member case denied - DavidLuo

[david_dawei]

I am posting on behalf of a CFL member who is having problems posting and will need to wait for the admin's to look at it. In the mean time, I offered to post his urgent issue.

 

Since he cannot post right now, he may not answer any questions for a while !!

 

--------------------------

for CFL member DavidLuo

--------------------------

 

First of all I would like to say our CR1 cases have been denial on 4-3-2008 do not have a bona fides relationship. After the case were denial and kick it back to the states side, I have did a refilling IR-1 on 1/23/2009, received NOA1 on 2/9/2009 and also NOA2 on 4/21/2009. The cases were sent to NVC for processing AOS paid online on 5/14/2009 IV paid online on 5/19/2009 received both cover letters. Now this part I really need some advice from the CFL experts and I really don’t know what to do. 3 days after I pay all the NVC bills, “Notice of Intent to Revoke letter” came into my mail box should I reply the letter and continues working on our 2nd filling while it still at NVC? After all my AOS and IV fee have been paid USCIS – California Service Center have send me a Notice of Action “ Intent to Revoke Processing” here is the letter from CSC contains:

 

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVOKE

 

 

This notice is in reference to the Petition for Alien Relative that was filed by the petitioner pursuant to section 201( of the Immigration & Nationality Act, as amended. The petition was filed in behalf [sLL] and approved by the Director of the California Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on 03/28/2007.

 

On June 12, 2008 the American Consulate in Guangzhou returned the petition to the USCIS for further review and action.

 

The record shows that the approval of this petition was based upon the petitioner’s marriage to the beneficiary. However, the USCIS has received information regarding the beneficiary’s qualification for the classification sought. That information consists of the following:

 

The petitioner and the beneficiary married during to the first visit by the petitioner to China, shortly after the petitioner’s arrival. The beneficiary stated under oath that they did not have a wedding banquet, which is very important in Chinese culture. The lack of a banquet raises doubts about the bona fides of the marriage. The pictures submitted as evidence of a relationship have been taken over the course of a few days. The petitioner submitted evidence of remittances to the beneficiary of the $2000 wired transfer, while his income for 2006 is approximately $7000. No proof was provided to show that this business income came from a legitimate employer.

 

Based on the foregoing, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and the beneficiary was conducted primarily to circumvent immigration laws. “Good and sufficient cause” exists in the present case which supports the commencement of revocation proceedings.

 

In Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983), the Board help that a marriage entered into for the primary purpose of circumventing the immigration laws, referred to as a fraudulent or sham marriage, is not recognized for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits.

 

In Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987), the Board help that a notice of intention to revoke approval of a visa petition is not properly issued unless there is “good and sufficient cause”. The Board also help that “Good and sufficient cause” for issuing such a notice exists when the evidence of record at the time of issuance, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial.

 

In Mater of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988) , the Board help that the petitioner bears the burden in visa petition revocation proceedings of establishing that the beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought under the immigration laws.

 

In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 205.2, the USCIS proposes to revoke the petition.

The petitioner is herby accorded a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this notice to offer evidence in support of the petition and in opposition to the proposed revocation.

 

Examples of evidence are as follows: passport and airline tickets showing that the petitioner and the beneficiary were in the same place at the same time since November 2006; evidence of residence together; correspondence showering names and dates; pictures with a date imprinted of them; insurance policies, etc.

 

Note: These are just examples.

 

Lack of a response to this notice within the time allotted will result in the revocation of the petition.

 

All foreign language documents must be submitted with complete English translations. The translator must certify that the translation is complete and accurate, and that he or she is competent to translate.

 

 

 

Christina Poulos

Director

 

 

Thanks,

Davidluo

Edited May 21, 2009 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[credzba]

I am posting on behalf of a CFL member who is having problems posting and will need to wait for the admin's to look at it. In the mean time, I offered to post his urgent issue.

 

Since he cannot post right now, he may not answer any questions for a while !!

 

--------------------------

for CFL member DavidLuo

--------------------------

 

First of all I would like to say our CR1 cases have been denial on 4-3-2008 do not have a bona fides relationship. After the case were denial and kick it back to the states side, I have did a refilling IR-1 on 1/23/2009, received NOA1 on 2/9/2009 and also NOA2 on 4/21/2009. The cases were sent to NVC for processing AOS paid online on 5/14/2009 IV paid online on 5/19/2009 received both cover letters. Now this part I really need some advice from the CFL experts and I really don’t know what to do. 3 days after I pay all the NVC bills, “Notice of Intent to Revoke letter” came into my mail box should I reply the letter and continues working on our 2nd filling while it still at NVC? After all my AOS and IV fee have been paid USCIS – California Service Center have send me a Notice of Action “ Intent to Revoke Processing” here is the letter from CSC contains:

 

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVOKE

 

 

This notice is in reference to the Petition for Alien Relative that was filed by the petitioner pursuant to section 201( of the Immigration & Nationality Act, as amended. The petition was filed in behalf [sLL] and approved by the Director of the California Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on 03/28/2007.

