My case k1 visa

[Haplo 0]

How would that work considering that the consulate now believes that their original petition was fraudulent?

no. if they wanted to get married right away, before the fiance came. why bother even filing a k1. that is the point. you don't need to. they coudl have gone to the consulate right after a wedding. then in 1 week to at worst a month or so. Gone home, together. to the usa. it makes NO sence to not do that. they cannot deny the entery of your spouce into the usa. they can delay or be a pain. Hell. treahten to sue.

they can be sued for all your troubles. if they choose to deny you on what they basicly have is a hunch. no solid proof. get a letter from a religouse head sayign yoru not married.

[iceyspots 0]

Anyone heard of someone sueing USCIS/NVC/Consulate for their damages?

There are quite a few around these parts who wouldnt mind sueing for mental anguish...

[Haplo 0]

Anyone heard of someone sueing USCIS/NVC/Consulate for their damages?

There are quite a few around these parts who wouldnt mind sueing for mental anguish...

you can sue anyone. proove it and you win.

[Chuckles 0]

Adele,

It seems that the consular officer did indeed have an understanding of the culture, and of the laws, of the country - a much better understanding than many of the people who have posted in this thread.

Yodrak

What on earth made the interviewer think it was a wedding?The obvious question that comes to mind here is did the interview have any understanding of your fiancee's culture at all????????? Hope you get this resolved soon because these sounds like utter nonsense!

Adele

Still have to disagree here. It is not the interviewers job to make this determination. This was made by the USCIS and the interviewer is just there to confirm what the desicion the USCIS came up with, not make new decisions.

Also, If I say a picture is of an engagment and not a wedding, and there is no contradictory evidence, that that is what it is. This desicion goes outside the spirit of the law and what it was made for. To stop people from fradulently obtaining US citzenship/green cards.

Even if someone wants to be a #######, $hit nose, namby pamby, I say so f'ing what if it should have technically been on a K3 and not a K1?

Edited May 17, 2006 by Chuckles

[Haplo 0]

Adele,

It seems that the consular officer did indeed have an understanding of the culture, and of the laws, of the country - a much better understanding than many of the people who have posted in this thread.

Yodrak

What on earth made the interviewer think it was a wedding?The obvious question that comes to mind here is did the interview have any understanding of your fiancee's culture at all????????? Hope you get this resolved soon because these sounds like utter nonsense!

Adele

Still have to disagree here. It is not the interviewers job to make this determination. This was made by the USCIS and the interviewer is just there to confirm what the desicion the USCIS came up with, not make new decisions.

Also, If I say a picture is of an engagment and not a wedding, and there is no contradictory evidence, that that is what it is. This desicion goes outside the spirit of the law and what it was made for. To stop people from fradulently obtaining US citzenship/green cards.

Even if someone wants to be a #######, $hit nose, namby pamby, I say so f'ing what if it should have technically been on a K3 and not a K1?

you can direct file in india after 60 day sof residence. their idiots.

[GaryC 7]

Anyone heard of someone sueing USCIS/NVC/Consulate for their damages?

There are quite a few around these parts who wouldnt mind sueing for mental anguish...

you can sue anyone. proove it and you win.

The government is immune from lawsuits resulting from job prefomance I believe.

[zyggy 9]

Adele,

It seems that the consular officer did indeed have an understanding of the culture, and of the laws, of the country - a much better understanding than many of the people who have posted in this thread.

Yodrak

What on earth made the interviewer think it was a wedding?The obvious question that comes to mind here is did the interview have any understanding of your fiancee's culture at all????????? Hope you get this resolved soon because these sounds like utter nonsense!

Adele

Still have to disagree here. It is not the interviewers job to make this determination. This was made by the USCIS and the interviewer is just there to confirm what the desicion the USCIS came up with, not make new decisions.

Also, If I say a picture is of an engagment and not a wedding, and there is no contradictory evidence, that that is what it is. This desicion goes outside the spirit of the law and what it was made for. To stop people from fradulently obtaining US citzenship/green cards.

Even if someone wants to be a #######, $hit nose, namby pamby, I say so f'ing what if it should have technically been on a K3 and not a K1?

This is not the way it works.. you have no right to bring your fiancee to the US.. you are applying for a Federal benefit and it is up to you the petitioner to prove that they are eligible for it... it is not up to the State Dept to prove that you are not...

In this case, the CO was well within his perview to stop processing for a K-1 visa, because in their opinion the petitioner was not eligible for it due to the fact that the evidence suggests that they are already married... They shot themselves in the foot, and now you're trying to blame the CO... please, get a clue for how the process works...

And you can't sue someone for doing their job...

[Joey559 1]

Still have to disagree here. It is not the interviewers job to make this determination. This was made by the USCIS and the interviewer is just there to confirm what the desicion the USCIS came up with, not make new decisions.

