Tourist visa to K-1 visa with a lie

[geowrian 22,337]

8 minutes ago, Justjake said:

So I guess my first question is, if she is applying for a Tourist Visa (B-2) and she specifically said she wanted to travel, why should her marital status have any impact on the validity of her application?  

Being married is a tie to return home..making them less likely to overstay (or find a partner in the US and then stay). Refusal under INA 214(b) is due to immigrant intent....essentially meaning they did not believe that she would return home. So she manufactured circumstances to make it seem like she would return home.

 

8 minutes ago, Justjake said:

Second question, if marital status is such a deciding factor on whether to grant someone a B-2 Visa, why is it not a prerequisite that the applicant is married, when applying for non-immigration based Visa's?

It's one of many factors that the CO uses when determining immigrant intent. Many single people are issued visas. Many single people are refused visas as well.

[Justjake 23]

29 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Being married is a tie to return home..making them less likely to overstay (or find a partner in the US and then stay). Refusal under INA 214(b) is due to immigrant intent....essentially meaning they did not believe that she would return home. So she manufactured circumstances to make it seem like she would return home.

 

It's one of many factors that the CO uses when determining immigrant intent. Many single people are issued visas. Many single people are refused visas as well.

Would her having returned home have an impact on leniency during a waiver process?

[geowrian 22,337]

19 minutes ago, Justjake said:

Would her having returned home have an impact on leniency during a waiver process?

No. The misrepresentation would be at the time it occurred (when she applied/interviewed for the visa) regardless of any events after the fact.

[SalishSea 17,836]

11 hours ago, Justjake said:

A little bit of an update.  My fiancee sent a picture of her previous denial letter, and it does reference Section 214(b) as being ineligible.  

Currently I am reading about Fraud and Willful misrepresentation on UCSIC's website, to determine which if it constitutes being classified as Willful Misrepresentation or Fraud.  

I suspect that her case is the worse of the two, meaning that she will be found ineligible due to Fraud, rather than Willful Misrepresentation, since Fraud also contains the clauses:

 

•The false representation was made with the intent to deceive a U.S. government official authorized to act upon the request (generally an immigration or consular officer); 

 and

•The U.S. government official believed and acted upon the false representation by granting the benefit. 

 

So I guess my first question is, if she is applying for a Tourist Visa (B-2) and she specifically said she wanted to travel, why should her marital status have any impact on the validity of her application?  
Granted, I understand that, in practice, people will lie on their applications, and as such the Consulate will deny a higher percentage of applicants as a result, but in theory, it seems that the Consulate should be taking applicants at their word.  

(please refrain from pointing out the irony of the situation as that has not been lost on me)

 

Second question, if marital status is such a deciding factor on whether to grant someone a B-2 Visa, why is it not a prerequisite that the applicant is married, when applying for non-immigration based Visa's?

 

It is not.   The burden of proof to ties to home (thereby ensuring return) falls on the visa applicant.   The CO looks at the totality of each case in determining how likely each applicant is to return to their country.  Reasons for returning home can include many things:  spouse, children, jobs, etc.

 

In her case, her ties to home  were weak enough to receive two denials, and she received, and took, bad advice to commit visa fraud on a third application.   

 

The reason COs don’t take visa applicants “at their word” that they will return when they are supposed to, is because of historical data which shows otherwise.

 

 

[SalishSea 17,836]

OP, you may need to look at moving to China.   

[John & Rose 7,239]

On 11/1/2018 at 8:34 PM, Justjake said:

That has been the premise of this entire thread. 

It seems to me like they will see a prior "misrepresentation" and she will possibly face a lifetime ban.  Saying her company did that won't hold water since it is her petition and her signature on the fraudulent petition.  I've seen permanent bans for less compelling cases.  I wish you luck.

 

The other bans I've seen are married and living in or about to live in the Philippines.  One couple lives in Japan and another in Korea.  The bans are not very easy to fight but you can try in case they do end up banning her.

[John & Rose 7,239]

On 11/2/2018 at 2:55 AM, randomstairs said:

Lying to get a visa after multiple denials and then staying on that "approved" visa is as deep inside the territory of visa fraud as it gets. She will have to admit lying on the visa application (*material* misrepresentation, for sure) and then hope to get a waiver. 

 

Off topic: would you consider suggesting moving to China or a third country and see her response?  

I was going to suggest the same.  I know of 4 permanent bans and two are living in the Philippines, one in Japan and one in Korea.

[John & Rose 7,239]

On 11/2/2018 at 8:51 AM, payxibka said:

Agreed but you also said if "you get past the uscis."   There is nothing here that would indicate the uscis would stop it if they prepared a proper petition as they probably would not even be aware of any misrepresentation 

One of the two petitions will be flagged with the misrepresentation.  Pick either.  The result is the same.  It won't happen until NVC and the Embassy.  USCIS may or may not even look at the previous petition because that isn't their job.  They don't issue visas... This is sad.

[payxibka 10,045]

1 minute ago, John & Rose said:

One of the two petitions will be flagged with the misrepresentation.  Pick either.  The result is the same.  It won't happen until NVC and the Embassy.  USCIS may or may not even look at the previous petition because that isn't their job.  They don't issue visas... This is sad.

What previous petition?  A B1/2 visa is an application which is a very different animal than a petition 

[John & Rose 7,239]

On 11/2/2018 at 11:34 AM, payxibka said:

The crux of the issue will be to what extent the misrepresentation factored into the decision.   If it was a factor then it is material,  if it wasn't considered at all then it may not be.

Correct.  The question is "Did the misrepresentation change the outcome of the application?"  It did.  Without the fake marriage 3 previous applications were denied.  Add a fake husband and it is approved.  The misrepresentation IS material to the issuance of the fraudulent visa.

Edited November 7, 2018 by John & Rose

[payxibka 10,045]

2 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

Correct.  The question is "Did the misrepresentation change the outcome of the petition?"  It did.  Without the fake marriage 3 previous petitions were denied.  Add a fake husband ad it is approved.  The misrepresentation IS material to the issuance of the fraudulent visa.

Applications 

[John & Rose 7,239]

On 11/2/2018 at 12:19 PM, Boiler said:

We are going around in circles but you can not get there without resolving the Divorce issue.

There will be an RFE or a 221(g) for those divorce papers...

[John & Rose 7,239]

1 minute ago, payxibka said:

Correct.  The question is "Did the misrepresentation change the outcome of the petition?"  It did.  Without the fake marriage 3 previous petitions were denied.  Add a fake husband ad it is approved.  The misrepresentation IS material to the issuance of the fraudulent visa.

 

2 minutes ago, payxibka said:

Applications 

Corrected!!!

[payxibka 10,045]

Just now, John & Rose said:

 

Corrected!!!

I'll stop following you around and correcting your terminology.   

 

BTW, no such thing as an RFE from an embassy but 221g is correct 

[John & Rose 7,239]

On 11/2/2018 at 12:54 PM, Justjake said:

The agency recommended that she check the married box, and they even put in a mans name, which is what is concerning to me, but she did sign it which admits to facilitating the fraud.

Her reasons for coming here were to learn about US business policies as her previous employer had a bunch of US company partnerships.

It doesn't matter who told her to do it, it is her application and it is her signature.  My K-1 was denied in part because I listened to an agency.  They are still in business making money.  I am now married and waiting on a CR-1.  Fraud is fraud and "he told me too" will not sway the CO.