There's A 'U' In Support

[splinterman]

I don't think I'm giving too much to the government. The folks at USCIS don't give a damn what DOS/GUZ does. They are going to make their lives as easy as possible. They see a petition returned that is beyond the expiry date and as far as they are concerned, it is over. It is not USCIS concern what is legal for DOS. They have no dog in any fight that DOS picks. And, by the way, it is not illegal for a government organization to not follow its own rules. No more than it is against the law for you to violate your companies rules.

 

Your quote about it being illegal for a consulate employee to falsely certify a document is not a good argument. The list of issues that can lead to a non bone fide is endless(if there is a list at all) and you or I will never see it. It can be as simple as "she didn't even know his phone number". The VO can give any reason he wants to and I guarantee that he can back it up by showing that questions were asked that a person in a relationship would know and she didn't know. That is if you could ever get the VO into a court and you won't be able to do that.

 

And, to carry this further, lets say you could get a VO into court. Its his word against NOBODY! How are you going to get your lady into the US to testify if she doesn't have a visa to allow her past POE? You think waving a subpoena will get her in? It won't even get her on the plane to leave China! You can't testify. You were not at the interview. Whatever your lady told you about the interview is nothing but hearsay.

 

 

I'd like you to take a few moments and review the language in these two USCIS Administrative Appeal decisions regarding the consulate imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship and also the non-requirement for the beneficiary to know all details & aspects of the petitioner's life history.

 

AAO opinions, January 08 2007, [LIN 05 023 53986] and February 02, 2007, [LIN 05114 54677]

 

They can be found on the USCIS website under Administrative Decisions, choose catagory D6 and then select these individual cases by number. Below is a brief synopsis of the consular-imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship:

 

The petitions noted in these AAO decisions were returned to USCIS for review after the K-1 visa interview. The consular officer had concerns that these relationships were not bona fide. Upon review, the district director denied the visa petitions. However, the AAO found that in denying these petitions, the district director ¡°appears to have imposed an additional requirement to the petitioner ¨C establishing the genuineness of [the] relationship to the beneficiary.¡± It is not the function of the USCIS to make that determination. [Jan. 2007, LIN 05 023 53986].

 

It also goes on to say in the other opinion that a beneficiary need not know in intimate detail the petitioner's life history simply to demonstrate there is a true relationship.

 

So for quite a while now, Guangzhou has been ignoring the published decisions of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office about requiring a showing of a bona fide relationship in order to be awarded a visa.

 

Splinterman

How about because they can get away with it and will continue to do so until enough people stand up and challenge this behavior. Who knows it might only take one more person joining the fight to tip the scale and make this a distant memory.

 

 

Now wait a second - we're talking about two different departments - USCIS and DOS - doing two different things. Neither has any control over the other. The USCIS' interest is only in the petitions filed by US citizens and LPR's. The DOS' interest is in (subjectively) approving or denying a visa application from a foreign national.

 

Neither has any interest in following any policy of the other.

 

My own opinion is that returning the petitions to the US is a sham, serving no purpose. The USCIS cannot and should not evaluate the evidence gathered by the consulate, when the consulate is not a party to any legal action taken in the states. In almost every case, the evidence passed back is going to be insufficient, and no further questioning (or evidence gathering) occurs.

 

There are different standards for determining what is a bona fide relationship here in the states and for immigration purposes. The USCIS can only say, "looks good to us", and pass the petition along to the consulate for a final (and very subjective) determination. The standard for revoking a petition is another matter entirely

 

 

Randy, what I was trying to address is the fact that it has already been shown that having a 'bona fide' relationship is no longer a plausible argument for GUZ to make in determining visa applications.

 

Yes, you're right about the interests of the DOS and the USCIS being different when it comes to dealing with each other. I wasn't trying to comment about that-that's a known fact and there's nothing we can do about it until the government re-organizes itself with respect to the visa process.

 

I'm sure that GUZ already knows that having a bona fide relationship is not a requirement for being issued a visa, but they still continue to deny on those grounds because they are taking advantage of the inability of the USCIS and the DOS to come together and work with each other. And we, as the petitioners and our beneficiaries, get caught in the middle. They can get away with it under the current structure of the government, so they do.

 

In the other Admin decision it shows that the USCIS holds that it is also NOT a requirement for the beneficiary to know all the details of the petitioner's life in order that she/he be issued the visa. Many of our beneficiaries have been denied visas because they did not answer these type questions with answers that were acceptable to the VOs.

 

Again, they deny on those grounds because they can get away with it. What has to happen is a governmental reorganization of the authority for visa processing. Until that happens, or something else like a successful lawsuit, these things will continue to happen and we and our beneficiaries will continue to get caught in the middle. Our cases will continue to get 'deep sixed' with no concern because Guangzhou has far too many cases to look at that particular day.

 

I was simply trying to show that it is NOT a requirement to have a bona fide relationship nor does the beneficiary need to know all intimate details of our lives before being given a visa. I've pointed out this conflict between DOS and USCIS in my letters to Obama, Clinton, Jacobs, etc., as a continuing reason for the denials coming out of Guangzhou so they see the need to fix the part that's broken that is allowing the travesty in Guangzhou to perpetuate itself every day and throwing hundreds of us into a bureaucratic purgatory.

 

Splinterman

[Randy W]

I don't think I'm giving too much to the government. The folks at USCIS don't give a damn what DOS/GUZ does. They are going to make their lives as easy as possible. They see a petition returned that is beyond the expiry date and as far as they are concerned, it is over. It is not USCIS concern what is legal for DOS. They have no dog in any fight that DOS picks. And, by the way, it is not illegal for a government organization to not follow its own rules. No more than it is against the law for you to violate your companies rules.

