REJECTED!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

knowingyour spouse thru a relative or friend in the US, is this not legitimate. ...

If it wasn't, then I would have had more serious trouble than 1 RFE (because I used taped-on signature samples for "her" G-325A).

[cjindia 0]

knowingyour spouse thru a relative or friend in the US, is this not legitimate. ...

If it wasn't, then I would have had more serious trouble than 1 RFE (because I used taped-on signature samples for "her" G-325A).

She is my aunts(lives in India) friend. Her dad and my uncle work together. been family friends for years..

[Charuhans 0]

My 2 bits :

Once the petition/case leaves the Consualte for NVC, the Consulate can't do a review, Period! I was on AP/AR for more than a year, did a lot of research. There were quite a few instances regarding Mumbai consulate where after the beneficiary was informed about the denial, the petitioner called and was able to the speak to the Chief Consular Officer and was able to get a review. All those denials were overturned at the Consulate level. But the key here is to get them to stop/delay sending the case back to the NVC. Once it leaves the Consulate, it gets very complicated. The only way out is to Appeal and the process may takes anywhere from 1 to 3 years. One can check the timelines on the USCIS website.

Now, the reason for denial ... the Consulate never releases the minute details of the denial to the beneficiary, petitioner or to a Congressman/woman. Period! If one reads the guidelines issued by the State Department to Consulates, there is a clause which gives them quite a bit of leeway. The main excuse they don't want to compromise their sources of intelligence. When they point to the documents as not proving a relationship it doesn't mean that the denial was based only on the documents. Mind you every US Consulate has a Fraud Investigation Division(FID) and they do checks on the beneficiary IF the case goes on AP/AR. The FID is always inundated with cases in India and sometimes it takes them a year to do an investigation. Now, one cannot say that all the investigations are through and unbaised. An example : they call or meet a relative/neighbour and ask questions about the beneficiary. Now, you are counting the number of relatives, neighbours who would cut their noses to give you a bad day, aren't you?? Thats the thing ... a relative thinks aloud, oh didn't she get engaged once before too to an NRI .... now thats not true but the investigator is not going to think twice, his job is done, he has proof, the beneficiary is just out to get a Visa and a green card. Period!!

Now, denials based on such information get thrown out in the Appeals. But the wait .....

The only way you can get your hands on the minute details is to use the ROI act. Again, the NVC is not going to be generous with the information they give, the law gives them a lot of leeway. But then they just might. Again it takes time. Sorry for my skepticism but no member of Congress is going to be able to get any information for you. They just don't have any power here. But as you say if this Congressman is buddy buddy with your family he may twist some things to get information but with all the Justice department scandals out there, would any Congressman take the risk? One more thing, the Consulates abhor the disturbances from Congressmen/Senator's aides sending faxes, emails et el for information on cases. They don't give 2 bits to any inquiries from them.

Now, you have 2 ways to address this : Go in Appeal or go ahead and get married and apply for a K3/CR1. Again the case will go to the same consulate and its going to be difficult but you have a chance. The only thing to consider is if the it gets denied again are you willing to endure years of seperation until the Appeal gets thru' or just move to India and get on with your life.

Good Luck!

Charuhans

[jojoe 0]

This is unreal, I submitted more documents for proof than required. I also visited my fiance 3 times. Her family is best friends with my aunts family. Yet she got a 221g at the interview and then this:

Documents submitted by you are unable to establish that a crdible relationship exists between yourself and petitioner. The fiance visa petition is valid for 4 months from the date of its approval. Your petition was approved on Feb 6 2007, and since then more than 4 months past. Because the consular officer was not convinced with the relationship between yourself and petitioner, the petiton was not revalidated . We have returned the petition to the NVC.

What happens now.. Congressman didnt do a thing... supposedly they called up etc etc. she is a wreck.. what do i do now.

btw this is what we submitted

1. 200 emails

2. hundreds and hundreds of dollars in phone bills

3. 3 seperate pplane trips by me

4 over 70 engagement photos..

what else?

I am very upset. I called him lawyer and he was furious... he said my fiance will come here... and he will get working on it. The congressman, said he will directly call the consulate general. I dont know about that, but since he works with my dad on many projects I hope he means it.

My laywer told me to be reasonable and think what else we could have shown, he said based on the law, the consulate officer was out of bounds. They do have discretion but there is a limit, and they usually have to follow what the USCIS decides, and only overrule if they find concrete evidence to the contrary. he even faxed me the actual rules they must follow. It was sent to them by State Dept. Seems that alot of people are suing DHS since the consulates are not following the standards. But like i said, who knows .. this system is so wacky.

