K1 visa DENIED - Public Charge - pretty outraged.

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

Yes while I agree in principle... it depends on 'those tasked with making the decision' who may or may not be having a good day, like/not like your demeanour, how you sound/look - for whatever reason - as to how things turn out. If things went well, petitioners credit themselves with having done everything perfectly and criticise those who failed the 'test'. It is all a bit of a moving target and may end a result that is not really related to the quality/strength and honesty of the relationship at all. That is where it is flawed .. just IMO.

Absolutely in agreement.

Just because someone got the visa does nto necessarily mean that their packaging was superior. We've seen many folks who came on to say that they didn't even looked at all the documents that they brought to the interview and instead just chatted about sports and stuff. And vise versa, just because a visa was not given, like in my case, does not mean that I do not have a bona fide relationship as alleged.

My issue with this is not the denial itself but the power that is given to one person to make a decision that affects the life of a USC like that is un American. I was denied my due process.

[EAS 45]

Absolutely in agreement.

Just because someone got the visa does nto necessarily mean that their packaging was superior. We've seen many folks who came on to say that they didn't even looked at all the documents that they brought to the interview and instead just chatted about sports and stuff. And vise versa, just because a visa was not given, like in my case, does not mean that I do not have a bona fide relationship as alleged.

My issue with this is not the denial itself but the power that is given to one person to make a decision that affects the life of a USC like that is un American. I was denied my due process.

One's beneficiary is not entitled to a visa. One, as the petitioner, does not have a right to 'give or grant' a visa. While I certainly can understand the disappointment with not getting what one wants, at this point in time, the Government is the only entity that has the authority to legally grant admission of a person to the United States. That authority is exercised by well trained individuals that represent the Government. I DO NOT claim that those individuals can not make mistakes, nor do I claim that it is not possible for some of those individuals to fail to do their job in accordance with the laws, rules, regulations, principles and guidance that is the operating policy of the United States Govenment. I freely admit that I am not an immigration expert, HOWEVER, in the case in this thread (and in many others that I have read) it appears to me that the individuals denied did not meet the stated requirement that the Applicant prove that either the beneficiary [aka the applicant] or the petitioner [aka the USC] could financially support the beneficiary.

The Counselor Officer isn't the only person involved in the decision making process and doesn't operate alone and in a complete vacuum.

Edited December 7, 2012 by EAS

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

One's beneficiary is not entitled to a visa. One, as the petitioner, does not have a right to 'give or grant' a visa. While I certainly can understand the disappointment with not getting what one wants, at this point in time, the Government is the only entity that has the authority to legally grant admission of a person to the United States. That authority is exercised by well trained individuals that represent the Government. I DO NOT claim that those individuals can not make mistakes, nor do I claim that it is not possible for some of those individuals to fail to do their job in accordance with the laws, rules, regulations, principles and guidance that is the operating policy of the United States Govenment. I freely admit that I am not an immigration expert, HOWEVER, in the case in this thread (and in many others that I have read) it appears to me that the individuals denied did not meet the stated requirement that the Applicant prove that either the beneficiary [aka the applicant] or the petitioner [aka the USC] could financially support the beneficiary.

The Counselor Officer isn't the only person involved in the decision making process and doesn't operate alone and in a complete vacuum.

You missed the point of my quoted post and I suspect that it was intentional.

I never once said that visas are entitlements or that private local companies issues visas.

The basis of my discussion is that profesional etiquette is not being followed at least in my local embassy. Denying a visa doesn't only affect the immigrant but has implications for the USC also.

Going back to the OP, denying an application based on lack on income when an I-134 if filled out is ludicrous. What then is the I-134 for?

Regarding working in a vacuum, I guess we have different definitions.

[EAS 45]

You missed the point of my quoted post and I suspect that it was intentional.

I never once said that visas are entitlements or that private local companies issues visas.

The basis of my discussion is that profesional etiquette is not being followed at least in my local embassy. Denying a visa doesn't only affect the immigrant but has implications for the USC also.

Going back to the OP, denying an application based on lack on income when an I-134 if filled out is ludicrous. What then is the I-134 for?

Regarding working in a vacuum, I guess we have different definitions.

You are the one that is missing the point. The applicant has to prove that either the applicant [aka beneficiary] or the U.S. citizen fiance(e) is able to support the applicant financially. That is clearly stated on U.S. Department of State's official website. As for the I-134: Does not say that the Consular Officer MUST request it. Does not say that the Consular Officer MUST rely on it.

I guess we do have different definitions!

[Andie 147]

You are the one that is missing the point. The applicant has to prove that either the applicant [aka beneficiary] or the U.S. citizen fiance(e) is able to support the applicant financially. That is clearly stated on U.S. Department of State's official website. As for the I-134: Does not say that the Consular Officer MUST request it. Does not say that the Consular Officer MUST rely on it.

I guess we do have different definitions!

Gosh and I thought the applicant was the petitioner (USC) ... just shows you how confusing it all is

Edited December 8, 2012 by Andie

[pushbrk 12,898]

For the I-864, I agree that it is no common for the Joint Sponsor to be rejected.