 

On June 12, 2008 the American Consulate in Guangzhou returned the petition to the USCIS for further review and action.

 

The record shows that the approval of this petition was based upon the petitioner’s marriage to the beneficiary. However, the USCIS has received information regarding the beneficiary’s qualification for the classification sought. That information consists of the following:

 

The petitioner and the beneficiary married during to the first visit by the petitioner to China, shortly after the petitioner’s arrival. The beneficiary stated under oath that they did not have a wedding banquet, which is very important in Chinese culture. The lack of a banquet raises doubts about the bona fides of the marriage. The pictures submitted as evidence of a relationship have been taken over the course of a few days. The petitioner submitted evidence of remittances to the beneficiary of the $2000 wired transfer, while his income for 2006 is approximately $7000. No proof was provided to show that this business income came from a legitimate employer.

 

Based on the foregoing, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and the beneficiary was conducted primarily to circumvent immigration laws. “Good and sufficient cause” exists in the present case which supports the commencement of revocation proceedings.

 

In Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983), the Board help that a marriage entered into for the primary purpose of circumventing the immigration laws, referred to as a fraudulent or sham marriage, is not recognized for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits.

 

In Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987), the Board help that a notice of intention to revoke approval of a visa petition is not properly issued unless there is “good and sufficient cause”. The Board also help that “Good and sufficient cause” for issuing such a notice exists when the evidence of record at the time of issuance, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial.

 

In Mater of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988) , the Board help that the petitioner bears the burden in visa petition revocation proceedings of establishing that the beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought under the immigration laws.

 

In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 205.2, the USCIS proposes to revoke the petition.

The petitioner is herby accorded a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this notice to offer evidence in support of the petition and in opposition to the proposed revocation.

 

Examples of evidence are as follows: passport and airline tickets showing that the petitioner and the beneficiary were in the same place at the same time since November 2006; evidence of residence together; correspondence showering names and dates; pictures with a date imprinted of them; insurance policies, etc.

 

Note: These are just examples.

 

Lack of a response to this notice within the time allotted will result in the revocation of the petition.

 

All foreign language documents must be submitted with complete English translations. The translator must certify that the translation is complete and accurate, and that he or she is competent to translate.

 

 

 

Christina Poulos

Director

 

 

Thanks,

Davidluo

 

I believe he has no choice but to respond to the Intent to Deny.

Failure to do so would provide grounds to deny the current IR/1.

 

What is a little confusing to me is why he just re-filed the IR/1 .. I guess it might have gotten processed before the I2D, but probability that it would be approved was close to zero.

 

Never the less, he must respond to the Intent to Deny, and fight it, and in fact win, or else his current IR/1 will just be a waste of time too!

Edited May 21, 2009 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[Guest jin979]

i think you are correct. he needs lawyer and respond within 30 days. if he does not then she will become illegible for any immigrate visa as wile have "fraud" against her.

[Randy W]

Based on the foregoing, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and the beneficiary was conducted primarily to circumvent immigration laws. ¡°Good and sufficient cause¡± exists in the present case which supports the commencement of revocation proceedings.

 

Failure to respond (and attend any hearings scheduled) will result in a finding of fraud against your wife, and a 10 year ban

 

I don't think a lawyer is necessary, but you will probably want to get one

 

This letter and the revocation hearing are the single most important things for you to deal with.

 

The petitioner and the beneficiary married during to the first visit by the petitioner to China, shortly after the petitioner¡¯s arrival. The beneficiary stated under oath that they did not have a wedding banquet, which is very important in Chinese culture. The lack of a banquet raises doubts about the bona fides of the marriage. The pictures submitted as evidence of a relationship have been taken over the course of a few days. The petitioner submitted evidence of remittances to the beneficiary of the $2000 wired transfer, while his income for 2006 is approximately $7000. No proof was provided to show that this business income came from a legitimate employer.

 

Incredible BS here. In my judgment, all you need to do is show up at the hearing, and answer any questions they have.

 

But talk to a good immigration attorney, please.

[samsong]

The beneficiary stated under oath that they did not have a wedding banquet, which is very important in Chinese culture. The lack of a banquet raises doubts about the bona fides of the marriage.

 

I married in China and we had no banquet. The above statement can be argued.

 

Also, we submitted no pictures.

