Montreal denied!!!

[mikey78 6]

I agree! I was just thinking that it couldn't have been Paul Mayer...he has extensive experience in reviewing applications, he did the job both in Asia and Europe (Estonia if I am right) for many years... and he's been in MTL for a while now as well (from 2007?) so this sudden change in domicile interpretation is very surprising...

That doesn't look like him, so I think maybe it was someone else. I do think we all had the same guy, though. I wish I had asked his name, but I didn't name because I was upset and he wanted us to leave - I wish I had.

The K1 interviewees have said that he was the person interviewing them if I remember correctly - so if this picture is not of the guy that interviewed you then you were not interviewed by Paul Mayer.

That's good news because if it was him then we can just take the reestablishing domicile guidelines and toss them.

[Danu 19]

Oh no! I'm so sorry! I was so sure you guys would just fly right though, such a beautiful couple. My thoughts are with you, I hope this gets sorted out quickly!

[Lenie7 0]

Mal, you are right. With DCF, you have to be a PR for over six months I think, so why bother offering that if you are going to hold it against someone? I think it is perfectly acceptable for a couple to stay together through the process and move at the same time.

Then why are most of the CR-1 filers (on VJ at least) separated right now? If it was acceptable to stay together through the process, why am I not down in D.C. with my wife while things are moving forward? Again, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I'm just trying to get into the mentality of why you were denied.

Wyatt, as a USC, I can apply for immigration benefits for my husband anytime I want, so what is the benefit of having status with no intention? If I wasn't in a legitimate relationship, maybe that would make sense, but my marriage is valid and immigration had no problems with our proof of the relationship.

Sure you're entitled to apply for immigration benefits...but when the CO considers the fact that your husband is a Canadian and is wealthy enough to support you IN Canada...and that you own a house that you don't live in IN the U.S., and that you have permanent resident status IN Canada...the CO is going to wonder why it's important for you to move back to the U.S. There seems (to him) to be no reason for you to move back down there. IF, on the other hand, you were working down there and living in your house, and you wanted your husband to join you...then there's incentive for the CO to say, "okay, this move is purely from a marriage standpoint". When the CO tallies up all the other factors (wealthy husband, wife with Canadian PR, assets in the States, husband and wife legally living together in Canada), there seems to be less NEED for a visa to be issued, doesn't it? When contrasted with all of the other CR-1s out there who are spending several months WITHOUT their spouses, it's just going to look to the CO that getting your husband U.S. status is more of a convenience thing than a legitimate need for him to become an American PR. That's probably why he wants to see you either get work or give up your Canadian PR -- it would indicate a move on your part that would show some sort of NEED for them to issue the visa.

I really hope I'm not coming across the wrong way here. I'm just thinking that from their standpoint, there's not a lot of incentive for them to issue a visa when you guys are already living together in Canada as Canadian residents and are financially comfortable.

Don't worry Wyatt, I am not taking it the wrong way at all.

I just think that immigration isn't something that one person "deserves" more than another based on the factors you list above. I should be able to move move back with my husband just because I want to and I shouldn't be denied because I don't have to work. I guess the one fallacy I see in your argument is why would I bother if that's not what we wanted? It's like you're saying that I'm trying to get a benefit that I don't really want or won't use just to have it. As a U.S. permanent resident, my husband will be required by law to submit taxes every year, and to live in the U.S. or lose his resident status. I'm still not seeing the point of getting status and having it if you're planning to sit up in Canada. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to go through the hassle or the cost.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Dalene

[Lenie7 0]

Oh no! I'm so sorry! I was so sure you guys would just fly right though, such a beautiful couple. My thoughts are with you, I hope this gets sorted out quickly!

Hey Danu! Thanks. Was there more than one guy interviewing? My guy didn't look like the pic I saw of the main dude. Was yours wearing a blue suit and flag tie?

[mikey78 6]

Don't worry Wyatt, I am not taking it the wrong way at all.