I just sent the embassy a detailed email stating what was provided, if they can revalidate the visa for 4 more months and I wil be more than willing to provide anything to prove the relationship.

I am terribly sorry to hear that and pray that everything works out for you.

Certainly a good immigration lawyer, the help of a congressman from the India caucus, and the prayers of avg-joes like us, will get you there...

All the best,

Joe

[doc_cute 0]

This is unreal, I submitted more documents for proof than required. I also visited my fiance 3 times. Her family is best friends with my aunts family. Yet she got a 221g at the interview and then this:

Documents submitted by you are unable to establish that a crdible relationship exists between yourself and petitioner. The fiance visa petition is valid for 4 months from the date of its approval. Your petition was approved on Feb 6 2007, and since then more than 4 months past. Because the consular officer was not convinced with the relationship between yourself and petitioner, the petiton was not revalidated . We have returned the petition to the NVC.

What happens now.. Congressman didnt do a thing... supposedly they called up etc etc. she is a wreck.. what do i do now.

btw this is what we submitted

1. 200 emails

2. hundreds and hundreds of dollars in phone bills

3. 3 seperate pplane trips by me

4 over 70 engagement photos..

what else?

I am very upset. I called him lawyer and he was furious... he said my fiance will come here... and he will get working on it. The congressman, said he will directly call the consulate general. I dont know about that, but since he works with my dad on many projects I hope he means it.

My laywer told me to be reasonable and think what else we could have shown, he said based on the law, the consulate officer was out of bounds. They do have discretion but there is a limit, and they usually have to follow what the USCIS decides, and only overrule if they find concrete evidence to the contrary. he even faxed me the actual rules they must follow. It was sent to them by State Dept. Seems that alot of people are suing DHS since the consulates are not following the standards. But like i said, who knows .. this system is so wacky.

I just sent the embassy a detailed email stating what was provided, if they can revalidate the visa for 4 more months and I wil be more than willing to provide anything to prove the relationship.

I am terribly sorry to hear that and pray that everything works out for you.

Certainly a good immigration lawyer, the help of a congressman from the India caucus, and the prayers of avg-joes like us, will get you there...

All the best,

Joe

what does caucus mean ,

i havent heard of this one ,

[ssma2007 0]

This is unreal, I submitted more documents for proof than required. I also visited my fiance 3 times. Her family is best friends with my aunts family. Yet she got a 221g at the interview and then this:

Documents submitted by you are unable to establish that a crdible relationship exists between yourself and petitioner. The fiance visa petition is valid for 4 months from the date of its approval. Your petition was approved on Feb 6 2007, and since then more than 4 months past. Because the consular officer was not convinced with the relationship between yourself and petitioner, the petiton was not revalidated . We have returned the petition to the NVC.

What happens now.. Congressman didnt do a thing... supposedly they called up etc etc. she is a wreck.. what do i do now.

btw this is what we submitted

1. 200 emails

2. hundreds and hundreds of dollars in phone bills

3. 3 seperate pplane trips by me

4 over 70 engagement photos..

what else?

I am very upset. I called him lawyer and he was furious... he said my fiance will come here... and he will get working on it. The congressman, said he will directly call the consulate general. I dont know about that, but since he works with my dad on many projects I hope he means it.

My laywer told me to be reasonable and think what else we could have shown, he said based on the law, the consulate officer was out of bounds. They do have discretion but there is a limit, and they usually have to follow what the USCIS decides, and only overrule if they find concrete evidence to the contrary. he even faxed me the actual rules they must follow. It was sent to them by State Dept. Seems that alot of people are suing DHS since the consulates are not following the standards. But like i said, who knows .. this system is so wacky.

I just sent the embassy a detailed email stating what was provided, if they can revalidate the visa for 4 more months and I wil be more than willing to provide anything to prove the relationship.

I am terribly sorry to hear that and pray that everything works out for you.

Certainly a good immigration lawyer, the help of a congressman from the India caucus, and the prayers of avg-joes like us, will get you there...

