Bonafide relation

[HKG]

http://www.uscis.gov/uscis-ext-templating/...errFrameset.jsp

 

Type this in then go to, D6 Fiancees and Fiance of US Citizen K1 then select Jan. 08, 2007, there is another decision for Feb. 02, 2007.

[steveandrong]

very interesting reading...thank you for passing your homework on to the rest of us

[Sebastian]

This is some weird sh|te - I thought I had the definitions for 'beneficiary' and 'petitioner' to be understood, very well, but now I see gov clerks reversing the usage.

 

My Brain hurts, even as I understand MOST of the language used.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Darnell (see edit history)

[jim_julian]

Section 214(d) of the Act states that CIS shall approve the Form I-129F when a petitioner submits evidence to establish that he/she and the beneficiary have met within the two-year period preceding the filing of the Form 1129F, have a bonafide intention to marry and are legally able and willing to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. The Department of State's interview ofthe beneficiary raised questions regarding the level of intimacy between the petitioner and the beneficiary at the time of the latter's consular interview. However, the approval of a Form I-129F does not depend on the level of closeness between the two parties, and the AAO finds the director to have erred in imposing it. While ¡ì 214(d) of the Act requires the petitioner to establish that he and the beneficiary have a bonafide intention to marry, this language is not synonymous with a requirement that the petitioner establish the closeness of their relationship. The AAO has found nothing in the record to indicate the petitioner and beneficiary do not intend to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States.

 

That would seem to be pretty powerful stuff. I would certainly cite these two decisions if my intended got into relationship problems with the VO. I'm not sure what the legal standing is of these cases as far as citing them as part of overcome evidence but I'd sure give it a try.

[chilton747]

Section 214(d) of the Act states that CIS shall approve the Form I-129F when a petitioner submits evidence to establish that he/she and the beneficiary have met within the two-year period preceding the filing of the Form 1129F, have a bonafide intention to marry and are legally able and willing to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. The Department of State's interview ofthe beneficiary raised questions regarding the level of intimacy between the petitioner and the beneficiary at the time of the latter's consular interview. However, the approval of a Form I-129F does not depend on the level of closeness between the two parties, and the AAO finds the director to have erred in imposing it. While ¡ì 214(d) of the Act requires the petitioner to establish that he and the beneficiary have a bonafide intention to marry, this language is not synonymous with a requirement that the petitioner establish the closeness of their relationship. The AAO has found nothing in the record to indicate the petitioner and beneficiary do not intend to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States.

 

That would seem to be pretty powerful stuff. I would certainly cite these two decisions if my intended got into relationship problems with the VO. I'm not sure what the legal standing is of these cases as far as citing them as part of overcome evidence but I'd sure give it a try.

 

So they admitted they made a mistake??? WOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

[credzba]

This is some weird sh|te - I thought I had the definitions for 'beneficiary' and 'petitioner' to be understood, very well, but now I see gov clerks reversing the usage.

 

My Brain hurts, even as I understand MOST of the language used.

 

petitioner is always US citizen.

 

beneficiary or applicant is the foreign person.

[david_dawei]

Section 214(d) of the Act states that CIS shall approve the Form I-129F when a petitioner submits evidence to establish that he/she and the beneficiary have met within the two-year period preceding the filing of the Form 1129F, have a bonafide intention to marry and are legally able and willing to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. The Department of State's interview ofthe beneficiary raised questions regarding the level of intimacy between the petitioner and the beneficiary at the time of the latter's consular interview. However, the approval of a Form I-129F does not depend on the level of closeness between the two parties, and the AAO finds the director to have erred in imposing it. While ¡ì 214(d) of the Act requires the petitioner to establish that he and the beneficiary have a bonafide intention to marry, this language is not synonymous with a requirement that the petitioner establish the closeness of their relationship. The AAO has found nothing in the record to indicate the petitioner and beneficiary do not intend to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States.

 

That would seem to be pretty powerful stuff. I would certainly cite these two decisions if my intended got into relationship problems with the VO. I'm not sure what the legal standing is of these cases as far as citing them as part of overcome evidence but I'd sure give it a try.

