Jump to content

What Would a Reasonable Person Do?


Recommended Posts

Hi. The C4L people invited me to host a forum. So feel free to ask questions.

I may not be able to answer all of them. But I hope I

can give you a better understanding of the process,

at least the way I see it. And no doubt I'll learn some

things along the way too.

 

Anyone is welcome to contribute - including DOS people

anonymously, of course. I hope one or two will show up.

I'll invite a couple of immigration lawyers too.

 

Here is what you need to know:

 

Conoffs are bound by a "reasonable person" standard in visa refusals.

 

A good lay description of that standard can be found here. "Reasonable Person".

 

Here is what the FAM says:

 

9 FAM 42.43 (emphasis added)

 

9 FAM 42.43 N2 WHEN TO RETURN PETITIONS

(CT:VISA-872; 03-23-2007)

You will suspend action and return the petition to USCIS

(see 9 FAM 42.43N3) through NVC if:

 

(1) The petitioner requests suspension of action;

 

(2) You know, or have reason to believe the petition approval was

obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or other unlawful means; or

 

(3) You know or have reason to believe that, despite the

absence of fraud, due to changed circumstances or clear error in

approving the petition the beneficiary is not entitled to the approved

status.

____

 

Most of the discussion of marriage & fiance' visa refusals in forums like

this involve #2. During the grueling interviews visa applicants go

through, the officer is searching for a "reason to believe" that the

petition approval was obtained fraudulently or reason to

believe that the relationship is bona fide.

 

At this point, I see a problem.

 

Logically, "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as the

"reasonable person" standard. Logically, it is a much thinner thread

to hang a visa decision on.

 

In law school, first year students are taught that the "reasonable

person" standard is roughly correlates to the preponderance of the

evidence standard. "Does the peponderance of the evidence lean one

way or another. In other words, is it 50% +1 up or down?

 

But "reason to believe" is quite different from that. It is

much narrower. People can have reason to believe things that that are

quite unreasonable and even ridiculous.

 

For instance, some people claim there is reason to believe that space

aliens built the pyramids. Yet, a reasonable person viewing all the

evidence, would conclude otherwise. He or she would conclude that

Egyptians, not extra-terrestrials built them.

 

Yes. Maybe we cannot explain how they cut and toted the large rocks

around. Yes. Maybe we cannot account for this or that. But viewing the

evidence we have, it is unreasonable to believe that creatures from

outer space built these things.

 

So logically, there can be a "reason to believe" something that a

"reasonable person" would never believe.

 

Back to the visa interview. The officer notices that the couple did not

take many photos together, even though the couple spent months in

each other's company. The officer now has a a reason to believe

the relationship is not bona fide.

 

Is that enough to deny the visa and send the petition back? I think

even the most aggressive officer would say "no". Why? Because of the

"reasonable person" standard.

 

9 FAM 42.43 N2.1 "Reason to Believe"

 

(CT:VISA-872; 03-23-2007)

In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon

evidence that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication

and that such evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition

being denied. This evidence often arises as a result of or during the

interview of the beneficiary. Reason to believe must be more than

mere conjecture or speculation¡ªthere must exist the probability,

supported by evidence, that the alien is not entitled to status.

 

So DOS has morphed the "reason to believe" idea, into the

"reasonable person" standard. I think it's confusing. I think it's badly

written. And I think good cases are being denied because of this

confusion. But I'm just a lawyer. I didn't write the FAM.

 

Even if we consider them the same thing, the "reasonable person"

standard is right there in front of our noses.

 

""Reason to believe must be more than conjecture or speculation -

there must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien

is not entitled to status. "

 

"...a probability, supported by evidence", sounds like a

preponderance of the evidence to me.

 

Back to the photographs. The absence of photographs is evidence of a

that the relationship may be a sham. But it is not a preponderance of

evidence. It does not create a probability that your beneficiary is not

entitled to the visa. There must be more.

 

Let's add a couple of more things. (a) The couple does not speak the

same language, (b) B had his or her emails translated into English by a

friend and © she did not know the name of his immediate supervisor at

work and (d) she said he lived in Chicago when he really lived in Cicero.

Not only that, (e) Petitioner was still married when he met B on line and

(f) the marriage proposal was made by phone or internet before they ever met in person?

 

Now the officer has a lot of different things to look at. Does he or she

have time to look at them?

 

Probably not.

