Visa denied

[Going through 5,671]

9 minutes ago, fitleo said:

Then why the entry stamp says until Feb 11th?

 

 

It's like of like going to a mall.

 

The mall opens at 8am---the mall closes at 8pm.

 

You can go to the mall at anytime between 8am and 8pm.

 

That doesn't mean you are expected or encouraged to hang out in the mall for the entire duration of time between 8am and 8pm, however.

 

Validity of a visa and duration of a visa (period of stay) are two different things.

 

The visa was VALID for multiple entry until February 11th.  That didn't mean that your husband could STAY until February 11th on one continuous trip.  Two different things.

 

When your husband was at POE, how  long did he tell the officer he was staying for?

 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Going through

[fitleo 15]

3 minutes ago, Going through said:

It's like of like going to a mall.

 

The mall opens at 8am---the mall closes at 8pm.

 

You can go to the mall at anytime between 8am and 8pm.

 

That doesn't mean you are expected or encouraged to hang out in the mall for the entire duration of time between 8am and 8pm, however.

 

Validity of a visa and duration of a visa (period of stay) are two different things.

 

The visa was VALID for multiple entry until February 11th.  That didn't mean that your husband could STAY until February 11th on one continuous trip.  Two different things.

 

When your husband was at POE, how  long did he tell the officer he was staying for?

 

 

I don't find the analogy compelling. If my drivers license is valid until a certain that means I can until that date. 

 

Alternatively, how could it be valid, if cannot be used,  what's the scenario where this could work? I know it's futile arguing what I do, but I'm trying to understand for my consultation prep with the lawyer and not find myself overwhelmed with legal jargon.

 

You meant POE for the August 12th entry? I doubt he remembers ...

[Going through 5,671]

3 minutes ago, fitleo said:

I don't find the analogy compelling. 

Well it was the best analogy I could come up with on the spot.  Sorry you didn't find it helpful.

 

4 minutes ago, fitleo said:

Alternatively, how could it be valid, if cannot be used,  what's the scenario where this could work? I know it's futile arguing what I do, but I'm trying to understand for my consultation prep with the lawyer and not find myself overwhelmed with legal jargon.

That's why I used the mall analogy before as a simple comparison.  

 

It's kind of like my foreign passport.  My passport is valid for 10 years...meaning it doesn't expire until 10 years from whenever I got it.  I can use it for multiple entries into different countries for up to 10 years. 

 

However, under immigration laws, I can only stay in each country for no more than 6 months at a time.  It's not like I can stay in another country for 10 years straight just because my passport is valid for 10 years. 

 

What I'm trying to point out here, is that having a visa valid for a length of time (however many years) does not mean that the duration of stay you are allowed in the country during a trip is the same length of time.

 

10 minutes ago, fitleo said:

If my drivers license is valid until a certain that means I can until that date. 

 

Yes, but you would still be expected to follow all of the traffic laws surrounding having that valid licence, right?  Because it's not enough to just have a "valid drivers license"....would be like trying to get out of a traffic ticket based solely on the fact that your drivers licence is valid and saying "well my licence is valid, so I'm allowed to run the stop sign."  Do you  understand what I'm getting at?

[broppy 204]

1 hour ago, Going through said:

 

1 hour ago, fitleo said:

Entry August 12th( this stamp clearly has until Feb 11, 2010 on it),  Exit Feb 10 , 2010

 

The CO is correct.  Based on the exit/entry date above,  that was a total of 183 days, from start to end.

As evidenced by the passport stamp, B-1 visits are typically permitted for 6 months, not 180 days. All the talk about mall opening hours and driving license validity is beside the point. Presumably his visa was valid for several years and this particular trip was authorized for 6 months from Aug 12. He left before Feb 11 the follow year, so did not overstay on that visit. The CO may be mistaken about that point.

 

1 hour ago, fitleo said:

And then the CO also said the bar is for 10 yrs for overstayin over a year. 

