Unbelieveable K1 decision at Thailand US Embassy!!!!

[Ning 619]

I think you guys are missing the CRITICAL point in this case. The applicant did not feel comfortable applying for this Visa on his own, nor did he feel his Fiance was able to handle the process alone, therefore, he felt the need to hire a lawyer. He also did not have an issue paying for the lawyer.

Just because you felt it was an easy process to complete, others may not feel the same.

I guess I don't get it. You were the original one that thought you could advise him and not use a lawyer. Now you say it was always up to him.

Isnt that the case in every one of our situations? We all have to decide how to proceed. Karee thought a lawyer would help. They didn't. My husband thought the same when it came to my tourist visa. We found out just as Karee did they are in general worthless.

Isnt V J itself a self help site with the basic idea being we can do it and others can help by contributing their own knowledge?

How can anyone here determine how another person feels about proceeding unless the person conveys those thoughts?

[Boiler 45,954]

I would never say do not use a Lawyer.

Some cases I would say you must.

Most cases like this one they are not needed, but even when they are not needed some people prefer to let them handle the case.

[NikLR 13,232]

Honestly my husband wanted to hire a lawyer so that he wouldn't be worried about the case. I knew we had a straightforward case and said no, I'll do it all. So I did.

Considering he's sitting beside me while I'm in the USA, it worked out pretty well for us.

keywords: straightforward case

[mrrobj 20]

**UPDATE!!

I thought I'll update everyone on this case, as it was a lot of back and forth about whether tax liens or child support arrears will have a negative impact on Fiance Visas.

As previously posted, the applicant owed $75,000 if past due child support and an IRS tax lien for not paying taxes for (3) years, but was APPROVED for a visa for his fiancé in Bangkok Thailand recently. I just went to a celebration party he had for his fiancé a couple of days ago and we got into a discussion about this. Moreover, he was worried that he was going to have issues in adjusting her status in the States and continue to inquire with his lawyer about the matter.

Notably, his lawyer explained why the past due child support was not an issue in his case.

Back in January, 2011 a bill was introduced in Congress to amend the U.S. Immigration laws to DENY any family based petition, (which included Fiance Visas) for any individual that was certified by the State as having documented past due child support arrears. In addition, it was also asking to REVOKE any visa that was previously issued.

Nonetheless, the bill was never allow to move forward, never co-sponsored and never enacted. The bill basically died in committee. According to his lawyer, who specializes in Immigration law and followed this legislation closely, stated it was issues with the bill as to whether a lot of applicants were going to be wrongfully denied Visas due to child support judgment errors or jealous ex-spouses trying to cause havoc with their ex trying move forward in subsequent relationships.

The lawyer provided the following link below that showed the timeline of the bill and when it failed:

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/89

The lawyer also mentioned Consulars have considerable discretion in determining if petition should be DENIED based on applicants becoming a "public charge" and/or "good moral character" grounds, but the consular has to point to concrete evidence to base its denial decision, after it has been approved by USCIS. He also provided the following quote from a guideline manual used:

The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) has provided additional guidance on interpreting the public charge ground of inadmissibility. It states that the consular officer must not base a determination that the applicant is likely to become a public charge on “what if” type considerations. The determination must be based on “reasonable future projection of the alien’s present circumstances...which make it not merely possible, but likely, that the applicant will become a public charge.”

For example, it advises consular agents to be “flexible,” and to predicate public charge decisions on existing, specific facts. Applicants with income or funds that make them at or above the poverty income guidelines should be presumed admissible under INA § 212(a)(4); with those below the guidelines there arises a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility. Public charge findings “should be based on a reasonable projection of present circumstances and officers should point to a factual set of circumstances which make it not merely possible but likely that the alien will become a public charge.”

A 1997 State Department directive instructs consular posts on the new affidavits of support and their use in determining public charge. It states that the mere fact that the sponsor has met the minimum requirement does not preclude a finding that the visa applicant is inadmissible as a public charge. Even if the affiant meets the minimum requirements, a consular officer may require additional evidence of income or assets, or may require a joint sponsor, if the demonstrated resources do not appear adequate to prevent the applicant from becoming a public charge. The memo states that if the applicant and his or her spouse or dependents are in good health and appear to be employable, an affidavit of support that meets the minimum income level should generally be considered adequate. If not, "closer scrutiny of the sponsor's ability to provide the requisite level of support may be necessary."

I just thought I would pass this information on....due to a few conflicting posts surrounding this subject.