revokation of visa section 212(a)

[BinhJerome 14]

A Report is an article on his website, speaking in general terms.

Since he told You what he told you, it was pointed, focused, and specific to YOUR case, irrespective of what he wrote on his website. If I missed this - IE - he never told YOU anything, but you've simply read it on his website, well, that's a horse of different colour, so to speak.

I would suggest that there is vast difference between a general article by him, and specific advice by him, focused on your casefile.

I suggest it strongly.

I do hope you understand the difference.

An IMBRA WAIVER is not required within 2 years - it is mentioned , but it is NOT required. 'whoever' is 'saying that' is wrong. A 're-file' for a new K-1 on the same lass, does NOT require a waiver. Usually, on a different lass, does not require a waiver. There are exceptions for 'a different lass' but never need a Waiver for The Same Lass within a 2 year period. You'll be tracked, as the petitioner, sure - there will be more FBI checks on you and her, sure - but is not a waiver required. Whoever TOLD YOU to file an IMBRA Waiver on subsequent I-129F petition filing, is wrong. I'll bet your salary on it.

So, going forward, if you've NOT engaged Marc Ellis for advice, but truly, solely, you are reading his website and learning stuff about GENERAL info ... I'll further suggest to you that at some point - yer gonna need to learn exactly why SHE was denied (poor prep on your part, scant casefile, recent divorce on your part, etc etc ) before you think to actually file a new K-1.

Personally, I'm a bit p|ssed off with what you've said, I feel strongly that you've not done enough research. I tend to have splat-ting reactions with ppl who have not done enough research. I'll molly-coddle them along for a bit - as I remember my first days as a newbie (but my research skills are different than most. Not superior, just different, no 'gotchas later' because I make sure the results are vetted )

ALSO, IMO, to moan about 100 bucks to Marc Ellis, IMO, is a sure sign you'd not be prepared for other lawyer fees. 3K for a lawyer is normal, 6K if problems - but - 100 bucks for a consult, to not even take his advice? Sorry, I bow out, I smell other problems, both past and future.

After re-reading your posts in the this thread 3 times, I have to conclude that Marc Ellis actually made time to review stuff for her casefile, and said what he said based on his review of her casefile. I hope you can understand the concept of 'dead', and (IMO) it doesn't matter if you understand his position on re-filing or not - because - HE IS, IN FACT, RIGHT. If he declared it DEAD, then it's based on his understanding of that casefile, and to make a summary statement like that, TELLS ME that your casefile was scant. You gave minimal INFO on initial I-129F submittal. Whoever was giving you advice, prior to submittal day, is deemed woe-fully inadequate to the task. IF, indeed, this was SOLELY YOU, with your own opinions, then - I suggest you learn a bit more, shift a bit, and make a different approach when you file a new I-129F. Casefile fodder is important - if you are scant on initial submittal, well, you get the result you've already gotten.

If I seem a bit miffed at your position, it's simply because I AM.

In closing - I will state - I know I've used strong language on you /with you in your thread. It wasn't for shock value - my reaction is based on how appalled I feel, based on what you've written here. I find your approach to be sophmoric, at best. If you don't understand me, if it doesn't make sense - then I suggest you print out my reply to you, study it, away from a a computer screen.

Good Luck to you, whatever you decide to do, however it turns out.

Nota Bene: I am fan of Marc Ellis - everyone that I know of, that has used him, has good results. Your Mileage Will Never Vary, should you, in fact, engage him.

