Meeting Online affecting K1 Morocco results?

[Jenn! 918]

I've been trying to figure out the reason behind all of the recent results coming out of Morocco. I really think that if enough of us that have gone through Morocco recently could put together some characteristics of our case, we might be able to determine why certain cases are being denied - characteristics such as age, prior marriages, length of the relationship, did our SO meet our family, did we meet our SO's family, etc. Anything we compile would definitely be helpful to those waiting to go through Morocco, so that they know what about their case they might need to defend, even without being explicitly asked to.

I happened to notice that many of us who have been approved recently did not meet our SO's through the internet, and it also happens that many who have had their petitions returned to the U.S. did. I'm not sure if there's any validity to this theory, but maybe they're looking unfavorably on internet relationships.

What do you all think?

[jennieh 0]

Maybe so about the internet relationship part. But they arent giving reasons as to why they are sending them back right? Alot of people dont agree with meeting people on the internet. But if they are not approving visas cause of this. Its more of judgemental reasons cause they dont like the fact or think its wrong. I met my husband in a chat room but it was almost 3 years or more before we began to be more then just friends.

[~kiyah~ 14]

If this truly is the case then I go back to my post of the petition guidelines:

"In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification - which are examined in the petition process - have been met. Where congress has placed responsibility and authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for status which are examined in the petition process have been met, consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition."

"When a petition is returned to DHS, if DHS concurs with the officer''s recommendation, DHS regulations require DHS/BCIS to provide the petitioner notice of intent to revoke, and to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the grounds for revocation. DHS regulations require that, in the case of nonimmigrant petitions, the revocation must be based only on grounds specified in the regulations. Those grounds include evidence that the statement of facts in the petition was not true and correct, or that the approval involved gross error. The FAM often only summarizes the petition approval criteria because they are too lengthy and complicated to reproduce fully (the H regulations, for example, contain about 25 pages of double column material). Absent access to the full DHS regulations, conoffs may not be aware of all of the factors considered by DHS in approving a petition. In addition, conoffs are normally less knowledgeable about the basis for petition eligibility than DHS personnel; they therefore should not jump to conclusions regarding petitions. In addition, conoffs should return petitions only where there is specific, material and clear evidence to provide the DHS a basis to initiate petition revocation procedures.

Sufficiency of evidence"

As far as I am concerned this is discrimination.

Regarding my petition, DHS is full aware we met online and the timeframe between meeting and marriage proposal and approved the petition with supporting evidence of a valid relationship. It will be interesting to know about my case when I get a notification from BCIS...even if they still do not say the exact reason why, they will receive ALL of our ongoing evidence of a valid relationship.

~Kiya~

Edited March 2, 2006 by Kiya

[Jenn! 918]

However, USCIS only confirms that the petitioner and beneficiary have met in person in the past two years. It is not of concern to USCIS the method by which the couple first interacted.

The passages that you quote would prohibit Casa from deciding that the couple had NOT met within the past two years and hence returning the petition, without new evidence to the contrary. In other words, they can't overturn the USCIS's decision unless new information has presented itself. This law has no bearing though on Casa's final judgement as to the validity of the relationship at the interview stage.

Casa receives the forwarded petition from USCIS. USCIS has only determined that the petition is eligible for adjudication (having met the two year meeting in person requirement). Casa then must determine a bonafide relationship, usually done at other consulates by examining photos, phone records, etc. Maybe the COs at Casa check on the 129F the circumstances under which the couple met. If it was an internet meeting, isn't it possible that Casa becomes suspicious of the validity of the relationship and things go downhill from there?

[Bosco 1]

My theory, and this is all speculation, is that there are a number of things they are looking for, and at some point, the balance is tipped against the couple. These things could include age difference/physical appearance, previous marriages, length of the relationship, exchange of money, language ability, # of trips to Morocco, how the couple met, etc. I also do not think that these standards are applied in any fair or consistent manner and this is the reason they cannot give any real answers as to why certain petitions are sent back. They randomly choose when to apply scrutiny.

However, with that said, I don't think we can never know all the details of someone's case, just what they choose to share, and the USC only knows what the spouse/fiance has shared. Third-party statements are another consideration.

I also agree, as others have stated in this forum before, that the Consulate knows more about us than we assume.

Rebecca

[Dixie_Peach 1]

so... in other words... you think it looks bad if the petitioner has been to morocco only once? geez... then i am in a mess...

[landp 0]

so... in other words... you think it looks bad if the petitioner has been to morocco only once? geez... then i am in a mess...

I'd only been to Morocco once to visit my fiance. I don't think that one issue is something to worry. I agree with the earlier post. There's like a list of checks and balances...physical appearance, age, money etc. I mean I met my fiance in Feb 05, met in May and sent my petition in June. Never had an RFE and trhough our AOS processing i's been smooth too. Of course, my husband made it a point not to discuss money or any family here. He also answered questions just on what they wanted to know he didn't go into detail and we didn't go overboard with evidence. The other thing too, is are people indexing their packets (as an attorney would?) I read on the VJ site under Guides that is extremely important. If you send an index with your filing, include an index when your SO go for interviews, that's proof in writing of all your evidence whether they choose to look at it or not.

It could also be a lack of available visa numbers? or maybe they met some kind of quote for the number of approvals allowed and they're just not saying. Maybe they have to have a certain number of denials and with no rhyme or reason just randomly pick on couples.