 

Your quote about it being illegal for a consulate employee to falsely certify a document is not a good argument. The list of issues that can lead to a non bone fide is endless(if there is a list at all) and you or I will never see it. It can be as simple as "she didn't even know his phone number". The VO can give any reason he wants to and I guarantee that he can back it up by showing that questions were asked that a person in a relationship would know and she didn't know. That is if you could ever get the VO into a court and you won't be able to do that.

 

And, to carry this further, lets say you could get a VO into court. Its his word against NOBODY! How are you going to get your lady into the US to testify if she doesn't have a visa to allow her past POE? You think waving a subpoena will get her in? It won't even get her on the plane to leave China! You can't testify. You were not at the interview. Whatever your lady told you about the interview is nothing but hearsay.

 

 

I'd like you to take a few moments and review the language in these two USCIS Administrative Appeal decisions regarding the consulate imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship and also the non-requirement for the beneficiary to know all details & aspects of the petitioner's life history.

 

AAO opinions, January 08 2007, [LIN 05 023 53986] and February 02, 2007, [LIN 05114 54677]

 

They can be found on the USCIS website under Administrative Decisions, choose catagory D6 and then select these individual cases by number. Below is a brief synopsis of the consular-imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship:

 

The petitions noted in these AAO decisions were returned to USCIS for review after the K-1 visa interview. The consular officer had concerns that these relationships were not bona fide. Upon review, the district director denied the visa petitions. However, the AAO found that in denying these petitions, the district director ¡°appears to have imposed an additional requirement to the petitioner ¨C establishing the genuineness of [the] relationship to the beneficiary.¡± It is not the function of the USCIS to make that determination. [Jan. 2007, LIN 05 023 53986].

 

It also goes on to say in the other opinion that a beneficiary need not know in intimate detail the petitioner's life history simply to demonstrate there is a true relationship.

 

So for quite a while now, Guangzhou has been ignoring the published decisions of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office about requiring a showing of a bona fide relationship in order to be awarded a visa.

 

Splinterman

How about because they can get away with it and will continue to do so until enough people stand up and challenge this behavior. Who knows it might only take one more person joining the fight to tip the scale and make this a distant memory.

 

 

Now wait a second - we're talking about two different departments - USCIS and DOS - doing two different things. Neither has any control over the other. The USCIS' interest is only in the petitions filed by US citizens and LPR's. The DOS' interest is in (subjectively) approving or denying a visa application from a foreign national.

 

Neither has any interest in following any policy of the other.

 

My own opinion is that returning the petitions to the US is a sham, serving no purpose. The USCIS cannot and should not evaluate the evidence gathered by the consulate, when the consulate is not a party to any legal action taken in the states. In almost every case, the evidence passed back is going to be insufficient, and no further questioning (or evidence gathering) occurs.

 

There are different standards for determining what is a bona fide relationship here in the states and for immigration purposes. The USCIS can only say, "looks good to us", and pass the petition along to the consulate for a final (and very subjective) determination. The standard for revoking a petition is another matter entirely

 

 

Randy, what I was trying to address is the fact that it has already been shown that having a 'bona fide' relationship is no longer a plausible argument for GUZ to make in determining visa applications.

 

Yes, you're right about the interests of the DOS and the USCIS being different when it comes to dealing with each other. I wasn't trying to comment about that-that's a known fact and there's nothing we can do about it until the government re-organizes itself with respect to the visa process.

 

I'm sure that GUZ already knows that having a bona fide relationship is not a requirement for being issued a visa, but they still continue to deny on those grounds because they are taking advantage of the inability of the USCIS and the DOS to come together and work with each other. And we, as the petitioners and our beneficiaries, get caught in the middle. They can get away with it under the current structure of the government, so they do.

 

In the other Admin decision it shows that the USCIS holds that it is also NOT a requirement for the beneficiary to know all the details of the petitioner's life in order that she/he be issued the visa. Many of our beneficiaries have been denied visas because they did not answer these type questions with answers that were acceptable to the VOs.

 

Again, they deny on those grounds because they can get away with it. What has to happen is a governmental reorganization of the authority for visa processing. Until that happens, or something else like a successful lawsuit, these things will continue to happen and we and our beneficiaries will continue to get caught in the middle. Our cases will continue to get 'deep sixed' with no concern because Guangzhou has far too many cases to look at that particular day.

 

I was simply trying to show that it is NOT a requirement to have a bona fide relationship nor does the beneficiary need to know all intimate details of our lives before being given a visa. I've pointed out this conflict between DOS and USCIS in my letters to Obama, Clinton, Jacobs, etc., as a continuing reason for the denials coming out of Guangzhou so they see the need to fix the part that's broken that is allowing the travesty in Guangzhou to perpetuate itself every day and throwing hundreds of us into a bureaucratic purgatory.

 

Splinterman

 

 

The point is that GUZ is not bound by ANY decision by USCIS. The USCIS approves petitions - anyone legally married or engaged should be able to get the petition approved. The standard at the consulates is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the relationship is bona fide. The INA is peppered with the phrase "bona fide relationship". It is at the sole discretion of the Visa Officer to make this determination.

 

The USCIS likewise is not bound by any decisions made by consular officials. So when they revoke a petition based on the "bona fide relationship" standard, they get their hands slapped. That is the basis for the rulings by the AAO - there is nothing anywhere in these rulings that says that the visa should have been awarded.

 

I don't mean to upend your soapbox. I'm on your side. It's just that "not a bona fide relationship" IS a valid reason for visa denial.

[defendo]

I don't think I'm giving too much to the government. The folks at USCIS don't give a damn what DOS/GUZ does. They are going to make their lives as easy as possible. They see a petition returned that is beyond the expiry date and as far as they are concerned, it is over. It is not USCIS concern what is legal for DOS. They have no dog in any fight that DOS picks. And, by the way, it is not illegal for a government organization to not follow its own rules. No more than it is against the law for you to violate your companies rules.

