K1 Visa denied at Phnom Penh Cambodia Embassy, questions and concerns on what to do next. (merged)

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The OP posted this, if the ban had been an issue then that would have been noted and a waiver option offered.

What are you saying? There is NOT a ban? What about the part where It specifically says “fraud or misrepresentation grounds” 

[Boiler 45,520]

1 minute ago, USS_Voyager said:

What are you saying? There is NOT a ban? What about the part where It specifically says “fraud or misrepresentation grounds” 

They refused it as they did not believe there was a valid relationship. Sent it back to die.

 

A ban is for a reason, might turn into one if they can get past the valid relationship issue.

 

There is no waiver for lack of valid relationship.

 

Misrep ban is 212 A 6 C1.

[Dataunavailable 82]

54 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

No, I think one thing can be done right now is to submit some sort of motion to reconsider to the Embassy if the OP is sure there was misrepresentation, but just a series of unfortunate errors. If you’re gonna fight it, fight it now. That’s why it is crucial to get a good lawyer who’s experienced and have had some successes in dealing and reversing Embassy’s decisions, and not some whack-job yahooo (those are out there too). You need to interview several lawyers and ask about their experiences.

 

If you are unable to convince the Embassy to drop the charge, then the only way is a waiver. The “good” news is the mother is a qualifying relative, as well as you (after you marry her)

Yeah, it was just some errors on the form. Nothing at all she said, and I believe her, was wrong in any legal sense or meant to hide anything. I can understand being fraud banned if it was an actual "attempt" to deceive the government to get her into the U.S. And I have respect for you all that are taking time out of your day to help. So I'm not going to hide anything, because what good would false answers do me at this stage. 

 

But nothing was ever an actual lie, which is what gives me some hope in it being overturned. Because I have everything that supports what was on the form, just mistakes made on my part. 

 

If we can at least get the mark lifted and they unfortunately won't offer a second interview,  I will fly there and marry her and submit a CR1. 

 

 

[Dataunavailable 82]

39 minutes ago, Boiler said:

They refused it as they did not believe there was a valid relationship. Sent it back to die.

 

A ban is for a reason, might turn into one if they can get past the valid relationship issue.

 

There is no waiver for lack of valid relationship.

 

Misrep ban is 212 A 6 C1.

So here is a question.  She asked the Interview officer what she could do. He said she can re apply, but this form is done. So if it was a full Misrep ban, why would he say I can re apply? Just to get the money from fees again? 

 

I'm just curious because the form is hard to understand,  outside the actual send back on Misrep fraud. 

[Boiler 45,520]

1 minute ago, Dataunavailable said:

So here is a question.  She asked the Interview officer what she could do. He said she can re apply, but this form is done. So if it was a full Misrep ban, why would he say I can re apply? Just to get the money from fees again? 

 

I'm just curious because the form is hard to understand,  outside the actual send back on Misrep fraud. 

Of course you can reapply, it is a legal option.

 

And as I keep on saying any Misrep issue would be something to be considered if the application is otherwise approvable.

 

They have no personal interest in what fees you pay.

 

 

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

16 minutes ago, Boiler said:

They refused it as they did not believe there was a valid relationship. Sent it back to die.

 

A ban is for a reason, might turn into one if they can get past the valid relationship issue.

 

I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense to me. Either there is a ban or there it not on the record. How can there be “no ban now but later there’s a ban”? 

[Boiler 45,520]

1 minute ago, USS_Voyager said:

 

I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense to me. Either there is a ban or there it not on the record. How can there be “no ban now but later there’s a ban”? 

Because it was not necessary to go that far, K1's returned we see here are usually done so because they relationship evidence issues.

 

Stupid example, she may also be a member of the Nazi party, major Drug dealer, that also could cause future problems.

[geowrian 22,337]

1 hour ago, Dataunavailable said:

So here is a question.  She asked the Interview officer what she could do. He said she can re apply, but this form is done. So if it was a full Misrep ban, why would he say I can re apply? Just to get the money from fees again?