 

The petitioner needs to go through the appeal process to overturn these incoherent findings.

[dnoblett]

USCIS and Consulate both nailed several red-flags.

 

Anyone considering courting and marrying someone from another country should seriously research this long before tying the not.

 

Red-Flags.

 

Short courtship.

 

Marriage on first trip to see fiancee.

 

Short relationship before visiting to meet fiancee.

[Randy W]

USCIS and Consulate both nailed several red-flags.

 

Anyone considering courting and marrying someone from another country should seriously research this long before tying the not.

 

Red-Flags.

 

Short courtship.

 

Marriage on first trip to see fiancee.

 

Short relationship before visiting to meet fiancee.

 

 

The big one there seems to be a lack of provable income. $7000 doesn't come close to the poverty line, let alone 125%

[samsong]

The only red flag I really see is the wired money. That has been discussed here many times as not a good idea to do. It can, and will raise suspicions.

The other so-called red flags are thin and flimsy. They can be easily argued.

[Randy W]

You also need to look at your overall presentation. It should paint a pretty picture of a loving and lasting relationship. It sounds like you missed the mark there in several ways, especially the pictures and income.

[Zhou Zhou]

Yes, a lawyer could help you iron out your problems and perhaps change the color of those red flags. ZZ

[Randy W]

The only red flag I really see is the wired money. That has been discussed here many times as not a good idea to do. It can, and will raise suspicions.

The other so-called red flags are thin and flimsy. They can be easily argued.

 

 

The red flag here was sending $2000 out of $7000 (but unproved) income for the year.

 

Sending support money to your wife is generally a good idea - for K-1's, not so good.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Henry and Mei]

I am a new member, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that he better fight this with everything he has.......not TODAY, but even YESTERDAY.......any delay is not a good sign.......if he wishes her any chance of getting a visa.

 

This process many times is not like what you hear in a court of law.......innocent until proven guilty.

 

If you read the letter, it clearly states this. The petitioner has the BURDEN.......NOT the STATE....

 

I studied to be a lawyer before I decided to fly jets and be an engineer, so I do not claim any expertise, but a saying etched in stone at the Air Force Academy that I attended stated "That a man's flight in life is sustained by the power of his knowledge."

 

And I am just so grateful to CFL and the speed of my case (but I truly need to only visit and read for awhile), so one more thing to think about, since it runs along the same lines here of red flags.....

 

The guy ahead of me at ACH told me this and I met his beautiful fiancee in the coffee shop that he could buy her anything, but she always simply returned his gifts as too expensive....

 

Briefly his case and denial. His income over $100k from salary....

 

On his taxes he reported $110K. VO gave her non bona fide, since at the time of tax presentation and pay stubs, he had no paper trail of where the extra $10K came from....

 

So another red flag to them, income that in their eyes is not easily explained......

 

Best of luck to us all.......

[Tom and Ling]

USCIS and Consulate both nailed several red-flags.

 

Anyone considering courting and marrying someone from another country should seriously research this long before tying the not.

 

Red-Flags.

 

Short courtship.

 

Marriage on first trip to see fiancee.

 

Short relationship before visiting to meet fiancee.

 

Hi Don and Everyone,

 

We don't know what timeline he has...

Short courtship.,,,What is a Short courtship??

 

Ling and I married on my first visit to China. We married 4 to 5 days after my arrival. But I'll also say that I put this in my Evolution of Relationship letter that I filed with USCIS.

 

"Short relationship before visiting to meet fiancee"..since I don't know his timeline is it short??

 

I know Randy and the others are right...He has to address the revocation letter.

 

I will say that Ling and I did have a wedding banquet......

and plenty of pictures of the wedding banquet...

 

I think Randy is right about the pure BS but I would like to see his timelines......

 

Tom and Ling

[Tom and Ling]

The only red flag I really see is the wired money. That has been discussed here many times as not a good idea to do. It can, and will raise suspicions.

The other so-called red flags are thin and flimsy. They can be easily argued.

 

I agree 100%...The money could be the real issue.

 

Tom and Ling

[dnoblett]

The only red flag I really see is the wired money. That has been discussed here many times as not a good idea to do. It can, and will raise suspicions.

The other so-called red flags are thin and flimsy. They can be easily argued.

 

 

The red flag here was sending $2000 out of $7000 (but unproved) income for the year.

 

Sending support money to your wife is generally a good idea - for K-1's, not so good.

Other red flag is:

 

"The petitioner and the beneficiary married during to the first visit by the petitioner to China, shortly after the petitioner¡¯s arrival."

 

Depending on evidence and evolution of relationship before first trip to China this is a Red-Flag.

 

If there was little or no courtship before marriage this is a problem.