 

Your quote about it being illegal for a consulate employee to falsely certify a document is not a good argument. The list of issues that can lead to a non bone fide is endless(if there is a list at all) and you or I will never see it. It can be as simple as "she didn't even know his phone number". The VO can give any reason he wants to and I guarantee that he can back it up by showing that questions were asked that a person in a relationship would know and she didn't know. That is if you could ever get the VO into a court and you won't be able to do that.

 

And, to carry this further, lets say you could get a VO into court. Its his word against NOBODY! How are you going to get your lady into the US to testify if she doesn't have a visa to allow her past POE? You think waving a subpoena will get her in? It won't even get her on the plane to leave China! You can't testify. You were not at the interview. Whatever your lady told you about the interview is nothing but hearsay.

 

 

I'd like you to take a few moments and review the language in these two USCIS Administrative Appeal decisions regarding the consulate imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship and also the non-requirement for the beneficiary to know all details & aspects of the petitioner's life history.

 

AAO opinions, January 08 2007, [LIN 05 023 53986] and February 02, 2007, [LIN 05114 54677]

 

They can be found on the USCIS website under Administrative Decisions, choose catagory D6 and then select these individual cases by number. Below is a brief synopsis of the consular-imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship:

 

The petitions noted in these AAO decisions were returned to USCIS for review after the K-1 visa interview. The consular officer had concerns that these relationships were not bona fide. Upon review, the district director denied the visa petitions. However, the AAO found that in denying these petitions, the district director ¡°appears to have imposed an additional requirement to the petitioner ¨C establishing the genuineness of [the] relationship to the beneficiary.¡± It is not the function of the USCIS to make that determination. [Jan. 2007, LIN 05 023 53986].

 

It also goes on to say in the other opinion that a beneficiary need not know in intimate detail the petitioner's life history simply to demonstrate there is a true relationship.

 

So for quite a while now, Guangzhou has been ignoring the published decisions of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office about requiring a showing of a bona fide relationship in order to be awarded a visa.

 

Splinterman

How about because they can get away with it and will continue to do so until enough people stand up and challenge this behavior. Who knows it might only take one more person joining the fight to tip the scale and make this a distant memory.

 

 

Now wait a second - we're talking about two different departments - USCIS and DOS - doing two different things. Neither has any control over the other. The USCIS' interest is only in the petitions filed by US citizens and LPR's. The DOS' interest is in (subjectively) approving or denying a visa application from a foreign national.

 

Neither has any interest in following any policy of the other.

 

My own opinion is that returning the petitions to the US is a sham, serving no purpose. The USCIS cannot and should not evaluate the evidence gathered by the consulate, when the consulate is not a party to any legal action taken in the states. In almost every case, the evidence passed back is going to be insufficient, and no further questioning (or evidence gathering) occurs.

 

There are different standards for determining what is a bona fide relationship here in the states and for immigration purposes. The USCIS can only say, "looks good to us", and pass the petition along to the consulate for a final (and very subjective) determination. The standard for revoking a petition is another matter entirely

 

 

Randy, what I was trying to address is the fact that it has already been shown that having a 'bona fide' relationship is no longer a plausible argument for GUZ to make in determining visa applications.

 

Yes, you're right about the interests of the DOS and the USCIS being different when it comes to dealing with each other. I wasn't trying to comment about that-that's a known fact and there's nothing we can do about it until the government re-organizes itself with respect to the visa process.

 

I'm sure that GUZ already knows that having a bona fide relationship is not a requirement for being issued a visa, but they still continue to deny on those grounds because they are taking advantage of the inability of the USCIS and the DOS to come together and work with each other. And we, as the petitioners and our beneficiaries, get caught in the middle. They can get away with it under the current structure of the government, so they do.

 

In the other Admin decision it shows that the USCIS holds that it is also NOT a requirement for the beneficiary to know all the details of the petitioner's life in order that she/he be issued the visa. Many of our beneficiaries have been denied visas because they did not answer these type questions with answers that were acceptable to the VOs.

 

Again, they deny on those grounds because they can get away with it. What has to happen is a governmental reorganization of the authority for visa processing. Until that happens, or something else like a successful lawsuit, these things will continue to happen and we and our beneficiaries will continue to get caught in the middle. Our cases will continue to get 'deep sixed' with no concern because Guangzhou has far too many cases to look at that particular day.

 

I was simply trying to show that it is NOT a requirement to have a bona fide relationship nor does the beneficiary need to know all intimate details of our lives before being given a visa. I've pointed out this conflict between DOS and USCIS in my letters to Obama, Clinton, Jacobs, etc., as a continuing reason for the denials coming out of Guangzhou so they see the need to fix the part that's broken that is allowing the travesty in Guangzhou to perpetuate itself every day and throwing hundreds of us into a bureaucratic purgatory.

 

Splinterman

 

 

The point is that GUZ is not bound by ANY decision by USCIS. The USCIS approves petitions - anyone legally married or engaged should be able to get the petition approved. The standard at the consulates is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the relationship is bona fide. The INA is peppered with the phrase "bona fide relationship". It is at the sole discretion of the Visa Officer to make this determination.

 

The USCIS likewise is not bound by any decisions made by consular officials. So when they revoke a petition based on the "bona fide relationship" standard, they get their hands slapped. That is the basis for the rulings by the AAO - there is nothing anywhere in these rulings that says that the visa should have been awarded.

 

I don't mean to upend your soapbox. I'm on your side. It's just that "not a bona fide relationship" IS a valid reason for visa denial.

 

It is only a valid reason if there is a factual basis for the determination. It is not valid if it is based on opinion and speculation. The fact that a beneficiary does not know every detail of a petitioner's life is not a factual basis. In fact, the INA specifically provides that in order to find that a relationship is not bona fide, the consular officer must rely on information that the relationship was entered into specifically for the purpose of evading the immigration law.

