Visa Refused due to Labor Certification

[punkmada 0]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

[pushbrk 12,884]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

Based on this explanation... http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31878

...I'd say they've judged him to be a potential danger to the USA. He is likely to have a clue as to why.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

More info needed--is your fiancé being sponsored by an employer for GC?

[punkmada 0]

More info needed--is your fiancé being sponsored by an employer for GC?

no, he is not sponsored by an employer.

[punkmada 0]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

Based on this explanation... http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31878

...I'd say they've judged him to be a potential danger to the USA. He is likely to have a clue as to why.

So Labor Certification is a person who is a danger to the USA?

[Alex & Rachel 78]

That is strange, googling Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification comes up with a very different explanation:

INA Section 212(a)(5)

(5)--Labor Certification and Qualifications for Certain Immigrants

(A)--Labor Certification

(i)--In General

Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or

unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and

certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that--

(I)--

there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in

the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a

visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform

such skilled or unskilled labor, and

(II)--

the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions

of workers in the United States similarly employed.

I do not see how that pertains to a fiancé visa...

pushbrk's answer deals with Section 212(a)(3)(A)(i)

[Alex & Rachel 78]

Okay, sorry, I now see where the security and related grounds part comes in.

[punkmada 0]

Okay, sorry, I now see where the security and related grounds part comes in.

So, there is something with the security ? I will try to find it

[pushbrk 12,884]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

Based on this explanation... http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31878

...I'd say they've judged him to be a potential danger to the USA. He is likely to have a clue as to why.

So Labor Certification is a person who is a danger to the USA?

Please read the information about the DSL-851 A provided at the link given. He was referred to DSL-851 A for further details. Those are the futher details.

Edited August 20, 2008 by pushbrk

[punkmada 0]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

Based on this explanation... http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31878

...I'd say they've judged him to be a potential danger to the USA. He is likely to have a clue as to why.

So Labor Certification is a person who is a danger to the USA?

Please read the information about the DSL-851 A provided at the link given. He was referred to DSL-851 A for further details. Those are the futher details.

I read it, but it doesnt seem to answer our denial. I was told on the phone by the consular that he was refusing the visa because he just wanted it for immigration purposes and he stated all the red flags to me. On the other hand my congressman was given another reason as to why he was being refused and this was not mentioned at all. He was called to come back to the embassy after the initial interview 8/3, we both, thinking that they were giving him another interview made sure of him to take more proof since I was told the validity of the relationship over the phone. Well, I will keep asking around and stay in touch with my congressman. I did see another case on here about the marriage and K1 beind denied under this same clause. We were married religiously and were told that our marriage was not recognized, hence I filed the K1 visa petition. It seems this is where the CO was pointing, from reading the other post. Thanks again

[pushbrk 12,884]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

Based on this explanation... http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31878

...I'd say they've judged him to be a potential danger to the USA. He is likely to have a clue as to why.

So Labor Certification is a person who is a danger to the USA?

Please read the information about the DSL-851 A provided at the link given. He was referred to DSL-851 A for further details. Those are the futher details.

I read it, but it doesnt seem to answer our denial. I was told on the phone by the consular that he was refusing the visa because he just wanted it for immigration purposes and he stated all the red flags to me. On the other hand my congressman was given another reason as to why he was being refused and this was not mentioned at all. He was called to come back to the embassy after the initial interview 8/3, we both, thinking that they were giving him another interview made sure of him to take more proof since I was told the validity of the relationship over the phone. Well, I will keep asking around and stay in touch with my congressman. I did see another case on here about the marriage and K1 beind denied under this same clause. We were married religiously and were told that our marriage was not recognized, hence I filed the K1 visa petition. It seems this is where the CO was pointing, from reading the other post. Thanks again

Unless they mistakenly gave him the wrong refusal letter, the reference to the DSL-851A means what it means.

[punkmada 0]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

Based on this explanation... http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31878

...I'd say they've judged him to be a potential danger to the USA. He is likely to have a clue as to why.

So Labor Certification is a person who is a danger to the USA?

Please read the information about the DSL-851 A provided at the link given. He was referred to DSL-851 A for further details. Those are the futher details.

I read it, but it doesnt seem to answer our denial. I was told on the phone by the consular that he was refusing the visa because he just wanted it for immigration purposes and he stated all the red flags to me. On the other hand my congressman was given another reason as to why he was being refused and this was not mentioned at all. He was called to come back to the embassy after the initial interview 8/3, we both, thinking that they were giving him another interview made sure of him to take more proof since I was told the validity of the relationship over the phone. Well, I will keep asking around and stay in touch with my congressman. I did see another case on here about the marriage and K1 beind denied under this same clause. We were married religiously and were told that our marriage was not recognized, hence I filed the K1 visa petition. It seems this is where the CO was pointing, from reading the other post. Thanks again

Unless they mistakenly gave him the wrong refusal letter, the reference to the DSL-851A means what it means.