You also mentioned that he was working on the B-1. It's almost as if the CO is considering the whole time he spent in the US as an overstay as he entered on the wrong visa - just off the top of my head, those visits in 2009-10 look to add up to more than a year in total.

Edited October 11, 2017 by broppy

[fitleo 15]

6 minutes ago, broppy said:

As evidenced by the passport stamp, B-1 visits are typically permitted for 6 months, not 180 days. All the talk about mall opening hours and driving license validity is beside the point. Presumably his visa was valid for several years and this particular trip was authorized for 6 months from Aug 12. He left before Feb 11 the follow year, so did not overstay on that visit. The CO may be mistaken about that point.

 

You also mentioned that he was working on the B-1. It's almost as if the CO is considering the whole time he spent in the US as an overstay as he entered on the wrong visa - just off the top of my head, those visits in 2009-10 look to add up to more than a year in total.

 

Interesting, my husband was saying 6 months the entire time and I was arguing with him it's 180 days.  Hmmmm

 

Regarding the one year total, the B1 visa was not the visa he entered with until may 15th and I now find out that the oil company thing was training that lasted tI'll mid June

 

Prior to that he had a different visa and he didn't work under it but was finishing uni

 

 

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

    They may have also found that your husband was living in the US under a visitors visa.  He wasn't spending much time out between returns.   Did he file taxes on the money he was earning ?  IF not  it will be a mark against him when it comes to deciding on the waiver.  

    I think you will have to file to see the notes in the file on him  ( freedom of information)  because all we are doing is guessing.  The fact your husband didn't understand the rules doesn't help.  They correctly cancelled the visa for the overstay of even one day, and in digging found more reasons to cancel it. ( Given his short exits it was a given he was working here )  The 6 months vs 180 days is a killer, Because they count both the arrival and departure days as whole days it is not wise to even try for exactly 180 because a missed flight can be a killer.   

When he was schooling  , was that an F visa ?   It would help us if you gave a full timeline   including visa/esta  at entry   and dates of entry / exit   . And other significant dates ( like layoff date ) 

 

 

[fitleo 15]

1 hour ago, NigeriaorBust said:

    They may have also found that your husband was living in the US under a visitors visa.  He wasn't spending much time out between returns.   Did he file taxes on the money he was earning ?  IF not  it will be a mark against him when it comes to deciding on the waiver.  

    I think you will have to file to see the notes in the file on him  ( freedom of information)  because all we are doing is guessing.  The fact your husband didn't understand the rules doesn't help.  They correctly cancelled the visa for the overstay of even one day, and in digging found more reasons to cancel it. ( Given his short exits it was a given he was working here )  The 6 months vs 180 days is a killer, Because they count both the arrival and departure days as whole days it is not wise to even try for exactly 180 because a missed flight can be a killer.   

When he was schooling  , was that an F visa ?   It would help us if you gave a full timeline   including visa/esta  at entry   and dates of entry / exit   . And other significant dates ( like layoff date ) 

 

 

I only got the dates for 09 so far.

 

When he was in college he wasn't on an F visa,  but G

 

 

[Ahoy01 31]

What puzzles me in this case is, if they felt like he was ineligible for the CR-1/IR-1 visa due to the ban. How did the approve the I-130? I'm sure they can see that the person was banned, when they did the background checks and everything, during the I-130 process. Would they not have rejected on the grounds that he has a currently enforced ban? Or have rejected him during the NVC process, instead of waiting for an embassy interview.

 

Maybe one of the more experienced members of VJ chime in on this.

[geowrian 22,337]

20 hours ago, fitleo said:

Is this an offense that cannot be forgiven?

Well...that's basically what the waiver is. It's requesting that they overlook / forgive the offense.

