There's A 'U' In Support

[splinterman]

There is a song with the lyrics, "How long has this been going on?" So without question I believe we can apply those lyrics to this classic bureaucratic problem of non bonafide denials and the dark-hole that follows, I feel also we are a small group of people, trying to better a faulty system, maybe our voices are being drowned out by the roar of everything else in life, though at the same time it is the squeaky wheel that gets greased.

 

 

I'm in complete agreement. And, the song is by Ace, yes?

[splinterman]

Lee...I'm not "telling" anyone to do anything. If anyone can change the system, then great! More power to ya! All I have been doing is throwing out scenarios that they may run into...not saying this is the case, but when dealing with the government of the United States, it is always best to assume that you are dealing with unethical people that do not feel that ordinary citizens have the right to challenge their power and they can and will screw you over at their whim and that you should be prepared for the worst. Optimism is good! Idealism is good! But it should be tempered with a very guarded posture when it comes to the US government.

 

 

Chengdu4me, let Marc Ellis and John Roth be concerned about whatever scenarios pop up. They're attorneys also and I'm sure they're very capable of anticipating what arguments and/or obstacles might be thrown in their path.

 

Not to doubt you, but since you're a law school graduate also why don't you offer Marc Ellis a helping hand in preparing his argument, researching his case law and in general, getting the show on the road? I'm sure that he would welcome your professional assistance especially with regards to figuring out the enemy's 'battle plan' to try and thwart any assaults on the government's little Kingdom, since he is going at this pro bono. His Class Action lawsuit doesn't directly affect me since we went through the Vermont Service Center but I've offered him support in the way of a contribution towards his costs.

 

The bottom line is, and you seem to have finally acknowledged it, is that a change from the ways things have been done for so long is needed. Small victories add up. Challenge the government's Gargantuan Behemoth on little issues that have already been set forth in law and policy statements, and make Jack's Giant die a slow death from a thousand cuts.

 

If you don't start here, what will the future be like? You don't agree with the direction in which things have been going, do you?

 

All we're asking for is everyone to contribute a little part in the effort. it doesn't require anything but what they do now-spending a little time in front of their computers and writing some emails or posting some comments in support of what Mr. Ellis and Mr. Roth are doing.

 

For those who are more passionate and/or more able to do so, I'm POSITIVE Marc Ellis would greatly welcome a small contribution to defray his costs.

 

Splinterman

[splinterman]

While you may not feel either of these situations are worth fighting why are you so intent on telling people just to roll over and die?

 

It saddens me that some have challenged making any effort to change the system when we've got two different options available that might just make life better for them and others.

 

But then why should anyone try, just give up and move.

 

 

Lee, where's that keyboard?

[Sebastian]

Lee...I'm not "telling" anyone to do anything. If anyone can change the system, then great! More power to ya! All I have been doing is throwing out scenarios that they may run into...not saying this is the case, but when dealing with the government of the United States, it is always best to assume that you are dealing with unethical people that do not feel that ordinary citizens have the right to challenge their power and they can and will screw you over at their whim and that you should be prepared for the worst. Optimism is good! Idealism is good! But it should be tempered with a very guarded posture when it comes to the US government.

 

Larry - ya can't win if ya don't play.

 

So far, you've been great at furnishing reasons why one shouldn't play.

 

I think they are valid reasons. To anyone 'needing' a change, knowing the 'negative side' is very useful.

 

But in the same breath - those reasons should NOT BE USED to stop the race before the starter gun. Sure - there are hurdles to overcome, but with a focused effort, there is a hope of a result.

 

and that's really all that can be expected -

 

a HOPE OF A RESULT.

 

If the result has some teeth to it - hey - that's more of a prize cow.

If the result gets some processes changed at GUZ - hey !!! a bigger prize - that cow moo's in a tone we all recognize !!!

 

But - come on - you know this just as well as I do - you can't WIN if you don't PLAY.

 

I do ask you, directly, to stop enumerating reasons 'not to play'.

Thanks in advance...

 

and...

 

if you take offense at what I say here - hey - that's ok - I'll apologize to you in advance, bow in the dust kinda thingie, and invite you to a mini kegger at the next Race Day in Jeffersonville outside o Hot Springs...

Edited April 13, 2009 by Sebastian (see edit history)

[whome?]

I strongly support these two lawyers and have provided them some information however in my case it is mainly just whining that I have waited 5 months for NOA-2 approval (which seems excessive when you can pay expediate fee and get an employment visa to USA in 2 weeks) and seems childish when you see the waits and problems that others have had to go through and overcome.

 

However I can understand chengdu4me's viewpoint especially when you read this from one of the embassy's websites:

 

If I am refused a visa, would it help to have a high ranking official or an American friend contact the embassy?

 

No. United States law assigns the responsibility for issuance or refusal of visas to consular officers overseas. They have the final say on all visa cases. Additionally, United States law is designed to insulate the decisions in visa cases from outside influences. An applicant can influence a reversal of a prior refusal only through presentation of new convincing evidence of strong ties.

 

These lawsuits are the classic case of trying to pushing a rope uphill. I wish them well.

[jsa23]

However I can understand chengdu4me's viewpoint especially when you read this from one of the embassy's websites:

 

If I am refused a visa, would it help to have a high ranking official or an American friend contact the embassy?

 

No. United States law assigns the responsibility for issuance or refusal of visas to consular officers overseas. They have the final say on all visa cases. Additionally, United States law is designed to insulate the decisions in visa cases from outside influences. An applicant can influence a reversal of a prior refusal only through presentation of new convincing evidence of strong ties.

