Interview tomorrow

[ScottThuy 140]

they can do whatever they want and nobody.. not even a congressman can say a damn thing to 'make' them do anything... best advise when dealing with them is much like dealing with the VN govt.. dont make waves... if you decide to screw with them or call them on something, dont be surprised if the paperwork gets lost for an extended period of time... plenty of other VJ members have been trampled and there wasnt anything they could do... Ask Jerome what he thinks regarding the arrogance of a CO...

[Dan Nguyen 3]

they can do whatever they want and nobody.. not even a congressman can say a damn thing to 'make' them do anything... best advise when dealing with them is much like dealing with the VN govt.. dont make waves... if you decide to screw with them or call them on something, dont be surprised if the paperwork gets lost for an extended period of time... plenty of other VJ members have been trampled and there wasnt anything they could do... Ask Jerome what he thinks regarding the arrogance of a CO...

Sure you can. You can sue the State Dept. for the actions of the c/o. Even now there's a class action lawsuit against them because of these c/o. Maybe you've heard about it. State Dept. has a very short leash of these c/o but they will still do whatever they want as long as they think they can get away with it.

The I-864A wasn't the only thing they wanted from us. They also wanted copy of my mother's passport. My wife asked "why you need that, she's not listed as a joint sponsor." They smiled and said "ok, forget it." Too bad she doesn't know about the I-864. Has she known and argue the point, she might've receive pink that day.

[ScottThuy 140]

Sure you can. You can sue the State Dept. for the actions of the c/o. Even now there's a class action lawsuit against them because of these c/o. Maybe you've heard about it. State Dept. has a very short leash of these c/o but they will still do whatever they want as long as they think they can get away with it.

The I-864A wasn't the only thing they wanted from us. They also wanted copy of my mother's passport. My wife asked "why you need that, she's not listed as a joint sponsor." They smiled and said "ok, forget it." Too bad she doesn't know about the I-864. Has she known and argue the point, she might've receive pink that day.

That suit will take years to be heard and still will not cause anyone to take specific actions to issue a visa.. it is litigating policy not visa issuance/denial... you can file a Writ of Mandamus too but given that it also takes several years to get results its just not worth it when there are ways to go with the flow and get the desired results...

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Sure you can. You can sue the State Dept. for the actions of the c/o. Even now there's a class action lawsuit against them because of these c/o. Maybe you've heard about it. State Dept. has a very short leash of these c/o but they will still do whatever they want as long as they think they can get away with it.

If you're talking about Tran v. Napolitano, forget it. The Oregon district court dismissed it on March 29th. I haven't heard if they plan to appeal to a higher court.

The I-864A wasn't the only thing they wanted from us. They also wanted copy of my mother's passport. My wife asked "why you need that, she's not listed as a joint sponsor." They smiled and said "ok, forget it." Too bad she doesn't know about the I-864. Has she known and argue the point, she might've receive pink that day.

That sort of reenforces my notion that they might just be jerking you around a little. Yes, they actually can do practically anything they want. In fact, one of the reasons that the Tran case was dismissed was because a consular officer's decisions are not subject to review or appeal. The thing that puts a stop to their seemingly endless power is that they cannot revoke the approval of the petition. Only USCIS can do that. If they were to just start denying all sorts of visas for no valid reason then they'd have to deal with the fact that USCIS is going to reaffirm those petitions, and they'll just end up having to deal with the same petitioner and beneficiary several months later. This gives them some incentive to try not to deny unless they believe they have a reason that will wash with USCIS. It wouldn't look good on a CO's performance report if the majority of cases they send back to USCIS end up getting reaffirmed.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Well, I wouldn't exactly word it like that. Having the discretion to do it is not a reason. Immigration laws clearly states we are allow to have joint sponsors. They cannot refuse just because they don't like. That doesn't sit well with me. Just because they have the power to issue visas, doesn't mean they can trample all over us.

