Another Countdown Thread!!!!!!

[Bosco 1]

Very true, we are reaffirming the petition. The difference here is that we as the USC is responsible to providee the evidence that our fiance/spouse was not allowed, or did not provide. So again, we are the responsible party to prove our fiance/husbands intentions are good, and yes, in some cases, that ours are as well.

So now it is reaffirmed. Are we done? No. It has to again go back to the consulate. The consulate is left with 3 choices. Do they still have doubts as to the validity of the relationship? If yes then they again need to find yet another reason to send it back to the CIS. The second would be an out and out denial of the visa. I haven't seen that often, and correct me if I am wrong, but don't they have to give a reason for the denial? The 3rd choice is to issue the visa...which we all want to hear.

Of course we are not all going to agree on all issues, and that is okay with me. But one thing I do think we agree on is that a denial is painful, no matter what the reason.

I just wish someone could reach out and make this nightmare disappear for Private.

The USC is also able to provide new evidence, evidence they neglected or felt was irrelevent, or address points the non-USC addressed but perhaps ineffectively.

Unfortunately, unless there is an admission on the part of the non-USC or other concrete evidence that the case is fraud, it all is speculation. This naturally will feel like discrimination to both the USC and non-USC. No one wants their future put in the hands of someone who will spent just a few minutes or at most an hour or so making a determination. I was very nervous at our AOS interview (more so than his consulate level interview) because here my husband is, living with me, and this guy who doesn't know me or my husband can make a determination based on things like how many bills we share in both our names or how many photos we have of us together or who came to our wedding. I think your way of addressing the age difference was best - admitting it is uncommon and why it didn't matter to you as a couple, rather than becoming indignant or acting as if it is the norm.

I don't think the conoffs are doing their job very well - as evidenced by the fraudelent cases that have gotten through. I cannot attest to the cases that were denied - that is something really only the two parties involved know. However, I have seen the passion the people with returned petitions have expressed, which at very least shows the sincerity of the person expressing it. I think they obviously make mistakes both in their approvals and denials, but it is also likely they occasionally get it right. We can only know when they were wrong when we see it was fraud after the visa was approved but cannot tell if their foresight was ever correct.

Unfortunately Private's nightmare isn't going to end soon, but I think she will be well prepared to remedy the situation and she seems strong.

As far as announcing that there have been no discrimination to anyone here is a pretty bold statement. Unless you have some magically way to read the minds of these CO's, well then you would have a solid case.

I will clarify again. No discrimination against the USC. It may feel like that, but no action has been taken against the USC at the consulate level. This part involves them emotionally, but it is not their visa application. It is their fiance/spouse's application. In other words, the USC has no recourse in terms of discrimination laws or the such because this is an issue between the non-USC and the consulate.

I beg to differ, they do have a recourse. There must be some laws if we can actually sue the USCIS for a returned petition.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1388.html

5. Unlike consular determinations regarding visa eligibility,

which are not subject to judicial review, actions relating to

DHS petitions are potentially subject to administrative and/or

judicial review. The Department is regularly named as a co-

defendant with DHS in cases involving the return of immigrant or

nonimmigrant petitions to DHS. Therefore, it is particularly

important that consular petition adjudications are well

documented and clearly state the basis for the petition return.

Read that again. It specifically says "unlike consular determinations regarding visa eligibility which are not subject to judicial review".

This means the DHS is held accountable for what they do. The DHS actions affect the USC. They need the consulate to be precise because in a lawsuit, the DHS would justify their actions based on the documentation they received from the consulate. This is not between the consulate and the USC, but between the DHS and the USC.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Bosco

[sarah and hicham 3]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=37443&hl=

I don't know if you guys have seen this thread but Private stated that they did the K-1 visa in order to get to know eachother more.

[morocco4ever 63]

Very true, we are reaffirming the petition. The difference here is that we as the USC is responsible to providee the evidence that our fiance/spouse was not allowed, or did not provide. So again, we are the responsible party to prove our fiance/husbands intentions are good, and yes, in some cases, that ours are as well.

