denied and refiling

[IllinoisDave]

This is why..when you file a petition with USCIS that you give USCIS a letter of evolution of relationship...so that if USCIS approves than GUZ can not use what ever is in the "letter of evolution of relationship" against you.

 

I wouldn't count on this being true. USCIS's job is to make sure you're techically eligible to file for the visa. It's GUZ's job to look deeper into the details. If they deem a short "courting" period after a divorce to be a red flag, they can issue a blue or white and cite any reason they want, including the all encompassing "not a bona fide relationship."

 

To believe that including an explanation of why someone met and married or were engaged soon after a divorce in a letter of evolution provides some sort of immunity is giving one a false sense of security IMHO.

[Missingyou]

Why should there be a 6months waiting period for K-3 or CR-1 before re-filing or continue on with CR-1?

 

Hi Missingyou,

 

My own opinion about the time line to refile again. I have seen people on this web site who have gotten a denial and refiled so fast that they have not addressed the issues of the first denial.

People can do as they please ,,and file immediately but if you do than the VO is going to see that you were "fast on the draw".

"In my opinion only"..I think a relationship should be given minimum 6 months to develop and also "In my opinion only",,if you are denied than there should be about 6 months before another petition is filed again...if nothing else, to address the issues of the first denial.

"Just my opinion". And people can and are going to do what they want..

 

Tom and Ling

 

I see. I just thought that it was like mandatory, since I fwd'd what you said to my friend who just got a K-3 denial in Japan. My hubby got pink the first time, so we didn't really look much into what we should do if we got denied. By the way, my sister-in-law's interview will be sometimes next month or March, so I am going to advise her to come to this site and ask you questions. I hope it is okay with you!

[Randy W]

I agree with Dave here. I think some are getting the impression that they can "erase" an issue simply by getting the USCIS to "approve" it.

 

I think it's best to try to paint a pretty picture than to try to sneak something through.

[Tom and Ling]

This is why..when you file a petition with USCIS that you give USCIS a letter of evolution of relationship...so that if USCIS approves than GUZ can not use what ever is in the "letter of evolution of relationship" against you.

 

I wouldn't count on this being true. USCIS's job is to make sure you're techically eligible to file for the visa. It's GUZ's job to look deeper into the details. If they deem a short "courting" period after a divorce to be a red flag, they can issue a blue or white and cite any reason they want, including the all encompassing "not a bona fide relationship."

 

To believe that including an explanation of why someone met and married or were engaged soon after a divorce in a letter of evolution provides some sort of immunity is giving one a false sense of security IMHO.

 

Well, I am "not" saying that short courting or getting involved right after a divorce will be over looked by GUZ and Like I have always said that one should give a relationship at least 6months..."in my opinion".

I am refering to things like how you communicate and such...but if you want to assume that anything you report to USCIS is over turned by GUZ...than that is your opinion. I just have mine...

 

Tom and Ling

[Tom and Ling]

I agree with Dave here. I think some are getting the impression that they can "erase" an issue simply by getting the USCIS to "approve" it.

 

I think it's best to try to paint a pretty picture than to try to sneak something through.

 

 

And I was not suggesting that anyone try and "sneak" something through by getting the USCIS to "approve" it...

 

Tom and Ling

[Guest jin979]

i think you to address issues with GUZ before interview ie at ACS and ACH, thats why i believe it is so important petitioner be there.

 

seems things have changed at GUZ it these days

[IllinoisDave]

...but if you want to assume that anything you report to USCIS is over turned by GUZ...than that is your opinion. I just have mine...

Not really what I was saying at all. I just didn't want people thinking that by explaining away a short timeframe between a divorce and new engagement/marriage in the letter of evolution that GUZ was obligated to not take it into consideration just because USCIS had passed it on. Your post seemed to imply that to be the case. Maybe that's not what you meant.

 

I agree that a longer "courtship" is probably better, but not necessary. It can often depend on what other potential "red flag" issues are in play. But the point is GUZ will look at them all, fairly or not.

[Tom and Ling]

...but if you want to assume that anything you report to USCIS is over turned by GUZ...than that is your opinion. I just have mine...