For the I-134, I disagree with you. There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that a co-sponsor be accepted for an I-134. Acceptance or denial is at the sole discretion of the officials who do apply the rules differently. There are lots of I-134 co-sponsor denials on this forum.

Anyhow, this side discussion does not help the OP.

Marriage and the CR-1 route with the binding I-864 is the way to go at this point. There is no way to get the US Consulate to reconsider accepting mom's I-134 The US Consulate has made it clear - a co-sponsor for the I-134 will not be accepted when the petitioner is not near the poverty level. There is no appeal, so this is a dead path. Reapplying for another K-1 visa is pointless if the petitioner's income does not significantly change.

Whether you agree or not, other than Thailand and the Philippines, it is UNCOMMON to reject a cosponsor for a K1 visa. Fact is not determined by consensus. Fact simply IS.

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

You are the one that is missing the point. The applicant has to prove that either the applicant [aka beneficiary] or the U.S. citizen fiance(e) is able to support the applicant financially. That is clearly stated on U.S. Department of State's official website. As for the I-134: The Consular Officer may request that a Form I-134, Affidavit of Support be submitted by the U.S. citizen fiancé(e). Does not say that the Consular Officer MUST request it. Does not say that the Consular Officer MUST rely on it.

I guess we do have different definitions!

Clearly

Whether you agree or not, other than Thailand and the Philippines, it is UNCOMMON to reject a cosponsor for a K1 visa. Fact is not determined by consensus. Fact simply IS.

You're absolutely right. In fact there was a poster here recently that was approved in Philippines with a cosponsor.

Though it may never happen but the ambiguity and sole authority given to COs to make this unilateral decisions is not working well, at least for those of us in non sham relationships.

[Andie 147]

The Counselor Officer isn't the only person involved in the decision making process and doesn't operate alone and in a complete vacuum.

While you say this.. and yes there are several parts to the process, but my understanding is that at each point it does come down to one person making the decision - if they reject the petition, then it goes no further - so at that moment it is that one person's decision if they are not conferring with others... ??

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

While you say this.. and yes there are several parts to the process, but my understanding is that at each point it does come down to one person making the decision - if they reject the petition, then it goes no further - so at that moment it is that one person's decision if they are not conferring with others... ??

Perhaps it's different for different Embassies (why I hope they remove the ambiguities) but I was specifically informed by US Embassy in Lagos that it was SOLELY the interviewing CO decision to deny my petition and that there would be absolutely no review by any other personnel.

So in my case it was one civil servants decision and not a panel unless they are lying.

[pushbrk 12,898]

Perhaps it's different for different Embassies (why I hope they remove the ambiguities) but I was specifically informed by US Embassy in Lagos that it was SOLELY the interviewing CO decision to deny my petition and that there would be absolutely no review by any other personnel.

So in my case it was one civil servants decision and not a panel unless they are lying.

Probably right but somebody higher up reviews all denied visas before the files are sent back to the USA. That said, I've never heard of that higher-up reversing the decision of the Consular officer other than in cases with outside intervention (Senator or Lawyer etc.) causing further review.

That said, certain "policies" such as under what condition to accept a cosponsor in a K visa case are put in place by the heads of Immigrant Visa Units, not the Consular Officer. The CO then acts according to that policy.

Edited December 8, 2012 by pushbrk

[Novembro 1,763]

Sorry to hear that. Do you mean your case is completly denied or did you receive a RFE? And what was the reason?

Stay strong and patience! We had to reapply too.

You get used of waiting

Nah, we got flat-out denied based on lack of evidence. We had our collective temper tantrum and now we're moving on to a different visa. It's a bit more waiting, but I've had enough practice, eh? *rolls eyes*

[Andy and Pui 16]

You're absolutely right. In fact there was a poster here recently that was approved in Philippines with a cosponsor.

The Philippines has accepted co-sponors if the petitioner is in college or just graduated college. Thailand in the past has only taken 2 or 3 cosponors otherwise they do not accept them.

OP, like the others have suggested I would like look into taking a short trip to Italy and getting married there and come back and start a CR1 and then you can have a co-sponor. Good luck.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Andy and Pui

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

It appears that the Foreign Affairs Manual has recently been updated regarding the I-134.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3, practically the entire chapter on the I-134 has been revised by a change transmittal dated October 10, 2012. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me to save a copy of the old version, but it does seem to be substantially different than I remember it.

Anybody got a copy of the previous version of this section of the FAM?

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

It appears that the Foreign Affairs Manual has recently been updated regarding the I-134.

http://www.state.gov...ation/86988.pdf

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3, practically the entire chapter on the I-134 has been revised by a change transmittal dated October 10, 2012. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me to save a copy of the old version, but it does seem to be substantially different than I remember it.

Anybody got a copy of the previous version of this section of the FAM?

Thanks for sharing this read. It solidified my conclusion that I did nto do a thorough enough vetting prior to jumping in the K1 pool.

[Andy and Pui 16]

Jim, Would this be what you are looking for? http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

####### sorry that is the same doc. Sorry!

Edited December 9, 2012 by Andy and Pui