K1 refusal :( Suggestions

[Regi 11]

2 minutes ago, payxibka said:

When I was in a similar situation,  I requested the reconsideration within a day or two after the denial.   It took them a week to respond 

I am so frustrated now, the comment before you states it's returned to uscis.

But I tend to listen to positive comments likes yours

Maybe still cant accept the facts

[Regi 11]

1 minute ago, Nitas_man said:

He has very little time and needs to be on email and phone before the petition is returned to USCIS

Right now he is at work and cant read messages ( but its 1 am by me and gathering all advices and we will decide hopefully before morning here 

[payxibka 10,045]

3 minutes ago, Regi said:

I am so frustrated now, the comment before you states it's returned to uscis.

But I tend to listen to positive comments likes yours

Maybe still cant accept the facts

They may,  they may not.   I certainly had no expectation of success and was shocked when they agreed to reconsider 

[geowrian 22,337]

A denial based upon a public charge determination isn't returned to USCIS unless the petition expires and they choose not to renew it. If you find a suitable sponsor before then, then they should review the case again.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

1 minute ago, geowrian said:

A denial based upon a public charge determination isn't returned to USCIS unless the petition expires and they choose not to renew it. If you find a suitable sponsor before then, then they should review the case again.

This doesn’t really sound like public charge should have been applied

[Regi 11]

Uscis approval notice was until November 4th. I requested by email to extend it when I sent the IRS transcripts 

Uscis approval notice was until November 4th. I requested by email to extend it when I sent the IRS transcripts 

[SalishSea 17,802]

10 minutes ago, geowrian said:

A denial based upon a public charge determination isn't returned to USCIS unless the petition expires and they choose not to renew it. If you find a suitable sponsor before then, then they should review the case again.

Seems like OP should have gotten a 221g in this case.

[payxibka 10,045]

1 minute ago, Jorgedig said:

Seems like OP should have gotten a 221g in this case.

She did and the response was inadequate to approve the visa 

[geowrian 22,337]

24 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

This doesn’t really sound like public charge should have been applied

15 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Seems like OP should have gotten a 221g in this case.

Hard to say without all the facts (I may have missed more details?) , but it doesn't particularly jump out as a clear yes/no either way (the savings are good, but the low income for a new business owner might have been concerning). The 2019 revenue is not considered.

 

[SalishSea 17,802]

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Hard to say without all the facts (I may have missed more details?) , but it doesn't particularly jump out as a clear yes/no either way (the savings are good, but the low income for a new business owner might have been concerning). The 2019 revenue is not considered.

 

Agreed.  And this is a prime example of why the petitioner should be more involved.  It could even be a case of the embassy wondering about the incongruence between a very low income and a very high cash bank balance.

[Regi 11]

5 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Agreed.  And this is a prime example of why the petitioner should be more involved.  It could even be a case of the embassy wondering about the incongruence between a very low income and a very high cash bank balance.

I explained the reason of this balance above.

And CO knows that fiancee started new job in 2017 and that before worked for other company. 

 

Fiancee is involved just currently is at work and will and the email to the embassy as per suggestions above 

[SalishSea 17,802]

Just now, Regi said:

I explained the reason of this balance above.

And CO knows that fiancee started new job in 2017 and that before worked for other company. 

 

Fiancee is involved just currently is at work and will and the email to the embassy as per suggestions above 

I get that.  However, the CO could still be questioning the origin of that bank balance.  We have seen this happen.  I am not saying this is the situation here, but there have been cases where sponsors who do not qualify receive deposits from relatives, etc, to try to change their financial picture to their advantage for the public charge.

 

It is just one theory as to why they denied it.

[payxibka 10,045]

Just now, Jorgedig said:

I get that.  However, the CO could still be questioning the origin of that bank balance.  We have seen this happen.  I am not saying this is the situation here, but there have been cases where sponsors who do not qualify receive deposits from relatives, etc, to try to change their financial picture to their advantage for the public charge.

 

It is just one theory as to why they denied it.

Except according to the OP, they never showed statements to prove.   Another possibility is that the consulate may not,  as a local policy, even consider assets to overcome income shortfall.   I'm not familiar with almaty's practice as it is not a frequent consulate we see.

[Regi 11]

1 minute ago, payxibka said:

Except according to the OP, they never showed statements to prove.   Another possibility is that the consulate may not,  as a local policy, even consider assets to overcome income shortfall.   I'm not familiar with almaty's practice as it is not a frequent consulate we see.

Yes, CO has never seen the proof. It's only the numbers in affidavit of support 

I am from tashkent )

[payxibka 10,045]

1 minute ago, Regi said:

Yes, CO has never seen the proof. It's only the numbers in affidavit of support 

I am from tashkent )

Same,  as Tashkent is not a frequent consulate we see either