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

[Elon 19]

2 hours ago, Family said:

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 . 

Actually I was not quoting the true facts. I was looking at the second part of the attorney General definition. a "misrepresentation which tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the individual's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that they be inadmissible."  These are cases where the exercise of further consular judgment is required.

c.  (U) “Rule of Probability” Defined:

(1)  (U) In General:  The second part of the Attorney General's definition refers to a "misrepresentation which tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the individual's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that they be inadmissible."  These are cases where the exercise of further consular judgment is required.  Past judicial and administrative decisions concerning this part have evolved into what has become to be known as the "rule of probability."

(2)  (U) “Tends” Defined:  The word "tends" as used in "tended to cut off a line of inquiry" means that the misrepresentation must be of such a nature as to be reasonably expected to foreclose certain information from your knowledge.  It does not mean that the misrepresentation must have been successful in foreclosing further investigation by you to be deemed material; it means only that the misrepresentation must reasonably have had the capacity of foreclosing further investigation.

(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.

[Elon 19]

2 hours ago, Family said:

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 . 

I see what you are saying now. This is applicable for previous visa applications. This section right?

 

(b)  (U) Misrepresentations Concerning Previous Visa Applications:

(i)     (U) An IV applicant’s misrepresentation of the fact that the applicant previously applied for or was refused a visa would not be considered material unless the misrepresentation also concealed the existence of an independent ground of ineligibility, or the misrepresentation is now directly relevant to the current visa case.

(ii)    (U) An NIV applicant's misrepresentation of the fact that the applicant was previously refused an NIV under INA 214(b) is not, in itself, a material misrepresentation. Where the misrepresentation, however, conceals not only the fact of the previous refusal, but also objective information not otherwise known or available to you, there may be a basis for finding that the absence of such facts tended to cut off a line of inquiry and thus rendered the misrepresentation material.

[Family 3,842]

19 hours 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.

 

36 minutes ago, Elon said:

I see what you are saying now. This is applicable for previous visa applications. This section right?

 

(b)  (U) Misrepresentations Concerning Previous Visa Applications:

(i)     (U) An IV applicant’s misrepresentation of the fact that the applicant previously applied for or was refused a visa would not be considered material unless the misrepresentation also concealed the existence of an independent ground of ineligibility, or the misrepresentation is now directly relevant to the current visa case.

(ii)    (U) An NIV applicant's misrepresentation of the fact that the applicant was previously refused an NIV under INA 214(b) is not, in itself, a material misrepresentation. Where the misrepresentation, however, conceals not only the fact of the previous refusal, but also objective information not otherwise known or available to you, there may be a basis for finding that the absence of such facts tended to cut off a line of inquiry and thus rendered the misrepresentation material.

No. The misrep in your quoted sec here is concealing a previous visa  denial only..

 

 

 

 

[Elon 19]

43 minutes ago, Family said:

 

No. The misrep in your quoted sec here is concealing a previous visa  denial only..

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your insights. which tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the individual's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that they be inadmissible." So on known facts, my wife couldn't be qualified as non immigrant. I know someone can show the strong ties to their home country in many different ways(well paying job, owning a home, spouse and many more).I know all this will depend on the consular officer and his/her discretion. But I would like to understand your view on the following part:

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.

 

 

c.  (U) “Rule of Probability” Defined:

(1)  (U) In General:  The second part of the Attorney General's definition refers to a "misrepresentation which tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the individual's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that they be inadmissible."  These are cases where the exercise of further consular judgment is required.  Past judicial and administrative decisions concerning this part have evolved into what has become to be known as the "rule of probability."

(2)  (U) “Tends” Defined:  The word "tends" as used in "tended to cut off a line of inquiry" means that the misrepresentation must be of such a nature as to be reasonably expected to foreclose certain information from your knowledge.  It does not mean that the misrepresentation must have been successful in foreclosing further investigation by you to be deemed material; it means only that the misrepresentation must reasonably have had the capacity of foreclosing further investigation.

(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.

[Elon 19]

Hello VJ Family, to give you an update on this issue, as of today, the case was reaffirmed and sent back to NVC.Here is part of response:  

Statements by the petitioner and beneficiary acknowledge the beneficiary misrepresented her marital status on her previous non-immigrant visa applications, acting on the advice of an unofficial visa application consultant. The NOIR response included the beneficiary's "attestation de celibat" ( document certifying single status) which, per the Department of State Reciprocity Table, must be presented to sector officials prior to Marriage.

USCIS has determined that this evidence sufficiently overcomes the grounds for revocation because it shows that, although the beneficiary previously misrepresented her marital status on prior non-immigrant visa applications, she was single and therefore legally free to marry the petitioner at the time of their marriage.

Edited August 2 by Elon

[Family 3,842]

7 hours ago, Elon said:

Hello VJ Family, to give you an update on this issue, as of today, the case was reaffirmed and sent back to NVC.Here is part of response:  

Statements by the petitioner and beneficiary acknowledge the beneficiary misrepresented her marital status on her previous non-immigrant visa applications, acting on the advice of an unofficial visa application consultant. The NOIR response included the beneficiary's "attestation de celibat" ( document certifying single status) which, per the Department of State Reciprocity Table, must be presented to sector officials prior to Marriage.

USCIS has determined that this evidence sufficiently overcomes the grounds for revocation because it shows that, although the beneficiary previously misrepresented her marital status on prior non-immigrant visa applications, she was single and therefore legally free to marry the petitioner at the time of their marriage.

You are past one hurdle. Excellent. May the winnings streak continue..cheering for you. Thanks for update

[nastra30 2,239]

14 hours ago, Elon said:

Hello VJ Family, to give you an update on this issue, as of today, the case was reaffirmed and sent back to NVC.Here is part of response:  

Statements by the petitioner and beneficiary acknowledge the beneficiary misrepresented her marital status on her previous non-immigrant visa applications, acting on the advice of an unofficial visa application consultant. The NOIR response included the beneficiary's "attestation de celibat" ( document certifying single status) which, per the Department of State Reciprocity Table, must be presented to sector officials prior to Marriage.

USCIS has determined that this evidence sufficiently overcomes the grounds for revocation because it shows that, although the beneficiary previously misrepresented her marital status on prior non-immigrant visa applications, she was single and therefore legally free to marry the petitioner at the time of their marriage.

Progress. Thanks for the update. Because of your effort the VJ community will have something to rely on when advising others in the future in similar situations. There's another hurdle to overcome but you've gone further than similar stories i have seen on VJ. Hoping for the best that you'll also beat the misrepresentation. Congrats.