 

These lawsuits are the classic case of trying to pushing a rope uphill. I wish them well.

 

I think ultimately, the effort that is most likely to be successful, is that which casts a light on GUZ that everyone can see - not just those involved in the process and some politicians, but the population at large - it has to get enough attention to grab the attention of someone high up in the DOS/DHS.

 

While lawsuits may or may not have an impact, the thing that would probably have the greatest impact would be for a major media outlet to grab hold of the story of the abuses going on at GUZ, and to get the story to a larger audience. Once enough people know about the issue that some elected official is worried that it's going to affect perceptions of them, in order for there to be any attempted action. Would it be enough to elicit change? Maybe, maybe not. But the larger the uproar, the better the chance.

 

In the end, every effort to improve the situation really should be applauded and aided, even if the odds of success don't seem good.

[N&J]

Go get'em General Splinterman!

 

we ain't all dummies here. we all know the odds. but we got a new sheriff in town to help fight off the bad guys.

 

Only the brave need apply.

[warpedbored]

The USCIS may not care much about lawyers or elected officials but they are sensitive to bad publicity. Some years ago the USCIS (then INS) here in Portland was so bad that Japanese media started calling Portland "Deportland". The tourists were avoiding Portland and entering the US through other POEs like Seattle or San Francisco. A writer for the Oregonian newspaper wrote a series of Pulitzer prize winning stories about it. It didn't take long for the director of the Portland INS field office to be replaced and new policies implemented. The staff became much more friendly and polite. That still holds true today. If anything Portland should be held as a model for other USCIS field offices.

[chengdu4me]

This is the kind of thing that I think will do more good than lawyers. Public scrutiny of unfair or erroneous actions. NOBODY likes it when these things come to light!

 

TV, newspapers, radio will do more to bring a quick fix than anything else. There was an article I read to day about how ICE is deporting US born citizens because they get caught in raids. They may not know how to read or they make have speaking or educational disabilities and they end up signing papers that they have no idea what they signed and the next thing they know , they are in Mexico without funds, help or anything!

 

The department head of ICE even said that he didn't think it was a big problem! It is a federal offense to remove a US citizen from the US by force or coercion...and he thinks its not a problem....I bet we see a different tune from him soon, or someone else singing the tune because he was fired......but the point is that this is now national news because it was in the newspaper, not because some lawyer wrote a letter.

 

Try calling some talk shows and some investigative reporters and see if you can get some interest....as you have all said....ya never know!

[splinterman]

This is the kind of thing that I think will do more good than lawyers. Public scrutiny of unfair or erroneous actions. NOBODY likes it when these things come to light!

 

TV, newspapers, radio will do more to bring a quick fix than anything else. There was an article I read to day about how ICE is deporting US born citizens because they get caught in raids. They may not know how to read or they make have speaking or educational disabilities and they end up signing papers that they have no idea what they signed and the next thing they know , they are in Mexico without funds, help or anything!

 

The department head of ICE even said that he didn't think it was a big problem! It is a federal offense to remove a US citizen from the US by force or coercion...and he thinks its not a problem....I bet we see a different tune from him soon, or someone else singing the tune because he was fired......but the point is that this is now national news because it was in the newspaper, not because some lawyer wrote a letter.

 

Try calling some talk shows and some investigative reporters and see if you can get some interest....as you have all said....ya never know!

 

 

Yes, I agree that the best way to get this problem brought to light and then get some action is by exposing what's been happening.

 

But I think that the first steps that MUST be taken before trying that avenue is to exhaust all possible means to get some focus on the issue by those people who are in the positions that can and should be looking at the problems that are coming out of GUZ, DOS and USCIS. You have to give them the opportunity to fix themselves first before going to the outside world otherwise they will just disavow any knowledge what what's going on, and say "We never had a chance to fix it because nobody came to us first to tell us what was wrong.".

 

So what we have been doing with the letters sent to Jacobs, Jacobsen, Obama Clinton, etc., is TELLING them what has been going wrong. That's also the purpose of Mr. Roth's Memorandum, and that is also why it is so vitally important for people to weigh in and post comments on his site in support of the charges he has made.

 

There are at least 3 of us who I know of that have already contacted various investigative reporters or syndicated shows to report about this problem. If we can get them to agree to do a report on this, it could blow the lid right off. Part of the sensationalism of this topic that will really make the public indignant is all of the documentation that we collectively have where we have tried repeatedly to bring the problem to the government's attention, and how we've all been dismissed with cookie-cutter language and outright refusals to acknowledge what we all know has been allowed and condoned to come out of Guangzhou, the DOS, the DHS and also the USCIS.

 

Mr. Roth's Memorandum is the perfect vehicle for doing that, and that's why we have asked as many people as possible to post their comments on his website to support what he has done. You MUST lay the groundwork for going public with a government problem by telling them what the problem is, giving them specific examples from a wide range of people and then giving them ample opportunities to correct it themselves. Then, you go public.

 

I hope this makes sense to everyone who reads it and helps them to understand not only WHY it is so important to get behind Mr. Roth's and Mr. Ellis's efforts but also gives them an idea of how and what we are trying to build here.

 

So please, I ask everyone again to kindly pay a visit to Mr. Roth's site and add your comments to his Memorandum. We're a few people who are trying to get things changed for everyone's betterment.

 

Thank You!

Splinterman

[warpedbored]

I think lawyers filing complaints with the federal government is a possible publicity opportunity. The news will likely pick it up as a story.

[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

[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.

[HKG]

.

 

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.

 

Frivolous arguments, doesn't it seem no knowing a phone number is a frivolous defense, not knowing the petitioners name or country they live in I could agree.

[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