I just think that immigration isn't something that one person "deserves" more than another based on the factors you list above. I should be able to move move back with my husband just because I want to and I shouldn't be denied because I don't have to work. I guess the one fallacy I see in your argument is why would I bother if that's not what we wanted? It's like you're saying that I'm trying to get a benefit that I don't really want or won't use just to have it. As a U.S. permanent resident, my husband will be required by law to submit taxes every year, and to live in the U.S. or lose his resident status. I'm still not seeing the point of getting status and having it if you're planning to sit up in Canada. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to go through the hassle or the cost.

That's very ON POINT Dalene...why would we even bother if we had no intention, knowing that PR status is a priviledge and can be taken away!

[Danu 19]

Uh...To be perfectly honest, I don't know what he was wearing, just that he was very smiley and looked like his pic. There may have been more than one, not sure. My guy said he likes CR1's and K1s because they usually have a happy ending, and the ones that don't kind of know before hand.

[thedawghouse86 0]

Mal, you are right. With DCF, you have to be a PR for over six months I think, so why bother offering that if you are going to hold it against someone? I think it is perfectly acceptable for a couple to stay together through the process and move at the same time.

Then why are most of the CR-1 filers (on VJ at least) separated right now? If it was acceptable to stay together through the process, why am I not down in D.C. with my wife while things are moving forward? Again, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I'm just trying to get into the mentality of why you were denied.

Wyatt, as a USC, I can apply for immigration benefits for my husband anytime I want, so what is the benefit of having status with no intention? If I wasn't in a legitimate relationship, maybe that would make sense, but my marriage is valid and immigration had no problems with our proof of the relationship.

Sure you're entitled to apply for immigration benefits...but when the CO considers the fact that your husband is a Canadian and is wealthy enough to support you IN Canada...and that you own a house that you don't live in IN the U.S., and that you have permanent resident status IN Canada...the CO is going to wonder why it's important for you to move back to the U.S. There seems (to him) to be no reason for you to move back down there. IF, on the other hand, you were working down there and living in your house, and you wanted your husband to join you...then there's incentive for the CO to say, "okay, this move is purely from a marriage standpoint". When the CO tallies up all the other factors (wealthy husband, wife with Canadian PR, assets in the States, husband and wife legally living together in Canada), there seems to be less NEED for a visa to be issued, doesn't it? When contrasted with all of the other CR-1s out there who are spending several months WITHOUT their spouses, it's just going to look to the CO that getting your husband U.S. status is more of a convenience thing than a legitimate need for him to become an American PR. That's probably why he wants to see you either get work or give up your Canadian PR -- it would indicate a move on your part that would show some sort of NEED for them to issue the visa.

I really hope I'm not coming across the wrong way here. I'm just thinking that from their standpoint, there's not a lot of incentive for them to issue a visa when you guys are already living together in Canada as Canadian residents and are financially comfortable.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Visas aren't issued by need, but rather by qualification. If you qualify for a visa through the guidelines the U.S. government sets out, and prove to the CO that you qualify, then they are obligated to provide the USC, and in turn the beneficiary, with this benefit. The CO doesn't approve or deny your admission to the U.S.; they simply approve or deny the visa -- the CBP are the ones that can approve or deny your petition to enter the country based on the visa. An immigrant visa is technically only permission to travel to the border and petition a CBP officer to allow you to immigrate.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

I just think that immigration isn't something that one person "deserves" more than another based on the factors you list above. I should be able to move move back with my husband just because I want to and I shouldn't be denied because I don't have to work.

But immigration IS a right.

The fact that YOU are an American citizen is a factor, sure, but it's not a given that BECAUSE you are an American citizen, your husband is entitled to a visa. That's the whole point of the process. If immigration was a right, rather than an extended process with both objective and subjective steps, most of us would be with our spouses right now.

I think the outlook of "I should be able to move back with my husband just because I want to" is a bit arrogant. ALL of us wish we could move back with our spouses, but that's obviously not doable for most of us.

The separation factor is an unspoken demonstration of legitimate desire to have one's loved one immigrate. I'm not saying it's the be-all, end-all...but it DOES play a part.

The Consular Officer has to be saying to himself, "Why do they want him to become a U.S. resident when he's already successful in Canada, and has his wife with him as a permanent Canadian resident?" That's where the "need" factor comes into play. It's not incumbent upon the CO to grant a visa when the reasons for doing so appear cosmetic.

