Wondering why ...

[evergreen 0]

We expect my husband to get either a K-3 or CR1 visa on September 29th (both our K3 paperwork and CR1 paperwork are at the consulate now).

We plan to drive to the U.S. that day.

For what reasons could they not allow him to enter the U.S. at the border?

Why would the consulate/embassy issue a visa to someone not eligible to enter the U.S.?

I know I'm probably being paranoid.

Thanks!

[RS232 0]

Whould you explain what's happend for your husband in border?

[twood2k 0]

We expect my husband to get either a K-3 or CR1 visa on September 29th (both our K3 paperwork and CR1 paperwork are at the consulate now).

We plan to drive to the U.S. that day.

For what reasons could they not allow him to enter the U.S. at the border?

Why would the consulate/embassy issue a visa to someone not eligible to enter the U.S.?

I know I'm probably being paranoid.

Thanks!

Once he passes the interview and is issued the VISA then I cant see any reason for them to stop him.

unless you forget his visa, envelope... or something silly like that.

I guess there is a possibility that the mysterious envelope you give to the POE people could be missing something.... but I'm sure that doesn't happen very often.

[lquin 0]

We expect my husband to get either a K-3 or CR1 visa on September 29th (both our K3 paperwork and CR1 paperwork are at the consulate now).

We plan to drive to the U.S. that day.

For what reasons could they not allow him to enter the U.S. at the border?

Why would the consulate/embassy issue a visa to someone not eligible to enter the U.S.?

I know I'm probably being paranoid.

Thanks!

If he has his visa then why would he be denied entry ??

[Yodrak 7]

evergreen,

The consulate would not issue a visa to someone not eligible to enter the USA. Unless by mistake.

The CBP would deny entry to someone with a valid visa if it has come to their attention that the visa holder has been a bad person and the consulate did not know it, or if the despicable acts were performed after the visa was issued.

Or if the CBP believes that the consulate made a mistake - which happened to a VJer in the UK about a year or so ago.

Yodrak

We expect my husband to get either a K-3 or CR1 visa on September 29th (both our K3 paperwork and CR1 paperwork are at the consulate now).

We plan to drive to the U.S. that day.

For what reasons could they not allow him to enter the U.S. at the border?

Why would the consulate/embassy issue a visa to someone not eligible to enter the U.S.?

I know I'm probably being paranoid.

Thanks!

[john_and_marlene 162]

Or if the CBP believes that the consulate made a mistake - which happened to a VJer in the UK about a year or so ago.

And even more recently to a VJer's fiance in Atlanta earlier this year when the CBP thought that a K1 was already married.

[meauxna 15]

And, visas are not typically issued on the same day as the interview.

Edited September 20, 2006 by meauxna

[evergreen 0]

I was just wondering, because I see so often statements that a visa does not guarantee entry, etc., and have read about people with AP being denied entry.

I assumed cases where a person with a valid visa was denied entry meant that they had some new criminal history that hadn't been caught before during prior checks, or that they did something illegal when trying to enter (like having weapons or drugs or something).

But I also worried that there might be an irritable border agent/officer who for whatever reason felt like denying someone entry.

I've also had what I consider unpleasant experiences at the border (which I took personally, but apparently are standard).

Our application is being expedited, so the consulate said that they would issue my husband's visa on the same day as our interview if at all possible. Our senator's office has been in communication with the consulate, and helped arrange that. Which reminds me, I need to send her a thank you!

We plan to enter the U.S. the same day as the visa is issued.

Nothing has changed since we applied for the visa, and we don't expect anything to change between the time we have our interview, get the visa, and cross the border.

It's just getting so close to the end I, I am having the "Murphy's Law" panic - thinking that somewhere, something just has to go wrong. Like I said, paranoia.

Thanks for the reassurance!

I reserved a hotel near the embassy, my husband picks up his medical exam results this Friday, and we have our appointment in Montreal next Friday!

I will be soooooooooooo happy if he is with me here in the U.S. next Saturday!!

Or if the CBP believes that the consulate made a mistake - which happened to a VJer in the UK about a year or so ago.