 

Simply stating that a relationship is not bona fide without precise specification is analogous to some one being charge with theft, but not identifying what was stolen, when it was stolen and where if was stolen.

 

There is a presumption of having met the burden of proof of a bona fide relationship with the approval of a petition by USCIS. If this presumption did not exist, why even have an approval process. GUZ is required to rely on relevant, substantial evidence in order to make a finding that a relationship is not bona fide. In that sense GUZ should be required to have a justifiable bases for the decision and without justification, they are bound by the USCIS approval.

[LeeFisher3]

I don't think I'm giving too much to the government. The folks at USCIS don't give a damn what DOS/GUZ does. They are going to make their lives as easy as possible. They see a petition returned that is beyond the expiry date and as far as they are concerned, it is over. It is not USCIS concern what is legal for DOS. They have no dog in any fight that DOS picks. And, by the way, it is not illegal for a government organization to not follow its own rules. No more than it is against the law for you to violate your companies rules.

 

Your quote about it being illegal for a consulate employee to falsely certify a document is not a good argument. The list of issues that can lead to a non bone fide is endless(if there is a list at all) and you or I will never see it. It can be as simple as "she didn't even know his phone number". The VO can give any reason he wants to and I guarantee that he can back it up by showing that questions were asked that a person in a relationship would know and she didn't know. That is if you could ever get the VO into a court and you won't be able to do that.

 

And, to carry this further, lets say you could get a VO into court. Its his word against NOBODY! How are you going to get your lady into the US to testify if she doesn't have a visa to allow her past POE? You think waving a subpoena will get her in? It won't even get her on the plane to leave China! You can't testify. You were not at the interview. Whatever your lady told you about the interview is nothing but hearsay.

 

 

I'd like you to take a few moments and review the language in these two USCIS Administrative Appeal decisions regarding the consulate imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship and also the non-requirement for the beneficiary to know all details & aspects of the petitioner's life history.

 

AAO opinions, January 08 2007, [LIN 05 023 53986] and February 02, 2007, [LIN 05114 54677]

 

They can be found on the USCIS website under Administrative Decisions, choose catagory D6 and then select these individual cases by number. Below is a brief synopsis of the consular-imposed requirement of a bona fide relationship:

 

The petitions noted in these AAO decisions were returned to USCIS for review after the K-1 visa interview. The consular officer had concerns that these relationships were not bona fide. Upon review, the district director denied the visa petitions. However, the AAO found that in denying these petitions, the district director ¡°appears to have imposed an additional requirement to the petitioner ¨C establishing the genuineness of [the] relationship to the beneficiary.¡± It is not the function of the USCIS to make that determination. [Jan. 2007, LIN 05 023 53986].

 

It also goes on to say in the other opinion that a beneficiary need not know in intimate detail the petitioner's life history simply to demonstrate there is a true relationship.

 

So for quite a while now, Guangzhou has been ignoring the published decisions of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office about requiring a showing of a bona fide relationship in order to be awarded a visa.

 

Splinterman

How about because they can get away with it and will continue to do so until enough people stand up and challenge this behavior. Who knows it might only take one more person joining the fight to tip the scale and make this a distant memory.

 

 

Now wait a second - we're talking about two different departments - USCIS and DOS - doing two different things. Neither has any control over the other. The USCIS' interest is only in the petitions filed by US citizens and LPR's. The DOS' interest is in (subjectively) approving or denying a visa application from a foreign national.

 

Neither has any interest in following any policy of the other.

 

My own opinion is that returning the petitions to the US is a sham, serving no purpose. The USCIS cannot and should not evaluate the evidence gathered by the consulate, when the consulate is not a party to any legal action taken in the states. In almost every case, the evidence passed back is going to be insufficient, and no further questioning (or evidence gathering) occurs.

 

There are different standards for determining what is a bona fide relationship here in the states and for immigration purposes. The USCIS can only say, "looks good to us", and pass the petition along to the consulate for a final (and very subjective) determination. The standard for revoking a petition is another matter entirely

The case directed at DOS is suggesting that the VO's in GUZ receive remedial training by the USCIS in the policies and rules as their actions are contradictory to the immigration laws of the US and DOS directives and guidelines.

 

The case with CSC is concerning the stalling of re-filed K-1 petitions after an NOID where the USICS sits on it for a while. This can be used to send a message to GUZ that by not following procedures and allowing cases to expire due to their delays in returning them to the US removes the NOID as the case was expired before being received by the USCIS.

 

Either one can have a affect on GUZ in different ways, but still getting the point across that they can be held accountable in some form. While neither is directly against GUZ they are the cause of the legal cases and that in itself has it's own reward. Embarrassing their boss at DOS can have unintended consequences for those in GUZ, who knows a VO who causes too much trouble might get posted in Iran or some other friendly place were Americans are loved and cherished.

[Randy W]

The case directed at DOS is suggesting that the VO's in GUZ receive remedial training by the USCIS in the policies and rules as their actions are contradictory to the immigration laws of the US and DOS directives and guidelines.

 

The case with CSC is concerning the stalling of re-filed K-1 petitions after an NOID where the USICS sits on it for a while. This can be used to send a message to GUZ that by not following procedures and allowing cases to expire due to their delays in returning them to the US removes the NOID as the case was expired before being received by the USCIS.

 

Either one can have a affect on GUZ in different ways, but still getting the point across that they can be held accountable in some form. While neither is directly against GUZ they are the cause of the legal cases and that in itself has it's own reward. Embarrassing their boss at DOS can have unintended consequences for those in GUZ, who knows a VO who causes too much trouble might get posted in Iran or some other friendly place were Americans are loved and cherished.

 

 

The AAO can only review USCIS decisions. That is all they are doing here.

 

The "cause" of the legal action was the fact that the USCIS chose to follow the recommendation of the consulate and revoke the petition. They got their hands slapped for doing so.