All the best,

Joe

what does caucus mean ,

i havent heard of this one ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus

[doc_cute 0]

This is unreal, I submitted more documents for proof than required. I also visited my fiance 3 times. Her family is best friends with my aunts family. Yet she got a 221g at the interview and then this:

Documents submitted by you are unable to establish that a crdible relationship exists between yourself and petitioner. The fiance visa petition is valid for 4 months from the date of its approval. Your petition was approved on Feb 6 2007, and since then more than 4 months past. Because the consular officer was not convinced with the relationship between yourself and petitioner, the petiton was not revalidated . We have returned the petition to the NVC.

What happens now.. Congressman didnt do a thing... supposedly they called up etc etc. she is a wreck.. what do i do now.

btw this is what we submitted

1. 200 emails

2. hundreds and hundreds of dollars in phone bills

3. 3 seperate pplane trips by me

4 over 70 engagement photos..

what else?

I am very upset. I called him lawyer and he was furious... he said my fiance will come here... and he will get working on it. The congressman, said he will directly call the consulate general. I dont know about that, but since he works with my dad on many projects I hope he means it.

My laywer told me to be reasonable and think what else we could have shown, he said based on the law, the consulate officer was out of bounds. They do have discretion but there is a limit, and they usually have to follow what the USCIS decides, and only overrule if they find concrete evidence to the contrary. he even faxed me the actual rules they must follow. It was sent to them by State Dept. Seems that alot of people are suing DHS since the consulates are not following the standards. But like i said, who knows .. this system is so wacky.

I just sent the embassy a detailed email stating what was provided, if they can revalidate the visa for 4 more months and I wil be more than willing to provide anything to prove the relationship.

I am terribly sorry to hear that and pray that everything works out for you.

Certainly a good immigration lawyer, the help of a congressman from the India caucus, and the prayers of avg-joes like us, will get you there...

All the best,

Joe

what does caucus mean ,

i havent heard of this one ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus

this link isnt opening

board message shows some prob with my servor any other link

[JanaknJanet 0]

Doc... copied what wikipedia states for you...

defination.. of a few sorts..

A caucus is most generally defined as being a meeting of supporters or members of a political party or movement. The exact definition varies between many different countries.

Caucuses in the United States

Main article: Congressional caucus

In U.S. politics and government, caucus has several distinct but interrelated meanings.

A meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members' actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.

The term is frequently used in the media to discuss the caucuses used by some states to select presidential nominees, such as the Iowa caucuses. Along these same lines, in early American history, the Congressional nominating caucus and legislative caucus were influential meetings of congressmen to decide the party's nominee for President and party platforms. Similar caucuses were held by the parties at state level.

The other main context in which the term is used in the media is for subgrouping of elected officials that meet on the basis of shared affinities or ethnicities, usually to effect policy. At the highest level, in Congress and many state legislatures, Democratic and Republican members organize themselves into a caucus (occasionally called a "conference").[1] There can be smaller caucuses in a legislative body, including those which are bipartisan or even bicameral in nature. Of the many Congressional caucuses, one of the best-known is the Congressional Black Caucus, a group of African-American members of Congress. Another prominent example is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, whose members voice and advance issues affecting Hispanics in the United States, including Puerto Rico. In a different vein, the Congressional Internet Caucus is composed of a bipartisan group of Members who wish to promote the growth and advancement of the Internet. Congressional caucuses such as the Out of Iraq Caucus, are an openly organized tendency or political faction (within the House Democratic Caucus, in this case), and strive to achieve political goals, similar to a European "platform, but generally organized around a single issue."

Among American left-wing groups, a caucus may be an openly organized tendency or political faction within the group, equivalent to a European "platform." Examples would include the "Debs," "Coalition" and "Unity" Caucuses of the Socialist Party of America in its last years.

Caucuses in Commonwealth Nations

In some Commonwealth nations, a caucus is a regular meeting of all Members of Parliament who belong to a political party. In a Westminster System, a party caucus can be quite powerful, as it has the ability to elect or dismiss the party's parliamentary leader. The caucus also determines some matters of policy, parliamentary tactics, and disciplinary measures against disobedient MPs. In some parties (such as the Australian Labor Party or the New Zealand Labour Party), caucus also has the ability to elect MPs to Cabinet when the party is in government.

In New Zealand and in the Australian Labor Party, the term "caucus" can be used to refer to the collective group of the MPs themselves, rather than merely the meeting of these MPs. Thus, the (Australian) Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is commonly called "the Labor Caucus." The word was introduced to Australia by King O'Malley, an American-born Labor member of the first federal Parliament in 1901, and presumably entered into New Zealand politics at a similar time. In New Zealand, the term is used by all political parties, but in Australia, it is restricted to the Labor Party. In the Liberal and National parties, and for all parties in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the usual term is the parliamentary party.

