denied and refiling

[tsap seui]

Not that this information will help anyone currently, but just for clarification of the actual facts we K-1 applicants actually lived through with our K-1 visa applications being sent to the Guangzhou consulate during the specific years of 2007 throughout the year 2009, as opposed to this four year old letter from attorney Renison. Nothing against attorney Renison in any way. What he writes about was not happening to us in that time frame.

 

K-1 visa denials at the consulate level from the specific years 2007 throughout 2009, that I am highly aware of solely because I lived through them, if denied at the Guangzhou consulate WERE sent back to the USCIS with the charges the DOS found against the applications. As K-1 visa applicants we WERE sent letters from the USCIS detailing the charges against us, and we WERE given the chance by letter of rebuttal to plead our case to the USCIS. I know of 4 posters from Candle who sent in letters of rebuttal on their K-1 cases through those specific years of 2007 throughout 2009. Some won, some lost at the USCIS level, the fight for their Guangzhou consulate denied, K-1 applications.

 

In our case we had the K-1 interview the day before my girlfriend's birthday in late July 2007. Given an Administrative Revue (AR) blue slip which asked for no further evidence. The same day of the interview I went to the consulate's citizen hour (or whatever they called it then) and talked to a visa officer who looked up our case, would tell me nothing about what trouble the interviewing VO had found but told me it was minor and that in about 3 months we should have our visas. We waited 10 months of Administrative revue and were denied in May 2008.

 

It took the Guangzhou consulate 13 (THIRTEEN) months to send our case back to the USCIS, who received our case back in their hands in early June of 2009.

 

During the long wait for both denial and for the consulate to send our case back to USCIS I had many conversations with attorney Marc Ellis. He confirmed my feeling that the consulate in Guangzhou was very subjective, speculative, and loaded with conjecture in how they adjudicated K-1 (in particular) visa cases. In effect there is no rhyme or reason as to how they do their jobs on our cases. The US consulate visa officers do what they want, and they have no oversight upon them. There is no regard for their own written laws and the VO's word is final. Attorney Ellis clearly explained to me that no one, not me, not him, and no Congressional waawho's liaison was going to find out what was wrong, or be able to intervene in behalf of a case, either while it was in Administrative Revue, or even after it was denied.

 

Attorney Ellis told me flat out I had to await the outcome of AR and should it be denied that "you will only find out what is wrong, and will be given the chance to rebut the State Department's charges against you and your girlfriend once the consulate sends case back to USCIS." Period. So, we waited........and waited. Yes, I used two congressional liaisons, yes, I called the DOS in DC twice a day for 23 months, yes I sent letters to the DOS in Washington and over 75 emails to the consulate in Guangzhou (after the denial and simply asking the question "Have you sent our K-1 case back to the USCIS?") They never answered me one single time on that question.

 

I have the letter sent to me by the USCIS in June of 2009. It has the date they received our case back in their hands from the consulate in Guangzhou, and it has the date they reaffirmed our petition ON THEIR OWN WITH NO REBUTTAL LETTER FROM ME ASKED FOR.

 

It took USCIS three days to reaffirm our case and send it back to the consulate in China for a new K-1 interview. From the date USCIS received our application back in their hands, reviewed it, reaffirmed it, and sent it back to the consulate....three days!!!!

 

Attorney Ellis was astounded. Said he had never heard of a case being reaffirmed with no rebuttal letter. Said that showed him how weak "legally" the consulate's case against us was. At this point attorney Ellis informed me about the PC61 marker that was "sometimes" put into an applicant's file by the consulate. We both laughed that, "well, you are never going ot know what the bozo VO at teh Guangzhou consulate was charging you guys with in 2007, only that her (the VO's) case against you was absolutely nothing with any legal standing." And so it goes.

 

Our case was sent back to the Guangzhou consulate, I never informed USCIS, NVC, or the consulate that we had married in March of 2009, and we got a new K-1 interview date in December of 2009. Only after getting the new interview date did I email the consulate to void the interview as we had married. Had the consulate even remotely or in the most loosely interpretation of the word "timely" sent our K-1 petition back to USCIS is any sort of timely fashion we most likely would have been awarded a K-1 visa in December of 2009. I waited from May 2008 until March 2009 to take this shit into my own hands finally....how long was I supposed to wait for the unlawful and criminal idiots to simply send our application back? ....LOL Who knew if they would ever send it back to USCIS?

 

All of that said, and in regards to this "non-reviewability" wording that is being passed around nowadays......it was Dan I think, maybe Randy who posted a new change passed by the State Department, or USCIS that said anything about a ruling to not reviewing cases sent back from overseas consulates...I swear that was in the year 2013, possibly 2012. I remember posting in the thread....something to the effect, "GREAT!!! Now a petitioner can't even rebut a denied case sent back to the USCIS". Maybe Dan or Randy will remember that thread, or has the wherewithal and patience to look it up. Not that it matters for current cases, other than THEY will be affected by it today. I'm telling you....THAT is NOT how we were treated years ago. Our cases, at least from the Guangzhou consulate DID get sent back and WERE reviewed by the USCIS field office we had sent our original application in to. This non-reviewable hogwash is a more current policy, it is NOT something that was in effect all along. That is WRONG. As much as I despise the Guangzhou consulate and forever will, that is not what those of us in the shitpile of ago experienced. Maybe other consulates played that game.

