Jump to content

Breaking news on expired K-1's returned by consulates at CSC?


Recommended Posts

I have always thought that the non-transparency was essential to keep the scammers off balance. Any truth to this?

 

A certain, foolish type of administrator might think this. The same type that can be convinced that checking IDs against a no fly list stops terrorists from getting on airplanes, I guess.

 

Someone in the business of getting people into the US under false pretenses, will roll up his sleeves and probe the system until he finds a method that works. Most likely, it wouldn't take them 4 months before they are back in the full swing of things, with a slightly lower success rate.

 

Hell, if I were in that business, I would pay off the person in charge of the visa office in GUZ to do exactly what they are doing now, except that I would also pay him to let me know how to get my "clients" to slide through. Should result in a mich higher

 

Christopher

Link to comment
Guest jin979

different point, a member here got denail /revocation/return by GUZ turned/reapprovad after 23 months (must be expired?) but was reapproved by USCIS VSC why is it better that CSC just let them die?

 

better for who and why ?

Link to comment

different point, a member here got denail /revocation/return by GUZ turned/reapprovad after 23 months (must be expired?) but was reapproved by USCIS VSC why is it better that CSC just let them die?

 

better for who and why ?

 

It wouldn't be expired. It would have been revalidated by USCIS -

for another 4 months. It will be expired by the time she

gets to the interview.

 

Which is better? That depends on who's looking at it.

 

CSC was giving us the worst of both world's before.

It said it would review them - but nothing ever happened.

Going back to the old policy of sending out an expiration letter

is preferable to that.

 

Naturally, a reaffirmance without comment might be preferable

to a petitioner/beneficiary, if it comes quickly enough.

 

It's what the consulate wants too. It wants the memorandum

it wrote to be read by someone in USCIS. But why should a

petitioner have to sit around and wait 23 months for that to happen?

 

The law is clear. They're expired. They can't be revalidated

except for the purpose of approval. That's what the reg says.

 

How does VSC justify the review of expired petitions?

I have an idea. But it's not something I'm going to second-guess.

 

I'm fine with VSC reviewing expired petitions as long

as they're reaffirming the approvals. I think the whole

NOID process for expired K-1's is a waste of time and is outside

the law.

 

This became important in July 2007, when VSC & CSC became

the only service centers processing K-1's. Only a couple of years

ago, all 4 service centers were processing them.

 

BTW, I knew it would become a problem. I wrote an article

about it in 2007 I warned a Chief of Section it would be a huge

problem. And it was. DOS proceeded to make it worse

when some consulates refused to approve visa apps based on

re-filed petitions until the old petition was reviewed.

CSC compounded that problem by saying it would review them -

and never getting around to it.

 

Now it's back to normal, I hope. At least, I hope it's better

than it was a few months ago when CSC said it was reviewing

expired K-1's from 2002.

 

BTW, I don't don't know if it's coincidental that this is happening at the

same time that five or six good lawyers were preparing to file a class

action in the Central District of California.

 

Our lead counsel doesn't think it's a coincidence. The K-1 review issue

was the key. It was the one substantive law issue we knew we would win.

Either there is review or there is not.

 

If there is - it's USCIS error. If there is not review - it's USCIS error. On

that one issue of substantive law, we were going to win. We might have

gotten de-railed on procedural issues. But that is the one issue of

substantive law issue we knew we would earn our fees back.

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

I think that the CSC is now also doing the same thing with the K-3 petitions. We got ours back for the I-129f saying that it had not been re- validated and was therefor expired, but that we could refile. That was on the 25th.

 

 

Looks that way from my point of view...

 

I just opened the Notice of Decision letter today (dated June 23 09) saying that my wife's I-129F has expired because the B was not issued the requested K-3 visa. However, the P can choose to file a new form I-129F.

 

My K-3 was switched to a CR-1 sometime ago... how does that play into this?

 

...and my question is; Do we refile or do we wait?

Link to comment

I think that the CSC is now also doing the same thing with the K-3 petitions. We got ours back for the I-129f saying that it had not been re- validated and was therefor expired, but that we could refile. That was on the 25th.

 

I thought you had got a NOID letter and already replied. You got this expiration notice after you answered the NOID?

Link to comment
Guest Pommey

I think we all agree that the real problem lies with the "non-disclosure" of the "hard reasons" for denial, my understanding is that is a requirement for consulates to do so, but they do not.

 

Clearly USCIS knows this as well as DOS/DHS, USCIS seems to be trying to sort it from their end, but DOS/DHS seems pretty content to continue to let consulates/embassies do their own thing with vague denials and long delays in returning petitions, clearly contrey to published procedures and expectations.

 

IMHO the real problem lies with DOS/DHS not USCIS, in addressing how their rules and procedures are being broken on a daily basis, which has led to these "unofficial practices" becoming the normal operating practice.

 

Does the require DHS to retrain all the CO's, section chiefs and their bosses , sure looks like it.Will that happen- not likely until the legal challange is against them.

 

I agree with M.E USCIS maybe got wind of what was happening so they mop slapped CSC.

So now (in my opinion) its DHS/DOS that need to taken on,I think there must be thousands of cases where GUZ and other places have clearly broken the rules, therefore the class action should be against DOS/DHS.

 

JMHO

Edited by Pommey (see edit history)
Link to comment

I think we all agree that the real problem lies with the "non-disclosure" of the "hard reasons" for denial, my understanding is that is a requirement for consulates to do so, but they do not.

 

Clearly USCIS knows this as well as DOS/DHS, USCIS seems to be trying to sort it from their end, but DOS/DHS seems pretty content to continue to let consulates/embassies do their own thing with vague denials and long delays in returning petitions, clearly contrey to published procedures and expectations.

 

IMHO the real problem lies with DOS/DHS not USCIS, in addressing how their rules and procedures are being broken on a daily basis, which has led to these "unofficial practices" becoming the normal operating practice.

 

Does the require DHS to retrain all the CO's, section chiefs and their bosses , sure looks like it.Will that happen- not likely until the legal challange is against them.

 

I agree with M.E USCIS maybe got wind of what was happening so they mop slapped CSC.

So now (in my opinion) its DHS/DOS that need to taken on,I think there must be thousands of cases where GUZ and other places have clearly broken the rules, therefore the class action should be against DOS/DHS.

 

JMHO

 

 

Yes, I agree on all accounts.

 

Charles the NOID was for the I-130

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...