So now it is reaffirmed. Are we done? No. It has to again go back to the consulate. The consulate is left with 3 choices. Do they still have doubts as to the validity of the relationship? If yes then they again need to find yet another reason to send it back to the CIS. The second would be an out and out denial of the visa. I haven't seen that often, and correct me if I am wrong, but don't they have to give a reason for the denial? The 3rd choice is to issue the visa...which we all want to hear.

Of course we are not all going to agree on all issues, and that is okay with me. But one thing I do think we agree on is that a denial is painful, no matter what the reason.

I just wish someone could reach out and make this nightmare disappear for Private.

The USC is also able to provide new evidence, evidence they neglected or felt was irrelevent, or address points the non-USC addressed but perhaps ineffectively.

Unfortunately, unless there is an admission on the part of the non-USC or other concrete evidence that the case is fraud, it all is speculation. This naturally will feel like discrimination to both the USC and non-USC. No one wants their future put in the hands of someone who will spent just a few minutes or at most an hour or so making a determination. I was very nervous at our AOS interview (more so than his consulate level interview) because here my husband is, living with me, and this guy who doesn't know me or my husband can make a determination based on things like how many bills we share in both our names or how many photos we have of us together or who came to our wedding. I think your way of addressing the age difference was best - admitting it is uncommon and why it didn't matter to you as a couple, rather than becoming indignant or acting as if it is the norm.

I don't think the conoffs are doing their job very well - as evidenced by the fraudelent cases that have gotten through. I cannot attest to the cases that were denied - that is something really only the two parties involved know. However, I have seen the passion the people with returned petitions have expressed, which at very least shows the sincerity of the person expressing it. I think they obviously make mistakes both in their approvals and denials, but it is also likely they occasionally get it right. We can only know when they were wrong when we see it was fraud after the visa was approved but cannot tell if their foresight was ever correct.

Unfortunately Private's nightmare isn't going to end soon, but I think she will be well prepared to remedy the situation and she seems strong.

Hey look...still agreeing! lol Okay, not about speculation. If you read in my earlier post, I gave the link for the guidelines for returned petitions. In there it states clearly that the conoff need to have "concrete" evidence when returning the petitions. I am not sure if it is this link or another one, but it specifies that they are not allowed to speculate.

One thing I had pointed out several times is that the returning of petitions, in my opinion, is simply a way for the consulate to weed out the valid marriages. If the USC was being paid for the immigration they would surely back off rather than risk the hefty penalty of fraud. Now how do you know if the applicant is sincere? Well I know one thing, this past year has been hell for us, and if my husband was only in this for the visa he would be long gone by now, finding another woman in another country. In fact, he would probably already be in the other country!!!

Very true, we are reaffirming the petition. The difference here is that we as the USC is responsible to providee the evidence that our fiance/spouse was not allowed, or did not provide. So again, we are the responsible party to prove our fiance/husbands intentions are good, and yes, in some cases, that ours are as well.

So now it is reaffirmed. Are we done? No. It has to again go back to the consulate. The consulate is left with 3 choices. Do they still have doubts as to the validity of the relationship? If yes then they again need to find yet another reason to send it back to the CIS. The second would be an out and out denial of the visa. I haven't seen that often, and correct me if I am wrong, but don't they have to give a reason for the denial? The 3rd choice is to issue the visa...which we all want to hear.

Of course we are not all going to agree on all issues, and that is okay with me. But one thing I do think we agree on is that a denial is painful, no matter what the reason.

I just wish someone could reach out and make this nightmare disappear for Private.

The USC is also able to provide new evidence, evidence they neglected or felt was irrelevent, or address points the non-USC addressed but perhaps ineffectively.

Unfortunately, unless there is an admission on the part of the non-USC or other concrete evidence that the case is fraud, it all is speculation. This naturally will feel like discrimination to both the USC and non-USC. No one wants their future put in the hands of someone who will spent just a few minutes or at most an hour or so making a determination. I was very nervous at our AOS interview (more so than his consulate level interview) because here my husband is, living with me, and this guy who doesn't know me or my husband can make a determination based on things like how many bills we share in both our names or how many photos we have of us together or who came to our wedding. I think your way of addressing the age difference was best - admitting it is uncommon and why it didn't matter to you as a couple, rather than becoming indignant or acting as if it is the norm.

