The "sent back to USCIS for review" thread

[Always+Forever 7]

i had my interview at american embassy in cairo at 06-03-2010 about my fiance k1 visa , so i wounder why the cairo counselor refuse my fiancee visa and even after they stamp it , also after he told us we got approved at the interview ?

i just need to know what the reason for that after we call the embassy 4 times and they said its already approved , and we waiting for the dhl to send it to my fiancee home , and after that we got the passport had the visa in it but over the visa there was a stamp say cancled without prejudice , what that suppose to mean ?

and also it had a letter said , that the embassy dont convienced about our relationship , and they send our case back to usa , what that mean ?

also the passport had a pink paper said iv , what that mean ???

what they need else after all they see at the interview and i visit him 4 times and had a real relationship , and we answer all the quiz right at the interview .

what i have to do now

im here in egypt , did i have to embassy again to see whats going on , and why that happened , i dont mind really just wanna do any thing to dont loose my love of my life

if the counselor need to cancel it why he dont tell us in the beginning , why he let us happy for 1 mounth , even i was arrange for our trip back to states together and then stap us in the back ?????

any help will be appreciated

I'm so sorry to hear about that happening to you guys....talk about torture. I haven't heard of that happening, but hopefully someone else will know more. Did they give u a refusal worksheet or anything like that?? What exactly did the paper say?

Malika

[illnevergetthis 5]

Loving your spread sheet!!!!

[KittyPollitt 284]

i had my interview at american embassy in cairo at 06-03-2010 about my fiance k1 visa , so i wounder why the cairo counselor refuse my fiancee visa and even after they stamp it , also after he told us we got approved at the interview ?

i just need to know what the reason for that after we call the embassy 4 times and they said its already approved , and we waiting for the dhl to send it to my fiancee home , and after that we got the passport had the visa in it but over the visa there was a stamp say cancled without prejudice , what that suppose to mean ?

and also it had a letter said , that the embassy dont convienced about our relationship , and they send our case back to usa , what that mean ?

also the passport had a pink paper said iv , what that mean ???

what they need else after all they see at the interview and i visit him 4 times and had a real relationship , and we answer all the quiz right at the interview .

what i have to do now

im here in egypt , did i have to embassy again to see whats going on , and why that happened , i dont mind really just wanna do any thing to dont loose my love of my life

if the counselor need to cancel it why he dont tell us in the beginning , why he let us happy for 1 mounth , even i was arrange for our trip back to states together and then stap us in the back ?????

any help will be appreciated

Perhaps something was said by your fiance that the CO looked into after the fact and found out was not true. Could be something as small as him having told them the wrong dates you went to school, or the wrong name of an old employer.. They're typing during the whole interview, I imagine it's not impossible that they verify the answers against info that they might not readily have during the time of interview..

[Always+Forever 7]

Was just scanning around & came across this site describing the Tran V Napolitano.....i read through the case just now, and this article seems to give an easy to understand view of what it had to say. Hoping this gets through quickly, cuz from the sounds of it...at this point...my K1 has no chance

Consular returns of K1s Lawsuit Atleast if this passes...in the future we will have a chance to rebuttle BEFORE it leaves the embassy....imagine that

Well hope everybody has a great 4th of July...atleast all the fireworks should help us get our minds off of the waiting for a few moments

Malika

[illnevergetthis 5]

Was just scanning around & came across this site describing the Tran V Napolitano.....i read through the case just now, and this article seems to give an easy to understand view of what it had to say. Hoping this gets through quickly, cuz from the sounds of it...at this point...my K1 has no chance

Consular returns of K1s Lawsuit Atleast if this passes...in the future we will have a chance to rebuttle BEFORE it leaves the embassy....imagine that

Well hope everybody has a great 4th of July...atleast all the fireworks should help us get our minds off of the waiting for a few moments

Malika

That was a really interesting article. I would like to see them include the I130 in that as well. I would like to see there be some sort of accountability for the consulates.

[Always+Forever 7]

yeah..i agree...i wonder if there is anything all of us can do if we call got together...hmm imagine all of the K1s & I130s involved in this....its has to be 100s maybe 1000s, and then their families that are also affected.

Malika

[Miss smarty pants 84]

Was just scanning around & came across this site describing the Tran V Napolitano.....i read through the case just now, and this article seems to give an easy to understand view of what it had to say. Hoping this gets through quickly, cuz from the sounds of it...at this point...my K1 has no chance

Consular returns of K1s Lawsuit Atleast if this passes...in the future we will have a chance to rebuttle BEFORE it leaves the embassy....imagine that

Well hope everybody has a great 4th of July...atleast all the fireworks should help us get our minds off of the waiting for a few moments

Malika

Does this mean we all have a bad marker in our file now? I know there have been a lot of successful re-filers.

[Crossed_fingers 128]

Does this mean we all have a bad marker in our file now? I know there have been a lot of successful re-filers.

I don't have any info on this, but I'm curious about your question. It seems to me that the fraud marker would be worse if the beneficiary then tried to come over through a second petitioner....but if it's the same couple, and the fraud marker was simply lack of a bonafide relationship (as opposed to a specific misrepresentation - like using a fake name or omitting material information on a form or something), it seems like withstanding the test of time would be a form of rebuttal. But who knows.

[Always+Forever 7]

Does this mean we all have a bad marker in our file now? I know there have been a lot of successful re-filers.

Ok...from what i understand (i may be wrong) the bad marker only gets put on the case if it is actually denied through USCIS or your ignore any NOIR/NOID u receive. From what i have read...as long as u reply to anything u receive in regards to the case, then you should be fine...like i said....i may be wrong...i'm hoping some ppl who have been through this recently will be able to shed some light on this.