If you read my original post then you know this is not about my case, but about other peoples questions trying to get them answered. You say that what I wrote pissed you off, well sorry, and it is better to be pissed off than to be pissed on. but after reading your post I see that you are trying to force feed information down my throat instead of actually paying attention to what was written. Did you ever mention anything about article 212???? NO you did not. The only think you hinted on was that Marc Ellis said something about my case and to use my advice, and that was it. This is not about my case, so what I was trying to do is get experiances from other people out there that have been denied and If they had the mentioned article 212 in their denial letter, and what they did. I know this is a public forum, and I do not care that you are mad at what I wrote, it is funny to me, most things are these days when people get bent out of shape on things they write that get a reply. If I made you mad, then dont post in a public forum where people can reply. I value what you wrote, but I am clearly pointing out that it is not the information that we are looking for at this current time. The entire reasoning was to find out from people if the exact same thing is on all denial letters. Scott made a few good points about the visa's being expired, but still not what we are looking for, but it was helpful. This reply is a waste of my time as my remarks will surely fall on def ears, so once again I will ask the question and post what we are looking for. BTW get your facts straight on the IMBRA filing act, if you file a K Visa there is a limit even if it is a refile for the same person, that you MUST request a waiver if the NEW petition is being filed within 2 years of the previous petition, this does not mean if you did a rebuttal and it was reaffirmed, but if it is a new K visa, and there is a lifetime limit as well on K visa's. Also I am not saying anything bad about Marc Ellis, so do not think I was or am.

For those that have been denied a K1 visa, or even a Cr1 visa we want to know if this sentence was placed at the bottom of your denial letter, it will be located under the reasons for denial, and it will be near the bottom above where they write in Vietnamese.

If USCIS revokes the petition beneficiary will become ineligible for a visa under section 212 (a)(6)©(i) of the Act.

This is what we want answered because people have been told one thing by an attorney while the same attorney has posted the exact oppisite a while back on an internet page. We want to know if this happens on all denials or just a few. If this is on all the denials then this should tell us that we are not forced to do a rebuttal on a K1 visa, I already know that CR1 does not have a rebuttal process, but K visa's do. SO if your K visa had this and you did not do a rebuttal but then filed for a different visa, or just refiled they would appreciate the response.

[BinhJerome 14]

I think some of us might be confused here -- 221(a) and 221(g) are quite different reasons for denial. Some of the responses here may be referring to 221(g) which is a very broad section as someone has already suggested here.

221(a)..... on the other hand relates to suspected fraud which could have totally different repercussions about doing a rebuttal or not doing it. Do a search under fraud and you might be able to pick up some more information.

Good Luck!

We are not focusing on the reasons for denial. We are wondering about the bottom where it mentions article 212. This is the information we are trying to locate, we want to see if all the K visa denials have this at the bottom or if just a few. This has nothing to do with my case or my advice from Marc Ellis. I have moved on with our life, and I am moving to be with Binh in Vietnam. This is strictly about article 212, I feel that if all the people have the same clause on their denial letter then the information given to me by Marc Ellis would possibly stand for all the people out there. It can take years to get a rebuttal pushed back to HCMC, and people are wanting to move forward, not be forced to wait for a rebuttal to take place. Article 212 basically states that you have to do a rebuttal or your loved one is ineligible for a visa, so they are worried that if they do not do a rebuttal that if they address the red flags and refile a new petition that it will get denied because their loved one is now ineligible for LIFE from getting a visa. I hope that I have made it easier to understand what and why we are looking for information on this. Thanks for all of your replies, they are helping a bit, we just hope to hear from others that have filed and been denied on a K visa for their experiences, not just people that have not gone through what we have giving advice on things they have read, since each case is different, we are trying to find a common thread and start at the beginning, or ending of the denial letter then moving on from there.

Thanks again Jerome

Edited December 25, 2009 by jeromebinh

[lindal24 1]

A Report is an article on his website, speaking in general terms.

Since he told You what he told you, it was pointed, focused, and specific to YOUR case, irrespective of what he wrote on his website. If I missed this - IE - he never told YOU anything, but you've simply read it on his website, well, that's a horse of different colour, so to speak.

I would suggest that there is vast difference between a general article by him, and specific advice by him, focused on your casefile.

I suggest it strongly.

I do hope you understand the difference.