I don't think the conoffs are doing their job very well - as evidenced by the fraudelent cases that have gotten through. I cannot attest to the cases that were denied - that is something really only the two parties involved know. However, I have seen the passion the people with returned petitions have expressed, which at very least shows the sincerity of the person expressing it. I think they obviously make mistakes both in their approvals and denials, but it is also likely they occasionally get it right. We can only know when they were wrong when we see it was fraud after the visa was approved but cannot tell if their foresight was ever correct.

Unfortunately Private's nightmare isn't going to end soon, but I think she will be well prepared to remedy the situation and she seems strong.

As far as announcing that there have been no discrimination to anyone here is a pretty bold statement. Unless you have some magically way to read the minds of these CO's, well then you would have a solid case.

I will clarify again. No discrimination against the USC. It may feel like that, but no action has been taken against the USC at the consulate level. This part involves them emotionally, but it is not their visa application. It is their fiance/spouse's application. In other words, the USC has no recourse in terms of discrimination laws or the such because this is an issue between the non-USC and the consulate.

I beg to differ, they do have a recourse. There must be some laws if we can actually sue the USCIS for a returned petition.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1388.html

5. Unlike consular determinations regarding visa eligibility,

which are not subject to judicial review, actions relating to

DHS petitions are potentially subject to administrative and/or

judicial review. The Department is regularly named as a co-

defendant with DHS in cases involving the return of immigrant or

nonimmigrant petitions to DHS. Therefore, it is particularly

important that consular petition adjudications are well

documented and clearly state the basis for the petition return.

Read that again. It specifically says "unlike consular determinations regarding visa eligibility which are not subject to judicial review".

This means the DHS is held accountable for what they do. The DHS actions affect the USC. They need the consulate to be precise because in a lawsuit, the DHS would justify their actions based on the documentation they received from the consulate. This is not between the consulate and the USC, but between the DHS and the USC.

Yes, that is why I said that the USC can sue the USCIS (not the DOS). Although we have 2 different agencies here they are combined in a manner. The consulate sends it back to be revoked. The USCIS can't revoke it without concrete evidence, they send it back to the consulate. They might not be directly affected, but rather indirectly. They still have to complete the visa process to conclusion, and if they still can't find something concrete they have to issue the visa. Hence, the USC has recourse.

I hope no one is taking this as any sort of mud slinging here. I honestly view this as a debate, and I do enjoy a good debate. No ill feelings here for anyone, we are all entitled to our opinion.

[Bosco 1]

Hey look...still agreeing! lol Okay, not about speculation. If you read in my earlier post, I gave the link for the guidelines for returned petitions. In there it states clearly that the conoff need to have "concrete" evidence when returning the petitions. I am not sure if it is this link or another one, but it specifies that they are not allowed to speculate.

One thing I had pointed out several times is that the returning of petitions, in my opinion, is simply a way for the consulate to weed out the valid marriages. If the USC was being paid for the immigration they would surely back off rather than risk the hefty penalty of fraud. Now how do you know if the applicant is sincere? Well I know one thing, this past year has been hell for us, and if my husband was only in this for the visa he would be long gone by now, finding another woman in another country. In fact, he would probably already be in the other country!!!

Of course their *should* be something concrete, but concrete can be subjective and guidelines are not laws. Not justfying what the conoffs do, but how often would something concrete ever exist? (at least not concrete as most of us would define it).

I think the weeding out would hold true for cases where someone was paid, but not in cases were the man's concern is a green card. He now realizes this is his only chance because if he is to try again with a new woman, he certainly will be denied. If he is set on a green card, he will ride out this last chance.

Yes, that is why I said that the USC can sue the USCIS (not the DOS). Although we have 2 different agencies here they are combined in a manner. The consulate sends it back to be revoked. The USCIS can't revoke it without concrete evidence, they send it back to the consulate. They might not be directly affected, but rather indirectly. They still have to complete the visa process to conclusion, and if they still can't find something concrete they have to issue the visa. Hence, the USC has recourse.

