Guilty until proven innocent...

[Yodrak 7]

Dean iWait,

The USCIS has determined that a person is qualified to apply for a particular type of visa. That is what the consular officer should not reconsider unless significant new information comes to light during the visa application process.

The USCIS has not determined that the person is qualified for a visa - that determination rests with the consular officer.

Yodrak

Remember the USCIS has approved you. The CO is insructed NOT to readjudicate the case. They should simply be confirming what USCIS has already confirmed. Unless they find negative information that was not avaiable to USCIS at the time of approval and you have a genuine relationship you should get the visa.

Uling,

It's difficult to work with an inappropriate analogy.

Yodrak

It's an analogy PEOPLE... I'm well aware that it's not a guilty or innocent process. Work with me... Gssss!!!

[Yodrak 7]

John,

Try the Adjudicator's Field Manual - Chapter 11, section 11.1, paragraph (c ).

Yodrak

Technically, an intending immigrant has the burden of proving eligibility by "a preponderance of the evidence". That's a specific legal term that you can look up, but basically it means that it's up to you to show reasonable evidence that you have overcome each one of the potential grounds of ineligibility. You don't have to remove all reasonable doubt, but you do have to show evidence that would convince the officer that it's more likely you are eligible than not. If there are any facts in your case which would give rise to questions of eligibility, you may be required to submit more evidence that answers those questions and demonstrates you are indeed eligible.

I think, in practice, it usually works out pretty close to the way it's supposed to in theory. You definitely do have the burden of proving eligibility, but you can still leave room for reasonable doubt and gain approval.

Can you direct me to where you found the preponderance information as being the measure for immigration matters? Do you have a cite that I could look at?

I haven't seen it in the FAM

[john_and_marlene 162]

Thanks.

John,

Try the Adjudicator's Field Manual - Chapter 11, section 11.1, paragraph (c ).

Yodrak

Technically, an intending immigrant has the burden of proving eligibility by "a preponderance of the evidence". That's a specific legal term that you can look up, but basically it means that it's up to you to show reasonable evidence that you have overcome each one of the potential grounds of ineligibility. You don't have to remove all reasonable doubt, but you do have to show evidence that would convince the officer that it's more likely you are eligible than not. If there are any facts in your case which would give rise to questions of eligibility, you may be required to submit more evidence that answers those questions and demonstrates you are indeed eligible.

I think, in practice, it usually works out pretty close to the way it's supposed to in theory. You definitely do have the burden of proving eligibility, but you can still leave room for reasonable doubt and gain approval.

Can you direct me to where you found the preponderance information as being the measure for immigration matters? Do you have a cite that I could look at?

I haven't seen it in the FAM

According to the AFM, there are cases where a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence is required beyond the preponderance of evidence. In any event, it will be the CO that decides whether the preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence has been achieved.

[meauxna 15]

Remember the USCIS has approved you. The CO is insructed NOT to readjudicate the case. They should simply be confirming what USCIS has already confirmed. Unless they find negative information that was not avaiable to USCIS at the time of approval and you have a genuine relationship you should get the visa.

I think you might be confused about a couple of things---the USCIS has approved the petition & the CO may not redecide *that* information.

That's not the same as the application for and adjudication of the visa. That *is* up to the CO and a petition can be valid even when a visa can not be issued.

I think vartan put it best! You're ineligible til you prove yourself eligible!

[simple_male 1]

Do you perceive the visa interview process to be guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty?

At times, it feel that way. But it is the nature of the immigration process. They issue the visa when they are convinced that the relationship is genuine and all paperwork are fine.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Yodrak - Loosen up buddy! You don't see me raining on your parade. The whole purpose is to get a flavor for what people think and create dialog. I'm just here to have fun, learn, and exchange ideas. If you want to participate then GREAT, other than that please take your condescension to someone else's thread.

Don't be such a BUZZ KILL.

Goodness gracious!

[Yodrak 7]

Uling,

See the reference that I gave to john_and_marlene. The immigration process is easier to understand, and one is less likely to creat problems for themself, it they approach it from the proper perspective.

You say that you are here to learn and exchange ideas. Then you complain about it....

Yodrak

Yodrak - Loosen up buddy! You don't see me raining on your parade. The whole purpose is to get a flavor for what people think and create dialog. I'm just here to have fun, learn, and exchange ideas. If you want to participate then GREAT, other than that please take your condescension to someone else's thread.

Don't be such a BUZZ KILL.

Goodness gracious!

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Yodrak - You don't get it, but that's fine. It's whatever! See ya around cyberspace!

[john_and_marlene 162]

Count me in. I don't get it either. You may be the only one that gets it. If this topic was meant to be frivoulous and fun it should have been posted in Off Topic. If you want useful information it is being offered and rejected.

[meauxna 15]

Me three, don't get it. You all brought up some excellent links and points of reference for the topic.

Anyone actually interested in learning about the process would do well to start there.

I miss the days when we used to hash and parse. Keeps ya nimble.

