Consulates Returning Petitions to the United States via 221g

[Jenn! 918]

pbgirl,

The reason for returning the file is always valid - stating it simply, the visa applicant did not prove their case but rather gave the consular officer reason to doubt their qualifications for the visa.

The problem for people who are caught up in this situation is that they are unable to look at the case objectively, from the viewpoint of a 3rd party who is required by law to doubt and who knows from training and experience what issues are in fact wide open to doubt in the local context. Their intense personal involvement blinds them to the broader reality of the issues that they have to deal with.

Yodrak

...

I think Kiya's concern is about files being sent back to the US, without valid reasons why. ....

You're right, Yodrak. Objectivity is difficult to have in this situation. However, I think Kiya and others like her understand that there might be a reason that has been deemed valid by a consular officer for returning the case to the US. What is being protested is the lack of communciation of said reason to the applicants. If the consular officer doubts qualification for a visa, then they are required to state the reason for their doubt, a requirement that is not being respected in these cases.

[Yodrak 7]

Jenn,

On the contrary, the consular officer always states the reason, as is evidenced by a term frequently used here at VJ as 'shorthand' for one all too common situation - the applicant does not meet the requirements of section 221(g) of the INA.

The consular officer will always tell the visa applicant which section(s) of the INA disqualifies them. It's the applicants own responsibility to know and understand the appropriate section of the law (and if they don't, that's what attornies are for).

Yodrak

... What is being protested is the lack of communciation of said reason to the applicants. If the consular officer doubts qualification for a visa, then they are required to state the reason for their doubt, a requirement that is not being respected in these cases.

[almaty 19]

we got a 221g..and it was valid to an extent./.if i was there..we would have not received it..i was pro-active, and was able to email and interview over the phone, most important, sanita at the interview was honest..we were able to avoid getting it returned.

[Jenn! 918]

Jenn,

On the contrary, the consular officer always states the reason, as is evidenced by a term frequently used here at VJ as 'shorthand' for one all too common situation - the applicant does not meet the requirements of section 221(g) of the INA.

The consular officer will always tell the visa applicant which section(s) of the INA disqualifies them. It's the applicants own responsibility to know and understand the appropriate section of the law (and if they don't, that's what attornies are for).

Yodrak

... What is being protested is the lack of communciation of said reason to the applicants. If the consular officer doubts qualification for a visa, then they are required to state the reason for their doubt, a requirement that is not being respected in these cases.

But don't you think a little more specificity is owed? The CO stating that he/she questioned the "validity of the relationship" is of little use in gathering more supporting evidence in order to prepare for a possible appeal. What EXACTLY made the CO question the relationship, ie. age difference, lack of phone records, lack of photos, "I just didn't get a good feeling about it"? How can an applicant "defend" himself without knowledge of the exact reason for intent to deny?

I must admit that I haven't read section 221(g), but I have a hard time believing that doing so would allow an applicant whose petition had been returned to the US to gain much insight into the specifics of their own case.

[morocco4ever 63]

pbgirl,

The reason for returning the file is always valid - stating it simply, the visa applicant did not prove their case but rather gave the consular officer reason to doubt their qualifications for the visa.

The problem for people who are caught up in this situation is that they are unable to look at the case objectively, from the viewpoint of a 3rd party who is required by law to doubt and who knows from training and experience what issues are in fact wide open to doubt in the local context. Their intense personal involvement blinds them to the broader reality of the issues that they have to deal with.

Yodrak

...

I think Kiya's concern is about files being sent back to the US, without valid reasons why. ....

I'm sorry Yodrak, but I disagree with you. Your belief is rather naive to say the least. You don't really know any of us, and so I can see how you can believe that the US government does its job effectively. But you don't know each individual situation. I had all of the proof needed to show my marriage is real but yet the consular officer didn't bother looking at any of it. They based it all on the fact that he has an ex brother in law and a sister here in the states, believing that they were married and that thier marriage was a fraud. The ex is from a different sister that has never been in the US and the sister that is here is still married to the man that brought her here. they even asked him if his sister arranged our marriage. As far as my marriage, well if they would have taken the time to look at our evidence they would see that I was scheduled to have a surgery to untie my tubes so him and I can have a baby together. Would anyone go to this extreme for a fraud marriage? So you see, it is not always that we don't prove our case, it is because they don't take the time to look at all of the evidence. Even if my sister did have a fraud marriage, how can that reflect on us? There are to many scenarios that you haven't taken into account. Yes, they do make notations that you are not eligible, but based on what? They are required to provide this information to us, and to give us a chance at the consulate level to overcome their doubts. They didn't give any of us this opportunity. Before you say it was based fairly you really need to see all sides of the story.