Not really what I was saying at all. I just didn't want people thinking that by explaining away a short timeframe between a divorce and new engagement/marriage in the letter of evolution that GUZ was obligated to not take it into consideration just because USCIS had passed it on. Your post seemed to imply that to be the case. Maybe that's not what you meant.

 

I agree that a longer "courtship" is probably better, but not necessary. It can often depend on what other potential "red flag" issues are in play. But the point is GUZ will look at them all, fairly or not.

 

 

Hi Dave,

 

"Maybe that's not what you meant." you are right "That is not what I meant....

I think a short time frame between a divorce and a new engagement/marriage...is something that is going to raise GUZ's eye brows...no matter who approves the petition.

We had plenty of red flags as per what others have said, but none came up in our interview......

 

Tom and Ling

[Stepbrow]

I think that this is a really important topic that Rob has brought up. It is also a very complicated one. For instance, different service centers handle the return of K petitions differently. CSC most often just lets them expire. Other service centers routinely send notices. When notices are sent , the petitioner then can refute the allegations, and overcome, which has been successfully done.

 

On the other hand, because of the lengthy time for petitions to be returned, it has been recommended (for K-3s) to just put the I-130 in play. It often may be approved before the K-3 is even returned. This strategy has been successfully done also.

 

How does one decide which is best? It is a tough choice because this is only a once in a lifetime (hopefully) process. For me, I have decided to end the DIY phase. I am going to work with an attorney that has years of experience in this, and who comes highly recommended.

 

For a lot of guys and ladies who have not created red flags, and have a pretty simple, clean case, utilizing the advice from this forum is the best way to proceed. But, if you have red flags, things become much more complicated and professional help becomes advisable.

 

I do believe that the GZ consulate has become much more strict in granting visas. In doing some research the other day, I came across an article that said GZ had done some fraud research in 2006. They actually went to the villages and did personal interviews with the families and children of SO's. This was mainly in Guangdong Province. The fraud was very high. Consequently the CO's have become much more strict. I tried to go back and find the url for it, but I couldn't locate it.

[Guest jin979]

people need to remember USCIS approves petition. in that you qualify to apply for visa, DOS GUZ proccesses visa, its them you have to convince.

Each case is different look for your red flags and overcome them before interview, this means being totally honest with eachother, preperation and planning.

i also say that petioner not there is a weakness, if you cant be there . have a good reason why not.

 

this is not like applying for a passport, think, read and plan, take it serious spend the money and time necessary for your case and loved one, right ?

[Randy W]

The options are:

 

1. Tell
   us
   your circumstances and see what we think
   
   
2. Talk to a lawyer
   
   

You need a strategy, which may include filing for waivers, but it will definitely depend on the circumstances of your denial.

 

Best approach (regardless of which petition) will always be to submit additional evidence of relationship, which may include getting married.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

I am not sure that I follow you on what has changed. Are you saying that the options after a white has changed or has the number of white slip recipients changed? The latter would only be specific to CFL. As far as I know, the options have been the same, for at least as long since I received my white, as far as refiling.

 

 

I'm wondering if the number of white slips at GZ are increasing or if it is more of a CFL thing. Are the newer members less prepared than those before them or has GZ cut back on blue slips and increased the white? If so then is there some new standard such as length of time between meeting and marriage?

 

 

This thread is a few years old, but as information becomes more available it is more clear that getting a visa in China is more a matter of chance than preparation. This is due to the corruption caused by the doctrine of consular non-reviewability. Conoffs have a tough job, but unfortunately US law continues to allow them more power than any human being should be allowed to have.

 

These rejection rates for Guangzhou speak more about what is happening there especially when compared to other countries like the Philippines, which enjoy approval rates in excess of 90%.

 

http://i59.tinypic.com/fauclg.jpg

 

http://i59.tinypic.com/10ncq6t.jpg

Edited July 19, 2014 by ExChinaExpat (see edit history)

[Randy W]

The timing on this thread relative to what your table indicates is very revealing.

[dnoblett]

Yes I recall the bunch of denials back in 08

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

This class action lawsuit was just the beginning salvo on what will be a long fight to eliminate the corruption happening in our Consulates worldwide. No America citizen or his loved ones abroad should cower in fear from the power of any consular official. They hide under the cover of a misinterpreted US law and it needs to stop.