I hope no one is taking this as any sort of mud slinging here. I honestly view this as a debate, and I do enjoy a good debate. No ill feelings here for anyone, we are all entitled to our opinion.

I don't consider it mud slinging either.

I never said the USC has *no* recourse, but no recourse between what has happened between the non-USC and the consulate. The actions of the consulate can impact the action other agencies take - but the consulate itself is not accountable to the USC.

[moroccogirlny 100]

Can you end this thread already, just give private her peace! She has been through enough!

[jordanianprincess 0]

Can you end this thread already, just give private her peace! She has been through enough!

Do you realize how much useful information is coming out of this debate? I'm sure everyone is learning alot. These threads are not the property of any one person. I don't understand why you or anyone would come in here trying to stop a discussion which is intended to help the OP. No one is saying anything bad about anyone. Thanks for patrolling the boards, here is your badge:

[sarah and hicham 3]

I don't get why people who haven't even been a part of this conversation feel that it is helping by coming in here and telling everyone to stop. Why? If Private doesn't want to read this she doesn't have to. Everyone is trying to help her and others with interviews at Casa.

What's the big deal?

[mybackpages 0]

Do you realize how much useful information is coming out of this debate? I'm sure everyone is learning alot.

[morocco4ever 63]

Hey look...still agreeing! lol Okay, not about speculation. If you read in my earlier post, I gave the link for the guidelines for returned petitions. In there it states clearly that the conoff need to have "concrete" evidence when returning the petitions. I am not sure if it is this link or another one, but it specifies that they are not allowed to speculate.

One thing I had pointed out several times is that the returning of petitions, in my opinion, is simply a way for the consulate to weed out the valid marriages. If the USC was being paid for the immigration they would surely back off rather than risk the hefty penalty of fraud. Now how do you know if the applicant is sincere? Well I know one thing, this past year has been hell for us, and if my husband was only in this for the visa he would be long gone by now, finding another woman in another country. In fact, he would probably already be in the other country!!!

Of course their *should* be something concrete, but concrete can be subjective and guidelines are not laws. Not justfying what the conoffs do, but how often would something concrete ever exist? (at least not concrete as most of us would define it).

I think the weeding out would hold true for cases where someone was paid, but not in cases were the man's concern is a green card. He now realizes this is his only chance because if he is to try again with a new woman, he certainly will be denied. If he is set on a green card, he will ride out this last chance.

Yes, that is why I said that the USC can sue the USCIS (not the DOS). Although we have 2 different agencies here they are combined in a manner. The consulate sends it back to be revoked. The USCIS can't revoke it without concrete evidence, they send it back to the consulate. They might not be directly affected, but rather indirectly. They still have to complete the visa process to conclusion, and if they still can't find something concrete they have to issue the visa. Hence, the USC has recourse.

I hope no one is taking this as any sort of mud slinging here. I honestly view this as a debate, and I do enjoy a good debate. No ill feelings here for anyone, we are all entitled to our opinion.

I don't consider it mud slinging either.

I never said the USC has *no* recourse, but no recourse between what has happened between the non-USC and the consulate. The actions of the consulate can impact the action other agencies take - but the consulate itself is not accountable to the USC.

Whew, a lot to go through here. When I said that the applicant would be on to another woman I specified from a different country. There chances to come here are pretty much screwed at that point. The US isn't the only country that people are fighting to go too, and once they hear it will be another 1 1/2 years, whats the point for sticking around.

Your right, the consulate is not accountable, but in the end they have to do something with it. We both know they can not revoke the petition, that isn't their territory. So if that fails then they have to deny the visa. Now is the area I don't know much about, and I haven't seen it often, but don't they have to give a reason for the denial? Say they get the 212, don't they specify why?

[snz1802 0]

deleted

Edited October 18, 2006 by snz1802

[morocco4ever 63]

Can you end this thread already, just give private her peace! She has been through enough!

I am sorry you feel we aren't giving Private her peace, that is not my intentions at all.

When our petition was returned I searched desperately for any discussion that was about returned petitions. I wanted to learn, and I wanted to learn it all. Unfortunately there was no such discussions here...I was lost. That was over a year ago, and now you see it discussed left and right. Hopefully all will handle it with facts, support, understanding and kindness.

