Pursuit of Happiness

[LeeFisher3]

A white, blue or pink slip is issued to a beneficiary alone, they don't issue it to the USC petitioner and while it may have an impact on the petitioner it is an extreme stretch to say they denied or issued a visa to the USC.

 

Sure you have a right to pursue happiness, but the supreme court does not guarantee anything other than your right to pursue it, you don't have any guarantee you will get it, only the right to seek it.

 

While you may find legal footing to challenge the decision by the VO you probably don't have enough money or resources to force them to do anything no matter how right you believe you are. Basically you can want in one hand and $@#% in the other, one will get full first and it won't be the first one.

 

If you want to be with her in the US you need to evaluate what is the most expedient method to accomplish what you want and focus your energy on accomplishing your goal, anything else can only delay what you desire.

 

No one is arguing the outrage you feel in this situation, but if you focus solely on the wrong you feel was done to you personally you will not be able to do your best to pursue your own personal happiness.

[Stepbrow]

Yes the ConOff did violate your legal rights and your wife's legal rights. The ConOff also violated US statutes: The INA, and the LIFE Act, The ConOff also violated the CFR and the FAM.

 

Stepbrow,

I'm not a lawyer and my reference was to whether a constitutional right was violated (per OP) but it is certainly possible that some law was broken. I tried to research the above but the references are too general. Can you say what specific aspects of the statutes were violated. It would probably be helpful to the OP.

 

The Code of Federal Regulation is pretty huge. Do you know what section to look for for immigration statutes and what aspect of the federal code was violated?

 

The INA's section on granting visas seem to hinge on an early paragraph that says these protections apply to the "bona fide spouse" of a USC. It would seem to nullify any other of its sections once they decide you are "non bona fide". Is there another section that offers protection prior to attaining "bona fide" staus?

 

The Life Act or a succession of Life Acts, seem to deal mainly with asylum and allowing K and V visa holders to enter and adjust status rather than wait out the whole process in their country. Again, if you know which section, I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

 

You stated that both rights and statutes were violated. What rights do you see as having been violated? Do you mean rights afforded by our constitution or laws or do you mean just things that should be rights?

 

I am headed for the airport in a few minutes, but when I am back in the states, I will write the specific violations.

[whome?]

A white, blue or pink slip is issued to a beneficiary alone, they don't issue it to the USC petitioner and while it may have an impact on the petitioner it is an extreme stretch to say they denied or issued a visa to the USC.

 

Sure you have a right to pursue happiness, but the supreme court does not guarantee anything other than your right to pursue it, you don't have any guarantee you will get it, only the right to seek it.

 

While you may find legal footing to challenge the decision by the VO you probably don't have enough money or resources to force them to do anything no matter how right you believe you are. Basically you can want in one hand and $@#% in the other, one will get full first and it won't be the first one.

 

If you want to be with her in the US you need to evaluate what is the most expedient method to accomplish what you want and focus your energy on accomplishing your goal, anything else can only delay what you desire.

 

No one is arguing the outrage you feel in this situation, but if you focus solely on the wrong you feel was done to you personally you will not be able to do your best to pursue your own personal happiness.

 

 

This is not the point. You have a right, as a USC, to be given the reason and evidence of non bona-fide relationship. The burden of proof is on the VO (and DOS). It is not right to just say NBFR and not explain or provide proof. This is similar to be arrested and then considered quilty before the trial. The VO officers assume all applications are a sham which is incorrect.

 

The poster who will inform her senator and future SEC. of State about this situation has the right idea. For you individually you have to make plan b/c/etc. However to change anything for the future we all have to voice our opinion and displeasure at the system as it is to our represenatives.

 

One would think the Immigration lawyers would also have similar thoughts but remember that they make more money when you are rejected. Most people dont use a lawyer until they get rejected. Every wonder why so many rejections (so many people in Congress are ?????? Lawyers!!).

 

It is your USC right to know specific reason why your petition (YOUR petition not the benef.) was rejected.

[LeeFisher3]

A white, blue or pink slip is issued to a beneficiary alone, they don't issue it to the USC petitioner and while it may have an impact on the petitioner it is an extreme stretch to say they denied or issued a visa to the USC.

 

Sure you have a right to pursue happiness, but the supreme court does not guarantee anything other than your right to pursue it, you don't have any guarantee you will get it, only the right to seek it.