 

The hearings referred to laws that affect petitions only, not the issuance of visas.

[LeeFisher3]

The case directed at DOS is suggesting that the VO's in GUZ receive remedial training by the USCIS in the policies and rules as their actions are contradictory to the immigration laws of the US and DOS directives and guidelines.

 

The case with CSC is concerning the stalling of re-filed K-1 petitions after an NOID where the USICS sits on it for a while. This can be used to send a message to GUZ that by not following procedures and allowing cases to expire due to their delays in returning them to the US removes the NOID as the case was expired before being received by the USCIS.

 

Either one can have a affect on GUZ in different ways, but still getting the point across that they can be held accountable in some form. While neither is directly against GUZ they are the cause of the legal cases and that in itself has it's own reward. Embarrassing their boss at DOS can have unintended consequences for those in GUZ, who knows a VO who causes too much trouble might get posted in Iran or some other friendly place were Americans are loved and cherished.

 

 

The AAO can only review USCIS decisions. That is all they are doing here.

 

The "cause" of the legal action was the fact that the USCIS chose to follow the recommendation of the consulate and revoke the petition. They got their hands slapped for doing so.

 

The hearings referred to laws that affect petitions only, not the issuance of visas.

I have great hopes that Atty Roth's GUZ Complaint will open some eyes at the DOS.

[Guest Pommey]

I hope so too...... but like most successful attacks it needs to be fluid and multi targeted, with clearly defined goals, just shooting wildly at the forest will achieve nothing.

 

I think both these lawyers are doing what they can legally , and thats great, but what is needed is a plan that incorporates what they are doing into a larger "Paper cut"

 

The media is the key here. Now we all know immigration is a "topic" of concern, however for most its more about keeping or kicking people out and also china is not that popular to many.

 

So to begin with focus to the media in communities/counties/states with a high Chinese- american population. Strangely I can think of one state of which this is true that also has the "inquestion" service center in it.

 

what I'm suggesting is that maybe some of our west coast CFL members can get together pool media resources/contacts and get the media bandwagon going within chinese communities there.

 

The goal well........ ?

[LeeFisher3]

I hope so too...... but like most successful attacks it needs to be fluid and multi targeted, with clearly defined goals, just shooting wildly at the forest will achieve nothing.

 

I think both these lawyers are doing what they can legally , and thats great, but what is needed is a plan that incorporates what they are doing into a larger "Paper cut"

 

The media is the key here. Now we all know immigration is a "topic" of concern, however for most its more about keeping or kicking people out and also china is not that popular to many.

 

So to begin with focus to the media in communities/counties/states with a high Chinese- american population. Strangely I can think of one state of which this is true that also has the "inquestion" service center in it.

 

what I'm suggesting is that maybe some of our west coast CFL members can get together pool media resources/contacts and get the media bandwagon going within chinese communities there.

 

The goal well........ ?

It is truly a case of "paper cuts", enough of them and a person can bleed out.

 

This is like a poker game, both attorneys are playing the game and now it's time for USCIS and DOS to raise or fold, got to let them make their play. Once they do the next step can come into play, but as a good poker player you don't show your cards or give an indication of your next step until it's your turn.

 

You are right the media needs to get involved, but first the door needs to be slammed shut by either DOS or USCIS before the media will see an injustice and show an interest.

 

ME has a half a dozen or so petitions in the works on this, no guarantees, but he's doing what he can to change the system in regard to future processing of NOID cases. He's doing it pro bono and knows that it will benefit his clients as well as others to make life a little easier for those on the NOID trail.

[IllinoisDave]

There is a presumption of having met the burden of proof of a bona fide relationship with the approval of a petition by USCIS.

Sorry, but the reality is that this is simply not true. That is not what USCIS is doing. We can read anything we like into all the regulations, guidelines and directives we can find and draw whatever conclusions we like, but this will still not be the reality of the process.

 

By this logic GUZ and every other consulate/embassy around the world would be rubber stamping for USCIS. They're certainly not doing that. Regardless of what we wish they were doing, or what we believe they're tasked to do, USCIS is at best doing cursory checks into the bona fides of relationships.

 

As it stands now, they're leaving it up to the GUZs of the world to do any real scrutinizing of petitions and make the determination as to whether the US government believes them to have been entered into fraudulently or not. We may not like it and we may believe it to be against the letter of the regulations, insofar as anyone can understand the regulations, but in reality that's how the distribution of labor in this process is done for now.

 

IMO the real controversy, at least here at Candle, seems to be not so much wherethis determination of a bona fide relationship is made, but whether it should be made at all given the subjective nature of it. An argument can and often has been made here that a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Vermont or a pane of glass in Guangzhou is no more qualified to recognize true love than the man in the moon. I doubt the bureaucrats would even argue with that.

 

So the question becomes; Should they even try?

 

If you believe they shouldn't/can't, then the process becomes much simpler and probably shorter. Just check to see that all the right spaces are filled in and proper boxes checked and basic requirements met. USCIS can just do this and pass it along to GUZ and GUZ can simply check to see that the beneficiary is who he/she claims to be, fill out the proper forms, hand over the visa and say "Welcome to the USA."

 

But consider that this streamlined process wouldn't apply just to Guangzhou. It would also apply to Mexico City, Islamabad, Warsaw, Bogata, Minsk etc. If you're gonna take all petitioner's/beneficiary's words for it that their relationships are real in Guangzhou, then you'll be doing it at all the other consulates/embassies as well. Not saying this is good or bad, just something to keep in mind.

 

If, on the other hand, you're of the mind that the gov't does need to somehow establish a bona fide relationship before granting a visa, then there's the question of where that part of the process should take place.

