My wife’s CR1 was denied and sent for administrative processing and been waiting for 1 year and half

[SalishSea 17,827]

3 hours ago, Elon said:

Right, that’s what I am trying to get to. By proving that she was not married and she lied about being married( hard to prove) not impossible. And i expect them to charge the misrepresentation, and we go from there.I am reaching out to the minister of local government in Rwanda  to pull all the records regarding my wife’s status. Reaching out to the Rwandan identity Agency to establish that name my wife stated as being her spouse isn’t in their database( she told me it’s a made up name). I found the certificate of her being single in 2021 before our marriage by government of Rwanda and I will use that as well. Looking to find tons of affidavits from their neighbors( she was living with her month back then). Contracts, insurance details and everything I can find to establish that she was single and she was never been married.

 

A negative can’t be proven.  This is why things like the Filipino CENOMAR are useless.   People get married and divorced outside of their own countries all the time.   Heck, with the advent of the Utah weddings, a Rwandan could marry, and their government would never know.

[Boiler 45,486]

5 minutes ago, SalishSea said:

A negative can’t be proven.  This is why things like the Filipino CENOMAR are useless.   People get married and divorced outside of their own countries all the time.   Heck, with the advent of the Utah weddings, a Rwandan could marry, and their government would never know.

My Government does not know.

[SalishSea 17,827]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

My Government does not know.

Right.   My point was that even countries that have a systemic record of marriages (the U.S. does not), any marriage that takes place elsewhere and is not reported by the citizen, will not be part of that record.   

[Elon 20]

I totally understand but what would you like me to do, just sit and do nothing about it Lol.. I have to do something and let the USCIS decides. 

[Elon 20]

1 hour ago, SalishSea said:

This is the problem.   Despite our explanations, OP hasn’t figured out that the issue isn’t the applicant’s marital status history;  it’s the lies used in an attempt to get a visa, which now require a divorce decree for a marriage that never existed.

I will keep you all updated. My aim here is to help fellow VJ members facing similar situations navigate through the process. I totally understand the uphill battle. Despite the long journey ahead though, I don’t easily give up.Yes, my spouse has made mistakes in the past, but real people support their loved ones.Bringing this to VJ is my way of assisting others in similar situations.I kindly request avoiding negativity, as it won’t contribute positively.I have dedicated almost two years to this case, conducting thorough research and pushing forward. I promise to update on progress whether it’s a success or not. The reluctance of VJ members to share updates who had similar cases might be influenced by others here acting as if they know everything about immigration law which is inherently complex.

 

Thank you 

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

25 minutes ago, Elon said:

The reluctance of VJ members to share updates who had similar cases might be influenced by others here acting as if they know everything about immigration law which is inherently complex.

 

Oh, we know immigration law is complex....and there is a lot of knowledge here.   We see every situation you could possibly imagine...and more.  Your situation is not unique.  It is more common than you might think because those agencies keep helping people lie, yet they face none of the consequences.  Please keep us in the loop.  Your experience is a valuable addition to our database of knowledge.  I fear the lack of feedback we see after this type of case is directly related to the success rate of those cases.  

BTW, you might be surprised at how much bad attorney advice we see here on a regular basis.  Good luck.  I wish you well.

Edited January 12 by Crazy Cat

[Elon 20]

To give me more information about it 

 

general principle that the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes is governed by the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated. See Matter of Adamo, 13 I&N Dec. 26 (BIA 1968). 

[SalishSea 17,827]

27 minutes ago, Elon said:

To give me more information about it 

 

general principle that the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes is governed by the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated. See Matter of Adamo, 13 I&N Dec. 26 (BIA 1968). 

That doesn’t negate other visa requirements, such as providing evidence of the dissolution of prior marriages.

[Elon 20]

8 minutes ago, SalishSea said:

That doesn’t negate other visa requirements, such as providing evidence of the dissolution of prior marriages.