And even more recently to a VJer's fiance in Atlanta earlier this year when the CBP thought that a K1 was already married.

In this case, why did they think the K1 was already married? Were they wearing wedding rings? Carrying a marriage certificate? Just curious. And was the K1 already married or not?

It would be sad if the CBP wrongly denied entry based on a "hunch" and without any actual evidence.

What was the outcome? Did they have recourse?

Edited September 21, 2006 by evergreen

[Yodrak 7]

evergreen,

Such statements are made because it's a true fact. But don't read more into the statements than they say.

I read many posts from people worrying about being denied entry using AP, I haven't seen any from someone who was denied - although there must have been many who were denied due to overstay bans in the past since the USCIS goes to the effort of warning about this on the AP document.

Being pedantic, people using AP are not granted entry (admitted) - they are paroled in, as the name of the document indicates. There's a difference, although it's not usually significant.

Yodrak

I was just wondering, because I see so often statements that a visa does not guarantee entry, etc., and have read about people with AP being denied entry.

....

Edited September 21, 2006 by Yodrak

[zyggy 9]

And even more recently to a VJer's fiance in Atlanta earlier this year when the CBP thought that a K1 was already married.

In this case, why did they think the K1 was already married? Were they wearing wedding rings? Carrying a marriage certificate? Just curious. And was the K1 already married or not?

It would be sad if the CBP wrongly denied entry based on a "hunch" and without any actual evidence.

What was the outcome? Did they have recourse?

In this case yes, the individual made the mistake of refering to their SO as his wife when being questioned by the CBP when he entered on the K1... Since he admitted to having a marital relationship (even if there had not legally been one) when trying to enter on a K1, he was sent back home.

I have also sent someone home as a CBP officer when the individuals attempting to enter the US on a K1 visa were wearing wedding rings. They had mistakenly assumed that since they had a religious marriage that they were not married. In Canada, if neither had been married previously, Canada recognizes any religious ceremony as valid, even if no marriage license was applied for. (The same is true in most common law jurisdictions). But even if the above were not true and they weren't legally married, they would have still been denied unless they had ironclad proof in their hands at that time that they weren't legally married. Which as you know, is impossioble to come by...

It is important to remember that the CBP does not have to prove that you are not eligible to enter.. it is your job to prove to the CBP officer that you are eligible to enter the US... y law, unless one is a USC, the presumption is that every alien is ineligible to enter the US unless that prove to the satisfaction of the CBP officer that they are eligible according to the terms of their visa. The visa is not a grant of entry to the US... it is a ticket to be able to travel to the POE to be able to request entry to the US from CBP...

It is this reason why the prevailing view on this forum is to not recommend a religious marriage to take place before the legal one... In the eyes of the CBP, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If there was a marriage, it was most likely a legal marriage, the individuals are just not forthcoming with that fact...

Regardless, if there is evidence that would suggest that one is not eligible to be granted entry based on the terms of the visa, it will be cancelled and the individual sent back. It doesn't matter if one is on a K visa or a B visitor visa, if the CBP believes that if one is attempting to enter the US under circumstances that are not in conformance with the terms of the visa upon which they are entering, their entry will be denied.

As I told you before, the CBP is judge, jury and executioner on who is and is not permitted entry to the US.. there is no recourse to their decision...

As Yodrak stated, I have been on this board a long time and for a longer time as a CBP officer and like him, I have not seen anyone denied being paroled into the US on AP unless there was a reason why one could not be granted entry by law such as a ban on reentry due to a previous overstay...

The area where one was denied entry due to the CBP disagreeing with the Consulate related to a prior crime that the alien committed. The CO believed that a waiver for the crime was not required. When he appeared at the POE, the CBP read over his visa application and believed that a waiver was required (it was required, the consulate made a mistake) and sent him back to apply for the waiver. It was ultimately granted and the individual was granted entry to the US.

