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

[brkendream 11]

Oh one more thing , Almost in All countries (and In Islam) women cannot marry 2nd time if her husband is alive and she is not divorced . You can also use this point to counter polygamy  , Rwanda Govt allowed you to marry  , This means your wife us previously unmarried , Divorced or widow in there record . 

Yes , you can try to prove she was not married and her agent told her to lie and she lied , But this is all on USCIS and VO if she accept it or not. 

Best of luck.  

[nastra30 2,239]

11 hours ago, Elon said:

It seems like they received the response today. The response was delivered on Feb 6,2023 and the deadline was on Feb 13. I am afraid that they might deny it due to the response was not timely. So I will have to appeal their decision.

The response was definitely timely so highly doubt they are going to deny based on that. Easily appeal-able if that happens. Now let's see if USCIS bites on misrep.

Thanks for updating us. 

[Elon 19]

On 2/17/2024 at 10:12 PM, nastra30 said:

The response was definitely timely so highly doubt they are going to deny based on that. Easily appeal-able if that happens. Now let's see if USCIS bites on misrep.

Thanks for updating us. 

Yes let’s see if they buy into that… can you weigh in: this foreign policy manual:

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html

 

 

a)  (U) If an applicant was found ineligible for a visa under a different and unrelated ground of ineligibility (for example under INA 214(b)) a subsequent discovery that they had misrepresented certain aspects of the case would not be considered material since the misrepresented facts did not tend to lead you into making an erroneous conclusion.  Let us use the example of an applicant for an NIV who made a misrepresentation on the visa application by claiming to have a well-paying job to show that the applicant has a residence abroad, but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant.  The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case.

 

 

6)  (U) The True Facts:

(a)  (U) An applicant will never be ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) if they can demonstrate eligibility on the true facts.  For this reason, an assessment of ineligibility under this ground is not complete until you have considered (to the extent possible) the true facts considering the applicant's misrepresentation. The applicant bears the burden of establishing the true facts and bears the risk that uncertainties caused by their misrepresentation may be resolved against the applicant.  However, if the true facts support a finding that the applicant is eligible for a visa, the misrepresented fact is not material.

 

 

[Boiler 44,928]

3 hours ago, Elon said:

Yes let’s see if they buy into that… can you weigh in: this foreign policy manual:

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html

 

 

a)  (U) If an applicant was found ineligible for a visa under a different and unrelated ground of ineligibility (for example under INA 214(b)) a subsequent discovery that they had misrepresented certain aspects of the case would not be considered material since the misrepresented facts did not tend to lead you into making an erroneous conclusion.  Let us use the example of an applicant for an NIV who made a misrepresentation on the visa application by claiming to have a well-paying job to show that the applicant has a residence abroad, but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant.  The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case.

 

 

6)  (U) The True Facts:

(a)  (U) An applicant will never be ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) if they can demonstrate eligibility on the true facts.  For this reason, an assessment of ineligibility under this ground is not complete until you have considered (to the extent possible) the true facts considering the applicant's misrepresentation. The applicant bears the burden of establishing the true facts and bears the risk that uncertainties caused by their misrepresentation may be resolved against the applicant.  However, if the true facts support a finding that the applicant is eligible for a visa, the misrepresented fact is not material.

 

 

 

Are they denying the case on misrepresentation?

[Elon 19]

26 minutes ago, Boiler said:

 

Are they denying the case on misrepresentation?

Not yet, I was saying the scenario if USCIS buys into my response and send the case back to consular office back in Rwanda. It’s likely that they will deny the visa under misrepresentation. I was checking some new foreign policy manuals and someone from VJ to weigh in and interpret the above statement. 

[Boiler 44,928]

A Misrep finding would require a I 601 to be filed.

[Elon 19]

41 minutes ago, Boiler said:

A Misrep finding would require a I 601 to be filed.

Right I understand that. I was asking about  their new policy about finding the misrepresentation that’s what I was asking about. If you read new policy, I wanted someone to enlighten me and interpret the above policy. 

Edited February 20 by Elon

[Boiler 44,928]

13 minutes ago, Elon said:

Right I understand their new policy about finding the misrepresentation that’s what I was asking about. If you read new policy, I wanted someone to enlighten me and interpret the above policy. 

I am not sure how new it is but do not see how it is relevant to your situation.

