Yuanyang Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Hey Smart Guys (that's David Z and Randy W)? For all of these white slips can/should an I-601 be filed? I-601What Is the Purpose of This Form?An alien who is ineligible to be admitted to the USA etc... Who May File This Form?1. ...2. ...3. K1 or K24. K3, K4 or V nonimmigrant visa 5. etc... It does list 221g has those who can not file. I think they are found inadmissable at the hearing in the US by the USCIS. This rarely happens. But this is one reason why a lawyer might be useful in figuring out what to do. I-601 appeal cannot be filed unless the consulate give you that option, correct ? No - I-601 is waiver of inadmissability Sounds like for most folks it isn't a viable option and could take just as long and cost more $ than simply applealing the NOID. Link to comment
Guest Rob & Jin Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Hey Smart Guys (that's David Z and Randy W)? For all of these white slips can/should an I-601 be filed? I-601What Is the Purpose of This Form?An alien who is ineligible to be admitted to the USA etc... Who May File This Form?1. ...2. ...3. K1 or K24. K3, K4 or V nonimmigrant visa 5. etc... It does list 221g has those who can not file. I think they are found inadmissable at the hearing in the US by the USCIS. This rarely happens. But this is one reason why a lawyer might be useful in figuring out what to do. I-601 appeal cannot be filed unless the consulate give you that option, correct ? No - I-601 is waiver of inadmissability -this would allow a new petition to be filed in the event that Marc Ellis's worst case scenario 212(a)(6)©(i)[1] Misrepresentation trap comes about so just for misrepresentation meaning what? does that include "non- bona fide" is that not misrepresentation too ? is this why they use 212g and 5a to evade i-601 appeals ? Link to comment
Randy W Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 so just for misrepresentation meaning what? does that include "non- bona fide" is that not misrepresentation too ? is this why they use 212g and 5a to evade i-601 appeals ? To quote Marc Ellis: Because the petitioner did not respond to the K-1 revocation notice, the beneficiary has a 212(a)(6)( c )(i) finding on her record. Even if the petition for her is approved, she is permanently barred from entering the US, unless she can obtain a waiver to that ground of inadmissibility. What specific misrepresentation has this couple made? According to the section of the FAM cited above, it could be a generalized misrepresentation with respect to her entitlement to the K-1 status. She failed to satisfy the ¡°Reasonable Person¡± Standard, and that has been boot-strapped more or less into a finding of Misrepresentation by the consulate. Again, this is a court finding in the US - not a visa denial. A very generalized, worst-case scenario, no specifics. The I-601 is not an appeal. It is a request to be allowed to final a new petition when the beneficiary is otherwise not eligible. Link to comment
Bryon_Tran Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I don't think it is the First visit and married in 3 days. I went to China on my first visit and married Ling 5 days later.For defendo...I can see that it would be a red flag if you went to China and you met and married in 2 to 3 days.As for Ling and I...we communicated by e-mail and snail mail letters for 7 months before I flew to China and married her.This is why I think...starting a relationship of about 6 months is so important in the beginning before one goes off and gets married...but that is "just my opinion".... My fiancee and I started emailing online april 28th 07 and then face to face with yahoo messenger on 05/11/07. I went to see her on December 12th for the first time and proposed december 15th. Durning the interview they asked my fiancee when we met she told them in person we met december 12th they didn't ask when we started to communicate. They then requested a notorized chronology and I stated in that we started emailing april 28th then started talking online shortly after that. On the denial one of the reason they said was I proposed to her within 2 weeks of meeting her. They ignored the fact that we had been talking before that for 7 months and ignored the emails and letters we sent to each other. I am using this as a rebuttle In contrast to Vietnamese social and cultural norms which mandate a lengthy and careful period of pre-nuptial arrangements, Petitioner and Beneficiary became engaged within two weeks of meeting. Response: Dec 15, 2007 he proposed in person. That is 3 days after his arrival. They met on April 28, 2007. They were introduced by her brother's friend. Brother is in NY. His name Tran To Ha. He immigrated to the US by boat in 1978. Brother's friend is a Chinese-American named Henry Link to comment
Randy W Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I don't think it is the First visit and married in 3 days. I went to China on my first visit and married Ling 5 days later.For defendo...I can see that it would be a red flag if you went to China and you met and married in 2 to 3 days.As for Ling and I...we communicated by e-mail and snail mail letters for 7 months before I flew to China and married her.This is why I think...starting a relationship of about 6 months is so important in the beginning before one goes off and gets married...but that is "just my opinion".... My fiancee and I started emailing online april 28th 07 and then face to face with yahoo messenger on 05/11/07. I went to see her on December 12th for the first time and proposed december 15th. Durning the interview they asked my fiancee when we met she told them in person we met december 12th they didn't ask when we started to communicate. They then requested a notorized chronology and I stated in that we started emailing april 28th then started talking online shortly after that. On the denial one of the reason they said was I proposed to her within 2 weeks of meeting her. They ignored the fact that we had been talking before that for 7 months and ignored the emails and letters we sent to each other. I am using this as a rebuttle In contrast to Vietnamese social and cultural norms which mandate a lengthy and careful period of pre-nuptial arrangements, Petitioner and Beneficiary became engaged within two weeks of meeting. Response: Dec 15, 2007 he proposed in person. That is 3 days after his arrival. They met on April 28, 2007. They were introduced by her brother's friend. Brother is in NY. His name Tran To Ha. He immigrated to the US by boat in 1978. Brother's friend is a Chinese-American named Henry "Vietnamese social and cultural norms" do not set American policy Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now