An IMBRA WAIVER is not required within 2 years - it is mentioned , but it is NOT required. 'whoever' is 'saying that' is wrong. A 're-file' for a new K-1 on the same lass, does NOT require a waiver. Usually, on a different lass, does not require a waiver. There are exceptions for 'a different lass' but never need a Waiver for The Same Lass within a 2 year period. You'll be tracked, as the petitioner, sure - there will be more FBI checks on you and her, sure - but is not a waiver required. Whoever TOLD YOU to file an IMBRA Waiver on subsequent I-129F petition filing, is wrong. I'll bet your salary on it.

So, going forward, if you've NOT engaged Marc Ellis for advice, but truly, solely, you are reading his website and learning stuff about GENERAL info ... I'll further suggest to you that at some point - yer gonna need to learn exactly why SHE was denied (poor prep on your part, scant casefile, recent divorce on your part, etc etc ) before you think to actually file a new K-1.

Personally, I'm a bit p|ssed off with what you've said, I feel strongly that you've not done enough research. I tend to have splat-ting reactions with ppl who have not done enough research. I'll molly-coddle them along for a bit - as I remember my first days as a newbie (but my research skills are different than most. Not superior, just different, no 'gotchas later' because I make sure the results are vetted )

ALSO, IMO, to moan about 100 bucks to Marc Ellis, IMO, is a sure sign you'd not be prepared for other lawyer fees. 3K for a lawyer is normal, 6K if problems - but - 100 bucks for a consult, to not even take his advice? Sorry, I bow out, I smell other problems, both past and future.

After re-reading your posts in the this thread 3 times, I have to conclude that Marc Ellis actually made time to review stuff for her casefile, and said what he said based on his review of her casefile. I hope you can understand the concept of 'dead', and (IMO) it doesn't matter if you understand his position on re-filing or not - because - HE IS, IN FACT, RIGHT. If he declared it DEAD, then it's based on his understanding of that casefile, and to make a summary statement like that, TELLS ME that your casefile was scant. You gave minimal INFO on initial I-129F submittal. Whoever was giving you advice, prior to submittal day, is deemed woe-fully inadequate to the task. IF, indeed, this was SOLELY YOU, with your own opinions, then - I suggest you learn a bit more, shift a bit, and make a different approach when you file a new I-129F. Casefile fodder is important - if you are scant on initial submittal, well, you get the result you've already gotten.

If I seem a bit miffed at your position, it's simply because I AM.

In closing - I will state - I know I've used strong language on you /with you in your thread. It wasn't for shock value - my reaction is based on how appalled I feel, based on what you've written here. I find your approach to be sophmoric, at best. If you don't understand me, if it doesn't make sense - then I suggest you print out my reply to you, study it, away from a a computer screen.

Good Luck to you, whatever you decide to do, however it turns out.

Nota Bene: I am fan of Marc Ellis - everyone that I know of, that has used him, has good results. Your Mileage Will Never Vary, should you, in fact, engage him.

Bravo!

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

I have been the returned petition to CSC on the 212 ( " relationship for immigration purposes" ) and hired Mr Ellis. The K1 died, no offer of rebuttal, no NOID, no NOIR just death. The second petition was filled and front loaded, included a statement written by Mr Ellis about how the wavier should not apply to this filing and requested that it not be invoked ( with a lot more legalize ) and they end result was they let petition 1 die and moved petition 2. And the wedding is tomorrow

[BinhJerome 14]

I have been the returned petition to CSC on the 212 ( " relationship for immigration purposes" ) and hired Mr Ellis. The K1 died, no offer of rebuttal, no NOID, no NOIR just death. The second petition was filled and front loaded, included a statement written by Mr Ellis about how the wavier should not apply to this filing and requested that it not be invoked ( with a lot more legalize ) and they end result was they let petition 1 die and moved petition 2. And the wedding is tomorrow

Thanks for that post. that is just as he told me. Congrats on your upcoming wedding. I am sure with your experiences and mine being very similar from Marc Ellis that it will count with most all people in our situation. This should clarify for others that do not know what they need to do and they should be able to stop worrying.