Edited September 21, 2006 by zyggy

[evergreen 0]

I still find it really weird that law enforcement has authority here that is not overseen by the judicial system. The judicial system is what keeps law enforcement honest and holds law enforcement to the same laws that we are all held to. If people accused of or charged with crimes were not able to enforce their constitutional rights and be heard before a judge/jury (if it were only up to cops), every person ever arrested would be in prison, innocent or not. I realize we aren't talking about U.S. citizens here - but aren't the rights of the U.S. spouse violated when a law enforcement agent (not a judge) makes a decision without sufficient evidence where there is no recourse for those accused?

Without the judicial system (with all of it's imperfections, such as not being truly available to those with low incomes), we'd have essentially no enforceable rights. It would be a police state.

I don't anticipate being denied entry as we will have either the K3 visa or the CR1 visa, and we are legally married and have followed all the rules - but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick. No court in this country would find the wearing of rings as sufficient evidence to prove a marriage.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." is based on one person's opinion, and could be extremely subjective.

Judges and juries are required to be objective (as much as humanly possible, anyway).

That part doesn't make sense and I hope that there is just recourse for couples falsely accused or wrongly turned away (even if it rarely happens) so that they can appeal the decision of law enforcement via a higher authority or the judicial system.

As long as there is legal recourse available, then it protects people from being wrongly denied or wrongly accused, judged, etc.

It's good that the border agents can catch mistakes by the consulate and attempt to weed out those who may be legally ineligible to enter, but I would hope that they would require more evidence than a hunch, personal opinion (which is inherently bias, even on this forum and even in this post!) - is there no standard of evidence?

In a courtroom, evidence must meet certain rules - which weed out unreliable or biased evidence/accusations, etc.

Thanks!

Edited September 21, 2006 by evergreen

[meauxna 15]

- but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick.

Devil's Advocate here, and someone who can appreciate dramatizing your ideas, but it's hardly a life destroying event we're talking about here.

And, all of the things they are checking for are things that *have* happened in the past. In the case we're talking about here, the guy identified his fiancee as his wife and they had had a wedding ceremony. Not a legal one, but sometimes you've got to shoot first and ask questions later (figuratively!).

I'll be interested in the other replies!

[evergreen 0]

I still find it really weird that law enforcement has authority here that is not overseen by the judicial system. The judicial system is what keeps law enforcement honest and holds law enforcement to the same laws that we are all held to. If people accused of or charged with crimes were not able to enforce their constitutional rights and be heard before a judge/jury (if it were only up to cops), every person ever arrested would be in prison, innocent or not. I realize we aren't talking about U.S. citizens here - but aren't the rights of the U.S. spouse violated when a law enforcement agent (not a judge) makes a decision without sufficient evidence where there is no recourse for those accused?

Without the judicial system (with all of it's imperfections, such as not being truly available to those with low incomes), we'd have essentially no enforceable rights. It would be a police state.

I don't anticipate being denied entry as we will have either the K3 visa or the CR1 visa, and we are legally married and have followed all the rules - but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick. No court in this country would find the wearing of rings as sufficient evidence to prove a marriage.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." is based on one person's opinion, and could be extremely subjective.

Judges and juries are required to be objective (as much as humanly possible, anyway).

That part doesn't make sense and I hope that there is just recourse for couples falsely accused or wrongly turned away (even if it rarely happens) so that they can appeal the decision of law enforcement via a higher authority or the judicial system.

As long as there is legal recourse available, then it protects people from being wrongly denied or wrongly accused, judged, etc.

It's good that the border agents can catch mistakes by the consulate and attempt to weed out those who may be legally ineligible to enter, but I would hope that they would require more evidence than a hunch, personal opinion (which is inherently bias, even on this forum and even in this post!) - is there no standard of evidence?

In a courtroom, evidence must meet certain rules - which weed out unreliable or biased evidence/accusations, etc.

In any profession there are those who abuse their power or violate rights - car mechanics who charge for repairs not done, medical professionals who charge for services not provided, doctors who molest patients, psychologists who take advantage of vulnerable clients, teachers who sleep with their students, nurses who drug other nurses (as in the news recently), correctional officers who abuse inmates, and cops who abuse their power as well (excessive force, brutality, unlawful arrest, etc). Inevitably, at some point all of these abuse of powers involve lies and denial by the person who committed them.