 

Should it be stateside with USCIS and government employees sitting behind desks however many thousands of miles from a given consulate or embassy? Looking at raw forms with basic information provided by petitioners/beneficiaries? Without the benefit of meeting either one face to face? With limited knowledge of the culture or history of the home country of beneficiary?

 

Or should that responsibility rest with the respective consulate/embassy actually located in the country of the beneficiary? With someone who, in theory at least, has taken a closer look at the petition and is meeting face to face with the person for whom that petition is intended? Someone who at least resides in that country and has, again at least in theory, some knowledge of the local culture and may be familiar with potential patterns of fraud?

 

The process as it stands is far from perfect. Solutions have consequences that can be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint.

Since I'll no doubt be accused of having some bias one way or another, I'll go ahead and give my viewpoint as to how it would work if I were King.

 

Any attempt to determine whether a relationship is "bona fide" is inherently flawed given the obvious subjectivity involved. That's a given. But I believe some attempt should at least be made to do so. Otherwise we'd be flooded with "sham" marriages from ALL countries.

 

So if we're gonna try, IMO the most appropriate place for it is in the home country of the beneficiary after the petition has left USCIS. The key, and this is far from a novel idea, is openness.

 

I think the beneficiary's first interview can still be alone. If he/she is granted the visa based on what the VO has seen in the petition and heard in the interview, obviously no further action is needed.

 

But, if the VO has any doubts, the petitioner, assuming he/she is present, should be allowed in immediately and the VO should be required to explain specifically what his or her concerns are. The petitioner should then be allowed to explain or clarify anything the VO has questions about. And should be able to present any documentary evidence that the VO may have overlooked or ignored during the one on one part of the interview.

 

I also believe a supervisor should be required to be present at this "second chance" part of the interview as a sort of arbiter who can listen to the "evidence" and help decide if the VO has made the right decision based on the additional information or testimony the petitioner has presented. Then the VO and supervisor should determine if sufficient evidence has been presented to overcome the VO's initial concerns. If enough has been presented they can make the decision to grant the visa. If they need further evidence they should explain exactly what that evidence is and then issue a blue with RFE.

 

If they conclude that in thier mind there is fraud then they should be required to fully explain in person as well as in writing why they suspect it and go ahead and issue the white and let the appeals process proceed.

 

If the petitioner cannot be present at the initial interview then things are a little more complicated but should still be simplified and open. The VO would need to explain to the beneficiary, through an interpreter if necessary, the reason for a blue and what would be required to overcome it. This would be put in writing to both beneficiary and petitioner as well. If the overcome is as simple as missing documents then the process can play out as it does now except that possibly a mechanism would be put in place whereby re-submitted evidence due to blue is expedited. And if the petitioner wishes to have a "second chance" interview, one should be scheduled within a reasonable amount of time and he/she should be afforded the same opportunity to plead the case as the petitioners who were present for first interviews.

 

Now I realize this is very wishful thinking and probably far from ever becoming a reality. But it's the best way I can think of to say that I think there is a need to have a system in place to combat potential fraud while acknowledging that there's probably a better way to do it than we have now.

[splinterman]

There is a presumption of having met the burden of proof of a bona fide relationship with the approval of a petition by USCIS.

Sorry, but the reality is that this is simply not true. That is not what USCIS is doing. We can read anything we like into all the regulations, guidelines and directives we can find and draw whatever conclusions we like, but this will still not be the reality of the process.

 

By this logic GUZ and every other consulate/embassy around the world would be rubber stamping for USCIS. They're certainly not doing that. Regardless of what we wish they were doing, or what we believe they're tasked to do, USCIS is at best doing cursory checks into the bona fides of relationships.

 

As it stands now, they're leaving it up to the GUZs of the world to do any real scrutinizing of petitions and make the determination as to whether the US government believes them to have been entered into fraudulently or not. We may not like it and we may believe it to be against the letter of the regulations, insofar as anyone can understand the regulations, but in reality that's how the distribution of labor in this process is done for now.

 

IMO the real controversy, at least here at Candle, seems to be not so much wherethis determination of a bona fide relationship is made, but whether it should be made at all given the subjective nature of it. An argument can and often has been made here that a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Vermont or a pane of glass in Guangzhou is no more qualified to recognize true love than the man in the moon. I doubt the bureaucrats would even argue with that.

 

So the question becomes; Should they even try?

 

If you believe they shouldn't/can't, then the process becomes much simpler and probably shorter. Just check to see that all the right spaces are filled in and proper boxes checked and basic requirements met. USCIS can just do this and pass it along to GUZ and GUZ can simply check to see that the beneficiary is who he/she claims to be, fill out the proper forms, hand over the visa and say "Welcome to the USA."

 

But consider that this streamlined process wouldn't apply just to Guangzhou. It would also apply to Mexico City, Islamabad, Warsaw, Bogata, Minsk etc. If you're gonna take all petitioner's/beneficiary's words for it that their relationships are real in Guangzhou, then you'll be doing it at all the other consulates/embassies as well. Not saying this is good or bad, just something to keep in mind.

 

If, on the other hand, you're of the mind that the gov't does need to somehow establish a bona fide relationship before granting a visa, then there's the question of where that part of the process should take place.

 

Should it be stateside with USCIS and government employees sitting behind desks however many thousands of miles from a given consulate or embassy? Looking at raw forms with basic information provided by petitioners/beneficiaries? Without the benefit of meeting either one face to face? With limited knowledge of the culture or history of the home country of beneficiary?

 

Or should that responsibility rest with the respective consulate/embassy actually located in the country of the beneficiary? With someone who, in theory at least, has taken a closer look at the petition and is meeting face to face with the person for whom that petition is intended? Someone who at least resides in that country and has, again at least in theory, some knowledge of the local culture and may be familiar with potential patterns of fraud?

 

The process as it stands is far from perfect. Solutions have consequences that can be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint.

Since I'll no doubt be accused of having some bias one way or another, I'll go ahead and give my viewpoint as to how it would work if I were King.