Actually I have been in contact with Private through PM's, and she is going through what we have all gone through in the past. In fact, my suggestion was that she stayed away from Visa Journey until she collects her thoughts. We have hooked her up with a group that can best help her through this entire process, so she will be well taken care of.

[Bosco 1]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=37443&hl=

I don't know if you guys have seen this thread but Private stated that they did the K-1 visa in order to get to know eachother more.

If the USC can say something like this without realizing its implications, I think it illustrates how easy it would be for a non-USC possibly interviewing in a non-native language to slip up. Not saying that happened here or in any of the VJ cases, only that it is possible for someone to damage themself without being aware.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Bosco

[Private 1]

Private, I do wonder about you being black being an issue. I know of another black woman that was also denied, but for the life of me I don't remember her red flags. Of course returning it based on that would be discrimination, they would do it, but they wouldn't admit to it. What they do is look for a something substanial to use. Like in your case, you didn't know each other very long, that is what they used for yours. We all know that many people are married quickly after first meeting...its a personal decision, the difference is that they are not applying for a visa.

JP is right though, not being close to his family is a red flag. There are so many little ones that they look for. I don't know the exact reason for the return, but I do believe that their minds are made up before the interview.

M4, I don't see how being black is an issue in AFRICA. Besides that, she is not on trial her, her man was. It would be more important to figure out what they said to him in the interview.

The red flag I brought up wasn't about her not being close to the family, it was the fact that she is very close with his cousin and works with him in a mosque. That can be seen as an arrangmemt for him to be brought here.

Just because it is in Africa doesn't mean that Moroccans are accepting of blacks. I saw very few black people while I was there. And, not to offend anyone here, but I have known many Arabs that state that they would not marry a black woman. Please keep in mind, this is what I have been told, and I would never believe that all Arabs feel this way, nor do I condone that kind of racism. Soooo...I am not saying it is because she is black, but rather are Moroccans accepting of a black/Arab relationship. So yes, it does come down to him, not her.

As for the red flags, sorry skimmed through that and didn't catch your intent. I agree, they could view it as an arrangement. I also believe that if she is not close to his family then this is also a red flag.

Private has a rough situation here...this is devastating. Although some of what is said here might come across harshly, and I doubt that anyone really intended it to hurt you, it is important you think objectively about everyones ideas for red flags. You just don't know for sure, and they rarely reveal everything that factors in to their decision. Some could be way off, some could be right on the money...just don't discharge anything because it isn't fair.

One more note...I would not want to have the responsibilities that a CO has. Lets face it, they have a huge responsibility. All we want is a chance to prove our case at the consulate level, and to look it over objectively, not with the intent to send it back regardless of the evidence. Isn't that what we all would want? I think these CO's are feeling overwhelmed, and the quick fix is to send it back.

They may not all be accepting of black people, but it does happen. It is also more common in Morocco then any other country. You cant compare Morocco with Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon (other ME countries). However again, I don't think this has anything to do with it at all. They are not going to approve all black people bcz they are black and they will not deny them all bcz they are black. That has nothing to do with it. As Rebecca said, you would have to see the data on it before making an assumption like that.

You are right, they man not all be accepting of black people, but it does happen. I am in no way disputing that. I don't know for sure if a black/arab relationship is more accepted in Morocco than in other ME countries. How do you know this? What I am suggesting is not whether it is right or wrong, not whether Morocco is more or less accepting of these relationships than other surrounding countries, but could this have been a factor in their decision. I wouldn't rule anything out, I would think you would look at it objectively, not with the "nahhh...they wouldn't do that" attitude.

So again, no assumptions here, just rolling off possible ideas of what happened so that when the time comes all avenues are covered. I think maybe you are still stuck on the idea that I am suggesting that they could have denied it because she is black, discriminating against her. Not at all what I am saying. More what I am saying is are they saying to themselves "what is his motive to marry a black woman"......couldn't it be possible that this is what they are thinking? Just don't rule anything out, just think like a CO.

