Appeal denial ok K1 visa

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

I stand corrected. Section 221 G deals with administrative procedures on the handling of petitions. It was a typo, But it does not address the issue of engagements.. Moreover, the petitioner already sees the need for getting a lawyer. That I strongly support because there is now a denial on file that Immigration is liable to bring up. Your previous petitions are considered relevant when you file a new petition. Immigration can take a pattern of frivolous or fraudulent applications in the past into consideration when considering a new petition.

There is not now a denial on file.

The consulate can not deny, they can only refuse and return the petition to USCIS.

USCIS could technically deny a K1 petition but will not instead they will allow it to expire so that the petitioner/beneficiary will not

have a hard fraud marker on their records and are able to file again without prejudice.

Immigration not only CAN but WILL take a pattern of frivolous and fraudulent applications in the past into consideration, however

fraud has not been a factual finding here or it would have been marked so on the 221g.

A lawyer is not necessary if the OP understands the issues, frontloads a potential new petition with quality supporting evidence

surrounding the relationship time line and circumstances.

[rmarkwallace 7]

(off topic and extraneous commentary has been edited out - VJ Moderation Team)

I personally think that he got denied because they thought that she was trying to get him a visa. That would make a lot of sense. They think that she divorced her husband in order to get the beneficiary a visa, and then will live unmarried with her ex husband for two years until she and the paper second husband can file the 751. Then they divorce and she remarries the first husband that she divorced to marry the paper husband. That happens all of the time and is the biggest single type of fiance visa fraud. I don't know if that is true in her case or not but that's the way that the consulates think. If they thought that was the case then they would find it strange that a woman would be engaged before her divorce was even final and would question that.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove off topic and extraneous commentary

[belinda63 3,033]

"I personally think that he got denied because they thought that she was trying to get him a visa"

Nine pages later you finally get it. Yes this is why it was denied. They did not believe they had a real relationship.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

(quote containing misinformation and not relevant to the topic has been removed - VJ Moderation)

As far as an appeal goes yes, but OP is still pursuing the senatorial request for a second interview and should not "let that go."

If she lets everything go now and hires the lawyer to re file only the lawyer would benefit.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove extraneous information

[rmarkwallace 7]

The reason why she needs a lawyer is that she couldn't pull it off the first time. She and the beneficiary aren't clear enough about what they are doing. There also very definitely a record of the application and that it was "not approved", . . . . (content extraneous to this discussion has been removed - VJ Moderation)

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41

[rmarkwallace 7]

What will happen is the senator's "case worker" will deal with a legislative relations co-ordinator who will follow the case to make sure that the constituent got a thorough consideration of the case and nothing more. If the senator's case worker gets the person a second interview, and he probably can, they will interview the beneficiary again and if there is no change, they will deny it again. The beneficiary will need new evidence and he doesn't know what new evidence he needs. Without new evidence, it will get denied again. That is why she needs a lawyer. The "senator" will not pressure them to allow it, only make sure that the bureaucracy thoroughly investigated it.

(post content has been edited to remove extraneous, off topic content - VJ Moderation)

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove extraneous and off topic content

[rmarkwallace 7]

My initial analysis was that being engaged before a divorce is final was "not a valid issue" as one agency that I worked for would categorize it and I was sort of reexamining them to find out what was wrong. I now conclude that, rightly or wrongly, the consulate denied it on the grounds that it was an immigration marriage. They might be dead wrong but that is what they did.

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

(quoted post containing misinformation has been removed - VJ Moderation Team)

INA: ACT 221 - ISSUANCE OF VISAS

Sec. 221. [8 U.S.C. 1201]

. . . . .

(g) No visa or other documentation shall be issued to an alien if (1) it appears to the consular officer, from statements in the application, or in the papers submitted therewith, that such alien is ineligible to receive a visa or such other documentation under section 212, or any other provision of law, (2) the application fails to comply with the provisions of this Act, or the regulations issued thereunder, or (3) the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that such alien is ineligible to receive a visa or such other documentation under section 212, or any other provision of law: Provided, That a visa or other documentation may be issued to an alien who is within the purview of section 212(a)(4) , if such alien is otherwise entitled to receive a visa or other documentation, upon receipt of notice by the consular officer from the Attorney General of the giving of a bond or undertaking providing indemnity as in the case of aliens admitted under section 213: Provided further, That a visa may be issued to an alien defined in section 101(a)(15) (B) or (F ) , if such alien is otherwise entitled to receive a visa, upon receipt of a notice by the consular officer from the Attorney General of the giving of a bond with sufficient surety in such sum and containing such conditions as the consular officer shall prescribe, to insure that at the expiration of the time for which such alien has been admitted by the Attorney General, as provided in section 214(a) , or upon failure to maintain the status under which he was admitted, or to maintain any status subsequently acquired under section 248 of the Act, such alien will depart from the United States.

(information extraneous to the topic at hand has been edited out- VJ Moderation)

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove misinformation

[Boiler 45,411]

My initial analysis was that being engaged before a divorce is final was "not a valid issue" as one agency that I worked for would categorize it and I was sort of reexamining them to find out what was wrong. I now conclude that, rightly or wrongly, the consulate denied it on the grounds that it was an immigration marriage. They might be dead wrong but that is what they did.

Welcome to the party.

10 pages late but never mind.

[rmarkwallace 7]

Spend the $1500 on a lawyer. If you didn't have a problem your beneficiary would be on the plane.

[rmarkwallace 7]

I personally think that she and her fiance are bona fides.

[Pandora09 4]

There s no such thing , both my husband (fiance at the time) and i got engaged months before both divorces finalized and got his visa .......

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

There were some red flags, such as they grew up together and their parents were friends. Evidence to overcome the CO thinking it was for immigration purposes only was much needed. The CO did not look at relationship evidence at the interview. She only asked a couple questions, threw out the ridiculous claim that when they became engaged was against the USCIS laws and handed him the 221(g). She had already made up her mind to refuse the visa.

The second interview might be a long shot, and an even longer one to get an approval if it happened, but no reason not to try that route first, before re-filing. When re-filing, they need to decide if they want to go for a K-1 again, or just get married and file for a CR-1. Either way, they will need plenty of evidence front-loaded into their petition to prove that their relationship is real and they are not just trying to get a family friend a visa/green card.

[belinda63 3,033]

(edited to remove inappropriate personal comment - VJ Moderation)

OP I have already given you advice. If you can get a second interview be prepared with lots of evidence. If not follow what I advised previously.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove inappropriate comment

[belinda63 3,033]

Mark please stop spam posting. You are wasting space that is supposed to be devoted to the OP and provide advise for them. This is not a soapbox for you to expound upon your expertise in everything. Please stop.