I don't mean to come down hard on you or anyone for that matter. I'm just pointing out that maybe you have wayyyy to much faith in these consulates. I didn't take the time to research your timeline, so I am unsure at what point in this process you are at. I really hope that if you haven't gone this far yet that it all goes smoothly for you, and if you are past this then I wish you the best in your future.

[Yodrak 7]

Jenn,

No, I don't. Do you think that one should be able to go to the police to get instruction on how to commit a crime and get away with it, and that the police should be required to provide the information?

That is not an 'off-the-wall' analogy - one of the responsibilities of consular officers is to deny visas to people who do not deserve them (as defined by the INA). It is not their job to tell people who they have reason to believe do not deserve a visa how to get one anyway.

My wife got a 221(g), by the way, so this is not an abstract issue for me. We went and had a consultation with a US immigration attorney in her country to figure out the best way to deal with it.

Yodrak

Jenn,

On the contrary, the consular officer always states the reason, as is evidenced by a term frequently used here at VJ as 'shorthand' for one all too common situation - the applicant does not meet the requirements of section 221(g) of the INA.

The consular officer will always tell the visa applicant which section(s) of the INA disqualifies them. It's the applicants own responsibility to know and understand the appropriate section of the law (and if they don't, that's what attornies are for).

Yodrak

... What is being protested is the lack of communciation of said reason to the applicants. If the consular officer doubts qualification for a visa, then they are required to state the reason for their doubt, a requirement that is not being respected in these cases.

But don't you think a little more specificity is owed? The CO stating that he/she questioned the "validity of the relationship" is of little use in gathering more supporting evidence in order to prepare for a possible appeal. What EXACTLY made the CO question the relationship, ie. age difference, lack of phone records, lack of photos, "I just didn't get a good feeling about it"? How can an applicant "defend" himself without knowledge of the exact reason for intent to deny?

I must admit that I haven't read section 221(g), but I have a hard time believing that doing so would allow an applicant whose petition had been returned to the US to gain much insight into the specifics of their own case.

[Peter Miami 0]

pbgirl,

The reason for returning the file is always valid - stating it simply, the visa applicant did not prove their case but rather gave the consular officer reason to doubt their qualifications for the visa.

The problem for people who are caught up in this situation is that they are unable to look at the case objectively, from the viewpoint of a 3rd party who is required by law to doubt and who knows from training and experience what issues are in fact wide open to doubt in the local context. Their intense personal involvement blinds them to the broader reality of the issues that they have to deal with.

Yodrak

...

I think Kiya's concern is about files being sent back to the US, without valid reasons why. ....

I agree with Yodrak!

Peter Miami

[Jenn! 918]

Jenn,

No, I don't. Do you think that one should be able to go to the police to get instruction on how to commit a crime and get away with it, and that the police should be required to provide the information?

That is not an 'off-the-wall' analogy - one of the responsibilities of consular officers is to deny visas to people who do not deserve them (as defined by the INA). It is not their job to tell people who they have reason to believe do not deserve a visa how to get one anyway.

My wife got a 221(g), by the way, so this is not an abstract issue for me. We went and had a consultation with a US immigration attorney in her country to figure out the best way to deal with it.

Yodrak

Jenn,

On the contrary, the consular officer always states the reason, as is evidenced by a term frequently used here at VJ as 'shorthand' for one all too common situation - the applicant does not meet the requirements of section 221(g) of the INA.

The consular officer will always tell the visa applicant which section(s) of the INA disqualifies them. It's the applicants own responsibility to know and understand the appropriate section of the law (and if they don't, that's what attornies are for).

Yodrak

... What is being protested is the lack of communciation of said reason to the applicants. If the consular officer doubts qualification for a visa, then they are required to state the reason for their doubt, a requirement that is not being respected in these cases.