Jerome

[DansJourney 0]

I have been the returned petition to CSC on the 212 ( " relationship for immigration purposes" ) and hired Mr Ellis. The K1 died, no offer of rebuttal, no NOID, no NOIR just death. The second petition was filled and front loaded, included a statement written by Mr Ellis about how the wavier should not apply to this filing and requested that it not be invoked ( with a lot more legalize ) and they end result was they let petition 1 die and moved petition 2. And the wedding is tomorrow

Thanks for the valuable information and more importantly, CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[isitasham 1]

I have been the returned petition to CSC on the 212 ( " relationship for immigration purposes" ) and hired Mr Ellis. The K1 died, no offer of rebuttal, no NOID, no NOIR just death. The second petition was filled and front loaded, included a statement written by Mr Ellis about how the wavier should not apply to this filing and requested that it not be invoked ( with a lot more legalize ) and they end result was they let petition 1 die and moved petition 2. And the wedding is tomorrow

You are a valueable member to this site.............we appreciate it.

Congratulations for the wedding tomorrow!!

Keep us posted.

[BinhJerome 14]

Is anyone that filed for a K1 visa and got denied have their Denail letter with the reasons? Please let us know if you had the mentioned article 212 on your denial

[Ban Hammer 13,110]

personal attack/bait post removed, along with 3 other posts that detract from the conversation with baiting. let's not have any more of that behavior.

Edited December 28, 2009 by charles!

[BinhJerome 14]

personal attack/bait post removed, along with 3 other posts that detract from the conversation with baiting. let's not have any more of that behavior.

At least you got both of the post's removed and not just one side. I apologize to the people trying to get help, but I feel we all have the right to defend ourselves Jerome

Edited December 28, 2009 by jeromebinh

[Ban Hammer 13,110]

At least you got both of the post's removed and not just one side. I apologize to the people trying to get help, but I feel we all have the right to defend ourselves Jerome

if you feel that you are being attacked by a vj member then make use of the report button. from what i've read in this thread, you started the incident. now cease and desist.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

[BinhJerome 14]

if you feel that you are being attacked by a vj member then make use of the report button. from what i've read in this thread, you started the incident. now cease and desist.

Even though you are an admin, if you would read I was posting a topic for information when I was told by one member how I pissed her off, then Linda makes a comment Bravo! to what this other member posted. Hmm, not ignorant, but that seems like she started it. But after that then she wants to post about a miss spelling, hmm once again I do not see your logic. Either way I really do not care because unlike her posting about spelling issues, and Bravo statements, and things of that nature, I try to post things that help other people, at least when I am not in my mind being attacked by people or by admins. Jerome

BTW nice to see you still did not remove the Bravo post that started this entire incident

Edited December 29, 2009 by jeromebinh

[Ban Hammer 13,110]

Even though you are an admin, if you would read I was posting a topic for information when I was told by one member how I pissed her off, then Linda makes a comment Bravo! to what this other member posted. Hmm, not ignorant, but that seems like she started it. But after that then she wants to post about a miss spelling, hmm once again I do not see your logic. Either way I really do not care because unlike her posting about spelling issues, and Bravo statements, and things of that nature, I try to post things that help other people, at least when I am not in my mind being attacked by people or by admins. Jerome

BTW nice to see you still did not remove the Bravo post that started this entire incident

"bravo" is not a tos violation....

now if you want to continue to be argumentative, further action will result.

and fyi:

• Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Forums.

>> First Offense Suspension Length: 1 days to life (if unintentional may be issued a written warning in place of suspension)

>> Subsequent Offense Suspension Length: 3 days to life

>> (People whom violate this clause in retaliation of a violation of the above clause by another member will serve 50% of the above punishment)

large lettering by me to show that no, retaliation is at your own peril.

[BinhJerome 14]

"bravo" is not a tos violation....

now if you want to continue to be argumentative, further action will result.

and fyi:

large lettering by me to show that no, retaliation is at your own peril.

Edited December 29, 2009 by jeromebinh