I am sorry but you clearly don’t understand it. I recommend you read this order  https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2711.pdf . Rwandan government recognizes our marriage as valid  and Rwanda is where our marriage happened. No records shows that she has ever been married.Try and spend more time to help VJ instead of negativity 

[Boiler 45,486]

POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNDER INA
The beneficiary was interviewed by a Consular Officer. Based on her interview, the consular officer determined that:
On the form I-130, the petitioner indicated the beneficiary was only married once, which was to him. The beneficiary also confirmed this during her interview. Petitioner and Beneficiary were married on July 12, 2021.
However, according to the beneficiary's non-immigrant visas, filed on on June 18, 2018, and April 9, 2019, the beneficiary listed her spouse as B(replaced the name). During the visa interview, the beneficiary stated that her husband was financing her studies.
of 2 www.uscis.gov

[Elon 20]

13 minutes ago, Boiler said:

POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNDER INA
The beneficiary was interviewed by a Consular Officer. Based on her interview, the consular officer determined that:
On the form I-130, the petitioner indicated the beneficiary was only married once, which was to him. The beneficiary also confirmed this during her interview. Petitioner and Beneficiary were married on July 12, 2021.
However, according to the beneficiary's non-immigrant visas, filed on on June 18, 2018, and April 9, 2019, the beneficiary listed her spouse as B(replaced the name). During the visa interview, the beneficiary stated that her husband was financing her studies.
of 2 www.uscis.gov

 Polygamous marriage is not recognized but they can’t deemed as  such if her first Marriage is not valid( which non existent In Rwandan Jurisdiction).If that  makes sense 

Edited January 13 by Elon

[Dashinka 24,493]

13 minutes ago, Elon said:

 Polygamous marriage is not recognized but they can’t deemed as  such if her first Marriage is not valid( which non existent In Rwandan Jurisdiction).If that  makes sense 

It seems clear you understand the huge hurdle in front of you, and have done a great deal of research with possible plans.  I am also pulling for your eventual success.  VJ can certainly use well researched members like yourself particularly with this specific issue which we see occasionally.

 

Good Luck!

[nastra30 2,284]

3 minutes ago, Elon said:

 It is not recognized but they can’t deemed as such if her fury Marriage is not valid if that makes sense 

At this very moment, the fury marriage (stated in DS160) is actually the legit marriage in the eyes of US govt, and the real marriage to you is not legit. The real marriage to you will become legit to US govt if they see divorce or death cert for the fury marriage which is impossible. However, to the Rwandan govt the there's only one marriage because they don't know about the fury marriage which could have happened in Wonderland or Wakanda. Hence US sees two marriages, Rwanda sees one. But you are on the right path to get US govt to accept the fury marriage as misrep, and that's going to be challenging. I believe there's a solution but nobody has figured it out yet based on VJ.

[Elon 20]

5 minutes ago, nastra30 said:

At this very moment, the fury marriage (stated in DS160) is actually the legit marriage in the eyes of US govt, and the real marriage to you is not legit. The real marriage to you will become legit to US govt if they see divorce or death cert for the fury marriage which is impossible. However, to the Rwandan govt the there's only one marriage because they don't know about the fury marriage which could have happened in Wonderland or Wakanda. Hence US sees two marriages, Rwanda sees one. But you are on the right path to get US govt to accept the fury marriage as misrep, and that's going to be challenging. I believe there's a solution but nobody has figured it out yet based on VJ.

True… there are tons of cases where people misrepresented about being married when they were actually not. I am sure they will deem this case misrepresentation of material fact but I doubt that on the appeal, the director will have enough evidence that the previous marriage actually happened. The law of marriage is governed where the marriage happened. My wife saying in front of consular officer or stating in her visa application doesn’t recognize legally the other person as a valid marriage. 

[Boiler 45,486]

3 hours ago, Elon said:

True… there are tons of cases where people misrepresented about being married when they were actually not. I am sure they will deem this case misrepresentation of material fact but I doubt that on the appeal, the director will have enough evidence that the previous marriage actually happened. The law of marriage is governed where the marriage happened. My wife saying in front of consular officer or stating in her visa application doesn’t recognize legally the other person as a valid marriage. 

The onus is not on them and anyway they have two sworn statements.

 

The B application does not ask where the marriage took place.