But don't you think a little more specificity is owed? The CO stating that he/she questioned the "validity of the relationship" is of little use in gathering more supporting evidence in order to prepare for a possible appeal. What EXACTLY made the CO question the relationship, ie. age difference, lack of phone records, lack of photos, "I just didn't get a good feeling about it"? How can an applicant "defend" himself without knowledge of the exact reason for intent to deny?

I must admit that I haven't read section 221(g), but I have a hard time believing that doing so would allow an applicant whose petition had been returned to the US to gain much insight into the specifics of their own case.

I wouldn't say your analogy is "off-the-wall", but I don't think it's a sutiable one for this situation. I might rather liken it to being accused of a crime and then not being allowed to know what evidence is going to be used against you. As you know, the defense must be provided with such information.

Do you feel the 221(g) that your wife was issued was justified?

[Saigon 0]

I guess some of you didn't see Chris Rock's show... Brown people were refered to non-white people. No need to get all ultra sensitive! If you try to tell me that immigration is color blind, (stop laughing...) wait until this thread gets popular, see how many people got 221g were from Africa and Asia... compare to others... no need for hushing I will stop mentioning the word "brown country".

The point here is I do support this thread for one reason: my wife was a 221g survivor too. From Saigon Vietnam. Nonetheless, she is here now.

Yorak says it clearly, it's not their job to tell you how to get over the system, it's your job to convince them that you deserved to be here... They do not owe you anything... Do your homework and get your love one here!

[Yodrak 7]

Morocco4ever,

Sorry, but your post seems to indicate that you are the one who is being naive. You are apparently unaware of all of the factors that may go into making a decision on a particular visa application.

Certainly I don't know each individual situation. Nor did I ever say that I have faith in all consular officers or that the government does its job effectively. What I have said, and you've quoted it, is that few sponsors look at their own situations objectively due to their intimate personal involvement, and few sponsors have the training and experience that consular officers have in evaluating the information that they have before them. Nothing more.

As for some of the facts of your case that you have presented here, you are not the visa applicant. Maybe you wouldn't have your tubes untied and have a baby just to get into the USA, but there are people who are willing to go way beyond that, risking and sometimes giving their lives, in an attempt to get into the USA.

Your husband, who is the visa applicant, would have it much easier if he does have fraudulent intent - no problem for him to walk away from you and your untied tubes once he gets into the USA if that were his objective. We see posts of such happenings on a regular basis here on VJ and other immigration sites.

Please recognize that I am not attributing such ill intent or bad character to your husband. I am pointing out that disinterested 3rd parties look at situations from a much different viewpoint than the intimately involved principals. If one wants to have a successful visa application, one needs to address the issues from the 3rd party viewpoint, because that's the viewpoint from which the decision will be made.

Yodrak

pbgirl,

The reason for returning the file is always valid - stating it simply, the visa applicant did not prove their case but rather gave the consular officer reason to doubt their qualifications for the visa.

The problem for people who are caught up in this situation is that they are unable to look at the case objectively, from the viewpoint of a 3rd party who is required by law to doubt and who knows from training and experience what issues are in fact wide open to doubt in the local context. Their intense personal involvement blinds them to the broader reality of the issues that they have to deal with.

Yodrak

...

I think Kiya's concern is about files being sent back to the US, without valid reasons why. ....

I'm sorry Yodrak, but I disagree with you. Your belief is rather naive to say the least. You don't really know any of us, and so I can see how you can believe that the US government does its job effectively. But you don't know each individual situation. I had all of the proof needed to show my marriage is real but yet the consular officer didn't bother looking at any of it. They based it all on the fact that he has an ex brother in law and a sister here in the states, believing that they were married and that thier marriage was a fraud. The ex is from a different sister that has never been in the US and the sister that is here is still married to the man that brought her here. they even asked him if his sister arranged our marriage. As far as my marriage, well if they would have taken the time to look at our evidence they would see that I was scheduled to have a surgery to untie my tubes so him and I can have a baby together. Would anyone go to this extreme for a fraud marriage? So you see, it is not always that we don't prove our case, it is because they don't take the time to look at all of the evidence. Even if my sister did have a fraud marriage, how can that reflect on us? There are to many scenarios that you haven't taken into account. Yes, they do make notations that you are not eligible, but based on what? They are required to provide this information to us, and to give us a chance at the consulate level to overcome their doubts. They didn't give any of us this opportunity. Before you say it was based fairly you really need to see all sides of the story.