Yes, I see another case on here where they wed in India and there marriage was not recognized and they filed a K3 instead of K1. Well we did the opposite of them we wed orfy (religious) in Egypt since we were not given the affidavit in Egypt at the time for our marriage and then we filed K1 visa. So, I am absolutely sure that this is why the CO marked it as such. It is totally wrong if they know that the marriage is not recognized in Egypt or USA and deny us because we filed a K1 visa since he in fact legally is nothing more than a fiance.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

That is strange, googling Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification comes up with a very different explanation:

INA Section 212(a)(5)

(5)--Labor Certification and Qualifications for Certain Immigrants

(A)--Labor Certification

(i)--In General

Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or

unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and

certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that--

(I)--

there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in

the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a

visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform

such skilled or unskilled labor, and

(II)--

the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions

of workers in the United States similarly employed.

I do not see how that pertains to a fiancé visa...

pushbrk's answer deals with Section 212(a)(3)(A)(i)

It doth seem that CO's are using a rather creative excuse for the denial--since Labour Certification pertains to employment-based, not family-based immigration.

[pushbrk 12,884]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

Based on this explanation... http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31878

...I'd say they've judged him to be a potential danger to the USA. He is likely to have a clue as to why.

So Labor Certification is a person who is a danger to the USA?

Please read the information about the DSL-851 A provided at the link given. He was referred to DSL-851 A for further details. Those are the futher details.

I read it, but it doesnt seem to answer our denial. I was told on the phone by the consular that he was refusing the visa because he just wanted it for immigration purposes and he stated all the red flags to me. On the other hand my congressman was given another reason as to why he was being refused and this was not mentioned at all. He was called to come back to the embassy after the initial interview 8/3, we both, thinking that they were giving him another interview made sure of him to take more proof since I was told the validity of the relationship over the phone. Well, I will keep asking around and stay in touch with my congressman. I did see another case on here about the marriage and K1 beind denied under this same clause. We were married religiously and were told that our marriage was not recognized, hence I filed the K1 visa petition. It seems this is where the CO was pointing, from reading the other post. Thanks again

Unless they mistakenly gave him the wrong refusal letter, the reference to the DSL-851A means what it means.

Yes, I see another case on here where they wed in India and there marriage was not recognized and they filed a K3 instead of K1. Well we did the opposite of them we wed orfy (religious) in Egypt since we were not given the affidavit in Egypt at the time for our marriage and then we filed K1 visa. So, I am absolutely sure that this is why the CO marked it as such. It is totally wrong if they know that the marriage is not recognized in Egypt or USA and deny us because we filed a K1 visa since he in fact legally is nothing more than a fiance.

Just so we're all clear, the foreign fiance was referred to DSL-851A for further details. This is what a DSL-851A is.

The DSL-851(A) is a brief explanation of which aliens are ineligible for visas. Here's the code provision:

Quote:

Quoting 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(A) - INA 212(a)(3)(A)

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

(3) Security and related grounds

(A) In general

Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—

(i) any activity

(I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or

(II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is inadmissible.

Unless, the referral to this document was in error, the Consulate is saying the OP's fiance is a suspected threat to the US and is inadmissible on security grounds. If so, her fiance has a clue as to why.

Why am I envisioning a head buried in the sand here.

[punkmada 0]

Hi, he was called to come into the embassy today and was given a refusal letter stating this :

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) Labor Certification

See Form DSL-851 A for further details.

Based on this explanation... http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31878

...I'd say they've judged him to be a potential danger to the USA. He is likely to have a clue as to why.

So Labor Certification is a person who is a danger to the USA?

Please read the information about the DSL-851 A provided at the link given. He was referred to DSL-851 A for further details. Those are the futher details.

I read it, but it doesnt seem to answer our denial. I was told on the phone by the consular that he was refusing the visa because he just wanted it for immigration purposes and he stated all the red flags to me. On the other hand my congressman was given another reason as to why he was being refused and this was not mentioned at all. He was called to come back to the embassy after the initial interview 8/3, we both, thinking that they were giving him another interview made sure of him to take more proof since I was told the validity of the relationship over the phone. Well, I will keep asking around and stay in touch with my congressman. I did see another case on here about the marriage and K1 beind denied under this same clause. We were married religiously and were told that our marriage was not recognized, hence I filed the K1 visa petition. It seems this is where the CO was pointing, from reading the other post. Thanks again

Unless they mistakenly gave him the wrong refusal letter, the reference to the DSL-851A means what it means.

Yes, I see another case on here where they wed in India and there marriage was not recognized and they filed a K3 instead of K1. Well we did the opposite of them we wed orfy (religious) in Egypt since we were not given the affidavit in Egypt at the time for our marriage and then we filed K1 visa. So, I am absolutely sure that this is why the CO marked it as such. It is totally wrong if they know that the marriage is not recognized in Egypt or USA and deny us because we filed a K1 visa since he in fact legally is nothing more than a fiance.

Just so we're all clear, the foreign fiance was referred to DSL-851A for further details. This is what a DSL-851A is.

The DSL-851(A) is a brief explanation of which aliens are ineligible for visas. Here's the code provision:

Quote:

Quoting 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(A) - INA 212(a)(3)(A)

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

(3) Security and related grounds

(A) In general

Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—

(i) any activity

(I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or

(II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is inadmissible.

Unless, the referral to this document was in error, the Consulate is saying the OP's fiance is a suspected threat to the US and is inadmissible on security grounds. If so, her fiance has a clue as to why.

Why am I envisioning a head buried in the sand here.

Here is the other case that I was referring to: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...p;#entry2133982