Legal reasons to deny...

[Randy W]

According to GZ they have neither the time nor inclination to try and put two and two together and match CFL members to their case file. I know in threads that I have asked GZ speaks to read and intervene they asked me for petitioner information in order to help. I honestly don't think they lurk here to get dirt on petitioners.

 

 

I have, however, seen someone on that account reading some of those stories.

[hopelives]

I still think the best method to cut down on the time and expense of this process is to allow those that can afford it, to post a bond and bring over their SO. Set the bond high enough to compel he issuer to return any scofflaws to the INS. The fraud will be discovered at the back end during the AOS process, fore fitting the bond, when more information will be available on the nature of the relationship. Loved ones will be together sooner, and resources can be allocated more efficiently speeding up the process-jim

[warpedbored]

I still think the best method to cut down on the time and expense of this process is to allow those that can afford it, to post a bond and bring over their SO. Set the bond high enough to compel he issuer to return any scofflaws to the INS. The fraud will be discovered at the back end during the AOS process, fore fitting the bond, when more information will be available on the nature of the relationship. Loved ones will be together sooner, and resources can be allocated more efficiently speeding up the process-jim

What safeguard would there be for the beneficiary not to skip out leaving the petitioner holding the bag?

[hopelives]

I still think the best method to cut down on the time and expense of this process is to allow those that can afford it, to post a bond and bring over their SO. Set the bond high enough to compel he issuer to return any scofflaws to the INS. The fraud will be discovered at the back end during the AOS process, fore fitting the bond, when more information will be available on the nature of the relationship. Loved ones will be together sooner, and resources can be allocated more efficiently speeding up the process-jim

What safeguard would there be for the beneficiary not to skip out leaving the petitioner holding the bag?

None, The Govt would get the value of the bond, unless the bonding agent returns the petitioner to the USCIS. The petitioner would only pay a % required upfront.

Edited December 21, 2008 by hopelives (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

I still think the best method to cut down on the time and expense of this process is to allow those that can afford it, to post a bond and bring over their SO. Set the bond high enough to compel he issuer to return any scofflaws to the INS. The fraud will be discovered at the back end during the AOS process, fore fitting the bond, when more information will be available on the nature of the relationship. Loved ones will be together sooner, and resources can be allocated more efficiently speeding up the process-jim

What safeguard would there be for the beneficiary not to skip out leaving the petitioner holding the bag?

None, The Govt would get the value of the bond, unless the bonding agent returns the petitioner to the USCIS. The petitioner would only pay a % required upfront.

As I see it under this system there is no deterence to keep illegal aliens out of the country. It would just make it easier for those who can con someone into putting up the bond to get here. How much should the bond be? Would it be enough to recover the cost of finding and deporting the beneficiary should they decide to skip out? It would have to be a large sum of money. Probably upwards of 100K. Only the wealthy could afford it thus making that option unobtainable for the average Joe.

[hakkamike]

Edited December 22, 2008 by hakkamike (see edit history)

[hopelives]

I still think the best method to cut down on the time and expense of this process is to allow those that can afford it, to post a bond and bring over their SO. Set the bond high enough to compel he issuer to return any scofflaws to the INS. The fraud will be discovered at the back end during the AOS process, fore fitting the bond, when more information will be available on the nature of the relationship. Loved ones will be together sooner, and resources can be allocated more efficiently speeding up the process-jim

What safeguard would there be for the beneficiary not to skip out leaving the petitioner holding the bag?

None, The Govt would get the value of the bond, unless the bonding agent returns the petitioner to the USCIS. The petitioner would only pay a % required upfront.

As I see it under this system there is no deterence to keep illegal aliens out of the country. It would just make it easier for those who can con someone into putting up the bond to get here. How much should the bond be? Would it be enough to recover the cost of finding and deporting the beneficiary should they decide to skip out? It would have to be a large sum of money. Probably upwards of 100K. Only the wealthy could afford it thus making that option unobtainable for the average Joe.

 

The idea is similar to the one that exists in the criminal justice system. While no libertarian, I am convinced that we could use market forces to make the process more efficient. I have no evidence to support my opinion, but I am not confident that the current process is effective in identifying fraud.

 

Lets use your figure of 100,000, the petitioner would be on the hook for 10000 and the bonding company would be on the hook for the rest. The trick would be to determine a figure that would provide enough incentive for the bonding company to return the beneficiary to the govt and provide the govt with financial satisfaction for the presence of an illegal alien within its borders if the beneficiary is never captured. Yes some would be priced out but that would free up more resources to speed up the traditional process.

[Batmaniac]

I still think the best method to cut down on the time and expense of this process is to allow those that can afford it, to post a bond and bring over their SO. Set the bond high enough to compel he issuer to return any scofflaws to the INS. The fraud will be discovered at the back end during the AOS process, fore fitting the bond, when more information will be available on the nature of the relationship. Loved ones will be together sooner, and resources can be allocated more efficiently speeding up the process-jim

What safeguard would there be for the beneficiary not to skip out leaving the petitioner holding the bag?

None, The Govt would get the value of the bond, unless the bonding agent returns the petitioner to the USCIS. The petitioner would only pay a % required upfront.

As I see it under this system there is no deterence to keep illegal aliens out of the country. It would just make it easier for those who can con someone into putting up the bond to get here. How much should the bond be? Would it be enough to recover the cost of finding and deporting the beneficiary should they decide to skip out? It would have to be a large sum of money. Probably upwards of 100K. Only the wealthy could afford it thus making that option unobtainable for the average Joe.