I most definitly rule it out because there are other reasons that have been shown that would possibly lead to the denial. I don't think it has anything to do with skin color. Lots of Moroccans have dark skin and i don't think that is a factor at all, you are less likely to see a black Jordanian or Lebanese man. In any case, I think by trying to pass this off as discriminiation will only hurt Private and not help her in anyway. It most definitly was not documented that way and it would be impossible to prove.

I would focus my efforts on the red flags that we have already identified (there are red flags) and prepare a statement regarding those. I would interrogate the hell out of her man to find out exactly what happened. I would also retain an attorney to find out what I should do next.

I think you are misunderstanding M4, I am ruling out things because it would be a waste of time to focus on them. If they did infact deny her because she is black there would be no way to prove that. The other thing everyone here seems to overlook is they are not focusing on her, they are focusing on him. He has to prove why he deserves the visa. If infact he has no relationship with her family or even her son, and she also has none with his, that is a red flag. If there is a large age difference, red flag. If she was previously married, red flag. Short courtship followed by marriage, red flag. Working with one of his family members, red flag. They are everywhere and each one now needs to be addressed accordingly.

I don't think Military members get special privilages with the CO either. It comes down to proof and they want more.

I do have a relationship with his family, I chat with his sisters and brothers all the time maybe more than with him and he talks to my son. He emails him and my son chats with him. My fiance called my mother and asked her about marriage and they talked for a while. So this is a wrong assumption, I am not very close ot the family here becuase they do not go to the mosque but I know all of their children well. My friend introduced me to his sisters and I go over there sometimes, but we are not close. I am I got examized because of the marriage thing. But as far as us meeting. My friend is a close friend and he always talked about his cousin and Morocco and I told him that I wanted to get married and he would always say before this that my cousin thinks like you, my cousin acts like you, my cousin this like you, becuase I would never agree with him on some things ecspecailly about men and women in Islam. We had a debate he told his cousin and then I asked to speak with him we all where hanging out and talking and this is how it started. I am getting very tried of your assumptions and frankly this trend is getting on my nevres. I now see what people say. We had meet and in a month we got engaged, this to me is normal. I see nothing wrong with it, we sent evidence nobody looked at it I sent emails she gave them back after realizing she could not read it. I asked my fiance and he said she got red in the face when he told her that I was studying Arabic and I will send transcripts to as eveidence because to me this is ridiculous, the last Afriacan-American girl got the same responds with her fiance and I just do not understand I personally feel this way and inshallah Allah will fix this. I do not know how or when or what he wants me to do but I will get the feeling. This is the worse thing that could have happened because my son cried hard too. And I did not know what to do. And I am finding out that the appeals process is expensive.

[Private 1]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=37443&hl=

I don't know if you guys have seen this thread but Private stated that they did the K-1 visa in order to get to know eachother more.

What is the K-1 for you to get married you have 3 months to get married, you will reall y know a person in person. Not over the chat. Anyway, It is funny how you pick out little small things and make it seem like something is wrong with it. I can not possible know anythign about him until I really get to know him. I have learned alot about him and yes it could be considered fast, so now we will fight this, and at the same time I will prepare to leave if I can serve this country and somebody in the governement thinks that I am lying and they are pushing me around I am sick of this and this just shows a lot of unlying issues with this country to me. (Not related to your post Sarah.) However, I will just try again and build up more get a few letters, I am going back soon because I really need to see him and we where planning anyway, refresh myself and get ready for a fight, I will do the photo thing, and I willget hte emails and maybe send some chats of me and his other family members. I will also keep those from my son. I just think this whole process is crazy because how really thinks they have to prove there love like this. Not me and if it was not for the help that I received we would have been denied long ago. Thanks for you guys help and I truly want to say I do not want your halp anymore. I am talking offline with a few people and your guys sure know how to make a girl feel welcomed. I have a few people I would like to point however, I do not think they are worth my time to address. Thanks if you would like to make duaa please do and I hope you girls have a great Ramadan. I hope everybody gets more than I did. PEACE.