As humans, border patrol agents/officers are not above abusing their power. No more so than any other profession.

Any person can have a really bad day and mistreat others - a fast food worker might be rude or mess your order up (or maybe even spit in your food) - but when a worker with the power to make decisions that can destroy your life have a really bad day (or are simply corrupt) the consequences are more severe.

Man ... this issue bothers me so much I think I'm going to contact some immigration rights organizations and attorneys and see what they say as far as the legality and recourse available. If not, I'd be interested in trying to help change the system.

Justice is the most important thing in the world, when it comes down to it. Without it, we have no power and we have no rights.

I know I'm going off on a tangent.

It's helpful to hear your perspective and experience.

Thanks!

[zyggy 9]

I still find it really weird that law enforcement has authority here that is not overseen by the judicial system. The judicial system is what keeps law enforcement honest and holds law enforcement to the same laws that we are all held to. If people accused of or charged with crimes were not able to enforce their constitutional rights and be heard before a judge/jury (if it were only up to cops), every person ever arrested would be in prison, innocent or not. I realize we aren't talking about U.S. citizens here - but aren't the rights of the U.S. spouse violated when a law enforcement agent (not a judge) makes a decision without sufficient evidence where there is no recourse for those accused?

Without the judicial system (with all of it's imperfections, such as not being truly available to those with low incomes), we'd have essentially no enforceable rights. It would be a police state.

I don't anticipate being denied entry as we will have either the K3 visa or the CR1 visa, and we are legally married and have followed all the rules - but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick. No court in this country would find the wearing of rings as sufficient evidence to prove a marriage.

If someone's life is supposedly destroyed, it's because they didn't take their entry and the laws regarding entry into the US seriously or because they made a misrepresentation in order to meet their own selfish ends. If that ends up blowing up in their face, oh well...

Talk to any immigration judge, immigration attorney, or official and they will all tell you that entry into the US is a very serious thing and is not to be dismissed or taken for granted. Indeed, I believe that far, far too many people who are given the luxury of WVP and Canadians who are permitted to enter visa free take their relatively easy entry into the US for granted... The reality is this, if you aren't a citizen, each and every time you enter you have to prove that you have a valid reason to enter the US and that you will leave when your period of authorized stay ends...

This is where you are not getting it... it is not the job of CBP to prove that you are not eligible for the benefit... it is the responsibility of the alien to prove that they are eligible for the benefit. By wearing rings, they have given evidence that they are not eligible.. it is now up to the alien to refute the evidence that they themselves gave due to their own stupidity.

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck is based on one person's opionion, and could be extremely subjective. Judges and juries are required to be objective.

that's a laugh... try telling that to the jury that gives a $100 million settlement to a guy that caused the accident in the first place... or the judge who uses fautly legal reasoning to overturn established laws to suit their own objectives... we are all human... and it's human nature to be subjective...

That part doesn't make sense and I hope that there is just recourse for couples falsely accused or wrongly turned away (even if it rarely happens) so that they can appeal the decision of law enforcement via a higher authority or the judicial system.

It's good that the border agents can catch mistakes by the consulate and attempt to weed out those who may be legally ineligible to enter, but I would hope that they would require more evidence than a hunch, personal opinion (which is inherently bias, even on this forum and even in this post!) - is there no standard of evidence?

Thanks!

In my experience there's rarely a time that someone is falsely accused.. especially if someone has already been pre-screened during a consular visa screening process. I'm not saying that at times a hunch is wrong, we are human after all, but to make the insinuation that CBP is always out to get you and keep people out is offensive...

That's the difference... you have this persumption of innocence until proven guilty... at the POE, you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent. An individual is requesting a benefit.. the benefit of entry into the US. It is the perview of the US Government on whether to grant that benefit or not... control of one's national borders is at the very heart of sovereignty...

There is no standard of proof, no bar of evidence... if the CBP does not believe that you have proven yourself eligible of the benefit to their satisfaction, you aren't getting the benefit... In effect, the law has made them the judge... they are the final arbiter...

One does not get the protection of the US legal system in regards to judicial review of administrative decisions until one is admitted into the US...