 

Any attempt to determine whether a relationship is "bona fide" is inherently flawed given the obvious subjectivity involved. That's a given. But I believe some attempt should at least be made to do so. Otherwise we'd be flooded with "sham" marriages from ALL countries.

 

So if we're gonna try, IMO the most appropriate place for it is in the home country of the beneficiary after the petition has left USCIS. The key, and this is far from a novel idea, is openness.

 

I think the beneficiary's first interview can still be alone. If he/she is granted the visa based on what the VO has seen in the petition and heard in the interview, obviously no further action is needed.

 

But, if the VO has any doubts, the petitioner, assuming he/she is present, should be allowed in immediately and the VO should be required to explain specifically what his or her concerns are. The petitioner should then be allowed to explain or clarify anything the VO has questions about. And should be able to present any documentary evidence that the VO may have overlooked or ignored during the one on one part of the interview.

 

I also believe a supervisor should be required to be present at this "second chance" part of the interview as a sort of arbiter who can listen to the "evidence" and help decide if the VO has made the right decision based on the additional information or testimony the petitioner has presented. Then the VO and supervisor should determine if sufficient evidence has been presented to overcome the VO's initial concerns. If enough has been presented they can make the decision to grant the visa. If they need further evidence they should explain exactly what that evidence is and then issue a blue with RFE.

 

If they conclude that in thier mind there is fraud then they should be required to fully explain in person as well as in writing why they suspect it and go ahead and issue the white and let the appeals process proceed.

 

If the petitioner cannot be present at the initial interview then things are a little more complicated but should still be simplified and open. The VO would need to explain to the beneficiary, through an interpreter if necessary, the reason for a blue and what would be required to overcome it. This would be put in writing to both beneficiary and petitioner as well. If the overcome is as simple as missing documents then the process can play out as it does now except that possibly a mechanism would be put in place whereby re-submitted evidence due to blue is expedited. And if the petitioner wishes to have a "second chance" interview, one should be scheduled within a reasonable amount of time and he/she should be afforded the same opportunity to plead the case as the petitioners who were present for first interviews.

 

Now I realize this is very wishful thinking and probably far from ever becoming a reality. But it's the best way I can think of to say that I think there is a need to have a system in place to combat potential fraud while acknowledging that there's probably a better way to do it than we have now.

 

Dave,

Overlooking some minor points of how you think the process should go, especially with regards to attendance by the petitioner, I think that your suggestion pretty closely follows what the process was intended to be like.

INA 221(g) was meant to give the beneficiary and petitioner a chance to submit additional information/evidence to supplement the original application AND for the consulate to use as a tool to obtain more evidence if they thought the relationship was a sham.

A Supervisor is also supposed to review the VO's decision regardless of whether or not the visa was issued, and a concurrence is supposed to be made before the VO's decision is finalized.

But these things that are already established in law, policy guidelines, etc., is NOT what is happening in GUZ and therein lies the problem that results in so much debate in CFL.

There needs to be some additional, precise training for the VOs as to what the 'reasonable person' standard really involves in 'nuts and bolts' terms, not just wording.

As it stands now, the decisions coming out of GUZ are at best speculative and based on assumption. Again, this is not what is supposed to be employed as standards in making decisions on issuing visas or denying them.

There are a lot of systemic problems built into the process as we now know it, mainly that two different government agencies who have no authority over each other are both involved in the decision process. USCIS ends up being help accountable for decisions made by an branch of the DOS, the consulate, while they have no authority to control how the consulate arrives at the decisions they render.

IMHO, this is one area that family-based immigration reform must address and correct if there is to be any chance of improving what we are currently dealing with.

The complaints by individuals over the decisions coming out of GUZ has been, by and large, of a small volume enough that has made it possible for the government to ignore the problems of their interagency conflict. But now these voices are beginning to become more focused through the channels of what Marc Ellis and John Roth are trying. These lawyers have the ability to focus the attention on what's needed through their lawsuits and other legal vehicles. There has been no better opportunity in the past to start the process for change than what we have going now.

They may be small cuts and they may come at uneven intervals, but all of our efforts trying to focus attention now on what's going on in GUZ can have a cumulative effect on how 'business' is conducted in the future.

The enemy of perverted government processes is exposure. No bureaucrat who enjoys total authority wants to have his little game scrutinized or have attention drawn to what he is doing. They're like vampires, and the light that destroys them is the attention given to their little bureaucratic world.

Dave, we're firing Hillary Clinton and putting you in charge!!

[IllinoisDave]

Dave, we're firing Hillary Clinton and putting you in charge!!

I'll pass on the promotion thanks.

 

I just wanna be clear that the main point of my post was in response to the notion that bona fide relationships are decided at the USCIS stage. We can cite chapter and verse of what the rules and regs say all we want, but the reality remains that whether or not a relationship is bona fide is being decided at GUZ, at least for the time being.

 

I just want any newcomers to the process to know this going in and that they should file their petitions and prepare for their interviews with it in mind.

 

The rest is just my opinion.

[LeeFisher3]

Dave, we're firing Hillary Clinton and putting you in charge!!

I'll pass on the promotion thanks.

 

I just wanna be clear that the main point of my post was in response to the notion that bona fide relationships are decided at the USCIS stage. We can cite chapter and verse of what the rules and regs say all we want, but the reality remains that whether or not a relationship is bona fide is being decided at GUZ, at least for the time being.

 

I just want any newcomers to the process to know this going in and that they should file their petitions and prepare for their interviews with it in mind.

 

The rest is just my opinion.

You're right, we need to be sure that people don't prepare for their interview based on the USCIS requirements of a relationship as GUZ has their own special view on what the rules "should" be and hold visas hostage based on their rules.