The usage of caucus in Canada is similar to that of New Zealand; caucus refers to all members of a particular party in Parliament, including senators, or a provincial legislature. In Canada, these members elect among themselves a caucus chair who presides over their meetings and is an important figure when the party is in opposition and an important link between cabinet and the backbench when the party is in government.

The word can also be used to mean all the deputies in an assembly who come from a certain geographical or other background, for example "the Quebec caucus."

Caucuses in Alternative Dispute Resolution

The term "caucus" is also used in mediation, facilitation and other forms of alternate dispute resolution to describe circumstances when, rather than meeting at a common table, the disputants retreat to a more private setting to process information, agree on negotiation strategy, confer privately with counsel and/or with the mediator, or simply gain "breathing room" after the often emotionally-difficult interactions that can occur in the common area where all parties are present. The degree to which caucuses are used can be a key defining element, and often an identifier, of the mediation model being used; "facilitative mediation", for example, tends to discourage the use of caucuses and tries to keep the parties talking at a single table, while "evaluative mediation" may allow the parties to separate more frequently and rely on the mediator to shuttle information and offers back and forth.

[edit] Origin of the term

The origin of the word "caucus" is debated, although it is generally agreed that it came into use in English in the United States. According to some sources, it comes from the Algonquin word for "counsel," cau´-cau-as´u, and was probably introduced into American political usage through the Democratic Party machine in New York known as Tammany Hall, which liked to use Native American terms. Other sources claim that it derived from Medieval Latin caucus, meaning "drinking vessel", and link it to the Boston Club.

[doc_cute 0]

Doc... copied what wikipedia states for you...

defination.. of a few sorts..

A caucus is most generally defined as being a meeting of supporters or members of a political party or movement. The exact definition varies between many different countries.

Caucuses in the United States

Main article: Congressional caucus

In U.S. politics and government, caucus has several distinct but interrelated meanings.

A meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members' actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.

The term is frequently used in the media to discuss the caucuses used by some states to select presidential nominees, such as the Iowa caucuses. Along these same lines, in early American history, the Congressional nominating caucus and legislative caucus were influential meetings of congressmen to decide the party's nominee for President and party platforms. Similar caucuses were held by the parties at state level.

The other main context in which the term is used in the media is for subgrouping of elected officials that meet on the basis of shared affinities or ethnicities, usually to effect policy. At the highest level, in Congress and many state legislatures, Democratic and Republican members organize themselves into a caucus (occasionally called a "conference").[1] There can be smaller caucuses in a legislative body, including those which are bipartisan or even bicameral in nature. Of the many Congressional caucuses, one of the best-known is the Congressional Black Caucus, a group of African-American members of Congress. Another prominent example is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, whose members voice and advance issues affecting Hispanics in the United States, including Puerto Rico. In a different vein, the Congressional Internet Caucus is composed of a bipartisan group of Members who wish to promote the growth and advancement of the Internet. Congressional caucuses such as the Out of Iraq Caucus, are an openly organized tendency or political faction (within the House Democratic Caucus, in this case), and strive to achieve political goals, similar to a European "platform, but generally organized around a single issue."

Among American left-wing groups, a caucus may be an openly organized tendency or political faction within the group, equivalent to a European "platform." Examples would include the "Debs," "Coalition" and "Unity" Caucuses of the Socialist Party of America in its last years.

Caucuses in Commonwealth Nations

In some Commonwealth nations, a caucus is a regular meeting of all Members of Parliament who belong to a political party. In a Westminster System, a party caucus can be quite powerful, as it has the ability to elect or dismiss the party's parliamentary leader. The caucus also determines some matters of policy, parliamentary tactics, and disciplinary measures against disobedient MPs. In some parties (such as the Australian Labor Party or the New Zealand Labour Party), caucus also has the ability to elect MPs to Cabinet when the party is in government.

In New Zealand and in the Australian Labor Party, the term "caucus" can be used to refer to the collective group of the MPs themselves, rather than merely the meeting of these MPs. Thus, the (Australian) Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is commonly called "the Labor Caucus." The word was introduced to Australia by King O'Malley, an American-born Labor member of the first federal Parliament in 1901, and presumably entered into New Zealand politics at a similar time. In New Zealand, the term is used by all political parties, but in Australia, it is restricted to the Labor Party. In the Liberal and National parties, and for all parties in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the usual term is the parliamentary party.