Malika

[Always+Forever 7]

Another interesting link: USCIS Fraud Referral Sheet

Malika

[Always+Forever 7]

One more:

USCIS Results of I-129Fs returned to USCIS

Malika

[Miss smarty pants 84]

One more:

USCIS Results of I-129Fs returned to USCIS

Malika

Did you read this?....

Section 214(d) of the Act states that CIS shall approve the Form I-129F when a petitioner submits

evidence to establish that helshe and the beneficiary have met within the two-year period immediately

the filing of the Form I-129F, have a bonafide intention to marry and are legally able and willing to

marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. In denying the instant petition,

the director appears to have imposed an additional requirement on the petitioner - establishing the

genuineness of her relationship to the beneficiary. However, no such requirement exists for the

approval of a Form I-129F, and the AAO finds the director to have erred in imposing it. While section

214(d) of the Act stipulates that the petitioner must establish that she and the beneficiary have a

bonafide intention to marry, this language is not synonymous with a requirement that the petitioner

establish the closeness of their relationship. The AAO has found nothing in the record to indicate the

petitioner and beneficiary do not intend to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the

United States.

In reaching its decision, the AAO notes the concerns expressed by the consular officer and,

subsequently, the director regarding presenting sufficient evidence of a credible relationship between

the petitioner and the beneficiary. However, as noted above, section 2 14(d) of the Act requires only that

the petitioner establish that the petitioner and the beneficiary have previously met in person within two

See Footnote No. 1

years before the date of filing the petition, have a bona fide intention to marry, and are legally able and

actually willing to conclude a valid marriage in the United States within a period of ninety days after the

alien's arrival. As discussed above, the filing date of the instant petition is September 21,2007, and thus

the petitioner and the beneficiary were required to have met between November 21, 2005 and

November 21,2007. The evidence of record reflects that ths meeting requirement has been met. The

record reflects no previous marriages for either the petitioner or the beneficiary, and contains an

affidavit signed by the petitioner and the beneficiary affirming and declaring their intent to marry within

90 days of the beneficiary's arrival to the United States. Accordingly, the reservations expressed by the

consular officer and the director are not probative for the purposes of these proceedings.

The director's denial of the instant petition is based on the petitioner's failure to establish a bonafide

fiancCe relationshp with the beneficiary. As the director erred in imposing such a requirement on the

petitioner, the AAO finds the petitioner to have overcome the basis for the director's denial of the

instant petition. Accordingly, the AAO will sustain the petitioner's appeal and withdraw the director's

denial of the petition.

The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8

U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The denial is withdrawn. The petition is approved

[a loves a 0]

Perhaps something was said by your fiance that the CO looked into after the fact and found out was not true. Could be something as small as him having told them the wrong dates you went to school, or the wrong name of an old employer.. They're typing during the whole interview, I imagine it's not impossible that they verify the answers against info that they might not readily have during the time of interview..

me or her dont lie on nothing , and maybe they just stuibed to refuse our case for no reason just cuse age gap , why they have to judge people cuse of they age , we love each other , and she will move to egypt to stay with me here , we dont need from thing , will marry like any normal couples , and apply for another pettion i think its called cr1 or whatever , and wait to see if its come ok it its not also we still togther

[Always+Forever 7]

Did you read this?....

Section 214(d) of the Act states that CIS shall approve the Form I-129F when a petitioner submits

evidence to establish that helshe and the beneficiary have met within the two-year period immediately

the filing of the Form I-129F, have a bonafide intention to marry and are legally able and willing to

marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. In denying the instant petition,

the director appears to have imposed an additional requirement on the petitioner - establishing the

genuineness of her relationship to the beneficiary. However, no such requirement exists for the

approval of a Form I-129F, and the AAO finds the director to have erred in imposing it. While section

214(d) of the Act stipulates that the petitioner must establish that she and the beneficiary have a

bonafide intention to marry, this language is not synonymous with a requirement that the petitioner

establish the closeness of their relationship. The AAO has found nothing in the record to indicate the

petitioner and beneficiary do not intend to marry within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the

United States.

In reaching its decision, the AAO notes the concerns expressed by the consular officer and,

subsequently, the director regarding presenting sufficient evidence of a credible relationship between

the petitioner and the beneficiary. However, as noted above, section 2 14(d) of the Act requires only that

the petitioner establish that the petitioner and the beneficiary have previously met in person within two

See Footnote No. 1

years before the date of filing the petition, have a bona fide intention to marry, and are legally able and

actually willing to conclude a valid marriage in the United States within a period of ninety days after the

alien's arrival. As discussed above, the filing date of the instant petition is September 21,2007, and thus

the petitioner and the beneficiary were required to have met between November 21, 2005 and

November 21,2007. The evidence of record reflects that ths meeting requirement has been met. The

record reflects no previous marriages for either the petitioner or the beneficiary, and contains an

affidavit signed by the petitioner and the beneficiary affirming and declaring their intent to marry within

90 days of the beneficiary's arrival to the United States. Accordingly, the reservations expressed by the

consular officer and the director are not probative for the purposes of these proceedings.

The director's denial of the instant petition is based on the petitioner's failure to establish a bonafide

fiancCe relationshp with the beneficiary. As the director erred in imposing such a requirement on the

petitioner, the AAO finds the petitioner to have overcome the basis for the director's denial of the

instant petition. Accordingly, the AAO will sustain the petitioner's appeal and withdraw the director's

denial of the petition.

The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8

U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The denial is withdrawn. The petition is approved

So...like we thought...they denied us with no grounds for it...i think the problem is that it usually takes years to even get to that point of finding out anything

Malika

[Always+Forever 7]

Check this idea out: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/265724-request-to-add-options-on-timelines-for-ap-refusals/

Monica