2 blues then a white

[tsap seui]

this has evolved me into getting off my lazy american butt and heading towards a much better life, and diet.

You wouldnt happen to be referring to the calorie thread, would you?

 

 

 

Ken, you must behave yerself.

Edited January 21, 2008 by tsap seui (see edit history)

[chilton747]

Some more info on my friend's case: His first blue said he needed a cosponsor. When he presented overcome in person instead he showed to a VO at the ACH his tax forms. Although his gross was high, his adjusted gross was below the poverty level. He is self-employed. The officer at the ACH said it would be ok then he received another blue for AR. Then came the white shortly thereafter in an email.

 

From my experience those VO's will tell you darn near anything, just to get you away from their window. They will smile, they will tell you everything is okay....meanwhile....they are holding a razor sharp butcher knife behind their back in one hand, and a Freddie Kruger mask in the other.

 

Unfortunately for our friend, his VO at ACH probably isn't the one who was working the case, and sent out the AR blue slip.

 

That's what really gets me..and the VO's have the law behind them to "protect" us, and this great country... with their wisdom?? Yeah buddy...cough...cough...cough... dang, I seem to have trouble saying VO and wisdom in the same sentence...why is that?

 

tsap seui

 

But who are they protecting? Are they protecting us the USC? If so, then from what? If we wanna get scammed then that is our business not theirs. As long as there is no "money for visa" then they need to stop meddlin in our business!

[Guest Rob & Jin]

Some more info on my friend's case: His first blue said he needed a cosponsor. When he presented overcome in person instead he showed to a VO at the ACH his tax forms. Although his gross was high, his taxable income was below the poverty level. He is self-employed. The officer at the ACH said it would be ok then he received another blue for AR. Then came the white shortly thereafter in an email.

 

 

What !!!!, denied due to his decuctions, thats crazy

 

so we have to pay tax man $$$$$$ now to get our love ones here now, this predujice against China is just Racist Cr*p .

 

I agree Charles it should be our decision 100%, I really dont see why its big brothers decision, we are grown ups.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Rob & Jin (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

Some more info on my friend's case: His first blue said he needed a cosponsor. When he presented overcome in person instead he showed to a VO at the ACH his tax forms. Although his gross was high, his taxable income was below the poverty level. He is self-employed. The officer at the ACH said it would be ok then he received another blue for AR. Then came the white shortly thereafter in an email.

 

 

What !!!!, denied due to his decuctions, thats crazy

 

so we have to pay tax man $$$$$$ now to get our love ones here now, this predujice against China is just Racist Cr*p .

 

I agree Charles it should be our decision 100%, I really dont see why its big brothers decision, we are grown ups.

IMO, this is jumping to wrong conclusions.... [one side bar: Self-employed clearly have a disadvantage since the line used from the tax form is after the company profit/loss is accounted for... so it's hard to know how far they look at that number's meaning for self-employed].

 

we don't know what the blue for AR was about; this usually involves some 'checking'. If something doesn't check out to what is submitted, it can result in misrepresentation, lying, concealing, etc... and a white slip would not be a surprise under such circumstances.

 

One issue I've noted over the last three years is that the request for financials appears to me to be a little bit of a smoke screen...

[chilton747]

The white stated the denial under 212 (a)(5)(A). This has to do with the labor law. My friend does not understand why this code is cited. His wife is a teacher in China.

[david_dawei]

The white stated the denial under 212 (a)(5)(A). This has to do with the labor law. My friend does not understand why this code is cited. His wife is a teacher in China.

this is a re-occurring code for white slip denial...

 

I remember when we both tried to resolve this (and Ty) and never could... I even asked Marc at the time and I don't recall any insight why they choose that... for now, it is the unsolved mystery of the white slip...

[chilton747]

The white stated the denial under 212 (a)(5)(A). This has to do with the labor law. My friend does not understand why this code is cited. His wife is a teacher in China.

this is a re-occurring code for white slip denial...

 

I remember when we both tried to resolve this (and Ty) and never could... I even asked Marc at the time and I don't recall any insight why they choose that... for now, it is the unsolved mystery of the white slip...

Yes I remember and I told my friend that this code is just numbers that do not mean anything except maybe they are wanting to confuse us more.

[griz326]

Good luck to this guy and his gal.

 

 

I hate threads like this; they worry me.

 

I am going to put my head in the sand now.

 

[selena]

My finance got a white paper on 03/07/08 in her K1 interview. Can this case be turned over in GUZ? If yes, how? Thanks.

[yuzhen]

The white stated the denial under 212 (a)(5)(A). This has to do with the labor law. My friend does not understand why this code is cited. His wife is a teacher in China.

my wife tells me alot of teachers in china and even university students have to be "communist party" to get where they are. Maybe thats what GUZ is thinking?

[Guest Rob & Jin]

The white stated the denial under 212 (a)(5)(A). This has to do with the labor law. My friend does not understand why this code is cited. His wife is a teacher in China.

my wife tells me alot of teachers in china and even university students have to be "communist party" to get where they are. Maybe thats what GUZ is thinking?

 

 

CCP is usually a blue, not white, and is usually a relatively easy overcome from what I've read.

[Randy W]

The white stated the denial under 212 (a)(5)(A). This has to do with the labor law. My friend does not understand why this code is cited. His wife is a teacher in China.

my wife tells me alot of teachers in china and even university students have to be "communist party" to get where they are. Maybe thats what GUZ is thinking?

 

 

CCP is usually a blue, not white, and is usually a relatively easy overcome from what I've read.

 

 

A denial is white, regardless of reason

[Guest Rob & Jin]

The white stated the denial under 212 (a)(5)(A). This has to do with the labor law. My friend does not understand why this code is cited. His wife is a teacher in China.

my wife tells me alot of teachers in china and even university students have to be "communist party" to get where they are. Maybe thats what GUZ is thinking?

 

 

CCP is usually a blue, not white, and is usually a relatively easy overcome from what I've read.

 

 

A denial is white, regardless of reason

 

 

No argument there,

but would be nice if they gave you the real reason/problem , not just a code which just has a loose definition attached.

[Randy W]

The white stated the denial under 212 (a)(5)(A). This has to do with the labor law. My friend does not understand why this code is cited. His wife is a teacher in China.

my wife tells me alot of teachers in china and even university students have to be "communist party" to get where they are. Maybe thats what GUZ is thinking?

 

 

CCP is usually a blue, not white, and is usually a relatively easy overcome from what I've read.

 

 

A denial is white, regardless of reason

 

 

No argument there,

but would be nice if they gave you the real reason/problem , not just a code which just has a loose definition attached.

 

Yes it would be. Many have complained about this.

 

The more non-specific and legalese that they are, the less likely they are to be over-ruled. "Invalid relationship" is an example - if the VO sticks to his guns there, it can't be over-ruled, since it's completely his perception. The "denial under 212 (a)(5)(A)" is the CCP version