 

While you may find legal footing to challenge the decision by the VO you probably don't have enough money or resources to force them to do anything no matter how right you believe you are. Basically you can want in one hand and $@#% in the other, one will get full first and it won't be the first one.

 

If you want to be with her in the US you need to evaluate what is the most expedient method to accomplish what you want and focus your energy on accomplishing your goal, anything else can only delay what you desire.

 

No one is arguing the outrage you feel in this situation, but if you focus solely on the wrong you feel was done to you personally you will not be able to do your best to pursue your own personal happiness.

 

 

This is not the point. You have a right, as a USC, to be given the reason and evidence of non bona-fide relationship. The burden of proof is on the VO (and DOS). It is not right to just say NBFR and not explain or provide proof. This is similar to be arrested and then considered quilty before the trial. The VO officers assume all applications are a sham which is incorrect.

 

The poster who will inform her senator and future SEC. of State about this situation has the right idea. For you individually you have to make plan b/c/etc. However to change anything for the future we all have to voice our opinion and displeasure at the system as it is to our represenatives.

 

One would think the Immigration lawyers would also have similar thoughts but remember that they make more money when you are rejected. Most people dont use a lawyer until they get rejected. Every wonder why so many rejections (so many people in Congress are ?????? Lawyers!!).

 

It is your USC right to know specific reason why your petition (YOUR petition not the benef.) was rejected.

You are viewing the visa process as an entitlement, it's not, no one is entitled to a visa you must request a visa and provide evidence that you meet the legal requirements for that visa category.

9 FAM 40.6 BASIS FOR REFUSAL

The burden of proof is upon the applicant to establish eligibility to receive a visa under INA 212 or any other provision of law or regulation.

 

No Bona Fide Relationship is their way of saying you didn't provide the evidence that a "reasonable person" would expect to prove the relationship exists. The difficulty is in their interpretation of "reasonable person."

 

The comparison between being arrested and denied a visa isn't valid. No one is sitting in jail for being refused a visa, they can go home and back to work but can not proceed to the USA.

 

A better comparison would be with the issuance of a drivers license, if you didn't prove you could drive to the satisfaction of the examiner. They can tell you why you didn't pass in a clear or vague explanation, either way they have informed you as to why you didn't pass. Sure it can be subjective and unfair, but they are the gate keeper and their interpretation of the requirements is all that matters in the first round.

 

Immigration lawyers would love to see the visa process made transparent, they could get more visas issued with less effort. As for them not taking on the system to force the government to provide clear and timely explanations for a visa denial, they would love this too, but to force the issue costs money, lots of money and will take a considerable amount of time and energy. Their job is to help secure a visa using the most expedient method available to them, not get side tracked trying to fix the system.

 

One last point, the petition was not rejected if it made it to the consulate. Once it is approved by the USCIS the petition drives an application on the part of another person (beneficiary). The VO's make a ruling on the application for a visa that was derived from a petition, not the petition itself because they don't have the authority to make that decision.

[HKG]

A white, blue or pink slip is issued to a beneficiary alone, they don't issue it to the USC petitioner and while it may have an impact on the petitioner it is an extreme stretch to say they denied or issued a visa to the USC.

 

Sure you have a right to pursue happiness, but the supreme court does not guarantee anything other than your right to pursue it, you don't have any guarantee you will get it, only the right to seek it.

 

While you may find legal footing to challenge the decision by the VO you probably don't have enough money or resources to force them to do anything no matter how right you believe you are. Basically you can want in one hand and $@#% in the other, one will get full first and it won't be the first one.

 

If you want to be with her in the US you need to evaluate what is the most expedient method to accomplish what you want and focus your energy on accomplishing your goal, anything else can only delay what you desire.

 

No one is arguing the outrage you feel in this situation, but if you focus solely on the wrong you feel was done to you personally you will not be able to do your best to pursue your own personal happiness.

 

 

This is not the point. You have a right, as a USC, to be given the reason and evidence of non bona-fide relationship. The burden of proof is on the VO (and DOS). It is not right to just say NBFR and not explain or provide proof. This is similar to be arrested and then considered quilty before the trial. The VO officers assume all applications are a sham which is incorrect.