Also, If I say a picture is of an engagment and not a wedding, and there is no contradictory evidence, that that is what it is. This desicion goes outside the spirit of the law and what it was made for. To stop people from fradulently obtaining US citzenship/green cards.

Even if someone wants to be a #######, $hit nose, namby pamby, I say so f'ing what if it should have technically been on a K3 and not a K1?

I'm sorry to disagree Chuckles but I think the interviewer is the biggest decision maker in this whole process. Everything up to then is just 'initial approval' until the interview where the government trusts that the consulate will see for themselves if it's a sham or if it's real...after all, it's much easier to get a sense of what the truth is when someone is sitting right in front of you. The burden of proof in the process is on us, not the government. Maybe it's not nice but it's the way it is and it's not going to change. And I would think that if it were a fraud case and they were already married you, as someone who's trying to get through this process, would be upset that someone wasted the time of those who work on the K1s when they could have been working on your case. It's not just a technicality, it's the law and if you have to follow the process then everyone else should as well. The k1 is normally quicker than the k3, what if they could change it into a k1 half way through or when they were at the interview and said, "yeah we got married, just approve us for a k3"...people would start doing it left and right.

Side note: I'm sorry the PO is going through this and I hope they get their case cleared up soon.

Joey

Edited May 17, 2006 by Joey559

[Chuckles 0]

Adele,

It seems that the consular officer did indeed have an understanding of the culture, and of the laws, of the country - a much better understanding than many of the people who have posted in this thread.

Yodrak

What on earth made the interviewer think it was a wedding?The obvious question that comes to mind here is did the interview have any understanding of your fiancee's culture at all????????? Hope you get this resolved soon because these sounds like utter nonsense!

Adele

Still have to disagree here. It is not the interviewers job to make this determination. This was made by the USCIS and the interviewer is just there to confirm what the desicion the USCIS came up with, not make new decisions.

Also, If I say a picture is of an engagment and not a wedding, and there is no contradictory evidence, that that is what it is. This desicion goes outside the spirit of the law and what it was made for. To stop people from fradulently obtaining US citzenship/green cards.

Even if someone wants to be a #######, $hit nose, namby pamby, I say so f'ing what if it should have technically been on a K3 and not a K1?

This is not the way it works.. you have no right to bring your fiancee to the US.. you are applying for a Federal benefit and it is up to you the petitioner to prove that they are eligible for it... it is not up to the State Dept to prove that you are not...

In this case, the CO was well within his perview to stop processing for a K-1 visa, because in their opinion the petitioner was not eligible for it due to the fact that the evidence suggests that they are already married... They shot themselves in the foot, and now you're trying to blame the CO... please, get a clue for how the process works...

And you can't sue someone for doing their job...

I never said anything about anyone sueing anybody. Did you read my posts?

I never said that the CO was not within his 'rights' to stop processing on the K-1. Did you read my posts?

I said IN MY OPINION, the CO went outside the spirit of the law and the responsiblity of the job given to him.

The petitioner already proved his case with the USCIS. The CO is #######. My opinion. End of story.

I felt bad for the OP and tried to cheer them up. So shoot me?

[Joey559 1]

I said IN MY OPINION, the CO went outside the spirit of the law and the responsiblity of the job given to him.

The petitioner already proved his case with the USCIS. The CO is #######. My opinion. End of story.

I felt bad for the OP and tried to cheer them up. So shoot me?

Sounds fair enough to me...your opinion was the CO was ####### and outside his/her job. But the CO's opinion was that it was a sham and in this case it's that opinion that matters.

Sorry again to the PO, I'm not going to trash the process or someone who's just doing their very important job to make you feel better but you do have my sympathy. Good luck in getting this resolved with all possible speed.

[Chuckles 0]

Still have to disagree here. It is not the interviewers job to make this determination. This was made by the USCIS and the interviewer is just there to confirm what the desicion the USCIS came up with, not make new decisions.

Also, If I say a picture is of an engagment and not a wedding, and there is no contradictory evidence, that that is what it is. This desicion goes outside the spirit of the law and what it was made for. To stop people from fradulently obtaining US citzenship/green cards.

Even if someone wants to be a #######, $hit nose, namby pamby, I say so f'ing what if it should have technically been on a K3 and not a K1?

I'm sorry to disagree Chuckles but I think the interviewer is the biggest decision maker in this whole process. Everything up to then is just 'initial approval' until the interview where the government trusts that the consulate will see for themselves if it's a sham or if it's real...after all, it's much easier to get a sense of what the truth is when someone is sitting right in front of you. The burden of proof in the process is on us, not the government. Maybe it's not nice but it's the way it is and it's not going to change. And I would think that if it were a fraud case and they were already married you, as someone who's trying to get through this process, would be upset that someone wasted the time of those who work on the K1s when they could have been working on your case. It's not just a technicality, it's the law and if you have to follow the process then everyone else should as well. The k1 is normally quicker than the k3, what if they could change it into a k1 half way through or when they were at the interview and said, "yeah we got married, just approve us for a k3"...people would start doing it left and right.

