F2A son's visa in admin processing because petitioner didnt spend enough time in the US

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

7 hours ago, designguy said:

The consular officer saying they are going to keep the case open until the mother spends enough time sounds reallllllly suspicious. 
 

Sometimes the CO needs extra documents or such to make a decision and the beneficiary is given a chance to provide them. But it’s a decision that based on the facts as they have them, not what things may change in the future. If you aren’t qualified the visa is denied or returned to uscis. Something doesn’t pass the smell test. 

Disagree, imo it’s not really different to something like keeping a case on AP if current financial sponsorship is insufficient but allowing the applicants to find a joint sponsor to fix it. And that happens often.

Edited October 26, 2019 by SusieQQQ

[Unesouad22 9]

35 minutes ago, Unlockable said:

No. What I said is true. Nobody can influence a decision of a CO officer. The OPs case a decision was already made. A congressman can't and won't change the decision.

I did not say he wi change the decision

I say he will force them to move 

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

Just now, Unesouad22 said:

I did not say he wi change the decision

I say he will force them to move 

Who will force who to move?

 

 

[designguy 1,179]

3 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Disagree, imo it’s not really different to something like keeping a case on AP if current financial sponsorship is insufficient but allowing the applicants to find a joint sponsor to fix it. And that happens often.

Thats a fair point. The difference between the two was that I was thinking more that things like the sponsorship pertain to the eligibility of someone receiving a visa and therefore could be overcome at the embassy stage. Where as the residency requirement pertains to the eligibility of the petitioner and therefore lack of eligibility to petition would result in a denial/return. Just my line of thinking but very well could be wrong

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

45 minutes ago, designguy said:

Thats a fair point. The difference between the two was that I was thinking more that things like the sponsorship pertain to the eligibility of someone receiving a visa and therefore could be overcome at the embassy stage. Where as the residency requirement pertains to the eligibility of the petitioner and therefore lack of eligibility to petition would result in a denial/return. Just my line of thinking but very well could be wrong

But it’s repairable, just like the sponsorship issue. As long as the petitioner still has a green card/LPR status, the consulate can not find her ineligible to petition.

 

(Btw I don’t agree with your distinction as both pertain to the ability of the petitioner to petition but let’s not get too sidetracked in a meaningless debate)

Edited October 26, 2019 by SusieQQQ

[carmel34 3,633]

Sounds like an unusually kind-hearted officer who is willing to give the petitioner more time to establish domicile.  They got lucky.  Many officers would have just denied the visa outright.  Be grateful for the additional time to correct the problem, and send more evidence over the next six months that she is actually living in the US permanently.  If she does that it sounds like the visa will eventually be issued.  As is the case with most US immigration processes, patience and submitting lots of good documentation is the key to success.  Don't mess it up by trying to find a shortcut.  Good luck!

Edited October 26, 2019 by carmel34

[geowrian 22,337]

6 minutes ago, ZoeZebra said:

Would proof of cutting ties to the country she was previously in help? Selling a home? Selling a car? Canceling insurance? There are a lot of ways I can prove I don’t live in X state anymore. 

Certainly wouldn't hurt.