 

So they admitted they made a mistake??? WOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

Without a reference to which case, it's unclear who the "director" is... if this is someone in DOS then it's just USCIS blaming their brother for the mistake.. nothing new in this immigrantion sibling rivalry.

 

I've always been a bit uncertain how DOS can tell USCIS that a petition should be revoked when they look at two completely different issues; the former is as shown, you qualify to file for a visa... it's really simple unless you lied or misrepresented your intentions (ie: fraudulent seeking immigration benefits for someone). that DOS doesn't want to issue a visa has seemed to me to be something different than whether they qualify to file for one... although there are immediately reasons for denial which makes the petition not qualified.

 

That's why it seems a hard sell back to USCIS to revoke, and maybe why USCIS let's them expire without comment at times. And also why we have said here at CFL that reasons on the blue slip sometimes appear as a smoke screen for something other reason pushing the DOS button.

[carl.hops]

Section 214(d) of the Act states that CIS shall approve the Form I-129F when a petitioner submits evidence to establish that he/she and the beneficiary have met within the two-year period preceding the filing of the Form 1129F, have a bonafide intention to marry and are legally able and willing to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. The Department of State's interview ofthe beneficiary raised questions regarding the level of intimacy between the petitioner and the beneficiary at the time of the latter's consular interview. However, the approval of a Form I-129F does not depend on the level of closeness between the two parties, and the AAO finds the director to have erred in imposing it. While ¡ì 214(d) of the Act requires the petitioner to establish that he and the beneficiary have a bonafide intention to marry, this language is not synonymous with a requirement that the petitioner establish the closeness of their relationship. The AAO has found nothing in the record to indicate the petitioner and beneficiary do not intend to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States.

 

That would seem to be pretty powerful stuff. I would certainly cite these two decisions if my intended got into relationship problems with the VO. I'm not sure what the legal standing is of these cases as far as citing them as part of overcome evidence but I'd sure give it a try.

 

So they admitted they made a mistake??? WOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

 

lets just be glad they owned up to it, I wonder if they will let anyone who got sqrewed over this appeal.

[Randy W]

Nobody admitted anything - like David said, this is simply the classic USCIS/DOS standoff. We saw a similar case where the USCIS simply allowed it to expire, rather than take any action.

 

The USCIS simply does not have any legal method to deal with the "not a bona-fide relationship" assertion. The VO's use it because no one can challenge that conclusion, and no evidence need be provided to back up their conclusion.

 

The only thing that can be done is for the petition to be re-submitted to DOS, but with no guaranteed that it won't simply be denied again.

[Randy W]

This illustrates the legal wrangling that can take place. There IS NO legal recourse at the consulate. In the US, you do have access to the court system, but it does not extend as far as visa approval.

[Randy W]

We are confusing DOS and USCIS here. GUZ is part of the Dept of State (DOS). The AAO ruling was against the USCIS in the US.

 

USCIS - approves I-129F petition

 

DOS - VO denies beneficiary's visa application reason "not a valid relationship"

 

If the consular officials have reason to believe the VO's conclusion that the relationship is not bona-fide, the Dept. of State policy is that they will ship it back to the USCIS with a recommendation to revoke the approval, often with no evidence.

 

USCIS - then revokes or reaffirms the original petition. This can affect the ability of both the petitioner and the beneficiary to get visas in the future.

 

The USCIS requires "substantial evidence" of fraud in order to revoke the petition approval. "Not a valid relationship" is not a legitimate reason to revoke the original I-129F, although it is used as a reason to deny the visa.

 

None of this affects the visa application, which was denied and stays denied. Any K-visa may be denied by the VO for "not a valid relationship".

 

The court rulings affect only the USCIS and the I-129F visa petition, not the visa denial.

 

So there is a gap between what DOS will accept as "not a valid relationship", and what the USCIS requires to revoke the petition approval.

 

The only thing out of the ordinary here is that the USCIS actually tried to revoke the petition approval.