I know of a couple who hadn't seen each other in almost three years when her SO had his interview (k1) back in January - he got his visa in 3 days. Not to mention, because he didn't have sufficient evidence on the day of his original interview in November last year they said they would reschedule which they did. I was on pins that they wouldn't get approved and alhumdulilah they did. So how can they turn around and deny others that not only have visited multiple times, but have plenty of evidence?

Very confusing and unfair and I'm just sorry to all those that are going through this. I wish there was something that could be done now!

[jennieh 0]

The one thing im worried about is it has been Since August 2004 that my husband and I last saw eachother. I would of went but I was in college and just starting a new job so time and money didnt really work in to it. And now were having to wait it looks like more then 3 months to get a interview date. This seems odd I dont know anyone who waited this long!! It dont look like we will get one this time either is where im saying 3 months at. All the people I talk to act like we wont get one.

[honeyblonde 0]

I agree with Rebecca. It's not so much one particular thing but a list of things, but as she said, they aren't applying them fairly.

Abdel and I were discussing this the other night and he felt like it was probably that they only have so many visas to give out so they are having to cut back. As Rebecca pointed out the other night, the internet cafes are full of men looking for a wife to get them out of there.

When I did my paper last year on the legal system there one thing I found out was that the number of scams uncovered in one year for getting people out of Morocco was outrageous. With such a high unemployment rate people will do anything to get out, even if it means faking a marriage, and even if the other party doesn't know it's fake.

When I was in Taza last May I couldn't believe the number of internet cafes they had, or how full they were. Abdel said some of them even advertised how many marriages had come out of them.

If this information is easily available to me, I am sure it is more so to a consulate trying to stop marriage fraud. What makes me angry though is that they are giving visas to those who don't meet the requirements while denying them to many who do.

[Jenn! 918]

When I was in Taza last May I couldn't believe the number of internet cafes they had, or how full they were. Abdel said some of them even advertised how many marriages had come out of them.

This is exactly why I think an internet meeting might raise suspicion for a CO in Morocco, more so than other factors. Of course visa fraud existed before the age of the internet, but hasn't it made it alot easier?

[UmmSqueakster 54]

When I did my paper last year on the legal system there one thing I found out was that the number of scams uncovered in one year for getting people out of Morocco was outrageous. With such a high unemployment rate people will do anything to get out, even if it means faking a marriage, and even if the other party doesn't know it's fake.

When I was in Taza last May I couldn't believe the number of internet cafes they had, or how full they were. Abdel said some of them even advertised how many marriages had come out of them.

That doesn't suprise me though. When I was in college, bored and didn't want to do homework, I would do a lottttttttt of ICQ chatting. I can't count the number of times guys professed their undying love to me after only a 20 minute chat. On to the ignore list they went.

My husband was one of the decent people I met online. I think it helped that we met 3 times, my family went to egypt to meet his family (disasterous as the meeting was), and that we knew each other for 4 years before we filed.

It might be helpful for someone to draw up a list of questions that people could answer, and a database could be created to track what worked and what didn't work.

[Jenn! 918]

When I did my paper last year on the legal system there one thing I found out was that the number of scams uncovered in one year for getting people out of Morocco was outrageous. With such a high unemployment rate people will do anything to get out, even if it means faking a marriage, and even if the other party doesn't know it's fake.

When I was in Taza last May I couldn't believe the number of internet cafes they had, or how full they were. Abdel said some of them even advertised how many marriages had come out of them.

That doesn't suprise me though. When I was in college, bored and didn't want to do homework, I would do a lottttttttt of ICQ chatting. I can't count the number of times guys professed their undying love to me after only a 20 minute chat. On to the ignore list they went.

My husband was one of the decent people I met online. I think it helped that we met 3 times, my family went to egypt to meet his family (disasterous as the meeting was), and that we knew each other for 4 years before we filed.

It might be helpful for someone to draw up a list of questions that people could answer, and a database could be created to track what worked and what didn't work.

Good idea! I'll draw something up. I think the questions should focused on information that is available from the original 129F submission, since the idea is that the case is being judged before interview, so that is all the information that is available.

[honeyblonde 0]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Abdel and I met online, but we majorly downplayed that. I vaguely mentioned it in the supplement I wrote, and then went on to focus on how totally different he was from the hundreds of other men I had met that way and, like Rahma, blocked instantly.

We both focused on the fact that we met while I was doing research on his country's legal system and he helped me with my research. I made it a point to say that he was so different from other foreign men I met that he just stood out like a diamond in mud or something like that.

[Jenn! 918]

Okay, here are the proposed questions. I'm hoping the information that we gather will be useful to not only those people waiting for their interviews, but also to those who haven't filed the 129F yet. Maybe our conclusion will be that we (we as a collective group of applicants through Morocco) are providing too much information in the 129F.

129F NOA1

129F NOA2

Interview Date

USC Petitioner M/F

Age of Petitioner

Age of Beneficiary

Petitioner # of previous marriages

Beneficiary # of previous marriages

Has the beneficiary lived outside of Morocco (past 5 years)? Which Countries?

Has the petitioner lived outside of the U.S.(past 5 years)? Which Countries?

Beneficiary Employment History (none/sporadic/consistent)

Petitioner Employment History (none/sporadic/consistent)

Information provided for question regarding meeting in the past 2 years

Evidence submitted

Please correct me if this isn't a comprehensive list of the information available from the original 129F submission to the USCIS.

[Jenn! 918]

Oh, one more:

Has petitioner ever applied before