 

The poster who will inform her senator and future SEC. of State about this situation has the right idea. For you individually you have to make plan b/c/etc. However to change anything for the future we all have to voice our opinion and displeasure at the system as it is to our represenatives.

 

One would think the Immigration lawyers would also have similar thoughts but remember that they make more money when you are rejected. Most people dont use a lawyer until they get rejected. Every wonder why so many rejections (so many people in Congress are ?????? Lawyers!!).

 

It is your USC right to know specific reason why your petition (YOUR petition not the benef.) was rejected.

You are viewing the visa process as an entitlement, it's not, no one is entitled to a visa you must request a visa and provide evidence that you meet the legal requirements for that visa category.

9 FAM 40.6 BASIS FOR REFUSAL

The burden of proof is upon the applicant to establish eligibility to receive a visa under INA 212 or any other provision of law or regulation.

 

No Bona Fide Relationship is their way of saying you didn't provide the evidence that a "reasonable person" would expect to prove the relationship exists. The difficulty is in their interpretation of "reasonable person."

 

The comparison between being arrested and denied a visa isn't valid. No one is sitting in jail for being refused a visa, they can go home and back to work but can not proceed to the USA.

 

A better comparison would be with the issuance of a drivers license, if you didn't prove you could drive to the satisfaction of the examiner. They can tell you why you didn't pass in a clear or vague explanation, either way they have informed you as to why you didn't pass. Sure it can be subjective and unfair, but they are the gate keeper and their interpretation of the requirements is all that matters in the first round.

 

Immigration lawyers would love to see the visa process made transparent, they could get more visas issued with less effort. As for them not taking on the system to force the government to provide clear and timely explanations for a visa denial, they would love this too, but to force the issue costs money, lots of money and will take a considerable amount of time and energy. Their job is to help secure a visa using the most expedient method available to them, not get side tracked trying to fix the system.

 

One last point, the petition was not rejected if it made it to the consulate. Once it is approved by the USCIS the petition drives an application on the part of another person (beneficiary). The VO's make a ruling on the application for a visa that was derived from a petition, not the petition itself because they don't have the authority to make that decision.

Seperate and divide such an old tatic, I appled for her and myself, a refusal to one is a refusal to both.

 

What does the following mean to you?

Supreme Court ruling. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute.

[georgeandli]

LeeFisher3, You left out one part in your breakdown. The petitioner starts the whole thing out by filing with USCIS. My understanding is after they approve it goes through DOS. DOS does their thing vetting the beneficiary. This is where you skipped/missed what IMHO is the biggest obstacle with a NOID. USCIS can't tell you about DOS. When the individual can't get the specifics, rebut what? I, for one, fail to see how notifying the petitioner the specifics in his/her case could compromise national security or the ability to detect visa scammers. I don't know enough about the law or constitution quote anything. I do know getting evidence about charges made against you or your actions is in there somewhere. JMHO

[Yuanyang]

...

What does the following mean to you?

Supreme Court ruling. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute.

It means that anti-mixed marriage laws were unconstitutional. It had to do with race and the civil rights of two American citizens.

 

You have no argument whatsoever using Loving v. Virginia. Everyday, the USCIS and the US consulates around the world approve visas for Chinese, and every race and other nationality.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Yuanyang (see edit history)

[HKG]

...

What does the following mean to you?

Supreme Court ruling. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute.

It means that anti-mixed marriage laws were unconstitutional. It had to do with race and the civil rights of two American citizens.

 

You have no argument whatsoever using Loving v. Virginia. Everyday, the USCIS and the US consulates around the world approve visas for Chinese, and every race and other nationality.

 

 

You do have it correct that Loving v. Virginia is about anti-miscegenation and civil rights, also the definition of Pursuit of Happiness was mentioned. I'm sure a US Supreme Court ruling is not a shallow undertaken. So if one would reason that applying the "light" of this ruling against these non-bonafide rulings that are, without merit and subjective as they are, quite possible this ruling exposes these non-bonafide rulings for what they are, racist decisions.

[whome?]

Lee you can lawyer it up however the issue still exists:

 

1. DHS approved the petition after many background checks

2. DOS made background check and approved benef. for visa

3. VO has final step; one can state non-bona fide relationship but one needs proof.

 

Your example of driver's license is correct. When you have met the requirements (age) you take the exams. If you pass the written exams and eye/sign test you then get a road/driving test. At the end of this test the officer tells you if you passed or failed. Since i failed my first time and so did my daughter I can tell you that they told me what I did wrong (my 3 pt turn was not correct). They did not say "none bonda fide driver" and send me home without recourse.