[HKG]

We are confusing DOS and USCIS here. GUZ is part of the Dept of State (DOS). The AAO ruling was against the USCIS in the US.

 

USCIS - approves I-129F petition

 

DOS - VO denies beneficiary's visa application reason "not a valid relationship"

 

If the consular officials have reason to believe the VO's conclusion that the relationship is not bona-fide, the Dept. of State policy is that they will ship it back to the USCIS with a recommendation to revoke the approval, often with no evidence.

 

USCIS - then revokes or reaffirms the original petition. This can affect the ability of both the petitioner and the beneficiary to get visas in the future.

 

The USCIS requires "substantial evidence" of fraud in order to revoke the petition approval. "Not a valid relationship" is not a legitimate reason to revoke the original I-129F, although it is used as a reason to deny the visa.

 

None of this affects the visa application, which was denied and stays denied. Any K-visa may be denied by the VO for "not a valid relationship".

 

The court rulings affect only the USCIS and the I-129F visa petition, not the visa denial.

 

So there is a gap between what DOS will accept as "not a valid relationship", and what the USCIS requires to revoke the petition approval.

 

The only thing out of the ordinary here is that the USCIS actually tried to revoke the petition approval.

The ruling against the "genuineness and closeness" as an additional reqiurement is what is interesting to me. This ruling would seem to have a lot of meaning at all levels of the visa process.

 

"In revoking the instant petition, the acting director appears to have

imposed an additional requirement on the petitioner - establishing the genuineness of his relationship to the

beneficiary. However, no such requirement exists for the approval of a Form I-129F and the AAO finds the

director to have erred in imposing it. While section 214(d) of the Act stipulates that the petitioner must establish

that he and the beneficiary have a bonafide intention to marry, this language is not synonymous with a

requirement that the petitioner establish the closeness of their relationship."

[tsap seui]

The bottom line is real simple here. GUZ can use vague arbitrary phrases, such as "has not proven a bona fide relationship, or, not proven a bona fide intent to marry" that they have learned can circumvent the USCIS, make life hell for the petitioner/beneficiary, and the consulate officers can get away with this ignorant bullshit...in the name of national security and/or fraud prevention. What a joke

 

They can do this to any of us, and COULD HAVE done it to anyone who had the luck to get a visa. Doesn't matter how well you front loaded the forms, income, etc.

 

Who is looking over GUZ's shoulder?

 

Nobody.

 

I've got the official letter from some goofy DOS chief in Washington that spells it out in black and white...Nobody.

 

The biggest fraud here is perpetrated by the DOS. When called on this, the DOS specialists will tell you..."Well sir, Congress wrote the rules...."

 

If yer woman got a visa...just thank yer "lucky" stars...it had nothing to do with how carefully you filled out the lil' forms., or how smart you think you are.

 

tsap seui

Edited May 13, 2008 by tsap seui (see edit history)

[Randy W]

 

The ruling against the "genuineness and closeness" as an additional reqiurement is what is interesting to me. This ruling would seem to have a lot of meaning at all levels of the visa process.

 

"In revoking the instant petition, the acting director appears to have

imposed an additional requirement on the petitioner - establishing the genuineness of his relationship to the

beneficiary. However, no such requirement exists for the approval of a Form I-129F and the AAO finds the

director to have erred in imposing it. While section 214(d) of the Act stipulates that the petitioner must establish

that he and the beneficiary have a bonafide intention to marry, this language is not synonymous with a

requirement that the petitioner establish the closeness of their relationship."

 

Sure - but this "requirement" is rarely, if ever, invoked by the USCIS, and they got their hand slapped for it.

 

The I-129F petition and the DS-156 visa application are entirely different issues.

 

Again, this ruling affects only the USCIS. The 9FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) that DOS and the consulates go by, is still intact, unfortunately.

[larsenea]

Does this list of judgements suggest that they are working on cases from september(petition filed in feb. 2006)? How often do they update this list?

Edited December 24, 2008 by larsenea (see edit history)