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

[Lemonslice 4,835]

7 minutes ago, Elon said:

Yeah another thing is that if our marriage is valid in Rwanda, according to the immigration law, it has to be valid everywhere. Our marriage happened in Rwanda. To understand you really need to understand the complexity of this case honestly. I will get back to you guys when things are over. Like @Boiler we are going in circles but I am very confident that Director will not pull the beneficiary was not legally free  to marry me charge.  At least not in this particular case. 

 

Since you've been researching a lot, and that I'm curious, what difference would it make stating "not legally free to marry" versus what they wrote "The information obtained at the consular interview indicates that there is good and sufficient cause for the petition approval to be revoked.
POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNDER INA" "?

 

Please come back and let us know how things go.

[Elon 20]

8 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

 

Since you've been researching a lot, and that I'm curious, what difference would it make stating "not legally free to marry" versus what they wrote "The information obtained at the consular interview indicates that there is good and sufficient cause for the petition approval to be revoked.
POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNDER INA" "?

 

Please come back and let us know how things go.

It is the same thing. They are saying that she was not free to marry me because she was already legally married to another person and even though being married to multiple people are legal in some jurisdictions, Immigration laws don’t allow polygamous. Since the marriage is legal according to immigration is legal if the jurisdiction where it happened deemed it legal, there are some exceptions if the jurisdiction where the marriage happened allows polygamy, the polygamy according to INA is illegal even though it might be legal in jurisdictions where it happened.

Edited January 13 by Elon

[Boiler 45,467]

23 minutes ago, Elon said:

What was the context?

She is English

 

Married an American

 

Immigrated

 

Broke up

 

For some reason she assumed he had divorced her as he had remarried so she married a foreigner.

 

Petitioned him and it all came out

 

Having said that and here we go back to Lagos amazing how many cases where someone has come as a Tourist or Student, arranged for a Lawyer in the home country to divorce spouse and it has not been done properly and USCIS find out, so they have to get divorced properly and marry.

[Elon 20]

19 minutes ago, Boiler said:

She is English

 

Married an American

 

Immigrated

 

Broke up

 

For some reason she assumed he had divorced her as he had remarried so she married a foreigner.

 

Petitioned him and it all came out

 

Having said that and here we go back to Lagos amazing how many cases where someone has come as a Tourist or Student, arranged for a Lawyer in the home country to divorce spouse and it has not been done properly and USCIS find out, so they have to get divorced properly and marry.

That makes more sense, since she was still legally married. Hypothetically even if my wife was married and said this during the interview no indication that the marriage was legal. The sworn statements adds weight to an already legal marriage. 

Edited January 13 by Elon

[Boiler 45,467]

5 minutes ago, Elon said:

That makes more sense, since she was still legally married. Hypothetically even if my wife was married and said this during the interview no indication that the marriage was legal. 

This seems a pointless conversation but she filed 2 DS160's and on both occasions said she was married.

 

There is no not legally married option. Well single.

[Elon 20]

27 minutes ago, Boiler said:

This seems a pointless conversation but she filed 2 DS160's and on both occasions said she was married.

 

There is no not legally married option. Well single.

Yeah it is pointless at this point.. I will come back once everything is over( this will take awhile). I am very confident that the card of not being free to marry will not work. Thank you all 

[appleblossom 2,478]

11 hours ago, Elon said:

 

sworn statements don’t make a marriage legal. There is also other sworn statement saying that what was filled in b and f1 are not true. If marriage is valid and Rwanda never recognized the previous marriage wherever it happened, the other marriage is invalid according to the Rwandan law.

 

Out of interest, what checks do they do in Rwanda to see if somebody is free to marry? I married in the UK and they just take your word for it that you're not married to somebody else. So I'm curious to know how Rwanda knows for sure they somebody isn't already married before they commence the wedding ceremony. USCIS may well ask the same thing, so it may be worth having evidence of the checks they do ready to submit as well. 

Edited January 13 by appleblossom

[jan22 3,052]

41 minutes ago, Elon said:

It is the same thing. They are saying that she was not free to marry me because she was already legally married to another person and even though being married to multiple people are legal in some jurisdictions, Immigration laws don’t allow polygamous. Since the marriage is legal according to immigration is legal if the jurisdiction where it happened deemed it legal, there are some exceptions if the jurisdiction where the marriage happened allows polygamy, the polygamy according to INA is illegal even though it might be legal in jurisdictions where it happened.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..