[Elon 19]

10 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I am not sure how new it is but do not see how it is relevant to your situation.

Okay I see. she was denied those two visas under 214B twice. I am looking  into misrepresentation being material or not.Reading this statement and example they provided, having a well paying job is showing strong ties to your home country same as being married. But since on known facts she couldn’t be qualified as non immigrant, her misrepresentation isn’t material. That’s what I was looking at it and want to get your interpretation if that makes sense.

[Elon 19]

16 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I am not sure how new it is but do not see how it is relevant to your situation.

How are you interpreting this @Boiler

I am brainstorming here.

 

 

a)  (U) If an applicant was found ineligible for a visa under a different and unrelated ground of ineligibility (for example under INA 214(b)) a subsequent discovery that they had misrepresented certain aspects of the case would not be considered material since the misrepresented facts did not tend to lead you into making an erroneous conclusion.  Let us use the example of an applicant for an NIV who made amisrepresentation on the visa application by claiming to have a well-paying job to show that the applicant has a residence abroad, but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant.  The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case.

 

[Elon 19]

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I am not sure how new it is but do not see how it is relevant to your situation.

She misrepresented her marital status twice. She was denied both two visas under 214b, a subsequent discovery of her misrepresentation wouldn’t make her past misrepresentation material since on know facts, she wasn’t qualified to receive non immigrant visas. That’s what I wanted to brainstorm on

[Boiler 44,928]

21 minutes ago, Elon said:

Okay I see. she was denied those two visas under 214B twice. I am looking  into misrepresentation being material or not.Reading this statement and example they provided, having a well paying job is showing strong ties to your home country same as being married. But since on known facts she couldn’t be qualified as non immigrant, her misrepresentation isn’t material. That’s what I was looking at it and want to get your interpretation if that makes sense.

I think you are getting way ahead of yourself.

 

The opportunity to file a waiver would be a massive improvement to your current situation.

 

Let us take a positive view and that the case does get sent back to the Consulate, I do not know enough about your case to know what the Consulate would then do, I would have the waiver in mind and see what happens.

[Redro 4,609]

2 hours ago, Elon said:

She misrepresented her marital status twice. She was denied both two visas under 214b, a subsequent discovery of her misrepresentation wouldn’t make her past misrepresentation material since on know facts, she wasn’t qualified to receive non immigrant visas. That’s what I wanted to brainstorm on

Late to the party I apologize.

I would liken your wife’s situation to the “too married for K1 visa, not married enough for spousal”.

Consulates have denied K1s because the couple had a ceremony (but didn’t sign any documents) or one partner referred to the other as “husband/wife” on social media.

The only remedy was for the couple to actually marry each other and go through the spousal process.

Explaining they hadn’t formalized their nuptials and/or saying wifey/hubby is just a petname made no difference.

I really hope you’ve succeeded with your response though… I understand what you’re trying to do but wife already admitted to her wrongdoing and USCIS and consulate recognize the first marriage even though it never happened. And they want proof it was terminated. 

If your wife was in the US and the fake husband was real… she could probably file for divorce in the US ( @Family on a scale of 1-10 how wrong am I?) 

Edited February 21 by Redro

[Family 3,842]

13 hours ago, Redro said:

If your wife was in the US and the fake husband was real… she could probably file for divorce in the US ( @Family on a scale of 1-10 how wrong am I?) 

That hypothetical would compound the issue …as the old saying goes , to get out of a hole, stop digging .

[Family 3,842]

16 hours ago, Elon said:

How are you interpreting this @Boiler

 

I am brainstorming here.

 

 

a)  (U) If an applicant was found ineligible for a visa under a different and unrelated ground of ineligibility (for example under INA 214(b)) a subsequent discovery that they had misrepresented certain aspects of the case would not be considered material since the misrepresented facts did not tend to lead you into making an erroneous conclusion.  Let us use the example of an applicant for an NIV who made amisrepresentation on the visa application by claiming to have a well-paying job to show that the applicant has a residence abroad, but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant.  The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case.

 

The true facts example you quote does not apply since marital status is relevant to the current visa application.

 

 You will find example ( in sec you are reading) of instance where a son of USC misrepresents marital status to get F-1 priority date benefit ..where True Fact ( married status ) . Even there , a very narrow ser of circumstance where they would not deem it material . 
 

It will always go back to cutting off a line of inquiry .