 

All I am saying is if the VO officer decides the evidence is not enough they should give you a reason.

 

If you think the system does not require the VO to give a reason then why even put the petition through to the DHS and DOS? Just send it to the VO, who must be soothsayers, since they can easily determine if a relationship is bona-fide or not.

 

For me I cannot see how ANYONE can make this decision based on the information you have to supply with a petition. A good scammer can fake all the information easily just like a real person can not do a good job of putting information together and appear to be a sham. Indded my thinking would be the best petitions must be a scam because they try to hard. How in the world can a VO make this determination in 5 min.?

 

Again .. just cut out all the waiting for DHS/DOS and go straight to the VO if they are so intelligent.

[heyjimi]

The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote:

 

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

 

When I applied for this Visa, I did not agree to give up any of my birth rights or legal rights, so how does the Consulate in China, think otherwise.

 

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man.

Our government thinks it has to control every aspect of our lives. The Chinese government does that and they are called "communists" aren't we?

Shhhh!!!

Do not say that too loudly !!!!!

 

jimi

[heyjimi]

Lee you can lawyer it up however the issue still exists:

 

1. DHS approved the petition after many background checks

2. DOS made background check and approved benef. for visa

3. VO has final step; one can state non-bona fide relationship but one needs proof.

 

Your example of driver's license is correct. When you have met the requirements (age) you take the exams. If you pass the written exams and eye/sign test you then get a road/driving test. At the end of this test the officer tells you if you passed or failed. Since i failed my first time and so did my daughter I can tell you that they told me what I did wrong (my 3 pt turn was not correct). They did not say "none bonda fide driver" and send me home without recourse.

 

All I am saying is if the VO officer decides the evidence is not enough they should give you a reason.

 

If you think the system does not require the VO to give a reason then why even put the petition through to the DHS and DOS? Just send it to the VO, who must be soothsayers, since they can easily determine if a relationship is bona-fide or not.

 

For me I cannot see how ANYONE can make this decision based on the information you have to supply with a petition. A good scammer can fake all the information easily just like a real person can not do a good job of putting information together and appear to be a sham. Indded my thinking would be the best petitions must be a scam because they try to hard. How in the world can a VO make this determination in 5 min.?

 

Again .. just cut out all the waiting for DHS/DOS and go straight to the VO if they are so intelligent.

 

bottom line is ..it is not an interview,it is a trial without a jury,one person judge,end of the story,i know in America we like to call things by kinder terms, a wife..."beneficiary",and a trial an interview...it sounds so much nicer..so sterile,....it has nothing to do with catching "bad guys" as everyone will say on here(because the bad guys,know how to play this game,very well)....it is a game,one must play it,if you want your wife here.if the "VO"is having a bad day,your wife is history,she doesnt have a chance.If the vo doesnt like the way your wife said goodmorning,its over,if your wife is too pretty,i mean the list goes on and on......it is judge,jury,executioner,one person.......not the america i once knew.

those that did not get a white slip,will never know the feeling,its that simple.sorry,i dont mean no disrespect to anyone.

its funny,everyone in america,talks so much shit about China....i just got back from China,I walked thru the immigration/customs line,everyone was polite,I get in Atlanta,and a freaking immgration employee directing people to certain lines, she is so pissed at this chinese couple,they obviously didn't understand what she said,and she was screaming at them.!!!!...yeah welcome to america.....she was having a bad day......if she was a "vo"brother you would be toast.

there is no oversight,this is where everybody on here,misses the point,we are all human,make mistakes,have bad days,no matter where you work,there is someone keeping you in check.....not so at GUZ,one person makes a decision.....and it is etched in stone.

well,i am just blowing off some steam.....

if something is broken it needs to be fixed....thats my 2 cents

 

jimi

[whome?]

