My(M29) Fiancé(F24)'s K1 Visa Denied Due to Absurd Accusation of Espionage

[SalishSea 18,074]

Just now, Family said:

An active military member often faces more life challenges than the average Joe.

Had this OP fallen in love while stationed in his Fiancés country, we would extend DCF  

Again, the actual inadmissibilities are the same for all beneficiaries, regardless of the petitioner’s military status.   
 

It is useless to speculate about DCF.

 

I know you like to comfort people who are stressed, but offering blatantly incorrect platitudes is disingenuous.

[Family 4,140]

3 hours ago, Frustrated010101 said:

S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual under 9 FAM 302.5-4(B)(2).

I have linked the actual FAM section and you will see the Tattoos are the Reason to Believe she is a gang member and such finding is per INA section quoted 

3 hours ago, Frustrated010101 said:

My lawyer said 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) is inadmissibility due to espionage

Your lawyer is “ stunningly wrong “  to quote @Mike Eand your Fiancé is not suspected of espionage . 
 

 

9 FAM 302.5-4(B)(2)  (U) Applicants Who Are Members of an Identified Criminal Organization

(CT:VISA-1583;   07-15-2022)

a. (U) An INA 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) visa ineligibility may arise if you find facts supporting a reason to believe that the applicant is an active member of one of the following criminal organizations:

 

 

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030205.html

 

[Family 4,140]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

3 hours ago, Rocio0010 said:

How would tattoos be related to espionage?🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

1. Some organized crime organizations  prescribe certain tattoos to indicate membership.  
 

2. Some organized crime organizations are engaged in espionage against the USA 

 

3. There is an intersection of 1 and 2

 

4. Regarding 1 it is possible that some tattooist indicate specific roles in the organization 

 

5. Regarding 4 it is possible some of the tattoo-indicated roles are  agents  who engage in espionage against the USA. 

I think that attorney just googled and read this attorney’s ad https://messersmithlaw.com/ina-212a3a/ 

[Mike E 11,742]

4 hours ago, Family said:

I think that attorney just googled and read this attorney’s ad https://messersmithlaw.com/ina-212a3a/ 

Watch Sicario 2: the scene where the Secretary of Defense  states that the administration is designating cartels as terrorist organizations after one cartel smuggles an ISIS operative into the USA.  

[carmel34 3,650]

The WOM forced their hand to make a decision before completing background checks to confirm possible gang membership.  There is a chance that eventually her K-1 could have been approved but that ship has sailed now.  Get married and file for a spousal visa, it will take 1-2 years, maybe more with the extended background checks that will likely be needed.  And visit her a few more times after marriage before filing the I-130, to overcome the numerous red flags--language barrier, sending her so much money, possible past gang affiliation, K-1 denial...  Good luck!

Edited August 4, 2022 by carmel34

[jan22 3,056]

The way I read the original post, I believe she already had tattoos prior to meeting the OP and just added the matching tattoo -- but I could be reading this incorrectly.  If she did, that would be very unusual within her culture, as the OP already knows, and could account for the close attention to her case.

 

As has already been pointed out, 212(a)(3) covers more than espionage.  OP, you should read 9 FAM 302.5-4(B)(2) carefully.  The link to this was already posted -- https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030205.html -- scroll down until you reach section 302.5-4 on Identified Criminal Organizations.  It might give you a better idea of reasons for the refusal and help focus your approach.

 

A 212(a)(3) finding is not made lightly and is not made by the consular officer at the Embassy -- the officer sends an advisory opinion to the legal office of Consular Affairs in the State Department where the final decision as to whether to apply this ineligibility is made.  As the decision has already been reviewed/made by the State Department lawyers, it is unlikely that you will get the decision changed.  The K-1 case will, as others have said, will be closed at USCIS without review, as the petition validity date has passed.

 

This ineligibility is essentially permanent and will be applIed to future applications unless "clear and compelling evidence" that the person has no active particulation with such a group is submitted.  As your lawyer should have told you -- there is no waiver available for this ineligibility.  HOWEVER -- it only applies to her current situation (i.e., that she is currently a member of the criminal organization).  The ineligibility can be overcome by showing that she is not currently an active member of such an organization so a visa can be issued.  

[Rocio0010 5,605]

2 hours ago, jan22 said:

The ineligibility can be overcome by showing that she is not currently an active member of such an organization so a visa can be issued.  

Very hard to prove a negative imho

[Crazy Cat 42,040]

I think this K-1 application is gone.  I doubt there will be any opportunity to salvage it.  I would make sure all my ducks were in a row before submitting a new one.  This will be a tough one, imo.  Good luck.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Crazy Cat

[Boiler 45,922]

Nothing cheap, easy or quick about this.