 

"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.

 

While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)

 

Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.

 

Hope you get things worked out.

[Elon 20]

55 minutes ago, jan22 said:

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..

 

"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.

 

While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)

 

Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.

 

Hope you get things worked out.

This is well put. What we don’t agree is validity of a marriage does indeed depend on the laws of the particular jurisdiction.When we got married in Rwanda, any previous marriage wherever it happened is invalid if there is no evidence that a marriage legally occurred in that jurisdiction. I feel like I have great case regarding the legality of the marriage. My concern is about misrepresentation which is going to be a long battle. But I totally understand proving the negative in this particular instance is going to be a big deal. He might deny it but I really have strong case on the appeal.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

1 hour ago, Elon said:

This is well put.

It is, and you can rely 100% on everything that jan22 ever says.

Good luck to you, and please be sure to return to report on whatever happens.

[Boiler 45,467]

3 hours ago, Elon said:

When we got married in Rwanda, any previous marriage wherever it happened is invalid if there is no evidence that a marriage legally occurred in that jurisdiction. 

https://marryonchain.com/p/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-marriage-in-rwanda

https://www.rwandainusa.gov.rw/services/service-details/marriage-uganda

 

I am intrigued as I have never heard of this anywhere and wondered how it worked and how the Rwandan authorities checked.

 

I read these two and looked through others and found nothing, do you have a link?

[Family 3,988]

3 hours ago, Elon said:

This is well put. What we don’t agree is validity of a marriage does indeed depend on the laws of the particular jurisdiction.When we got married in Rwanda, any previous marriage wherever it happened is invalid if there is no evidence that a marriage legally occurred in that jurisdiction. I feel like I have great case regarding the legality of the marriage. My concern is about misrepresentation which is going to be a long battle. But I totally understand proving the negative in this particular instance is going to be a big deal. He might deny it but I really have strong case on the appeal.

You have no case and zero chances at appeal . 

DOS /consulate has played a hand you cannot beat , no matter what sophisticated arguments /stretchy case laws are put forth. 
THEY KNOW  and they also banked that neither USCIS, BIA or Federal Courts can compel them to be nice . 
 

Nice , for example would have been a straight out inadmissibility finding of fraud /misrep. With such a decision , you could have already filed the I-601 and at least have a small chance . 
 

The decision to put her in 221 g and ask for a divorce she cannot produce is Quite Common in cases like yours. ..so is this particular scenario in many countries .

 

You’re off track in your marriage jurisdiction thought..hope someone can shed light for you …I am sticking to the interesting bits 😂

 

The attorneys who told you to file a waiver without an inadmissibility finding in hand ..simply do not have hands on experience …KEEP LOOKING and ask the right questions …but if any of them suggest you put money , waste time and effort on this case..RUN. 
 

The only way I see to FORCE the Consulate to issue a fraud /inadmissibility finding is do a new I-130 admit the fraud and afile concurrent I-601 specifically for USCIS 
A lot of discretionary power in their hand , and your wife’s double dose of misrep is not sympathetic..but worth a shot. 
 

If you pass the new I-130 and I-601 , she has a shot at another consulate interview and they HAVE TO acknowledge the Fraud:misrep IN WRITING…and likely will

be asked for another I-601.

 

 

 

 

[Family 3,988]

Did your wife tell you upfront ( before you fell hopelessly in love and marriage ) about her shady agent and previous 2 denials ? …….you are in a tough spot , not of your making

[Boiler 45,467]

19 minutes ago, Family said:

Did your wife tell you upfront ( before you fell hopelessly in love and marriage ) about her shady agent and previous 2 denials ? …….you are in a tough spot , not of your making

He was blindsided

[Elon 20]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

https://marryonchain.com/p/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-marriage-in-rwanda

https://www.rwandainusa.gov.rw/services/service-details/marriage-uganda

 

I am intrigued as I have never heard of this anywhere and wondered how it worked and how the Rwandan authorities checked.

 

I read these two and looked through others and found nothing, do you have a link?

Here is the comprehensive document: 

 

 

https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/rwa208272.pdf