There is nothing preventing her from reapplying. Reapplying doesn't bypass a ban (if there is one). There is also a waiver that can be submitted if there is a ban.

She was determined to be ineligible for the visa. That might not be the case in a future application.

 

57 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense to me. Either there is a ban or there it not on the record. How can there be “no ban now but later there’s a ban”? 

One must first be otherwise eligible for the visa. Only then will they assess any inadmissibilities.

[Dataunavailable 82]

25 minutes ago, geowrian said:

There is nothing preventing her from reapplying. Reapplying doesn't bypass a ban (if there is one). There is also a waiver that can be submitted if there is a ban.

She was determined to be ineligible for the visa. That might not be the case in a future application.

 

One must first be otherwise eligible for the visa. Only then will they assess any inadmissibilities.

This is all making more sense now.  So is there a way to actually know if they did issue a ban without filing again. Or is that something my Senators office can confirm corresponding with the Embassy? 

 

Or maybe it's something the Lawyer can affirm. I'm not worried about the time or money required to get this done. She means too much to me to worry about that. My concern is them not believing, even with all my documents and proof of our relationship.  

[Boiler 45,520]

Proof of relationship is certainly something time and money can solve.

[Dataunavailable 82]

On 3/24/2019 at 8:17 PM, Boiler said:

Proof of relationship is certainly something time and money can solve.

So as an update, I talked with one Attorney and they suggested to not go to my Senators office, as it could hurt my case with the Embassy not liking those offices contacting them? 

 

The Attorney did say if she would need a Fraud Waiver,  it would cost around a minimum of $7500. Some people that looked at the denial letter have also said it is a generic denial letter,  and quite possibly the interviewing officer accidentally put the wrong verbiage into the 221(g) check box. This was from someone who said they used to adjudicate petitions in S.E Asia. 

 

So, I'm just kind of in a confused spot again. With some saying it needs a Fraud Waiver most likely and some saying it is not a "Ban", otherwise the 212(a) box would be checked with verbiage in there about what the ban is for and what sub sections it entails. 

 

Because as far as I've been reading, Fraud itself, the Alien needs to knowingly lie to gain access to a Visa. Misrep, would be falsifying documents of words in attempt to gain a Visa, but not getting the Visa. 

 

This is a link to a reddit post I created. That post is what actually brought me here as someone in there linked to this site. 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/immigration/comments/b4pc40/k1_visa_denial_at_embassy_level_have_questions/

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Dataunavailable

[Boiler 45,520]

The Iwanttheknife guy sounds like a genuine CO unlike the Bob guy. Concentrate on his replies.

 

The rest of your questions I have replied to so no point continuing.

[geowrian 22,337]

Boblawblawslawblog1 stated questionable advice and incorrect information (notably that USCIS will even look at a returned I-129F...they stopped that years ago). He also claims to have been a prosecutor...interesting transition. 🤷‍♂️

The other guy gets it. No idea if he is or was a CO or not, but the advice is pretty solid.

The attorney's advice seems somehow less reliable than Bob (it won't hurt your case to contact the embassy and ask questions)...and with a much higher fee.

 

Nothing you've noted ITT or on reddit constitutes a material misrep. So either it's something else you aren't aware of yet, the charge is wrong but they believe a material misrep was made , or there is no misrep bar. At the same time, it rubs me as unusual for a CO to use those words both in the interview and then again in the refusal notice by accident and/or incorrectly. Sure they make mistakes, but relying on it being a mistake is something I would only do personally once the embassy confirmed it or all other reasonable possibilities are exhausted.

 

The more I look at the letter and compare it to others, the more I'm leaning to it being poor wording referring to a P6C1 so-called fraud marker (basically requesting USCIS to review the petition for fraud before actually finding fraud/misrep as an inadmissibility).

 

Background info on P6C1...