bottom line is ..it is not an interview,it is a trial without a jury,one person judge,end of the story,i know in America we like to call things by kinder terms, a wife..."beneficiary",and a trial an interview...it sounds so much nicer..so sterile,....it has nothing to do with catching "bad guys" as everyone will say on here(because the bad guys,know how to play this game,very well)....it is a game,one must play it,if you want your wife here.if the "VO"is having a bad day,your wife is history,she doesnt have a chance.If the vo doesnt like the way your wife said goodmorning,its over,if your wife is too pretty,i mean the list goes on and on......it is judge,jury,executioner,one person.......not the america i once knew.

those that did not get a white slip,will never know the feeling,its that simple.sorry,i dont mean no disrespect to anyone.

its funny,everyone in america,talks so much shit about China....i just got back from China,I walked thru the immigration/customs line,everyone was polite,I get in Atlanta,and a freaking immgration employee directing people to certain lines, she is so pissed at this chinese couple,they obviously didn't understand what she said,and she was screaming at them.!!!!...yeah welcome to america.....she was having a bad day......if she was a "vo"brother you would be toast.

there is no oversight,this is where everybody on here,misses the point,we are all human,make mistakes,have bad days,no matter where you work,there is someone keeping you in check.....not so at GUZ,one person makes a decision.....and it is etched in stone.

well,i am just blowing off some steam.....

if something is broken it needs to be fixed....thats my 2 cents

 

jimi

 

I fell out of my chair laughing about the Atlanta comment. As a USC I can only say "You are 100% correct!!" ... Oh I said this in public. Next the DHS will be at my door.

 

It amazes me that in Atlanta the way they yell at you (USC and foreigners). Last time through I forgot to turn my cell phone off and as I am waiting for them to clear me at the desk it rings. As I am turning it off the woman asks sacrastically with an attittude "Are you turning it off or taking the time to text back" as she stops what she is doing and just looks at me. She then throws my passport in a folder, calls an officer, and sends me to the back room because, her quote, "I could not follow the instructions of the guards". Took me 45 minutes in the small room before I was cleared without a "welcome back to the USA" after 6 months in China.

 

Everyplace has its good and bad points. But in USA so many people talk about China like it is a 3rd world country.

[HKG]

bottom line is ..it is not an interview,it is a trial without a jury,one person judge,end of the story,i know in America we like to call things by kinder terms, a wife..."beneficiary",and a trial an interview...it sounds so much nicer..so sterile,....it has nothing to do with catching "bad guys" as everyone will say on here(because the bad guys,know how to play this game,very well)....it is a game,one must play it,if you want your wife here.if the "VO"is having a bad day,your wife is history,she doesnt have a chance.If the vo doesnt like the way your wife said goodmorning,its over,if your wife is too pretty,i mean the list goes on and on......it is judge,jury,executioner,one person.......not the america i once knew.

those that did not get a white slip,will never know the feeling,its that simple.sorry,i dont mean no disrespect to anyone.

its funny,everyone in america,talks so much shit about China....i just got back from China,I walked thru the immigration/customs line,everyone was polite,I get in Atlanta,and a freaking immgration employee directing people to certain lines, she is so pissed at this chinese couple,they obviously didn't understand what she said,and she was screaming at them.!!!!...yeah welcome to america.....she was having a bad day......if she was a "vo"brother you would be toast.

there is no oversight,this is where everybody on here,misses the point,we are all human,make mistakes,have bad days,no matter where you work,there is someone keeping you in check.....not so at GUZ,one person makes a decision.....and it is etched in stone.

well,i am just blowing off some steam.....

if something is broken it needs to be fixed....thats my 2 cents

 

jimi

 

I fell out of my chair laughing about the Atlanta comment. As a USC I can only say "You are 100% correct!!" ... Oh I said this in public. Next the DHS will be at my door.

 

It amazes me that in Atlanta the way they yell at you (USC and foreigners). Last time through I forgot to turn my cell phone off and as I am waiting for them to clear me at the desk it rings. As I am turning it off the woman asks sacrastically with an attittude "Are you turning it off or taking the time to text back" as she stops what she is doing and just looks at me. She then throws my passport in a folder, calls an officer, and sends me to the back room because, her quote, "I could not follow the instructions of the guards". Took me 45 minutes in the small room before I was cleared without a "welcome back to the USA" after 6 months in China.

 

Everyplace has its good and bad points. But in USA so many people talk about China like it is a 3rd world country.

 

 

I think you both are seeing the forest beyond the trees which is good insight as oppose to not seeing the forest because of the trees. VO's as soothsayers, aha!, yes.