I don't mean to come down hard on you or anyone for that matter. I'm just pointing out that maybe you have wayyyy to much faith in these consulates. I didn't take the time to research your timeline, so I am unsure at what point in this process you are at. I really hope that if you haven't gone this far yet that it all goes smoothly for you, and if you are past this then I wish you the best in your future.

[Jenn! 918]

I am pointing out that disinterested 3rd parties look at situations from a much different viewpoint than the intimately involved principals. If one wants to have a successful visa application, one needs to address the issues from the 3rd party viewpoint, because that's the viewpoint from which the decision will be made.

Yodrak

Yes. But in order to address the issues appropriately, one must be aware of which issues seen from the 3rd party viewpoint have caused the petition to be unsuccessful. If the 3rd party is unwilling to disclose such information it puts the denied applicant in a nearly impossible situation to prepare an appeal, does it not?

[Yodrak 7]

Jenn,

And as I expect you know, under immigration law a visa applicant must prove their case to the government, not the other way around, a person is ineligible until they can prove themselves eligible. And rules of engagement are quite different from those in a court. The visa applicant is not defending themself against a charge, they're asking for a benefit. And until they demonstrate that they're entitled to the benefit, the answer is 'no'.

"Why?" "Because you didn't prove your case."

"What do I need to provide prove my case?" "Provide whatever you have to provide, whatever you wish to provide - I'll consider it. If it satisfies me I'll answer 'yes', until then the answer is 'no'."

We thought the issues raised in my wife's case were superficial. Nevertheless they were raised and therefore had to be addressed. She had to prove her case, the consulate wasn't going to prove it for her.

Yodrak

Jenn,

No, I don't. Do you think that one should be able to go to the police to get instruction on how to commit a crime and get away with it, and that the police should be required to provide the information?

That is not an 'off-the-wall' analogy - one of the responsibilities of consular officers is to deny visas to people who do not deserve them (as defined by the INA). It is not their job to tell people who they have reason to believe do not deserve a visa how to get one anyway.

My wife got a 221(g), by the way, so this is not an abstract issue for me. We went and had a consultation with a US immigration attorney in her country to figure out the best way to deal with it.

Yodrak

Jenn,

On the contrary, the consular officer always states the reason, as is evidenced by a term frequently used here at VJ as 'shorthand' for one all too common situation - the applicant does not meet the requirements of section 221(g) of the INA.

The consular officer will always tell the visa applicant which section(s) of the INA disqualifies them. It's the applicants own responsibility to know and understand the appropriate section of the law (and if they don't, that's what attornies are for).

Yodrak

... What is being protested is the lack of communciation of said reason to the applicants. If the consular officer doubts qualification for a visa, then they are required to state the reason for their doubt, a requirement that is not being respected in these cases.

But don't you think a little more specificity is owed? The CO stating that he/she questioned the "validity of the relationship" is of little use in gathering more supporting evidence in order to prepare for a possible appeal. What EXACTLY made the CO question the relationship, ie. age difference, lack of phone records, lack of photos, "I just didn't get a good feeling about it"? How can an applicant "defend" himself without knowledge of the exact reason for intent to deny?

I must admit that I haven't read section 221(g), but I have a hard time believing that doing so would allow an applicant whose petition had been returned to the US to gain much insight into the specifics of their own case.

I wouldn't say your analogy is "off-the-wall", but I don't think it's a sutiable one for this situation. I might rather liken it to being accused of a crime and then not being allowed to know what evidence is going to be used against you. As you know, the defense must be provided with such information.

Do you feel the 221(g) that your wife was issued was justified?

[morocco4ever 63]

Yodrak,

Your point is well taken, and yes, to any other person that doesn't know us as a couple it would appear possible that my husband could very easily walk out on me. I have a very logical mind, and we were prepared to show proof of all of their concerns.

You missed the point I was making however. We are accused of a fraud marriage in the form that I am being paid, not that I have been duped. My point is rather than assume that I am being paid to bring him over on a visa wouldn't it have made it much easier if he would have examined all evidence rather than send it back? This is why I brought up the surgery that I chose to have. Why would I pay this much money just to be paid later?