P = quasi-refusal

6C1 = INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), AKA Misrepresentation (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182)

 

9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(8)(a) https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html

"Misrepresentations in Family Relationship Petitions:  USCIS retains exclusive authority to deny or revoke family-relationship immigrant visa (IV) petitions.  Thus, a misrepresentation with respect to entitlement to the classification based on the relationship, e.g., a sham marriage in an IR-1 case, cannot be deemed material as long as the petition remains valid.  Upon discovery of a misrepresentation, you must return the petition to the appropriate USCIS office via the National Visa Center.  If the petition is revoked, the materiality of the misrepresentation is established. In some cases, the relationship and petition may still be valid, but the alien may misrepresent eligibility for the classification in a different way that is not relevant to the petition's validity, and would thus still be ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)."

 

The item in bold above will not occur. For an I-129F. USCIS lets it sit to expire by policy and then terminate it  - they do not revoke it. No revocation = no automatic misrepresentation simply as a result of being ineligible for the visa.

[cyclone27 710]

Again the only way she is coming here is for you to spend significant time with her over multiple visits.

 

Forget K1 - I would marry and start working on the CR1 and visit her often. 

[Dataunavailable 82]

3 hours ago, geowrian said:

Boblawblawslawblog1 stated questionable advice and incorrect information (notably that USCIS will even look at a returned I-129F...they stopped that years ago). He also claims to have been a prosecutor...interesting transition. 🤷‍♂️

The other guy gets it. No idea if he is or was a CO or not, but the advice is pretty solid.

The attorney's advice seems somehow less reliable than Bob (it won't hurt your case to contact the embassy and ask questions)...and with a much higher fee.

 

Nothing you've noted ITT or on reddit constitutes a material misrep. So either it's something else you aren't aware of yet, the charge is wrong but they believe a material misrep was made , or there is no misrep bar. At the same time, it rubs me as unusual for a CO to use those words both in the interview and then again in the refusal notice by accident and/or incorrectly. Sure they make mistakes, but relying on it being a mistake is something I would only do personally once the embassy confirmed it or all other reasonable possibilities are exhausted.

 

The more I look at the letter and compare it to others, the more I'm leaning to it being poor wording referring to a P6C1 so-called fraud marker (basically requesting USCIS to review the petition for fraud before actually finding fraud/misrep as an inadmissibility).

 

Background info on P6C1...

P = quasi-refusal

6C1 = INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), AKA Misrepresentation (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182)

 

9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(8)(a) https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html

"Misrepresentations in Family Relationship Petitions:  USCIS retains exclusive authority to deny or revoke family-relationship immigrant visa (IV) petitions.  Thus, a misrepresentation with respect to entitlement to the classification based on the relationship, e.g., a sham marriage in an IR-1 case, cannot be deemed material as long as the petition remains valid.  Upon discovery of a misrepresentation, you must return the petition to the appropriate USCIS office via the National Visa Center.  If the petition is revoked, the materiality of the misrepresentation is established. In some cases, the relationship and petition may still be valid, but the alien may misrepresent eligibility for the classification in a different way that is not relevant to the petition's validity, and would thus still be ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)."

 

The item in bold above will not occur. For an I-129F. USCIS lets it sit to expire by policy and then terminate it  - they do not revoke it. No revocation = no automatic misrepresentation simply as a result of being ineligible for the visa.

It was never mentioned to her that she was denied due to the Fraud or Misrep (what is on the denial letter) during the interview. The only word of it is in the denial letter. She said she asked what we can do and he told her I could re apply,  but this petition is done.  

 

On the part of the petition needing to be revoked for the Misrep to be material, and it would just sit to expire. If that is the case and that happens, I guess we wouldn't know for sure at the moment. But let's say that is what happens to my petition. I file for a CR-1 later this year, would it still be somewhat of an issue to obtain one, keep in mind if I have all required amounts of proof needed to be eligible for the CR-1, would this petition return cause issues down the road?

 

As for the rest of the information,  thank you. I appreciate all the time you have taken out of your day to respond here.