 

Evidence Con: (a) absence of photos (b) lack of a common language ©

B didn't know he lived in a suburb and (d) B did not know the name of

his immediate supervisor. (e) P was still married when they met online

and

(f) the marriage proposal was made before they ever met in person.

 

Evidence Pro: (a) 4 trips and 4 months spent together in 3 years. (b)

Plane, train & boat tickets showing travels together. © registration

with local authorities on each stay, (d) Hotel receipts with both their

names and ID's photocopied, (e) hundreds of pages of emails and

internet chats.(f) Members of P's family came to attend the

engagement or wedding ceremony.

 

What would a reasonable person decide?

Edited by ellis-island (see edit history)
Link to comment

Thank you for that explanation on "reasonable person" I believe my case falls under those guidelines, White slip was the outcome even after submitting some more information requested on a blue slip. One item in resubmitting is the cost, not the cost as an expense, but the cost as something that was paid for in the original application that was not adjudicated according to law based on the facts of the case, how does DOS justifie taking someone's money this way? Maybe if the fee was returned, they would give more thought to the review.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you for that explanation on "reasonable person" I believe my case falls under those guidelines, White slip was the outcome even after submitting some more information requested on a blue slip. One item in resubmitting is the cost, not the cost as an expense, but the cost as something that was paid for in the original application that was not adjudicated according to law based on the facts of the case, how does DOS justifie taking someone's money this way? Maybe if the fee was returned, they would give more thought to the review.

 

 

I've always been in favor of DOS returning visa fees if the visa

isn't granted, especially in 214(b) NIV cases.

 

Sorry your case was refused.

---

 

I had a civic-minded public servant, whose opinions I respect, email me to tell me that my reading of Sec. 402 & 428 of the Homeland Security Act may be a bit sweeping.

 

Maybe. But I'll only say - the power of DHS to train consular staffs in immigration law is both implied in 402 and explicit in 428(b). But the argument is rather academic, because DHS ain't doing it.

 

Also, I had a knowledgeable public servant write to me about the reviewability of K-1 petitions.

 

I slam dunked that one.

 

8 CFR 214.2(k)

 

"(5) Validity. The approval of a petition under this paragraph shall be valid for a period of four months. A petition which has expired due to the passage of time may be revalidated by a director or a consular officer for a period of four months from the date of revalidation upon a finding that the petitioner and K¨C1 beneficiary are free to marry and intend to marry each other within 90 days of the beneficiary's entry into the United States. The approval of any petition is automatically terminated when the petitioner dies or files a written withdrawal of the petition before the beneficiary arrives in the United States."

 

Thus, refusing a dead K-1 petition and sending it back for review does not revalidate it. Revalidation can ONLY occur upon a finding that the relationship is valid. And that is just the opposite of what the K-1 refusniks are facing.

 

A K-1 petition cannot be revalidated for the purpose of USCIS review, revocation, or any other reason. The officer has to find the relationship is real in order to revalidate the petition.

 

Case closed. I'm right. So why are USCIS and DOS going through

the motions? The Acting Director said expired K-1's cannot be

reviewed or revoked.

 

Stay tuned...BTW, some consular officers think 8 CFR does not apply to them --- they are wrong. 8 CFR contains the implementing regulations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

Finally, I noticed there was a debate elsewhere in the forum about front-loading petitions with details of your case that may cause problems at consulates down the road. I advocate it.

 

Why?

 

FAM 42.43 N2.1 "Reason to Believe"

 

(CT:VISA-872; 03-23-2007)

In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon

evidence that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication and that such evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition being denied. This evidence often arises as a result of or during the interview of the beneficiary. Reason to believe must be more than mere conjecture or speculation¡ªthere must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien is not entitled to status.

----

 

I admit, it's counter-intuitive for lawyers to advise clients to volunteer information. And usually, we don't advise that. But read that section of the FAM. To justify returning an spouse or K-1 petition, a consular section chief must comply with the "Reason to Believe" section of the FAM.

 

That's the theory anyway. What is "reason to believe"? Well, it's (1) Evidence that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication. Not only that, (2) it's evidence that would have led to the petition being denied, had USCIS known about it.

 

So that's why I advocate front-loading. 9 FAM 42.43 n 2.1, makes it plain, if USCIS knew about it at the time of approval - and approved it anyway, a consulate should not use that information as grounds to deny a visa.

 

That BTW, is why you don't see age differences used anymore on refusal sheets. USCIS knew about the age difference at the time of approval.