 

The idea is similar to the one that exists in the criminal justice system. While no libertarian, I am convinced that we could use market forces to make the process more efficient. I have no evidence to support my opinion, but I am not confident that the current process is effective in identifying fraud.

 

Lets use your figure of 100,000, the petitioner would be on the hook for 10000 and the bonding company would be on the hook for the rest. The trick would be to determine a figure that would provide enough incentive for the bonding company to return the beneficiary to the govt and provide the govt with financial satisfaction for the presence of an illegal alien within its borders if the beneficiary is never captured. Yes some would be priced out but that would free up more resources to speed up the traditional process.

 

I actually thought bonds were utilized according to the I-134 instructions.

 

However here's a problem. It would be pretty hard for a bonding company to find one of these girls that skipped out I think. It's not like finding a common criminal who speaks the same language or even a hispanic criminal where a bondsman might know Spanish and be able to go into the community and find the bail jumper. The bonding company would have to know the Chinese community and the language because some of these women could virtually disappear. Plus are they going to be allowed to have an office in Guangzhou to set this system up? I doubt it. Good idea in theory though.

[Jon & Jas]

And in my case, a lawyer that I didn't hire told me the opposite, told me (in his exact words) "You are too good looking, no hot white girl would choose a short, skinny asian man for real." NICE. VERY NICE. Can I kill him? I think I told this story already but it STILL irks me. grrrrrrrrrr....

 

 

Just curious, was this a Chinese lawyer?

[Toplaw]

For anyone who really wants to know, 11 USC 1182 lists the legal grounds for inadmissibility to the United States.

 

This statute is long and convoluted, but not having a bona fide relationship is not one of the grounds for inadmissibility. The grounds of inadmissibility that are listed in the statute are the only reasons that can be used to deny a visa to a person.

 

What that tells us is that "not a bona fide relationship" is a euphemism that means the Consulate has concluded, rightly or wrongly, that one of the legal grounds for inadmissibility is present, and it is not obligated to state which reason caused the denial of the visa.

 

If you read the statute, you will see that the Consulate does not need to have absolute proof, such as an admission or a criminal conviction, in order to invoke some of the grounds for exclusion. In some cases all it needs is a reasonable belief that a ground for exclusion is present.

 

It would also be fair to conclude that denial decisions have been overcome when the "reasonable belief" upon which the decision for denial was based was successfully rebutted.

 

These are just my comments, and not legal advice.

[Randy W]

For anyone who really wants to know, 11 USC 1182 lists the legal grounds for inadmissibility to the United States.

 

This statute is long and convoluted, but not having a bona fide relationship is not one of the grounds for inadmissibility. The grounds of inadmissibility that are listed in the statute are the only reasons that can be used to deny a visa to a person.

 

What that tells us is that "not a bona fide relationship" is a euphemism that means the Consulate has concluded, rightly or wrongly, that one of the legal grounds for inadmissibility is present, and it is not obligated to state which reason caused the denial of the visa.

 

If you read the statute, you will see that the Consulate does not need to have absolute proof, such as an admission or a criminal conviction, in order to invoke some of the grounds for exclusion. In some cases all it needs is a reasonable belief that a ground for exclusion is present.

 

It would also be fair to conclude that denial decisions have been overcome when the "reasonable belief" upon which the decision for denial was based was successfully rebutted.

 

These are just my comments, and not legal advice.

 

 

But that code DOES refer continually to a "bona-fide marriage" as a requirement (the fiance visa was a later amendment).

 

How do the USC, INA, 8-CFR, and 9-FAM (DOS' Foreign Affairs Manual) tie together? I think the 8-CFR and 9-FAM are policies of the USCIS and DOS (respectively), developed from the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act), and that the INA was passed by Congress(right?). Where does the USC fit in?

[Randy W]

Here is a discussion with USCONGUZ about "Section 5A", which we had seen as the reason for denial on various white-slips. The full refernce is listed somewhere here on CFL - I'll see if I can't find it.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=319415

 

The sections, paragraphs, and bullets of the INA, CFR, FAM, and USC seem to pretty well line up.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Randy W (see edit history)

[HKG]

For anyone who really wants to know, 11 USC 1182 lists the legal grounds for inadmissibility to the United States.

 

This statute is long and convoluted, but not having a bona fide relationship is not one of the grounds for inadmissibility. The grounds of inadmissibility that are listed in the statute are the only reasons that can be used to deny a visa to a person.

 

What that tells us is that "not a bona fide relationship" is a euphemism that means the Consulate has concluded, rightly or wrongly, that one of the legal grounds for inadmissibility is present, and it is not obligated to state which reason caused the denial of the visa.

 

If you read the statute, you will see that the Consulate does not need to have absolute proof, such as an admission or a criminal conviction, in order to invoke some of the grounds for exclusion. In some cases all it needs is a reasonable belief that a ground for exclusion is present.

 

It would also be fair to conclude that denial decisions have been overcome when the "reasonable belief" upon which the decision for denial was based was successfully rebutted.

 

These are just my comments, and not legal advice.

 

 

What laws give these Consulates the ability not to say why the visa was denied?

[Randy W]

But the basic section of the INA which applies is 212(6)( c )( i ) -

( C ) Misrepresentation.-

 

(i) In general.-Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.

 

- or, in the United States code 1182(6)( c )( i ) as -

( C ) Misrepresentation

(i) In general Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.

 

As I understand it, the consular official decides "Not a bona fide relationship" and the actual determination is made by the USCIS in the US.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Randy W (see edit history)

[HKG]

To answer my own question about what law says they do not have to state the reason, I find that they do have to state the reason in detail at this Dept. of State web site.

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