Non-bonafide rulings

[HKG]

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Page 266, ISBN 0-314-76271-X:

 

color of law: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.

 

When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort).

 

Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law" for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229.

 

Acts "under color of any law" of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law", the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì1983.

[Mike62356]

I give up with this guy

[LeeFisher3]

A DOS determination is not a legal ruling.

 

Just wonder how long your lady is going to put up with this before she looks elsewhere.

[HKG]

A DOS determination is not a legal ruling.

 

Just wonder how long your lady is going to put up with this before she looks elsewhere.

Fisher, what is the problem? I'm saying IF, do you undrstand IF? If non-boanafide is a legal ruling, which after reading some of these Post I find it may not be. Other than in a scam marriage.

[Sebastian]

your examples and definitions do not apply to the consular officials at the Consulate in Guangzhou - they claimed the beneficiary is not in a bonafide relationship.

 

The beneficiary is not a USC, so the laws you found won't apply to her.

 

The ConOff has 'extra-territorial power' not covered by the examples you've cited.

 

At least, thats my 2 cents - I could be dead wrong, as well.

[C4Racer]

I give up with this guy

 

A long long time ago.

 

HKG, you are missing the boat. Let me give you a little analogy. You are like in a boat out in the middle of the South China Sea in a typhoon. Now, you are lucky because this boat has a captain and crew who are well versed with storms, weathering many storms and typoons before. It is also filled with a group of people who are more than happy to help you get through to the other end. Now, you find yourself going outside on deck to piss into the wind. You close the door forgetting the life line inside, so now you have no one to help you and you risk being swept overboard, never to be found again.

 

Yes, non-bonafide relationship is a legal term. Yes, it is one GUZ seems to use quite often. You are tackling this like they have burden of proof. Not the case.

 

You have the burden of proof. You must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your relationship is a true relationship. The burden of proof is on you and your spouse/fiancee.

 

No one in their right mind would shift the burden of proof. The argument is not if they can use non-bonafide relationship or not, but how much proof do you need, what kind of proof do they need and how much disclosure must they provide. This is the battle we must fight and one we are losing at this time.

[HKG]

I give up with this guy

 

A long long time ago.

 

HKG, you are missing the boat. Let me give you a little analogy. You are like in a boat out in the middle of the South China Sea in a typhoon. Now, you are lucky because this boat has a captain and crew who are well versed with storms, weathering many storms and typoons before. It is also filled with a group of people who are more than happy to help you get through to the other end. Now, you find yourself going outside on deck to piss into the wind. You close the door forgetting the life line inside, so now you have no one to help you and you risk being swept overboard, never to be found again.

 

Yes, non-bonafide relationship is a legal term. Yes, it is one GUZ seems to use quite often. You are tackling this like they have burden of proof. Not the case.

 

You have the burden of proof. You must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your relationship is a true relationship. The burden of proof is on you and your spouse/fiancee.

 

No one in their right mind would shift the burden of proof. The argument is not if they can use non-bonafide relationship or not, but how much proof do you need, what kind of proof do they need and how much disclosure must they provide. This is the battle we must fight and one we are losing at this time.

 

Marc Ellis, on burden of proof

 

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

[Randy W]

 

 

Marc Ellis, on burden of proof

 

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

 

 

 

From the article:

substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not previously considered by DHS,

 

This "burden" is met quite easily with material from the P3 and P4 submissions, along with the interview itself, and does not even need to be documented.

 

The article was written for a purpose - which was NOT to outline any requirements on the VO's. It was written to encourage people to front-load petitions with relationship evidence, and to tell people who have received white slips that they need to watch their mailbox for communications from the USCIS.

 

Unfortunately, it seems to easily mislead people in other directions.

[Yuanyang]

You seem to be a very bright and energetic person and you want your loved one with you in the US as soon as possible. You're also angry... as we all would be in your situation.

 

But focusing that energy, intelligence and anger into a Federal case is not going to get her here. If you really do have the deep pockets to bring up a suit against the US Gov then your approved petition and her visa status could become attached to that case and be in the court system for years.

 

There's a "process" for just about everything even a NOID. Folks are trying to point out that process to aid you.

[LeeFisher3]

A DOS determination is not a legal ruling.

 

Just wonder how long your lady is going to put up with this before she looks elsewhere.

Fisher, what is the problem? I'm saying IF, do you undrstand IF? If non-boanafide is a legal ruling, which after reading some of these Post I find it may not be. Other than in a scam marriage.

You seem to be trying to find a way to make GUZ reverse their decision so you can feel that you were right, well that ain't gunna happen if for no other reason than GUZ doesn't do that. It doesn't matter how right you are, in their eyes you are wrong until you prove differently.

 

So why don't you focus your efforts in a productive manner that has been used by others and get her here.

 

Our Chinese fianc¨¦es and wives base much on actions, if your actions fail to give the impression that you are making good decisions you will know about it.

 

My statement about your fianc¨¦e looking elsewhere is a reality, if she looses faith in you in this process it's over.

[NUWORLD]

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Page 266, ISBN 0-314-76271-X:

 

color of law: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.

 

When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort).

 

Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law" for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229.

 

Acts "under color of any law" of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law", the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì1983.

 

 

You again??

Ya just don't get it do ya!

 

Here maybe this will make ya feel better.

 

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...mp;#entry469016

[MikeXiao]

You should spend less time in the law books and more time preparing. You can quote 'your' finds in the law books until your blue in the face, and GUZ will not even bat an eye. Suck it up, notch up your belt one more notch. Get yourself ready. Touting these laws will not change anything. I have been there, TWICE. I was angry too. But I turned and prepared for the next go around. You are or have wasted valuable time.

[HelloWorld08]

You should spend less time in the law books and more time preparing. You can quote 'your' finds in the law books until your blue in the face, and GUZ will not even bat an eye. Suck it up, notch up your belt one more notch. Get yourself ready. Touting these laws will not change anything. I have been there, TWICE. I was angry too. But I turned and prepared for the next go around. You are or have wasted valuable time.

 

agreed,stop trying to sue US government, it's not going to work. be prepared for the second go!!

[Guest Dylan W]

Why are you referring to laws which are specifically meant to explain the actions of law authority? These which you are referring to were taught to me in specific instances of being a police officer. I didn't even know they were held in the same regard as for a consulate official.

[Guest Rob & Jin]

you know, i pissed into the wind once, guess what I got wet