 

But I have recently seen a consular finding from GUZ that used information available to USCIS at the time of approval as a ground for sending a petition back.

 

Three things went wrong. (1) The interviewing officer wrote it. (2) The Chief signed off on it and (3) Worst of all, the USCIS adjudicator mentioned it in the NOIR letter.

 

I expect 1 & 2. #3 is disappointing. I have a lot of respect for USCIS adjudicators.

 

Why did the USCIS adjudicator mention that in the NOIR letter?

I don't know.

 

I think the backlog of returned visa petitions has gotten so deep, that some adjudicators in Service Centers now are just repeating consular allegations without analyzing whether they are legally sufficient or not.

 

My dream job would be to sit at a USCIS Service Center

and do nothing but review petitions returned by consulates.

 

Oh I would have fun!

---

Edited by ellis-island (see edit history)
Link to comment

But isn't it true that the consulate ALWAYS has "Evidence that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication" in the form of the P3, P4, and interview results? So even if they decide to follow this guideline, they can still deny the same petitions (that is, it's simply a matter of finding the correct reason once they decide to deny)?

 

And aren't the standards different between USCIS and GUZ? Legally married vs bona fide relationship?

 

Take Anna Nicole Smith and Howard Marshal, for example. They were legally and legitimately married. Therefore, the USCIS should have approved their petition. (barring any third party correspondence from Howard Jr). But a reasonable person might conclude that she had married him for the money, and that their relationship was not bona fide. So GUZ might reasonably deny the visa. So we have two different agencies with two different conclusions.

 

My point is that it seems to me that the returning of petitions is a sham, especially since the incentive is for the Consulate to NOT provide more than a cursory reason for refusal, since it could be overturned. The consulate is also not a party to the NOID proceedings and generally does not provide adequate evidence.

Link to comment

Back to our lovebirds. One in America and one in China at the visa interview.

 

Evidence con: (a) absence of photos (b) lack of a common language (c ) B didn't know he lived in a suburb and (d) B did not know the name of

his immediate supervisor. (e) P was still married when they met online

and (f) the marriage proposal was made before they ever met in person.

 

Evidence Pro: (a) 4 trips and 4 months spent together in 3 years. (b)

Plane, train & boat tickets showing travels together. (c ) registration

with local authorities on each stay, (d) Hotel receipts with both their

names and ID's photocopied, (e) hundreds of pages of emails and

internet chats.(f) Members of P's family came to attend the

engagement or wedding ceremony.

 

How should an officer apply the "reasonable person" standard?

 

Well, maybe a reasonable officer would look to the next section of 9 FAM 42.43 after note 2.1. It's Note 2.2. And it says:

 

9 FAM 42.43 N2.2 Cases of Sham Marriages

(CT:VISA-872; 03-23-2007)

USCIS has minimum evidentiary standards that must be established beforerevocation proceedings in a case based upon a marital relationship may begin. These minimum evidentiary standards are:

 

(1) A written statement from one or both of the parties to the marriage

that the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration

purposes;

 

(2) Documentary evidence that money changed hands under

circumstances such that a reasonable person would conclude the

marriage was a paid arrangement for immigration purposes; or

 

(3) Extensive factual evidence developed by the consular officer that

would convince a reasonable person that the marriage was a sham

marriage entered into to evade immigration laws.

 

In my example, neither #1 nor #2 are present. That leaves #3.

Is the evidence against our lovebird's case extensive?

 

Here is where a reasonable person would weigh the evidence for & against. Here is how I would weigh it if I were the officer.

 

1. The absence of photographs is irrelevant, when viewed in light of

the disinterested 3rd party evidence of registration with the local authorities for four months in four years and hotel receipts photocopied with their names & ID's (or at least their ID numbers written on it).

 

2. The fact that Beneficiary knew Petitioner lived in the Chicago area is enough. The fact that Beneficiary did not know he lived in a suburb of Chicago does not make me think the relationship is a sham.

 

3. The lack of a common language is less of a problem with software today. Also, her not knowing the name of his immediate supervisor doesn't seem very important to me.

 

4. I'd wonder about the previous marriage. "Where's the ex?" is a game

you always play with consulates.

 

Can Petitioner document he was separated at the time of the on-line meeting? Were they still sharing bank accounts, cell phone accounts, credit cards, or even the same home address? I'd want Petitioner to document the facts of his separation--and if I had filed the petition -- he would have. Because "where's the ex" is a question I always answer before it's asked at a consulate.

 

Assuming that's documented well, we go to.