 

3 minutes ago, Eli01 said:

What puzzles me in this case is, if they felt like he was ineligible for the CR-1/IR-1 visa due to the ban. How did the approve the I-130? I'm sure they can see that the person was banned, when they did the background checks and everything, during the I-130 process. Would they not have rejected on the grounds that he has a currently enforced ban? Or have rejected him during the NVC process, instead of waiting for an embassy interview.

 

Maybe one of the more experienced members of VJ chime in on this.

The I-130 is only a petition to establish a relationship between the petitioner and beneficiary. It has nothing to do with actual eligibility for the visa itself. Somebody could be permanently barred with no waiver possible and have the I-130 approved. Bars are only taken into account when the visa would otherwise be approved. Then if it's a waivable offense, they have the opportunity to request a waiver.

[fitleo 15]

1 minute ago, Eli01 said:

What puzzles me in this case is, if they felt like he was ineligible for the CR-1/IR-1 visa due to the ban. How did the approve the I-130? I'm sure they can see that the person was banned, when they did the background checks and everything, during the I-130 process. Would they not have rejected on the grounds that he has a currently enforced ban? Or have rejected him during the NVC process, instead of waiting for an embassy interview.

 

Maybe one of the more experienced members of VJ chime in on this.

That's a good point, but I think,  and again,  I may be just as wrong as you are,  they checked everything pertinent to the validity of the marriage. 

 

As it were, there is ample evidence it isn't,  10 years of documented evidence of bona fide relationship, is heck of a lot.

 

So technically, if my husband had a clean record there is nothing to prevent his immigration based on my petition.

 

But his is nothing but, so embassy decided record outweighs evidence. 

 

Of course I may be totally wrong too

 

Would also like to hear your viewpoints

 

Thx

[fitleo 15]

3 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Well...that's basically what the waiver is. It's requesting that they overlook / forgive the offense.

 

The I-130 is only a petition to establish a relationship between the petitioner and beneficiary. It has nothing to do with actual eligibility for the visa itself. Somebody could be permanently barred with no waiver possible and have the I-130 approved. Bars are only taken into account when the visa would otherwise be approved. Then if it's a waivable offense, they have the opportunity to request a waiver.

Thanks. 

 

So I was not totally off 

 

Is it strange that I still have a glimpse of hope for the waiver? 

[geowrian 22,337]

2 minutes ago, fitleo said:

Is it strange that I still have a glimpse of hope for the waiver? 

No. I wouldn't get my hopes up, but it is possible. I think you really need to sit down with a good immigration attorney that deals/specializes with waivers to figure out the best approach to show hardship.

[Coco8 1,042]

14 hours ago, fitleo said:

Thanks for your input. 

 

Different strokes for different folks. Some would move to DRC, some wouldn't move even to the UK. 

 

With that being said, my husband hasn't been based there for a while, hence the interview in Kazakhstan. 

 

P.s. how can loans be used for this situation? 

 

Many thx

It means you have to be able to work to pay the loan and it is a tie to the US. It works with student loans, or thing you cannot get rid off (a car loan would probably not matter much).

 

It might be easier to say that you would have to move to Kazakhstan instead of the UK. That would give you more "points" like language for you and the child. Maybe something else but I do not know anything about Kazakhstan.

 

I agree that you might want to consult with a lawyer. 

 

 

[Boiler 45,486]

Probably all doable, just a question of time and money.

[fitleo 15]

38 minutes ago, Coco8 said:

It means you have to be able to work to pay the loan and it is a tie to the US. It works with student loans, or thing you cannot get rid off (a car loan would probably not matter much).

 

It might be easier to say that you would have to move to Kazakhstan instead of the UK. That would give you more "points" like language for you and the child. Maybe something else but I do not know anything about Kazakhstan.

 

I agree that you might want to consult with a lawyer. 

 

 

Ah, the good old student loans. If true, then of course got them and expecting to incur more now that my doctorate fellowship is about to expire.

 

Good point on Kazakhstan. 

 

Thanks for throwing these ideas at me. I'll definitely explore all options with the lawyer.