Very naive. I have for years been here and have seen them do about everything. I suggest to go right in there and tell them what you think. In fact be sure to say that you are a tax payer and pay their wage. I have found it best to pound your fist on the counter to emphasize the outrage.

Or you can try to play the game by the rules and get what you really want. They are given this power and they will use this power as they see fit. Right now you have a for sure pink but they need one more thing from you. It is up to you if you want to make this easy or hard.

[quann 26]

here's an english saying to balance out all the viet: "discretion is the better part of valour"

[Dan Nguyen 3]

here's an english saying to balance out all the viet: "discretion is the better part of valour"

There's another saying. "No one is above the law."

I'll see soon enough if what all you're saying is true.

[ScottThuy 140]

There's another saying. "No one is above the law."

I'll see soon enough if what all you're saying is true.

Law and policy are far from the same thing... they can deny for no reason and no law is being broken...

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

There's another saying. "No one is above the law."

I'll see soon enough if what all you're saying is true.

The game has gone into extra innings, and you've got a runner on third base. You're one bunt away from winning this game. Don't lose your cool now.

[confusedasheck 21]

There's another saying. "No one is above the law."

I'll see soon enough if what all you're saying is true.

Maybe you should read JeromeBinh's posts about how a CO deliberately lied about his case. He hired a lawyer and the lawyer proved the CO lied. What happened? A 6-month suspension for the CO from reviewing visa requests and then the CO was returned to duty.

I also found this article, you might want to read it.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=donald_dobkin&sei-redir=1

"Roughly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Knauff v.

Shaughnessy4 established the general doctrine that a consular officers decision to grant

or deny a visa petition is not subject to judicial review. The Knauff Court explicitly stated

that [w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an

alien denied entry is concerned."

Edited June 13, 2011 by confusedasheck

[Dan Nguyen 3]

Law and policy are far from the same thing... they can deny for no reason and no law is being broken...

What pisses me off is that TR&HT has just been approved without any problems and we were interview 2 days before them. And we have a daughter with CRBA. I don't think it's the case of them being #######. If that's the case, wouldn't they be ####### to everyone?

Speculations is that they're flexing their authority by asking for an I-684A just to be #######, but maybe there is a legitimate reason we don't know about.

All I'm saying is, I'm going to ask them politely why they asked for the I-864A. I'm not going to call them ####### or pound my fist. That's ridiculous.

[Dan Nguyen 3]

"Roughly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Knauff v.

Shaughnessy4 established the general doctrine that a consular officer’s decision to grant

or deny a visa petition is not subject to judicial review. The Knauff Court explicitly stated

that “[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an

alien denied entry is concerned.”"

Yes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

One has to wonder what their real intentions are when Congress gave them this power.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

What pisses me off is that TR&HT has just been approved without any problems and we were interview 2 days before them. And we have a daughter with CRBA. I don't think it's the case of them being #######. If that's the case, wouldn't they be ####### to everyone?

Speculations is that they're flexing their authority by asking for an I-684A just to be #######, but maybe there is a legitimate reason we don't know about.

All I'm saying is, I'm going to ask them politely why they asked for the I-864A. I'm not going to call them ####### or pound my fist. That's ridiculous.

Unless your circumstances are exactly the same as someone elses, and you get the same consular officer, it's difficult to compare where they draw the discretionary line.

If I were in your shoes (and I'm not) then I would postpone asking until they handed me the passport containing the visa.

[confusedasheck 21]

Unless your circumstances are exactly the same as someone elses, and you get the same consular officer, it's difficult to compare where they draw the discretionary line.

If I were in your shoes (and I'm not) then I would postpone asking until they handed me the passport containing the visa.

Can't they still revoke the visa, even after it's been handed to you if they find additional information that justifies revoking it?

[ScottThuy 140]

they have issued pink before and called the beneficiary telling them dont bother coming to pick it up.. they changed their mind case returned to USCIS