Very interesting case for k-1 decision

[Miss smarty pants 84]

Thought you guys might find this interesting. I am posting the whole case here. I found it on the USCIS website. (It is not my case):

FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER date:^^ 2 7 2009

PETITION: Petition for Alien FiancC(e) Pursuant to 5 101(a)(15)(K) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(K)

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

SELF-REPRESENTED

INSTRUCTIONS:

This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to

the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.

If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have

considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5 for

the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by

filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30

days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(i).

Feting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

www. uscis.gov

DISCUSSION: The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center,

and is now on appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be sustained.

The director's denial of the approved petition will be withdrawn.

The petitioner is a citizen of the United States who seeks to classify the beneficiary, a native and citizen

of India, as the fianck(e) of a United States citizen pursuant to fj 101(a)(15)(K) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj. 1 101 (a)(15)(K).

The director denied the petition because the petitioner had failed to establish that she has a bona fide

fiancke relationship with the beneficiary.

On appeal, the petitioner explains the circumstances surrounding the beneficiary's visa interview at the

U.S. embassy in New Delhi in relation to the I-129F petition that she filed on his behalf on February 20,

2007.' The same petition was ultimately returned to the director, as it had expired. The petitioner

explains that on September 21,2007, she filed a second I-129F petition on behalf of the beneficiary.

Section 101 (a)(15)(K) of the Act defines "fianck(e)" as:

An alien who is the fiancee or fianck of a citizen of the United States and who seeks to

enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within

ninety days after entry. . . .

Section 214(d) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1184(d), states in pertinent part that a fianck(e) petition:

[slhall be approved only after satisfactory evidence is submitted by the petitioner to

establish that the parties have previously met in person within two 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 . . . .

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 214.2(k)(2), the petitioner may be exempted from this requirement for a meeting

if it is established that compliance would:

(1) result in extreme hardship to the petitioner; or

(2) that compliance would violate strict and long-established customs of the

beneficiary's foreign culture or social practice, as where marriages are

traditionally arranged by the parents of the contracting parties and the

prospective bride and groom are prohibited from meeting subsequent to the

arrangement and prior to the wedding day. h addition to establishing that the

required meeting would be a violation of custom or practice, the petitioner must

also establish that any and all other aspects of the traditional arrangements have

been or will be met in accordance with the custom or practice.

' Petition No. EAC-07-095-5 1962.

Page 3

The regulation does not define what may constitute extreme hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, each

claim of extreme hardship must be judged on a case-by-case basis taking into account the totality of the

petitioner's circumstances. Generally, a director looks at whether the petitioner can demonstrate the

existence of circumstances that are (1) not within the power of the petitioner to control or change, and

(2) likely to last for a considerable duration or the duration cannot be determined with any degree of

certainty.

The petitioner filed the instant Petition for Alien Fiance(e) (Form I-129F) with U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services (USCIS) on September 2 1, 2007. Therefore, the petitioner and the beneficiary

were required to have met between November 21,2005 and November 21,2007.

On December 30,2008, the director denied the petition, finding that the U.S. consular officer concluded

during the beneficiary's July 2, 2007 visa interview for the previous 1-129 petition2 that the petitioner

did not have a bonafide relationship with the beneficiary. The director concluded that the petitioner still

had not demonstrated that she had a bonafide fiancke relationship with the beneficiary.

On appeal, the petitioner provides an account of the visa interview conducted with the beneficiary at the

U.S. embassy in New Delhi, and states that the consulate did not allow sufficient time to view the

requested additional documentation before deciding on August 3, 2007 not to issue the visa. The

petitioner also states that afier filing the instant petition, she contacted the adjudicating office regarding

its status and her not receiving the Request for Evidence (RFE), which was reportedly mailed to her on

July 14, 2008. The petitioner provides the following supporting documentation: correspondence from

the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, India and from USCIS; letters verifying the petitioner's student status;

a money gram receipt; correspondence between the petitioner and the beneficiary; and an affidavit

signed by the petitioner and the beneficiary.

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.

Edited July 6, 2010 by i luv my fiance

[Jewel-8 21]

Thought you guys might find this interesting. I am posting the whole case here. I found it on the USCIS website. (It is not my case):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.

WOOHOO!! I have never understood why so many of the Asian and Middle Eastern consulates have made things so tough on petitioners.

I can say that I did not have as close a relationship at the time of marriage as I would have if my husband were a USC. After about a couple months of being married and living together I finally felt like we had developed a very strong and intimate bond. I don't understand how K-1 interviews in certain countries are so tough when people usually are much more religious and unable to develop as strong a bond as seems to be expected.