[ceriserose 1]

Me three, don't get it. You all brought up some excellent links and points of reference for the topic.

Anyone actually interested in learning about the process would do well to start there.

I miss the days when we used to hash and parse. Keeps ya nimble.

Well now that's a new phrase for me.

C'mon I don't want to learn new things today. Stop that. (Okay I do.)

[Sheriff Uling 3]

john_and_marlene - Why would I post in the off topic forum concerning my analogy of how our cases are viewed at the Embassy level? There can be useful information passed commingled with a bit of fun and parody sparking conversation on any subject matter or thread. The disconnect only existed because I took offense to what "Yodrak" wrote. If he feels like the analogy doesn't make sense, then why post in this thread. He could have easily PM'd whomever he wanted to relay information or simply posted his what he wanted minus the ensuing negative comment. That was my only point and contention. I presume that I'm accustomed to the K1 forum where questions, ideas, comments, opinions or whatever are raised without scrutiny and judgment. Thus far, I have only see trolls scrutinizing folks. I apologize for presuming that the same type of love exited in this forum. For the future, I will only post direct questions in this forum to avoid this type of confusion/dialog.

Uling

p.s - If I have offended anyone then, I apologize.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Uling

[john_and_marlene 162]

john_and_marlene - Why would I post in the off topic forum concerning my analogy of how our cases are viewed at the Embassy level? There can be useful information passed commingled with a bit of fun and parody sparking conversation on any subject matter or thread. The disconnect only existed because I took offense to what "Yodrak" wrote. If he feels like the analogy doesn't make sense, then why post in this thread. He could have easily PM'd whomever he wanted to relay information or simply posted his what he wanted minus the ensuing negative comment. That was my only point and contention. I presume that I'm accustomed to the K1 forum where questions, ideas, comments, opinions or whatever are raised without scrutiny and judgment. Thus far, I have only see trolls scrutinizing folks. I apologize for presuming that the same type of love exited in this forum. For the future, I will only post direct questions in this forum to avoid this type of confusion/dialog.

Uling

p.s - If I have offended anyone then, I apologize.

It looks to me as though many who responded didn't think the analogy made sense and we all responded. Why single one out? If you post a negative topic in a public forum don't condemn those that don't jump on your bandwagon and actually think for themselves. I see no trolls here...just one guy that didn't like the public responses.

Actually, some of the responses here turned a whine thread into some very useful information.

[ceriserose 1]

john_and_marlene - Why would I post in the off topic forum concerning my analogy of how our cases are viewed at the Embassy level? There can be useful information passed commingled with a bit of fun and parody sparking conversation on any subject matter or thread. The disconnect only existed because I took offense to what "Yodrak" wrote. If he feels like the analogy doesn't make sense, then why post in this thread. He could have easily PM'd whomever he wanted to relay information or simply posted his what he wanted minus the ensuing negative comment. That was my only point and contention. I presume that I'm accustomed to the K1 forum where questions, ideas, comments, opinions or whatever are raised without scrutiny and judgment. Thus far, I have only see trolls scrutinizing folks. I apologize for presuming that the same type of love exited in this forum. For the future, I will only post direct questions in this forum to avoid this type of confusion/dialog.

Uling

p.s - If I have offended anyone then, I apologize.

I took no offense. I thought this was a dialogue. I too indicated that I felt the analogy didn't make sense either and you didn't come back to me on it with any sort of clarification of what you wanted to talk about truly, just indicated that I and others like me who were unable to discuss it 'your way' weren't 'working with you'.

Here's how it went (short form):

- you post a question asking for opinions

- people respond that they don't view it like that

- you indicate that we're the problem for not getting your analogy

- people respond that we got what you might have been trying for, but trying to work with what you've presented isn't easy to work with

- you tell one of said people to operate on this board a different way to accommodate you

So here's the thing. People are willing to discuss all sorts of things but if multiple people indicate that how you've presented your topic makes no sense to them, maybe try a different way of phrasing it instead of assuming that everyone else is just not getting it. Sometimes people don't think the exact way you do.

Just an idea.

[Dean iWait 0]

Remember the USCIS has approved you. The CO is insructed NOT to readjudicate the case. They should simply be confirming what USCIS has already confirmed. Unless they find negative information that was not avaiable to USCIS at the time of approval and you have a genuine relationship you should get the visa.

I think you might be confused about a couple of things---the USCIS has approved the petition & the CO may not redecide *that* information.

That's not the same as the application for and adjudication of the visa. That *is* up to the CO and a petition can be valid even when a visa can not be issued.

I think vartan put it best! You're ineligible til you prove yourself eligible!

No actually I'm not confused. Yodrak has a way of putting things much more eloquently than I do. I said the CO is instructed not to readjudicate the case. As in they are not supposed to deny a visa based on information that USCIS already had. I never said they didn't have the final decision on issuing any visa, they of course do. Obviously if the CO finds information the USCIS did not have at the time of NOA2, like lets say prior marriage not terminated etc they certainly would deny it.

So it's actually the opposite! You're eligible until you prove yourself ineligible!