Private, I do wonder about you being black being an issue. I know of another black woman that was also denied, but for the life of me I don't remember her red flags. Of course returning it based on that would be discrimination, they would do it, but they wouldn't admit to it. What they do is look for a something substanial to use. Like in your case, you didn't know each other very long, that is what they used for yours. We all know that many people are married quickly after first meeting...its a personal decision, the difference is that they are not applying for a visa.

JP is right though, not being close to his family is a red flag. There are so many little ones that they look for. I don't know the exact reason for the return, but I do believe that their minds are made up before the interview.

M4, I don't see how being black is an issue in AFRICA. Besides that, she is not on trial her, her man was. It would be more important to figure out what they said to him in the interview.

The red flag I brought up wasn't about her not being close to the family, it was the fact that she is very close with his cousin and works with him in a mosque. That can be seen as an arrangmemt for him to be brought here.

Just because it is in Africa doesn't mean that Moroccans are accepting of blacks. I saw very few black people while I was there. And, not to offend anyone here, but I have known many Arabs that state that they would not marry a black woman. Please keep in mind, this is what I have been told, and I would never believe that all Arabs feel this way, nor do I condone that kind of racism. Soooo...I am not saying it is because she is black, but rather are Moroccans accepting of a black/Arab relationship. So yes, it does come down to him, not her.

As for the red flags, sorry skimmed through that and didn't catch your intent. I agree, they could view it as an arrangement. I also believe that if she is not close to his family then this is also a red flag.

Private has a rough situation here...this is devastating. Although some of what is said here might come across harshly, and I doubt that anyone really intended it to hurt you, it is important you think objectively about everyones ideas for red flags. You just don't know for sure, and they rarely reveal everything that factors in to their decision. Some could be way off, some could be right on the money...just don't discharge anything because it isn't fair.

One more note...I would not want to have the responsibilities that a CO has. Lets face it, they have a huge responsibility. All we want is a chance to prove our case at the consulate level, and to look it over objectively, not with the intent to send it back regardless of the evidence. Isn't that what we all would want? I think these CO's are feeling overwhelmed, and the quick fix is to send it back.

They may not all be accepting of black people, but it does happen. It is also more common in Morocco then any other country. You cant compare Morocco with Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon (other ME countries). However again, I don't think this has anything to do with it at all. They are not going to approve all black people bcz they are black and they will not deny them all bcz they are black. That has nothing to do with it. As Rebecca said, you would have to see the data on it before making an assumption like that.

You are right, they man not all be accepting of black people, but it does happen. I am in no way disputing that. I don't know for sure if a black/arab relationship is more accepted in Morocco than in other ME countries. How do you know this? What I am suggesting is not whether it is right or wrong, not whether Morocco is more or less accepting of these relationships than other surrounding countries, but could this have been a factor in their decision. I wouldn't rule anything out, I would think you would look at it objectively, not with the "nahhh...they wouldn't do that" attitude.

So again, no assumptions here, just rolling off possible ideas of what happened so that when the time comes all avenues are covered. I think maybe you are still stuck on the idea that I am suggesting that they could have denied it because she is black, discriminating against her. Not at all what I am saying. More what I am saying is are they saying to themselves "what is his motive to marry a black woman"......couldn't it be possible that this is what they are thinking? Just don't rule anything out, just think like a CO.

I most definitly rule it out because there are other reasons that have been shown that would possibly lead to the denial. I don't think it has anything to do with skin color. Lots of Moroccans have dark skin and i don't think that is a factor at all, you are less likely to see a black Jordanian or Lebanese man. In any case, I think by trying to pass this off as discriminiation will only hurt Private and not help her in anyway. It most definitly was not documented that way and it would be impossible to prove.

I would focus my efforts on the red flags that we have already identified (there are red flags) and prepare a statement regarding those. I would interrogate the hell out of her man to find out exactly what happened. I would also retain an attorney to find out what I should do next.

I think you are misunderstanding M4, I am ruling out things because it would be a waste of time to focus on them. If they did infact deny her because she is black there would be no way to prove that. The other thing everyone here seems to overlook is they are not focusing on her, they are focusing on him. He has to prove why he deserves the visa. If infact he has no relationship with her family or even her son, and she also has none with his, that is a red flag. If there is a large age difference, red flag. If she was previously married, red flag. Short courtship followed by marriage, red flag. Working with one of his family members, red flag. They are everywhere and each one now needs to be addressed accordingly.

