refusal of Spouse F-1 visa on account of child birth in US

[Mollie09 1,543]

He has to be 21 to sponsor her.

[Boiler 45,419]

21 to sponsor a parent, not 18.

The way you have described it does make it very suspicious.

[averageguy6 22]

214 (b) is a denial of a visa to a NON IMMIGRANT based upon the concern that they are actually, AN IMMIGRANT.....

You have a USA Citizen child, and not enough ties to your home country...so you are PRESUMED to be an IMMIGRANT.

Thus your NON IMMIGRANT category visa is DENIED....

This is not a lifetime ban per se, but the officer has all legal discretion to decide the case facts, they can not be over ruled except for errors in LAW not regarding the facts.

They told you YOU NEED A SPONSOR, because as far as they are concerned you are an IMPENDING IMMIGRANT.

​You can not get a visa to the USA without a family tie at this time. This is a common issue for undocumented here....if you have no family ties (with the ability to petition for you and show ability to support you) then you CAN NOT get an IMMIGRANT VISA.

If you were to legitimately get engaged or married to a USC who will sponsor you then you could immigrate.

However, you cant just do that for immigration purposes, as that would be fraud....and in this case the presumption would be that you set up a relationship to get around your immigration problem, so the burden of proof would be on you to show a true relationship..

No student visa is available for you anymore.

You could try an immigration lawyer, but this is such a well known issue....the CO says that you are a suspected and likely immigrant, so paying your bill is not the issue.....

You will still be a suspected immigrant.

Edited July 30, 2014 by averageguy6

[Boiler 45,419]

It was his wife applying....

[kirshan123 0]

In a nutshell, I believe this is a zero sum game even if we have the utmost intent of not settling or desire for immigration as we do not have any immediate family except for a few distant relatives. the only way for her is to have sponsorship by the 21 year old child.

so the consensus here among all the members here is that, there is no way even if the bills are settled, they would still on account of the USC child refuse my spouse any visa type, i.e. B-1 or F-1.

So basically, this is what i have gathered from the discussion and the insight shared by all here who posted replies.

1. The odds are very slim, but after the dues are settled, the CO can approve if the suspicion is removed that there is no intent to immigrate. however this is unlikely because of a USC.
2. there is also very low probability for her to get visit visa until these suspicions are addressed
3. The other is for her to wait till the USC sponsors her.

I thank you all for the information shared, it has been indeed been very helpful.

I will keep you posted once she reapplies after settlement of dues and seek your help.

regards:

[Boiler 45,419]

There is more than one issue here.

She can try as often as she likes. Realistically she would be better off looking elsewhere to study.

[jan22 3,043]

I think there is a bigger issue that isn't being discussed -- and the reason the visa officer referred to a lifetime ban. I believe your wife was found ineligible for the visa under Section 212(a)(6)© -- trying to obtain an immigration benefit (in this case, a student visa) through fraud and misrepresentation. Why? Not because of using public funds to pay for the birth of your child...that's a separate issue. The fraud/misrepresentation was in how she covered up the U.S. citizen child during her interview. You summarize it as follows:

Thus the 2 children were issued I 20 for the F2 visa. when the visa officer interviewed she read from the application and asked that you have 3 children and you are taking 2 along? why is that, so she told the officer that the father is reluctant at this time to let go and the 3rd one will visit with the father who is to stay back and support.

The real answer appears to be that the child was a U.S. citizen and didn't need a visa. Concealing that likely resulted in the visa denial and lifetime ban.

[Boiler 45,419]

I think there is a bigger issue that isn't being discussed -- and the reason the visa officer referred to a lifetime ban. I believe your wife was found ineligible for the visa under Section 212(a)(6)© -- trying to obtain an immigration benefit (in this case, a student visa) through fraud and misrepresentation. Why? Not because of using public funds to pay for the birth of your child...that's a separate issue. The fraud/misrepresentation was in how she covered up the U.S. citizen child during her interview. You summarize it as follows:

Thus the 2 children were issued I 20 for the F2 visa. when the visa officer interviewed she read from the application and asked that you have 3 children and you are taking 2 along? why is that, so she told the officer that the father is reluctant at this time to let go and the 3rd one will visit with the father who is to stay back and support.

The real answer appears to be that the child was a U.S. citizen and didn't need a visa. Concealing that likely resulted in the visa denial and lifetime ban.

I saw that mentioned but the Consulate it seems did not bring the misrep up, they had no real need to

My take was that the missing child cause the day delay during which the Medicaid issue was found and that scuppered any lingering possibility of a Visa being approved.

[jan22 3,043]

But receiving public benefits is not a lifetime ban....fraud is (without a waiver, at least).

[kirshan123 0]

Please just to clarify, she did not cover up the issue of the 3rd child. if you think of it why would have she disclosed the 3 children on the university application clearly knowing that the counselor would check this information as it is available to them. The reason it was done was because the US born child did not require the I-20, (assumption). When the counselor asked why isn't the 2nd child going she told her that he will be doing so later, however at that point the counselor just asked for the submission of the records of birth of the children travelling and she didn't even ask for the details of the 2nd child who wasn't travelling. this was told by my spouse when she was called the next day and she told her that the 2nd child was born in the US because of family reasons, moreover the 2nd child had been registered as a local citizen and issued a green Pakistani passport, (as he is eligible to hold by law in Pakistan 2 citizenship's until he turns 21 and decides to forego any one). There was no miss-representation and from the 1st day, further she also told the counselor that our 3rd child was born in the country of origin and we didn't have any intention of going for immigration etc.

I have told her to look for universities in other parts of the world as it seems likely that she is being perceived as an immigrant. while she clearly is not intending, the ground reality seems otherwise.

best regards and thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts, it has been very helpful.

[RhettVoe 282]

If she lied about anything, that would have destroyed her credibility....once that is gone, well....that's the end for a long long time...and other COs might also wonder if she is planning another maternity trip to the US to once again have a child at taxpayer's expense....lots of problems with this case...

[NancyNguyen 1,657]

EVERYONE, OP didn't say anything about LIFETIME BAN, that's different. They just refuse to give her any non-immigrant visas because she has intention to immigrate. Please read.

[Nga&John 12]

NancyNguyen, on 04 Aug 2014 - 2:08 PM, said:

EVERYONE, OP didn't say anything about LIFETIME BAN, that's different. They just refuse to give her any non-immigrant visas because she has intention to immigrate. Please read.

Ditto to this post, a lot of lawyer-wanna-be give false info.

[canadian_wife 1,820]

I seek some advise as to the Counselor refusal and the statement and I quote "ineligibility for life"

I reckon "lifetime ban" is a suitable synonym...don't you?

[jan22 3,043]

EVERYONE, OP didn't say anything about LIFETIME BAN, that's different. They just refuse to give her any non-immigrant visas because she has intention to immigrate. Please read.

Sorry -- but I read the posts quite well, thanks. In his original post, the OP quoted the visa officer as saying that his wife had an "ineligibility for lifetime". I think that speaks for itself as being a "lifetime ban", no matter how one reads it.