 

GUZ is it's own special place in the world where the laws of Physics, Time and the US Government are somehow warped into something new and exciting. Maybe we could get someone to do a TV reality show based on the life and times of VO's in GUZ.

[Eric739]

All,

 

A long thread but some of the points made are worth a few comments.

 

I worked with an attorney from day one in this process. I am reasonably educated, can write well, and have worked in law offices for a number of years ¨C not that I am doing so now. I am not a lawyer but I would not trust myself to complete the long list of documents needed to file. And, I simply do not have that kind of time.

 

I think most of the petitions I have seen in this site were prepared by individuals, rash generalization, probably. I am not advocating an attorney at all but at least they are familiar with all the details of the submission that I think got a lot of people in trouble. I won't say they were helpful in the interview process or in some of the things that are really our responsibility to know. I wish I had done some research and found this site earlier. I would be one of those you don't hear about.

 

I think what you are observing in the ¡°apathy¡± criticism is partly reflective of the economic times. It takes time and money to go through this process, face it. And I also think that a lot of what you all have done is being taken and used by others, probably successfully. So fewer people need to consult and post here. There is no real handle on the number of total pink cards. And bear in mind, there are a number of sites specifically devoted to Guangzhou visas.

 

Having been active in a number of forums, there are times when activity does lessen as well. That usually is corrected when some cataclysm happens and things are back up and running.

 

Other points. You can sue the government but only if they let you. They can file a waiver when they feel you have made a major point in your filing and wish to make amends. That usually happens when there is great public interest to do so. For instance, the Clean Air Act amendments currently have a provision to allow US citizens to sue the government. Of course, the neo-con elements are fighting that notion. Strange, the friends that ¡°sovereign immunity¡± seems to collect.

 

But I have seen the government sued many times. And you don't have to pay for their legal fees or lawyers or their para-legals. You do have to pay for the service of process. The government has to pay for their own defense. The court can make you pay legal fees after the verdict, but it is rare for them to even try. States, however, are quite different but this topic is not their jurisdiction.

 

The lawsuit we need to talk about is really not a lawsuit. It comes in the form of an administrative hearing and is totally within the purview of possibility. I have been involved in them several times (non visa related) and it is very much like open court. Witnesses are called and testify, all the bells and whistles are there, albeit somewhat less formal, but not always.

 

Another point: the time limit of the petition. When you are denied or given a blue slip, always ask for an extension of the petition. That lets them know you are still serious and will not let this petition expire even if it gets to USCIS.

 

The lawyer I work with sticks strictly to the law. I am not advocating him over Marc or anyone else. But staying within the law, lets the head of the visa unit and the legal department, know they are dealing with someone who is serious, and will take them apart on a legal hearing. And yes, there are legal reasons to dispute the ruling by Guangzhou that you do not have a relationship. They just have not yet been taken to task. Guangzhou is walking a very fine line right now. What is puzzling is why. But the more they act the way they are, the more ammunition there is to bring to that hearing. Just getting a hearing alone gives you the right to a subpoena duces decum to obtain the information needed to show their malfeasance. They will have to produce documentation showing the number of abuse cases, the number of rejections, etc. They do not have to show names so obviously that will be redacted.

 

The Congress does not like its citizens being mis-treated and especially does not like legal battles that cost money, even if they win. As long as the presentation is not inflammatory or biased, there is some chance of winning. But in forums such as these there is a kind of tunnel vision that ignores the outside world because of the injustice done within.

 

I was a bureaucrat for ten years. I admit to making many decisions that involved people's lives similar to the issuance of a visa. But there was no review when there should have been. No regulation when there should have been because they were written in vagueries. And in instances where someone actually made a stink by calling their congressman, you bet your ass I paid attention.

 

The problem is we don't have a cool topic for them. A visa issuance for a fianc¨¦? Not really dicey enough for a congressional hearing. And if they ignore you, they will have all the immigration issues they want to cover their ass. The illegal alien issue with Mexico is blurred by the K1/3 issue. All aliens are illegal aliens to some people. Trust me. I have talked to them. Never mind the publicity that was engendered by the revisions to the IMBRA. All they have to do is bring that up and we will be classed as ¡°losers¡± as some of the articles in the press in Washington (state) did when the Act was passed.

 

So there are two paths: legal and political, logic versus power.

 

Guess who wins, every time.

[Yuanyang]

You can contact your local ACLU office if you believe that as a class Chinese are being denied more and with little or no supporting evidence. I know the ACLU isn't the most popular group around and they are more likely to support illegals then give a rat's ass about would be legals, but it could be worth a shot.

[3timescharm]

.....we provide an additional resource to aid and support each other along the way.

 

That's the statement (partial) right off the front page of the Candle For Love webpage. Have you seen it? That means ones of CFL's purpose is intended to provide support.

 

Without trying to be a smartass, I want to ask...where is everyone hiding? Where are all the people who have in the past posted about the raw deals that were flying out of Guangzhou in the past year or so? Where are those people who were once climbing over each other to post their comments and advice, and saying 'something should be done about Guangzhou'?

 

Now there's an opportunity for everyone to band together and possibly make a difference and....where are they? Only a few write complaint letters and even fewer posts comments in support of an effort intended to try and change things.

 

Has a tsunami of apathy struck the members of CFL recently so that nothing matters now? I'm shocked that out of all the people I've read their posts about needing help with GUZ's unfair decisions in the past year, the folks who've responded to the call for help can be counted on our hands, with fingers left over.

 

We now have 2 attorneys separately attacking the injustices that petitioners and beneficiaries are forced to endure, and there is a noticeable lack of support from the very people who stand to benefit the most.

 

Where is everyone?

 

Just to let you know, I have been a member for only about a week. I recieved my P1 on April 7,2009. After reading this and other websites and reading the Roth memorandum, I wrote to both my Senators and representatives about this very thing. Asking only that they make them follow the rules that are already there. Just like the Government expectes us to do the same.