Side note: I'm sorry the PO is going through this and I hope they get their case cleared up soon.

Joey

Yes that is all true, but its not like these people are trying to frauduently obtain a green card by setting up a fake marriage. I am sure they are true and genuine. It is just a shame and I think the CO went to far. That's my opinion. The spirit of the law is not being broken by these people. I think that gets lost by some people. Immigration laws (and benefits) were not set up to harass people who only wish to be happily married, and be contributing members of society. They were set up to help these people.

I'm not naive and I know these things happen and will continue to happen. I apologize for feeling sorry for the OP. I won't let it happen again on VJ.

[damulag 26]

In order for a K1 visa to be approved by USCIS they want to see that both are free to marry and they have met in person during the past two years. Some people get their NOA 2 with very few photos and other proofs that they met. Now during the interview the CO looks at other imformation including the benificinaries responses to questions. Now if they suspect that the person is married they can look for further evidence. There are petitions that are approved by the USCIS and sent to the embassy in Manilla, Philippines for the interview and they request a certificate of no marriage from the Philippine government, if if shows the person is married then the visa is denied. India should be no different, the initial petition approval from the USCIS is based upon what evidence the petitioner submits and it can be false or misleading.

One case that was initially denied by USCIS because they did not prove that they met in person, they petitioner appealed and provided evidence that they met. The catch was that they met when the benificionary was in the US illeaglly. USCIS approved the petition but stated that there was no guarantee that at the interview the fact that the benificionary was in the US illeaglly would not result in denial at that time. They are looking at the fact that you meet the spirit of the law which is that both are free to marry and have met in person during the past two years.

Mike and Luvy

[Joey559 1]

Ah, sarcasm - we just don't get enough of that around here

No one is saying, 'don't feel sorry for them'. Most of us do, this is the stuff of our nightmares. In my opinion, and please know I'm not trying to attack you, you seem really angry with the 'powers that be' and this whole process - when you're just at the beginning of it. It's a long haul and I hope you don't let it make your life too miserable.

The only people who know what went on in that interview is the interviewer/interviewee, so I'm not making assumptions on who was telling the truth, what the picture was, etc. At this point I'm just offering my support that they get the problem taken care of quickly - whether that means the USCIS deciding they are telling the truth OR if it means they have to refile under a K3. Best of luck!

[Chuckles 0]

In order for a K1 visa to be approved by USCIS they want to see that both are free to marry and they have met in person during the past two years. Some people get their NOA 2 with very few photos and other proofs that they met. Now during the interview the CO looks at other imformation including the benificinaries responses to questions. Now if they suspect that the person is married they can look for further evidence. There are petitions that are approved by the USCIS and sent to the embassy in Manilla, Philippines for the interview and they request a certificate of no marriage from the Philippine government, if if shows the person is married then the visa is denied. India should be no different, the initial petition approval from the USCIS is based upon what evidence the petitioner submits and it can be false or misleading.

One case that was initially denied by USCIS because they did not prove that they met in person, they petitioner appealed and provided evidence that they met. The catch was that they met when the benificionary was in the US illeaglly. USCIS approved the petition but stated that there was no guarantee that at the interview the fact that the benificionary was in the US illeaglly would not result in denial at that time. They are looking at the fact that you meet the spirit of the law which is that both are free to marry and have met in person during the past two years.

Mike and Luvy

All great points. But if what the OP says is true, how does a picture prove a wedding? I realize that in India a wedding is a legal marriage, as has been stated many times here.

In any case, all that is going to happen is this case will be sent back to the USCIS, then based on this single picture, the USCIS will agree it means nothing, then send it back to the consulate and approve the OP.

What a waste of time and what a burden for the OP. Also, what a waste of resources, contributing to the backlog of the system.

[Yodrak 7]

Chuckles,

Not true, the consular officials have issues to address and decisions to make of their own.

Beyond that, if in the course of their work they uncover evidence that indicates the USCIS decision on the petition was in error they are required to send the petition back to the USCIS with the additional evidence for reconsideration.

Yodrak

Adele,

It seems that the consular officer did indeed have an understanding of the culture, and of the laws, of the country - a much better understanding than many of the people who have posted in this thread.

Yodrak

What on earth made the interviewer think it was a wedding?The obvious question that comes to mind here is did the interview have any understanding of your fiancee's culture at all????????? Hope you get this resolved soon because these sounds like utter nonsense!

Adele

Still have to disagree here. It is not the interviewers job to make this determination. This was made by the USCIS and the interviewer is just there to confirm what the desicion the USCIS came up with, not make new decisions.

...

Edited May 17, 2006 by Yodrak