 

 

 

Lawsuit Challenges U.S. Immigration Policies for K1 Fiance(e) Visa Processing at the U.S. Embassy and Consulate in Fiance(e) Visa Denial Case

Class Action Lawsuit Challenge Immigration Policies and Procedures Relating to Consular Returns of K-1 fiance(e) Petitions.


New York, NY (PRWEB) July 2, 2010

A U.S. based immigration lawyer, Brent Renison, from the law firm PARRILLI RENISON LLC, has recently filed a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State (“State Department”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) challenging the immigration policies and procedures for returning approved fiance visa petitions to USCIS with a recommendation that the petition be revoked. Dzu Cong Tran v. Napolitano, 3:10-CV-724-ST (D.Or. filed June 24, 2010) (class action lawsuit challenging K-1 petition return policies of the U.S. State Department and Department of Homeland Security) filed in the United States District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division.

Three years ago the USCIS Ombudsmand had issued recommendations to DHS and USCIS regarding necessary changes to the standards and processes for re-adjudication of petitions returned by consular officers for revocation because of a systemic nationwide failures of the immigration system. Only some of the recommendations were implemented and some specifically rejected. The class action lawsuit involves some of the recommendations which were rejected.

For a K1 fiance(e) to acquire permanent resident, the US citizen first obtains an approved I-129F petition filed with DHS/USCIS. 8 U.S.C. §1184(d); 8 C.F.R § 214.2(k)(1). The K1 petition approval requires that the couple have met in person within two years of the filing of the petition and must have a bona fide intention to marry within 90 days of the fiance's arrival. 8 U.S.C.§1184(d)(1).

If the fiance(e) visa petition is denied, DHS/USCIS shall explain in writing the specific reasons for the denial and notify the petitioner of the right to appeal. If the fiance(e) visa petition is approved then it bears a four month validity period which the consular officer has the discretion to extend. However, if it appears to the consular officer that statements in the application or in documents submitted that the fiance(e) is not eligible to receive a visa, the officer shall refuse the visa. 8 U.S.C.§1201(g). If the visa is refused then the affirmed K1 petition is returned to DHS/USCIS with the officer's recommendation for revocation. Additionally, when a visa case is returned to USCIS the State Department place a marker called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in an applicant's record so the revocation of the petition automatically establishing a permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility under INA 212(a)(6)©(i).

When the State Department return the affirmed K1 visa petition, DHS/USCIS will not review such returned petition, nor will they provide the visa applicant with the opportunity to rebut consular officer's findings. The applicant will not have an opportunity to appeal and in light of the P6C1 marker, may face a permanent bar to admissibility for misrepresentation.

The class action lawsuit recently filed in Oregon alleges contradictory and unlawful practices of the agencies have caused class members to be subjected to arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful visa denials and therefore been deprived of their due process of law. Specifically, the class action challenges USCIS' policies and procedures for revoking, denying or terminating petitions that the State Department return.

For the US citizen petitioner who has filed and received an approved I-129F for a K1 visa or K3 visa, any policy or procedural changes originated under this lawsuit may mean consular processing service that is streamlined, judicious, and efficient. It shall remove any unnecessary visa delays and inconsistent, arbitrary visa refusals. Furthermore, the visa applicant will be able to obtain written notice of the legal and factual basis for their K1 and K3 visa denial instead of being issued a boiler plate 221(g) blue sheet which does not detail the consular officer's findings. US citizen petitioners will then be given the opportunity to rebut the findings within a reasonable time after the decision. More importantly given the opportunity to appeal the decision if the visa was denied. For the US citizen petitioner who has filed and received a reaffirmation of approval, to deliver the reaffirmed petition to the State Department and compel them to issue the K1 visa within a reasonable period of time.

The resounding effect of the lawsuit is the requirement that consular officers provide a succinctly written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial, permit the visa applicant the opportunity to rebut the findings, and compel DHS/USCIS to take action that is conclusive, and provide the petitioner an opportunity to appeal the consular officer's findings.