 

5. Plain and boat tickets with both their names, Petitioner's family members from the US came to the ceremony?

 

How could a case like this possibly get denied?

 

It was. This is a fact situation taken from an actual case.

And there are cases like it denied all over the world, every day.

But y'all know that already.

-----

 

#3 *Note: In my experience, I've always gotten along better

with women who do not speak my language. Couples make more of an

effort to communicate when they don't know each other's language.

Edited by ellis-island (see edit history)
Link to comment

Randy W:

 

"

But isn't it true that the consulate ALWAYS has "Evidence that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication" in the form of the P3, P4, and interview results? So even if they decide to follow this guideline, they can still deny the same petitions (that is, it's simply a matter of finding the correct reason once they decide to deny)?

 

And aren't the standards different between USCIS and GUZ? Legally married vs bona fide relationship?"

 

Hi. If I assume it is true - that consulates always have evidence that USCIS did not have available at the time of approval -- the analysis does not end. There is a second part to it. I've numbered it for emphasis.

 

FAM 42.43 N2.1 "Reason to Believe"

 

(CT:VISA-872; 03-23-2007)

In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon

1. evidence that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication and (2). that such evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition being denied. This evidence often arises as a result of or during the interview of the beneficiary. Reason to believe must be more than mere conjecture or speculation¡ªthere must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien is not entitled to status.

 

So it is a 2 part analysis. The second part asks: Does the evidence USCIS did not know about - that the consulate did know about - rise to the level that it would have resulted in the petition being denied?

 

BTW, I don't think consulates always have adverse information not available to USCIS. It's certainly not true in my cases.

 

That's why I front-load petitions.

 

It happens sometimes - but rarely. I generally know how a case will go down before the Beneficiary enters the consulate. And I generally know the reasons that will be used - if it is going to be denied. And those reasons will have already been disclosed to USCIS - if I had filed the petition.

But most of my clients are not cases where I filed the petitions.

Most of my clients retain me after they've already been denied.

 

Randy W: "So even if they decide to follow this guideline, they can still deny the same petitions (that is, it's simply a matter of finding the correct reason once they decide to deny)?"

 

I agree, there is sometimes post hoc reasoning done to justify denying visa applications at consulates. A predisposition sometimes exists to deny some cases. Some officers then just search for a reason after deciding to deny it.

 

But no -- if they follow the guideline -- and following it is not discretionary, even though it seems to be applied that way -- if they follow the guideline, the evidence must be extensive...USCIS must not have had it at the time of petition approval and it must be the type of evidence that would have resulted in the petition being denied had USCIS known about it.

 

Randy W. "

And aren't the standards different between USCIS and GUZ? Legally married vs bona fide relationship?"

 

Interesting question.

 

The FAM section I quoted gives you the USCIS standards for revoking a petition found in 8 CFR 205. The part that causes most of the controversy is in part 3.

"(3) Extensive factual evidence developed by the consular officer that

would convince a reasonable person that the marriage was a sham

marriage entered into to evade immigration laws."

 

Yes. The standards are different between DOS refusing a visa

and USCIS revoking a petition. But if that's the case, what's

the point of sending it back for revocation, if the consulate

knows it cannot possibly win a contested revocation proceeding?

 

Why are so many obviously good cases returned?

It's a question that has baffled me for years.

 

*When Colin Powell was Secretary of State, he cautioned consulates:

"INS has asked us to remind consular officers that revocation requests must provide solid, factual evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, evidence that is likely to stand up in a court of law. In the case of sham marriages, for example, 9 FAM 42.43 N2.2 notes that INS requires at the least either documentary evidence that money changed hands between the petitioner and beneficiary or factual evidence that would convince "a reasonable person" that the marriage was entered into solely to evade immigration laws. Without such evidence, INS will be unlikely to obtain a petition's revocation if a petitioner chooses to contest a notice of intent to revoke."

 

He also wrote:

 

6. Please keep in mind the differences between revocation of the petition and denial of the visa application. In the absence of hard, factual evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status, consular sections are advised to issue the visa, assuming the alien is otherwise qualified, or if further investigation is warranted and holds a potential for resolving post's concerns, use a 221(g) refusal to obtain additional information. Posts should be generous in allowing applicants every opportunity to supplement their applications following a 221(g) refusal. Many consular sections polled by VO reported that they usually use 221(g) rather than petition return to INS as the most effective way of handling cases in which fraud is suspected and where further Information-gathering is likely to be able to resolve the doubts one way or the other.

