as knowledgable about this process as you'll find anywhere. Do yourself a favor and use it.

 

Good luck.

 

DavidZ, TY99, and I-Dave: I hear ya all and must agree with what you've all said, but there is another part of me that really wishes more US petitioners would indeed file lawsuits. DoS/GUZ really does need to be challenged more often. They get very little legal challenges as is, mostly based on the reasons you've all given. But I would like to see more legal challenges brought their way. They may prevail in the end, but wouldn't it be nice to let them know once in a while that we (the petitioners) are not all supplicants who must kow-tow to them all the time?

 

I'd support Carlos filing some kind of a lawsuit.

 

Lance.

In theory I agree with you. It would be nice if someone would challenge DOS/GUZ/DHS/USCIS and get them to treat people like human beings or just make the process even a little more efficient.

 

And I think Chilton or Steve would be excellent candidates to file a suit given what they and they're SOs have been put through. But Carlos's case seems to be much, much less egregious on the face of it. From what we know up to now, it seems that all he's being required to do is provide some simple overcome evidence. Evidence that I think most would agree should have been ready going into the interview.

 

But, who knows... They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If that's the case he can squeak away.

[SinoTexas]

You can bring a court action for constitutional violations. I am surprised that people who have had many issues have not commenced a court action. Court actions have a very good way of resolving issues.

 

Carlos.

Remind me. What part of The Constitution guarantees you or any of us the right to bring a foreign born spouse or fiancee to this country?

Or even to do it in a timely manner? This is the government we're dealing with. As others have said, they hold ALL the cards. You sue, they say "This is a homeland security issue", end of story/you lose. Or, they'll just decide that they suspect fraud. Who do you think a judge is going to listen to, you or them?

 

Now if these posts are just you blowing off steam then,by all means, blow away. Lots of people like to vent here to sympathetic ears. But if you're really serious then you're kidding yourself big time, not to mention wasting valuable time and energy better devoted to things you can actually control.

 

The members who've offered their advice/opinions to you so far are as knowledgable about this process as you'll find anywhere. Do yourself a favor and use it.

 

Good luck.

Ditto to what Dave said...

 

As aye,

 

Jim

[SirLancelot]

\But Carlos's case seems to be much, much less egregious on the face of it. From what we know up to now, it seems that all he's being required to do is provide some simple overcome evidence. Evidence that I think most would agree should have been ready going into the interview.

 

That is true.

[Carlos]

As I have been thrown in the litigation process, I can say that the best way to resolve this issue is with a class action.

 

I do agree. It seems that my case may not be that difficult. I am just frustrated of the long separation.

 

The K-3 visa was suppose to bring the spouse over quicker, at least I thought.

 

I really appreciate all the advice here and for letting me vent.

[david_dawei]

As I have been thrown in the litigation process, I can say that the best way to resolve this issue is with a class action.

 

I do agree. It seems that my case may not be that difficult. I am just frustrated of the long separation.

 

The K-3 visa was suppose to bring the spouse over quicker, at least I thought.

 

I really appreciate all the advice here and for letting me vent.

quicker than the CR1 path... most of the time... true.

 

But if you got your K-3 interview in a timely manner (~10 months from petition), then they did what most expect. I think they expected something more though from the interview...

 

What most forget is that there is nothing that stops us from being together with them.. it's just we have this mental hangup that we must be together in the US...

 

I think the hard thing for most to accept is that there are no rights to bring a fiancee/wife to this country.. only to petition to bring one; the final decision on their entry is still with DOS. The final decision to be together with them in general is still with each of us...

 

I'm sure it will work out eventually... and then this will be forgotten...

Edited September 27, 2007 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

In order to have a legal leg to stand on there would have to be immigration reform enacted. Right now the security checks in place are congressionally mandated. The law is on the side of the VOs. A law suit would never fly. Go ahead and try though. I for one would enjoy it for entertainment value alone.

Edited September 28, 2007 by warpedbored (see edit history)

[chilton747]

In order to have a legal leg to stand on there would have to be immigration reform enacted. Right now the security checks in place are congressionally mandated. The law is on the side of the VOs. A law suit would never fly. Go ahead and try though. I for one would enjoy it for entertainment value alone.

I had the same discussion with my lawyer. He had the same opinion as you Carl.