Thanks for posting this!

Edited July 6, 2010 by Jewel-8

[Darnell 8,478]

Stupid VSC director .

[RyannTanya 2]

Wow! It was great! How did u find this? Are there any other case studies like this available?

[a loves a 0]

Thought you guys might find this interesting. I am posting the whole case here. I found it on the USCIS website. (It is not my case):

FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER date:^^ 2 7 2009

PETITION: Petition for Alien FiancC(e) Pursuant to 5 101(a)(15)(K) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(K)

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

SELF-REPRESENTED

INSTRUCTIONS:

This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to

the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.

If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have

considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5 for

the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by

filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30

days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(i).

Feting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

www. uscis.gov

DISCUSSION: The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center,

and is now on appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be sustained.

The director's denial of the approved petition will be withdrawn.

The petitioner is a citizen of the United States who seeks to classify the beneficiary, a native and citizen

of India, as the fianck(e) of a United States citizen pursuant to fj 101(a)(15)(K) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj. 1 101 (a)(15)(K).

The director denied the petition because the petitioner had failed to establish that she has a bona fide

fiancke relationship with the beneficiary.

On appeal, the petitioner explains the circumstances surrounding the beneficiary's visa interview at the

U.S. embassy in New Delhi in relation to the I-129F petition that she filed on his behalf on February 20,

2007.' The same petition was ultimately returned to the director, as it had expired. The petitioner

explains that on September 21,2007, she filed a second I-129F petition on behalf of the beneficiary.

Section 101 (a)(15)(K) of the Act defines "fianck(e)" as:

An alien who is the fiancee or fianck of a citizen of the United States and who seeks to

enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within

ninety days after entry. . . .

Section 214(d) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1184(d), states in pertinent part that a fianck(e) petition:

[slhall be approved only after satisfactory evidence is submitted by the petitioner to

establish that the parties have previously met in person within two 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 . . . .

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 214.2(k)(2), the petitioner may be exempted from this requirement for a meeting

if it is established that compliance would:

(1) result in extreme hardship to the petitioner; or

(2) that compliance would violate strict and long-established customs of the

beneficiary's foreign culture or social practice, as where marriages are

traditionally arranged by the parents of the contracting parties and the

prospective bride and groom are prohibited from meeting subsequent to the

arrangement and prior to the wedding day. h addition to establishing that the

required meeting would be a violation of custom or practice, the petitioner must

also establish that any and all other aspects of the traditional arrangements have

been or will be met in accordance with the custom or practice.

' Petition No. EAC-07-095-5 1962.

Page 3

The regulation does not define what may constitute extreme hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, each

claim of extreme hardship must be judged on a case-by-case basis taking into account the totality of the

petitioner's circumstances. Generally, a director looks at whether the petitioner can demonstrate the

existence of circumstances that are (1) not within the power of the petitioner to control or change, and

(2) likely to last for a considerable duration or the duration cannot be determined with any degree of

certainty.

The petitioner filed the instant Petition for Alien Fiance(e) (Form I-129F) with U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services (USCIS) on September 2 1, 2007. Therefore, the petitioner and the beneficiary

were required to have met between November 21,2005 and November 21,2007.

On December 30,2008, the director denied the petition, finding that the U.S. consular officer concluded

during the beneficiary's July 2, 2007 visa interview for the previous 1-129 petition2 that the petitioner

did not have a bonafide relationship with the beneficiary. The director concluded that the petitioner still

had not demonstrated that she had a bonafide fiancke relationship with the beneficiary.

On appeal, the petitioner provides an account of the visa interview conducted with the beneficiary at the

U.S. embassy in New Delhi, and states that the consulate did not allow sufficient time to view the

requested additional documentation before deciding on August 3, 2007 not to issue the visa. The

petitioner also states that afier filing the instant petition, she contacted the adjudicating office regarding

its status and her not receiving the Request for Evidence (RFE), which was reportedly mailed to her on

July 14, 2008. The petitioner provides the following supporting documentation: correspondence from

the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, India and from USCIS; letters verifying the petitioner's student status;

a money gram receipt; correspondence between the petitioner and the beneficiary; and an affidavit

signed by the petitioner and the beneficiary.

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.

hey im at the same sutation my case go back to usa so what i can do to make appeal ????

what the procces did i have to go throw ???

when they can ask me to appeal ???

did i have to pay for that appeal ??? how much ?