 

It still baffles me today. The answer is not to be found in any published rules.

 

Maybe it's defective training. Maybe it's institutional bias. I don't know.

I'm just a lawyer - not an expert in institutional psychology.

 

*R 130616Z JUL 01

FM SECSTATE WASHDC

TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS

SPECIAL EMBASSY PROGRAM

 

UNCLAS STATE 121801

 

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: CVIS, CMGT, KFRD

SUBJECT: GUIDANCE ON PETITION REVOCATIONS

 

REF: AIRGRAM M-240

 

Randy W:

"My point is that it seems to me that the returning of petitions is a sham, especially since the incentive is for the Consulate to NOT provide more than a cursory reason for refusal, since it could be overturned. The consulate is also not a party to the NOID proceedings and generally does not provide adequate evidence."

 

Consulates may not see themselves as parties to the NOID. But since it is the consulate's memorandum & the Chief's signature that are used to justify the denial --- the Chief's reputation as well as the consulate's is on the line...or should be.

 

Unfortunately, there seems to be no penalty for wrongly sending back a petition and putting a US Citizen Petition through years of mental Hell.

 

There may be penalties for wrongly approving visas post-9/11.

But there seems to be no penalty for wrongly recommending a petition's approval be revoked.

 

There should be.

Edited by ellis-island (see edit history)
Link to comment

The oft used reason for a denial at GUZ is "not bonafide relationship" No other explanation on the white slip is ever given the beneficiary. In my oppinion this is a sleazy tactic used by the IV unit that is a blanket catch all reason for denial. Clearly it is in violation of the 9 FAM. Why is the consulate still getting away with this?

Link to comment

 

The oft used reason for a denial at GUZ is "not bonafide relationship" No other explanation on the white slip is ever given the beneficiary. In my oppinion this is a sleazy tactic used by the IV unit that is a blanketcatch all reason for denial. Clearly it is in violation of the 9 FAM. Why is the consulate still getting away with this?

 

Most consulates don't. Most consular refusal sheets look

like Guangzhou's. That's why I interview Petitioner and Beneficiary.

If a case is going to be denied, I'll aleady know why from my

interview notes. I've done hundreds of these all over the world.

 

Ho Chi Minh City to its credit, gives a list of reasons.

That practice started under the last Chief and it has continued

through this one. The subject came up during a meeting

I had with him on a case a few years ago. He thought it

was the right thing to do and he did it.

 

But as you know, consulates are trying to become "lawyer-free zones".

Neither HCMC nor Guangzhou meet with lawyers today. It could save

them a lot of headaches if they did.

 

There is a line from a movie I remember, "Night of the Generals",

Peter O'Toole is a Nazi General in a Parisian bar. A sexy bar girl,

(played indelibly by Veronique Vendell), approaches him with her

"come on line".)

 

Veronique

 

"You look so sad. Have you suffered?"

 

O'Toole

 

(replies with only a cold stare.)

 

Veronique

 

(walking away),

 

"Apparently, you have not suffered enough,

 

--

 

Apparently, consulates have not suffered enough.

 

--

HCMC takes the extra step of putting a warning about what happens in the event

a petition is revoked -the P6c marker that is in a Beneficiary's file becomes a hard

212(a)(6)(c ) inadmissibility finding requiring a 212(i) waiver.

 

I practice law all over the world. Most consulates don't list

the reasons. Most consular refusal sheets look like GUZ's.

HCMC is the rare exception. Not listing the reasons on the DS-194

demonstrate either capricious disregard for the reasonable

expectations of the US Citizen Petitioner, or else bureaucratic

inertia. At any rate, it can be easily fixed. Just list the reasons!

 

It was suggested in Colin Powell's cable. But I've never seen

specific notice to the applicant incorporated into the FAM.

 

That may reflect the institutional bias I mentioned earlier.

Some officers & managers around the world, for various reasons,

have a disdain for US Citizens who sponsor foreign spouses. It's an institutional bias.

 

Consular Section Chiefs would be wise to note how much anger and resentment the practice

of not informing them why their loved one's visa was refused, causes in the minds of US Citizens

and in workload of Congressional liaison staff.

 

They should consider how unfair it appears on the surface.

It's bad exposure. And it's not necessary.

 

Just the list the reasons on the DS-194 - that's all.

It's the right thing to do. And Citizens deserve better explanations

than they are given in most consulates. It's the right thing to do

and Section Chiefs have the authority to start doing it.