[Lenie7 0]

Mal, you are right. With DCF, you have to be a PR for over six months I think, so why bother offering that if you are going to hold it against someone? I think it is perfectly acceptable for a couple to stay together through the process and move at the same time.

Then why are most of the CR-1 filers (on VJ at least) separated right now? If it was acceptable to stay together through the process, why am I not down in D.C. with my wife while things are moving forward? Again, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I'm just trying to get into the mentality of why you were denied.

Wyatt, as a USC, I can apply for immigration benefits for my husband anytime I want, so what is the benefit of having status with no intention? If I wasn't in a legitimate relationship, maybe that would make sense, but my marriage is valid and immigration had no problems with our proof of the relationship.

Sure you're entitled to apply for immigration benefits...but when the CO considers the fact that your husband is a Canadian and is wealthy enough to support you IN Canada...and that you own a house that you don't live in IN the U.S., and that you have permanent resident status IN Canada...the CO is going to wonder why it's important for you to move back to the U.S. There seems (to him) to be no reason for you to move back down there. IF, on the other hand, you were working down there and living in your house, and you wanted your husband to join you...then there's incentive for the CO to say, "okay, this move is purely from a marriage standpoint". When the CO tallies up all the other factors (wealthy husband, wife with Canadian PR, assets in the States, husband and wife legally living together in Canada), there seems to be less NEED for a visa to be issued, doesn't it? When contrasted with all of the other CR-1s out there who are spending several months WITHOUT their spouses, it's just going to look to the CO that getting your husband U.S. status is more of a convenience thing than a legitimate need for him to become an American PR. That's probably why he wants to see you either get work or give up your Canadian PR -- it would indicate a move on your part that would show some sort of NEED for them to issue the visa.

I really hope I'm not coming across the wrong way here. I'm just thinking that from their standpoint, there's not a lot of incentive for them to issue a visa when you guys are already living together in Canada as Canadian residents and are financially comfortable.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Visas aren't issued by need, but rather by qualification. If you qualify for a visa through the guidelines the U.S. government sets out, and prove to the CO that you qualify, then they are obligated to provide the USC, and in turn the beneficiary, with this benefit. The CO doesn't approve or deny your admission to the U.S.; they simply approve or deny the visa -- the CBP are the ones that can approve or deny your petition to enter the country based on the visa. An immigrant visa is technically only permission to travel to the border and petition a CBP officer to allow you to immigrate.

Yeah...if it were based solely on NEED they would have issued the visa since my husband's occupation is one that is high demand and short supply in the U.S. In fact, he was on an H1-B visa in the U.S. for a long time because there aren't enough qualified U.S. people. Even though the U.S. NEEDS people in his field, it had absolutely no bearing on our case.

[Varba 0]

Danele, I am very angry reading over what this clown said to you.

I truly hope it works out for you _quickly_ so you can continue with your lives.

Very sorry you had to go through this.

[Lenie7 0]

I just think that immigration isn't something that one person "deserves" more than another based on the factors you list above. I should be able to move move back with my husband just because I want to and I shouldn't be denied because I don't have to work.

But immigration IS a right.

The fact that YOU are an American citizen is a factor, sure, but it's not a given that BECAUSE you are an American citizen, your husband is entitled to a visa. That's the whole point of the process. If immigration was a right, rather than an extended process with both objective and subjective steps, most of us would be with our spouses right now.

I think the outlook of "I should be able to move back with my husband just because I want to" is a bit arrogant. ALL of us wish we could move back with our spouses, but that's obviously not doable for most of us.

The separation factor is an unspoken demonstration of legitimate desire to have one's loved one immigrate. I'm not saying it's the be-all, end-all...but it DOES play a part.

The Consular Officer has to be saying to himself, "Why do they want him to become a U.S. resident when he's already successful in Canada, and has his wife with him as a permanent Canadian resident?" That's where the "need" factor comes into play. It's not incumbent upon the CO to grant a visa when the reasons for doing so appear cosmetic.

That sounds very judgmental - my applying for immigration doesn't appear "cosmetic" as my family, home, and most of my ties are in the U.S. No matter how much money we make, I could go get a job at Burger King in the U.S. today and they would issue the visa. I don't think your argument is valid.