I don't think Military members get special privilages with the CO either. It comes down to proof and they want more.

To rule out possibilities of multiple reasons for a return would be foolish. When it comes time to plead her case she needs to have all areas covered. If she doesn't then they have another opening to return the case a second time....it has happened.

Do you honestly think that in my case they really sent it back for the reasons they stated? You are giving CO's way to much credit here. No matter what the reasons they stated, its cut and dried...they didn't like our age difference...there is no doubt in my mind. That with the fact that they mistakenly thought that his sister arranged our marriage....that wasn't addressed as well on the CO's notes to the USCIS.

In my rebuttal I covered all areas, not just what the CO's notes were on. Did it work at the USCIS level? Yes. Will it work at the consulate level? I guess we will wait and see, but one thing I know is that they can not send it back again for things that were addressed in my rebuttal.

JP, I respect a lot of your ideas here, they are good. The only thing is that you have never had a petition returned. There is so many factors with this that most people going through a regular immigration process can understand unless they have been there.

Ok let me ask you this, how do you think that she can prove that he was denied because she is black? I am not ruling out any possiblity except this one. The entire embasssy would have to be investigated to prove this. Are you aware of the red flags she currently has in her case? They don't believe the relationship is valid, and from what I have read there are many red flags to support what they are saying. She will have to prove otherwise. If there were no red flags then I would empathize more with what you are saying but the fact of the matter is there are many red flags and Private was anticipating a denial far before she recieved her NOA2.

I think you are misunderstand my posts and the posts of others here. We all feel bad for her and want her to get approved, but feeding her with false hope is not going to help anyone. She needs to identify why she got denied and get moving on that. I realize that both yourself and Chiquita were denied before, but your cases are not identical to Privates. There are some major red flags here according to what the DOS looks for in the validity of a relationship, maybe you didnt have those in your relationship. The 2 bigs flags that immediatly jump out at me are the short courtship followed by marriage and the fact that she knows his cousin through the mosque. I would be willing to bet that the embassy saw this and thought it was arranged.

Definition: discrimination

treating people differently through prejudice: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender

To me many are treated different by the CO because of one of these reasons. For us it was age and race.

Prejugje is just not these reasons though. To have UNFAIR treatment is discrimination in and of itself.

chi

Thats not prejudice, that is one of the guidelines set out by the DOS. I'm pretty sure that everyone knows what those are by now. We may not like them and we may not agree with them but they are there. The DOS of says that my divorce is a red flag. Do I agree with them? Hell NO! I am willing to take that chance in the embassy and I am fully aware that they may deny my visa because of the red flags we have.

What are the many red flags? She asked questions to get him confused and he answered all, she went on and at the end the only thing she could say was that we have not known each other long enough. This makes me sick. I did not know there where time constraints and again it is a K-1 VISA. Fiance not a marriage visa, we get 3 months and then you have to get married.

[Caladan 19]

What are the many red flags? She asked questions to get him confused and he answered all, she went on and at the end the only thing she could say was that we have not known each other long enough. This makes me sick. I did not know there where time constraints and again it is a K-1 VISA. Fiance not a marriage visa, we get 3 months and then you have to get married.

First off, I'm very sorry to hear of your setback. This sucks, and I hope you can fight it.

But a fiancé visa isn't a 'get-to-know-each-other-better' visa. In order to file it, you have to sign a letter saying you already intend to get married. That's the assumption the government makes: if you're applying for this visa, you already know the person well enough to get married. The three months is there to make it easier to get in the country, get married, and adjust status, not so the couple can see if they like each other well enough.

Now, there's no specific time limit, like you must have known each other a year and a half in person or anything. But because the fiancé visa is for bringing someone here to marry, not to get to know them, they will look at the timeline as one of many things they'll use to figure out if the relationship is legit. We may all use the 90 days to get comfortable with our fiancé, but as far as the government is concerned, we have to be mentally ready on day 1 at the PoE. Saying 'we've only known each other a week but we'll have three months to be sure' isn't going to be convincing as you fight this.