The usage of caucus in Canada is similar to that of New Zealand; caucus refers to all members of a particular party in Parliament, including senators, or a provincial legislature. In Canada, these members elect among themselves a caucus chair who presides over their meetings and is an important figure when the party is in opposition and an important link between cabinet and the backbench when the party is in government.

The word can also be used to mean all the deputies in an assembly who come from a certain geographical or other background, for example "the Quebec caucus."

Caucuses in Alternative Dispute Resolution

The term "caucus" is also used in mediation, facilitation and other forms of alternate dispute resolution to describe circumstances when, rather than meeting at a common table, the disputants retreat to a more private setting to process information, agree on negotiation strategy, confer privately with counsel and/or with the mediator, or simply gain "breathing room" after the often emotionally-difficult interactions that can occur in the common area where all parties are present. The degree to which caucuses are used can be a key defining element, and often an identifier, of the mediation model being used; "facilitative mediation", for example, tends to discourage the use of caucuses and tries to keep the parties talking at a single table, while "evaluative mediation" may allow the parties to separate more frequently and rely on the mediator to shuttle information and offers back and forth.

[edit] Origin of the term

The origin of the word "caucus" is debated, although it is generally agreed that it came into use in English in the United States. According to some sources, it comes from the Algonquin word for "counsel," cau´-cau-as´u, and was probably introduced into American political usage through the Democratic Party machine in New York known as Tammany Hall, which liked to use Native American terms. Other sources claim that it derived from Medieval Latin caucus, meaning "drinking vessel", and link it to the Boston Club.

thanks a bunch janet

[ELW 5]

That is really unfair, I am so sorry for both of you. Looks like you had plenty of proof and Delhi rejected your case without good reason. However, you still have not stated whether there were any "red flags" in your case (which could include big age difference, relatively short time between meeting and engagement, recent divorce etc.). For info on what to do next, visit "Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)" forum.

Sending good thoughts & prayers your way...

PS Adhi, I would not worry, many people were introduced via friends or relatives and they got their visa. On rare occasions they closely inspect if a close relative living in USA arranged the match, but in your case it was a neighbor who just introduced you, therefore no problem.

[BelwinMills 0]

wow I would of thought the congressman would of helped. Ours was very helpful.

I am reaching out to another congressman, What did your congressman do? how do they help?

They helped do all the paperwork and sent it in for me. And always called to check up every month to see how things were going and if we were getting farther along in the process and if we were doing okay.

[Ngk 0]

That is really unfair, I am so sorry for both of you. Looks like you had plenty of proof and Delhi rejected your case without good reason. However, you still have not stated whether there were any "red flags" in your case (which could include big age difference, relatively short time between meeting and engagement, recent divorce etc.). For info on what to do next, visit "Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)" forum.

Sending good thoughts & prayers your way...

PS Adhi, I would not worry, many people were introduced via friends or relatives and they got their visa. On rare occasions they closely inspect if a close relative living in USA arranged the match, but in your case it was a neighbor who just introduced you, therefore no problem.

Thank you Eileen for your input. I am getting scared as the interview date is coming. I will just have to keep faith in God and hope for the best, I guess.

[cjindia 0]

That is really unfair, I am so sorry for both of you. Looks like you had plenty of proof and Delhi rejected your case without good reason. However, you still have not stated whether there were any "red flags" in your case (which could include big age difference, relatively short time between meeting and engagement, recent divorce etc.). For info on what to do next, visit "Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)" forum.

Sending good thoughts & prayers your way...

PS Adhi, I would not worry, many people were introduced via friends or relatives and they got their visa. On rare occasions they closely inspect if a close relative living in USA arranged the match, but in your case it was a neighbor who just introduced you, therefore no problem.

Red flags? hmmm well she is 26, i am 35. same religion, culture, language, we were introduced feb 2007, engaged aug 2007, i applied for k1 jan 2007. I was divorced in Jan 2003 and have a child.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Are arranged marriages the norm or the exception with Indian people who are divorced and have children?

[Satellite 1]

Red flags? hmmm well she is 26, i am 35. same religion, culture, language, we were introduced feb 2007, engaged aug 2007, i applied for k1 jan 2007. I was divorced in Jan 2003 and have a child.

As an outsider the only red flag I see in this timeline, is the filing of the K1 in Jan 2007 and being introduced in Feb 2007. Normally one would not file a K1 for someone they are going to meet later. Let alone get engaged with 8 months later.