One other thing you missed. It is in their own procedures documentation that they are required to give us an opportunity to provide information to them at the consular level prior to sending it back to the CIS. None of us was given this opportunity. So I stand by the fact that this consulate is abusing their power.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions. Obviously I am not budging and probably neither are you. I am just pointing out that you should realize that maybe you don't know all of the facts, and maybe try to be a little more compassionate what you say to people who are in pain.

BTW, why did you get the 221g? Was it sent back to the CIS?

[Jenn! 918]

Jenn,

And as I expect you know, under immigration law a visa applicant must prove their case to the government, not the other way around, a person is ineligible until they can prove themselves eligible. And rules of engagement are quite different from those in a court. The visa applicant is not defending themself against a charge, they're asking for a benefit. And until they demonstrate that they're entitled to the benefit, the answer is 'no'.

"Why?" "Because you didn't prove your case."

"What do I need to provide prove my case?" "Provide whatever you have to provide, whatever you wish to provide - I'll consider it. If it satisfies me I'll answer 'yes', until then the answer is 'no'."

We thought the issues raised in my wife's case were superficial. Nevertheless they were raised and therefore had to be addressed. She had to prove her case, the consulate wasn't going to prove it for her.

Yodrak

I do understand that immigration procedures are not equivalent to court procedures; I was just raising another analogy in the same way you did.

I think maybe we are coming at this a little bit differently in our assumptions.

You mentioned that the issues raised in your wife's case were superficial. This implies that you WERE aware of certain issues that needed to be addressed and you were able to do so. I was under the impression, having kept up with the OP's case, that the concern of this post is that applicants whose petitions are returned to the US are NOT informed of the issues regarding their cases.

You stated earlier that it should suffice to state that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements as stated under section 221(g). It seems that you and your wife, on the other hand, were made privy to more specific information regarding your case, and were therefore able to address the relevant issues.

I am by no means advocating that consulates should prove cases for applicants. Rather, I most definitely believe that visa fraud exists and measures should be taken to stop it in its tracks.

[Yodrak 7]

Moprocco4ever,

Yes, I did miss the part where you are being accused of being paid to marry your husband. (In fact, I've read that post I responded to again serveral times and I'm still missing it.) As you say, a situation can only be judged by the information available at the time.

In any event, if your marriage is bonafide from your husband's point of view, I do hope that you are able to overcome.

Yodrak

Yodrak,

Your point is well taken, and yes, to any other person that doesn't know us as a couple it would appear possible that my husband could very easily walk out on me. I have a very logical mind, and we were prepared to show proof of all of their concerns.

You missed the point I was making however. We are accused of a fraud marriage in the form that I am being paid, not that I have been duped. My point is rather than assume that I am being paid to bring him over on a visa wouldn't it have made it much easier if he would have examined all evidence rather than send it back? This is why I brought up the surgery that I chose to have. Why would I pay this much money just to be paid later?

One other thing you missed. It is in their own procedures documentation that they are required to give us an opportunity to provide information to them at the consular level prior to sending it back to the CIS. None of us was given this opportunity. So I stand by the fact that this consulate is abusing their power.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions. Obviously I am not budging and probably neither are you. I am just pointing out that you should realize that maybe you don't know all of the facts, and maybe try to be a little more compassionate what you say to people who are in pain.

BTW, why did you get the 221g? Was it sent back to the CIS?

Jenn,

Yes, it does seem that we have some differences in our perspective.

221(g) is very broad, and my wife's issues did not include failure to prove a bonafide relationship. I agree that that particular issue can be much more difficult to overcome than others. But the level of difficulty in addressing an issue is not the same thing as not knowing what the issue is.

Yodrak

I do understand that immigration procedures are not equivalent to court procedures; I was just raising another analogy in the same way you did.

I think maybe we are coming at this a little bit differently in our assumptions.

You mentioned that the issues raised in your wife's case were superficial. This implies that you WERE aware of certain issues that needed to be addressed and you were able to do so. I was under the impression, having kept up with the OP's case, that the concern of this post is that applicants whose petitions are returned to the US are NOT informed of the issues regarding their cases.

You stated earlier that it should suffice to state that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements as stated under section 221(g). It seems that you and your wife, on the other hand, were made privy to more specific information regarding your case, and were therefore able to address the relevant issues.

I am by no means advocating that consulates should prove cases for applicants. Rather, I most definitely believe that visa fraud exists and measures should be taken to stop it in its tracks.

Edited March 1, 2006 by Yodrak