 

Jesse, I wish there was something you could do now, or a short circuit for you around this crap they have put you in. I signed a lawsuit petition years ago, never heard where it went, and I'd be happy to sign a new one if available. I'm not one of those ones who got their quick easy little visa and hit the highway. I've stayed on to try and help encourage people when they hit the "wait" wall. I'll never lose how it felt to be shit on by my country and forced to wait some long interminable wait. Shit on by lying low life idiots that shouldn't even be breathing oxygen.

 

I have had to sit and watch folks from ago on Candle that had flimsy applications, some who got their divorces finalized the week of their girlfriends interview, yet they got the easy visa. I've preached it for years that the consulate in Guangzhou is downright criminal, they don't abide by any rules, they hand out denials wrongly, they play God, how the visa game is a crap shoot or pick the lucky ducky in the duck pond. Some folks just get shit on man. It could happen to ANYBODY. It's wrong, it's criminal to interfere with peoples lives like they do in Guangzhou....and then our government turns around and gives amnesty to illegals, now just let the so called kids simply enter to be housed, fed and given free medical care....WHAT???? While law abiding citizens are feed shit at the same time for trying to do it legally. It's insanity. We are going to reap what we are sowing in this unraveling country.

 

Good luck...

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

It would be nice to hear from more people like Tsap who have personal experience with the criminal activity happening in Guangzhou. Tsap, for the record I spoke on the telephone with Brent Renison about two weeks ago and talked in detail about the activities at US Consulates not only in Guangzhou, but several other cities around the world. That case was tried in March 29, 2011.

 

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/3:2010cv00724/98335/39/

 

Nevertheless, Brent said the case was lost because the primary plantiff dropped out because he and his partner broke up. Several other plantiffs dropped out also and would not be considered because they gave up on their K1 and moved on and got married. For this reason the judge would not consider that part of the case because he saw no harm was done because the couples either withdrew or got married.

 

I am told that Mr. Renison expects to win this case on appeal.

 

The US State Department has never published any details about the specific numbers of applicants for K1 visas versus the number of petitions returned to the USCIS. So, he personally filed to have that information released using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and was successful. The numbers as you can see are astonishing, and should serve as a wake up and alert to anyone who is in the middle of or considering filing a K1 for their fiancee in China.

 

Brent Renison is aware and stated to me:

 

The consulate can do this because they are above the law, because the courts have said they can’t review consular decisions, and because the agency does not oversee its consular activities.

 

This is also the mantra of Marc Ellis. We are simply powerless to do anything about what they do. I don't have numbers, but another mantra in the legal community is that once a K1 petition is recommended for revocation, there is virtually no chance to overcome it.

 

Our case is unique in that it was returned to USCIS before the interview. Applicants always get the chance to interview, even if the conoff is dead set to reject her. My fiancee did NOT get that chance! It's very rare and the attorneys I've talked to have no personal experience with it, but say they've only heard of it in rare cases. While a conoff is not supposed to re adjudicate a petition, they can send it back to the USCIS if they think something is missing that was supposed to be there. But, they can't send it back if they would have simply arrived at a different decision than the USCIS; unless they have new and compelling evidence that firmly establish a legal reason for denial. At least, that's the way it is supposed to work. In truth, it almost never does work that way. The conoff need only make a generic statement like:

 

1. Misrepresentation of a material fact

2. Non bona fide relationship

 

They are not required to provide evidence, and therefore the victims are left wondering what they did wrong. For example, the consulate will never be required nor will they ever provide information that:

 

1. Page 2, of form XYZ says you never filed a petition before. Yet, you did file a petition five years ago, (see exhibit ZYZ). Therefore, you misrepresented a material fact.

 

2. CONOFF finds there is no bonafide relationship. because he personally witnessed the beneficiary pull her hand away when the petitioner tried to hold it before she entered the building. For this reason, CONOFF finds that she is no good, and only seeking to immigrate to achieve immigration benefits. She also doesn't smile and is much too pretty for the petitioner.

 

US Courts require compelling evidence before they will consider a charge. A conoff need only make the allegation the beneficiary misrepresented or simply doesn't have a true relationship. It's the feel factor that lives up the conoff's ass, which they achieved after completing a two week training course in how to second-guess the USCIS and how to see inside someone's heart and find the true intention that lives there.

Edited July 20, 2014 by ExChinaExpat (see edit history)

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

The following two documents illustrate the disconnect between the DHS, DOS and the USCIS. One thing for sure is that it is well known, and well documented that conoffs routinely reject visas at the consular level that are later shown to be moot evidence and reaffirmed.

 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_Recommendation33_aug_24_07.pdf


http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_uscisresponse_recommendation33_2008-05-23.pdf