Edited by ellis-island (see edit history)
Link to comment
Guest jin979

very interesting, so you are saying stations all over the world do not follow the rules of explaination or direction from their big boss. intitutional culture of bias against USC bringing others here and that all elected officials offices are aware but cannot or are not interested in challenging this.

 

interesting they all can ignore the direction of the secetary of state with no santion.

Link to comment

very interesting, so you are saying stations all over the world do not follow the rules of explaination or direction from their big boss. intitutional culture of bias against USC bringing others here and that all elected officials offices are aware but cannot or are not interested in challenging this.

 

interesting they all can ignore the direction of the secetary of state with no santion.

 

I try not to speak in universals. Some conoffs are very good.

Some section chiefs are very good. And I'd be surprised if

they intentionally ignored Hillary Clinton. I think it's more

a case of the FAM being confusing and badly organized.

And specifically - they're not trained in immigration law

by people who actually know the law -DHS.

 

I personally don't think the rules are flouted at consulates.

To flout a rule would require knowledge and understanding of the rule.

I think it's a question of deficient training. Rookie officers are trained for

about 6 weeks then they go out and they they wield unbelievable power

over the lives of US Citizen petitioners.

 

The training in immigration law nuts and bolts is deficient.

That's a universal I will state And I stand by that.

They should be trained in "good and sufficient cause".

They should be trained in 8 CFR. And they're not.

 

Not only that --- DHS is the agency that should be training them.

They have the authority under the law. And they're not doing it.

I stand by that too.

 

I've seen over the years, an institutional bias against family visas.

There is prestige in deciding a visa case for Sun Microsystems or Toshiba.

 

Where is the prestige in deciding a case involving a low-middle-class

divorced US Citizen Petitioner sponsoring a foreign spouse?

Who cares if they get it wrong? The Petitioner doesn't have

the clout of a big corporation. Nobody will breathing down the

officer's neck if he or she gets a family case wrong.

 

This same bias exists among immigration lawyers. For years, the

prestige lawyers were the ones handling employment

and business visas. Now that the world economy has tanked,

a few of employment lawyers are emailing me and trying to learn

about NOIR letters and consular refusals. They're clueless.

 

An ex-conoff has remarked about this bias as well.

Family visas are not viewed as important. And US Citizen Petitioners

in particular who sponsor foreign spouses are often viewed with

disdain by some officers & chiefs not the majority.

 

I actually met the BCA's Chief of the Visa Section at a meeting

about six weeks ago in Saigon. He did not know the validity period

of a K-1 visa. I know. I asked him.

 

That is how deficient the training is. If the top management doesn't

know, how can you expect the line officers to know?

 

If managers think 8 CFR or the Board of Immigration Appeals

don't have any application over what they do. What can you expect?

 

DHS has really dropped the ball here. It won't get better until conoffs

and Chiefs receive better training. And that won't happen until DHS

decides its wasting too much time reviewing petitions that should have

never been returned in the first place.

 

Colin Powell really got it right in his cable. But note - he was responding

to complaints from INS that too many meritorious cases were being

returned. Read his cable.

 

That needs to happen again. It will once DHS gets tired of getting sued.

in Federal District Courts over backlogs.

Edited by ellis-island (see edit history)
Link to comment

I had a client (not from Vietnam or Guangzhou) receive an NOIR

recently for a CR-1. We had sent in a rebuttal early. We were pretty

surprised when CSC sent back an NOIR letter about a month later.

 

Definitely -- fast-tracked because of our submission.

 

But a word to the wise - don't try it at home. In this particular case,

the consulate had some pretty strong evidence. And USCIS

adjudicators are extremely well-trained and knowledgeable

about immigration law. They are immigration law professionals.

Revocations & Removal (deportations) are the big leagues

of immigration law.

 

I haven't lost one of these yet. But this one will be tough.

The good news is -- CSC fast-tracked it after we submitted our

rebuttal. The bad news is -- the adjudicator is tough* and the

consulate has an arguable case against the beneficiary.

 

*CSC BTW, has some very knowledgeable and tough adjudicators.

 

I may be overstating the strength of the government's case a little.

 

We'll see.

 

I love this job!

Edited by ellis-island (see edit history)
Link to comment
Guest Pommey

so is a class action suite from 1000's againt DHS the answer or 1000's of individual suites against both USCIS and DHS , which would catch Hilarys attention more ?

 

which would the press be more interested in ?

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...