My case k1 visa

[Chuckles 0]

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.

...

Yes, if it is new evidence supplied at the time of the interview. I guess for me, it would be hard to disconnect from the fact that these are real people we are talking about. To me, the picture seems so trivial. If I were the CO I would have taken the word of these people that it was not a wedding. There of course can be alot more to the story, but based on what the OP said... I would have come to a different conclusion then the CO.

I am involved with many people from India at work and as customers, and I have received lots of advice from them about my own immigration process. I can't say I am intimitly familar with their culture, but I am knowledgable about it. Not ALL regions of India consider a ceremony similar to a wedding 'legally binding'. I think this is very shaky ground. People do not understand how much more diverse India is then America. I know this sounds odd, but the area is so segmented by different languages and subtle lineage differences that there are about 29 different languages within India being used, none of them really more prevaliant then the next. This could really be a different topic.

At any rate, the evidence is flimsy, that is my opinion.

But thanks for your contributions Yodrak, I always find your advice very informed and helpful on VJ.

[Yodrak 7]

Chuckles,

I cant' decide whether to say

- yes, you would have come to the same conclusion, because you would have been trained to do so, or

- you wouldn't be a consular officer for long if this is the way you would approach the job.

It's the job of a consular officer to say 'no' unless the visa applicant can provide a convincing reason to say 'yes'. This applicant has provided evidence that they may not be qualified for the visa they have applied for, it is now the applicant's responsibility to remove the bullet that they have shot into their own foot. A consular officer is not allowed to provide first aid.

Yodrak

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.

...

.... I guess for me, it would be hard to disconnect from the fact that these are real people we are talking about. To me, the picture seems so trivial. If I were the CO I would have taken the word of these people that it was not a wedding. There of course can be alot more to the story, but based on what the OP said... I would have come to a different conclusion then the CO.

...

[meauxna 15]

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.

I disagree. The petition is to confirm a few, specific things. For a fiance, they are:

-that the petitioner is a US citizen

-that the couple has met in person within the past two years

-that they are both legally free (and intend) to marry each other

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.

Joey, I'd take that even further and say that the *final* word goes back to DHS in the form of the border agent (CBP). THEY are the final arbiter of the beneficiary and they have the power to refuse a K-1 visa holder admission to the US.

This has happened in the past when a couple refers to each other as 'husband' or 'wife', when the female is wearing a wedding ring, when the female shows pictures of their 'wedding' ceremony in the home country. CPB makes a determination that this couple has already married and refuses entry on the K-1 visa as they no longer qualify.

Or, a more recent case posted here at VJ, a person was issued their visa, went to the border for admission, the officer determined the need for a waiver that the Consulate did not ask for and back the beneficiary went.

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.

A fake marriage is one type of visa fraud, but not the only one. Some people have been known to apply for a K-1 visa because it's faster, but always have the intention of getting married in the home country to please family etc. They try to disguise the marriage to 'get away' with the K-1 'quickie' route. There is less of this now that I-130s are being adjudicated quickly, but not long ago it was typical for a spouse to wait a couple/few *years* for an I-130 to be approved. In that kind of case, the spirit of the law is indeed being bent, broken and stomped on.

Immigration laws were *never* set up to help couples, you can bank on that. Immigration law is written to keep everyone OUT, with a few exceptions.

Also, you have no idea what *else* the CO based his/her decision on--you are assuming it was only one photograph.

Don't throw your toys out of the pen--feel for all the couples you want. Just recognize that people often put themselves into these bad positions in the first place.

[Melo 1]

I am involved with many people from India at work and as customers, and I have received lots of advice from them about my own immigration process. I can't say I am intimitly familar with their culture, but I am knowledgable about it. Not ALL regions of India consider a ceremony similar to a wedding 'legally binding'. I think this is very shaky ground. People do not understand how much more diverse India is then America. I know this sounds odd, but the area is so segmented by different languages and subtle lineage differences that there are about 29 different languages within India being used, none of them really more prevaliant then the next. This could really be a different topic.

At any rate, the evidence is flimsy, that is my opinion.

But thanks for your contributions Yodrak, I always find your advice very informed and helpful on VJ.

A Hindu marriage ceremony does not change on the basis of language and region. The ceremony is standard. Walking around the fire be it 4 or 7 times means you are married.