You have to understand that this does not involve the principals of criminal law that we see on TV and are taught in our schools.. there is no innocent until proven guilty in this area of the law... this is based on preponderance of the evidence and the law has made the CBP the judge... all of the evidence, which included your body language, the way you answer the questions, your answers to the questions, paperwork that you have brought, etc. CBP has to put all that together and make a decision on whether you overcome the presumption in the law as an immigrating alien, who is not permitted entry into the US without the proper immigrant visa... or whether your evidence shows that you are not an immigrating alien...

that's how the law is written and how the system works... and it works well...

Edited September 21, 2006 by zyggy

[evergreen 0]

I still find it really weird that law enforcement has authority here that is not overseen by the judicial system. The judicial system is what keeps law enforcement honest and holds law enforcement to the same laws that we are all held to. If people accused of or charged with crimes were not able to enforce their constitutional rights and be heard before a judge/jury (if it were only up to cops), every person ever arrested would be in prison, innocent or not. I realize we aren't talking about U.S. citizens here - but aren't the rights of the U.S. spouse violated when a law enforcement agent (not a judge) makes a decision without sufficient evidence where there is no recourse for those accused?

Without the judicial system (with all of it's imperfections, such as not being truly available to those with low incomes), we'd have essentially no enforceable rights. It would be a police state.

I don't anticipate being denied entry as we will have either the K3 visa or the CR1 visa, and we are legally married and have followed all the rules - but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick. No court in this country would find the wearing of rings as sufficient evidence to prove a marriage.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." is based on one person's opinion, and could be extremely subjective.

Judges and juries are required to be objective (as much as humanly possible, anyway).

That part doesn't make sense and I hope that there is just recourse for couples falsely accused or wrongly turned away (even if it rarely happens) so that they can appeal the decision of law enforcement via a higher authority or the judicial system.

As long as there is legal recourse available, then it protects people from being wrongly denied or wrongly accused, judged, etc.

It's good that the border agents can catch mistakes by the consulate and attempt to weed out those who may be legally ineligible to enter, but I would hope that they would require more evidence than a hunch, personal opinion (which is inherently bias, even on this forum and even in this post!) - is there no standard of evidence?

In a courtroom, evidence must meet certain rules - which weed out unreliable or biased evidence/accusations, etc.

In any profession there are those who abuse their power or violate rights - car mechanics who charge for repairs not done, medical professionals who charge for services not provided, doctors who molest patients, psychologists who take advantage of vulnerable clients, teachers who sleep with their students, nurses who drug other nurses (as in the news recently), correctional officers who abuse inmates, and cops who abuse their power as well (excessive force, brutality, unlawful arrest, etc).

Inevitably, at some point all of these sof power involve lies and denial by the person who committed them - so we can't rely on those abusing power to admit their wrongdoing.

As humans, border patrol agents/officers are not above abusing their power. No more so than any other profession. And no less.

Any person can have a really bad day and mistreat others by using what little power they have - a fast food worker might be rude or mess your order up (or maybe even spit in your food) - a receptionist could disconnect you or put you on hold and never come back - but when a worker with the power to make decisions that can destroy your life have a really bad day (or are simply corrupt) the consequences are more severe.

If there truly were no recourse to someone who was wrongly refused entry, it would be significant, at least in my book. We're all here waiting for our loved ones - none of us can honestly say we wouldn't be impacted greatly or that our relationships/marriages would not be subject to destruction if our beloveds were never able to join us here.

Man ... this issue bothers me so much I think I'm going to contact some immigration rights organizations and attorneys and see what they say as far as the legality and recourse available. If not, I'd be interested in trying to help change the system.

Justice is the most important thing in the world, when it comes down to it. Without it, we have no power and we have no rights.

I think most people don't understand that until they have to use the justice system to protect their rights.

I know I'm going off on a tangent.

It's helpful to hear your perspective and experience.

Thanks!

OOPS - can I delete some posts? I've posted the same thing!

I'd be interested in hearing other opinions as well.

Could a couple be turned away for being "married" (or accused of being married) for an alleged "marriage" that would not even be recognized in the U.S. as a legal marriage?