[trailmix 77]

I just think that immigration isn't something that one person "deserves" more than another based on the factors you list above. I should be able to move move back with my husband just because I want to and I shouldn't be denied because I don't have to work.

But immigration IS a right.

The fact that YOU are an American citizen is a factor, sure, but it's not a given that BECAUSE you are an American citizen, your husband is entitled to a visa. That's the whole point of the process. If immigration was a right, rather than an extended process with both objective and subjective steps, most of us would be with our spouses right now.

I think the outlook of "I should be able to move back with my husband just because I want to" is a bit arrogant. ALL of us wish we could move back with our spouses, but that's obviously not doable for most of us.

The separation factor is an unspoken demonstration of legitimate desire to have one's loved one immigrate. I'm not saying it's the be-all, end-all...but it DOES play a part.

The Consular Officer has to be saying to himself, "Why do they want him to become a U.S. resident when he's already successful in Canada, and has his wife with him as a permanent Canadian resident?" That's where the "need" factor comes into play. It's not incumbent upon the CO to grant a visa when the reasons for doing so appear cosmetic.

Oh I agree they have the final word, no question about that.

However, this isn't musical chairs, it's immigration and while they have a lot of leeway they also need to have a correct interpretation of their own guidelines.

I am a dual citizen, I have never lived in the U.S. - prior to last year. My Husband had a good job, we had a place to live, we were not missing any meals

I was unemployed (as the sponsor).

There was no need for us to move to the U.S. - none, zero. The only reason we moved was for something to do. So if you can explain how we got approved and others did not, then that would make sense to me.

Also, it's not like we got my Husband's visa 50 years ago, while it seems like I have been on VJ for 10 years probably - it hasnt been 2 years yet since he received his visa.

In reading what you are saying Wyatt it seems you are only looking at it, somewhat, from the Canadian point of view. While what Dalene is saying may sound arrogant (in a way) to you, it doesn't sound that way to me at all.

I don't think the 'need' factor is part of this at all, I truly don't.

Edited November 24, 2009 by trailmix

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

That sounds very judgmental - my applying for immigration doesn't appear "cosmetic" as my family, home, and most of my ties are in the U.S. No matter how much money we make, I could go get a job at Burger King in the U.S. today and they would issue the visa. I don't think your argument is valid.

Of course it's judgmental! That's the point. I'm trying to think like the CO, and I'm pretty sure I understand why he denied you.

NOT that I think you should have been denied...I just understand why he made the judgment he did.

[trailmix 77]

That sounds very judgmental - my applying for immigration doesn't appear "cosmetic" as my family, home, and most of my ties are in the U.S. No matter how much money we make, I could go get a job at Burger King in the U.S. today and they would issue the visa. I don't think your argument is valid.

Of course it's judgmental! That's the point. I'm trying to think like the CO, and I'm pretty sure I understand why he denied you.

NOT that I think you should have been denied...I just understand why he made the judgment he did.

Maybe that's why he, partly, made the decision too (but I moreso believe that he didn't believe that perhaps they were in fact going to take up residence in the U.S. per se) I thought you were trying to back up his decision (also, not sure how all of this is coming across in type but I understand you are just trying to make a point and we are just having a good ole immigration discussion )

My point is I do not believe that a CO has the leeway to make a decision on his feeling about need. Need should not be a factor - based on their own guidelines.

Edited November 24, 2009 by trailmix

[Malrothien 6]

That sounds very judgmental - my applying for immigration doesn't appear "cosmetic" as my family, home, and most of my ties are in the U.S. No matter how much money we make, I could go get a job at Burger King in the U.S. today and they would issue the visa. I don't think your argument is valid.

Of course it's judgmental! That's the point. I'm trying to think like the CO, and I'm pretty sure I understand why he denied you.

NOT that I think you should have been denied...I just understand why he made the judgment he did.

Honestly, from the reviews posted in the past few weeks - this guy sees a USC living in Canada and goes in with the decision already made to deny. Look at Simistar's review - they guy didn't even want to look at any of her husband's proof, even though he had a job offer in the US!