F4 visa refused - divorce wasn't final before current marriage

[Alex G33453425 3]

Hi all, a relative of mine had an interview at Islamabad today. She was married before but her divorce was not settled until about a week after the current marriage. CO told her that her husband is not eligible to travel because polygamy is against US law. Applicant tried to argue that the divorce was about to be finalized and polygamy is technically legal in Pakistan. But CO did not accept any of that. CO told them that she can travel (if approved) with her kids but husband cannot. Applicant got a 221g with "administrative processing" and got another letter to fill out DS-5533.

 

Has anyone ever experienced this or know anything about a similar case? What are our options? CO also told them that the family members who are able to travel should sponsor her spouse. Is there a better option? Can they file for divorce and remarry and spouse be able to travel on the same case? Please help. Thanks

[powerpuff 6,697]

26 minutes ago, Alex G33453425 said:

Applicant tried to argue that the divorce was about to be finalized and polygamy is technically legal in Pakistan. But CO did not accept any of that.

That’s a futile argument as the consulate relies on US laws, not the applicant country’s laws. “About to be finalized” is not the same as fully finalized so CO is right about that as well.

 

26 minutes ago, Alex G33453425 said:

Can they file for divorce and remarry and spouse be able to travel on the same case?

They can’t travel on the same case as the marriage was/is not valid at the time of adjudication and there is no basis for him to travel as a spouse on a F4 case.

 

26 minutes ago, Alex G33453425 said:

CO also told them that the family members who are able to travel should sponsor her spouse. Is there a better option?

I believe that’s the only option. The wife will have to sponsor the husband. Keep in mind it takes 5+ years for a Lawful Permanent resident to sponsor a spouse. 

 

 

Edited March 28 by powerpuff

[Family 3,988]

31 minutes ago, Alex G33453425 said:

Applicant got a 221g with "administrative processing" and got another letter to fill out DS-5533.

Looks like Applicant won’t be traveling soon either due to AP. Definitely do the divorce from current spouse now  , remarry so that when Applicant finally gets visa and enters the US, she can file I-130.

 

Did they use an attorney to file this case ? Did anyone review these documents when sent to NVC? Hard for me to imagine NO ONE knew of the date problem until the interview.

[Alex G33453425 3]

Quote

Did they use an attorney to file this case ? Did anyone review these documents when sent to NVC? Hard for me to imagine NO ONE knew of the date problem until the interview.

No, they did not have a lawyer and by the time I (relative, non-petitioner) noticed it their interview was due in a few days. There was nothing we could've done at that point. 

[Alex G33453425 3]

47 minutes ago, Family said:

Did they use an attorney to file this case ? Did anyone review these documents when sent to NVC? Hard for me to imagine NO ONE knew of the date problem until the interview.

 

No, they did not have a lawyer and by the time I (relative, non-petitioner) noticed it their interview was due in a few days. There was nothing we could've done at that point. 

[Alex G33453425 3]

6 hours ago, powerpuff said:

That’s a futile argument as the consulate relies on US laws, not the applicant country’s laws. “About to be finalized” is not the same as fully finalized so CO is right about that as well.

 

They can’t travel on the same case as the marriage was/is not valid at the time of adjudication and there is no basis for him to travel as a spouse on a F4 case.

 

I believe that’s the only option. The wife will have to sponsor the husband. Keep in mind it takes 5+ years for a Lawful Permanent resident to sponsor a spouse. 

 

 

 

Thanks for your help!

[Timona 4,207]

The US Embassy, though in Pakistan, is an extension of USA. When you step inside the embassy gates, you're technically supposed to follow US laws. That's how politicians used to claim asylum back in the days. 

 

Now, polygamy is legal in Pakistan but not US. So, not sure what your relative was arguing about. Infact, he or she can't marry and bring 2 spouses successively to US because "polygamy is legal in my religion."

[Alex G33453425 3]

Is there any way we can express regret for this infraction and appeal this? Would hiring an immigration attorney help at all? Or is this a lost cause? Seems like there isn't much we can do from previous answers but petitioner is telling me that she wants to hire a lawyer 🤷‍♂️. 

[SalishSea 17,818]

26 minutes ago, Alex G33453425 said:

Is there any way we can express regret for this infraction and appeal this? Would hiring an immigration attorney help at all? Or is this a lost cause? Seems like there isn't much we can do from previous answers but petitioner is telling me that she wants to hire a lawyer 🤷‍♂️. 

No appeals.   The denial was correct application of the law.

 

You will have to start over from scratch.

[Boiler 45,467]

3 hours ago, Alex G33453425 said:

Is there any way we can express regret for this infraction and appeal this? Would hiring an immigration attorney help at all? Or is this a lost cause? Seems like there isn't much we can do from previous answers but petitioner is telling me that she wants to hire a lawyer 🤷‍♂️. 

To be a derivative you need to be a spouse or a minor child.

 

It is not an infraction, she is not married, well was not, has she married now?

 

You can not bring partners, they need to be legally married.

[Alex G33453425 3]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

To be a derivative you need to be a spouse or a minor child.

 

It is not an infraction, she is not married, well was not, has she married now?

 

You can not bring partners, they need to be legally married.

I was copying text from the relative and their English is poorer than mine and they mixed up the genders (he/she) and I just went with it thinking what different does it make. And changed wife to husband. But I guess reading back it doesn't make sense. So to be clear, *He* is the principal applicant and was married before. His divorce wasn't finalized from previous marriage before the current marriage. So he was married to two people (for about a week) and that's why his current marriage isn't valid. So I guess they're not married per US law since it doesn't recognize more than one marriage at a time? So I guess you're right. HE is not married per US law. 

[Boiler 45,467]

1 minute ago, Alex G33453425 said:

I was copying text from the relative and their English is poorer than mine and they mixed up the genders (he/she) and I just went with it thinking what different does it make. And changed wife to husband. But I guess reading back it doesn't make sense. So to be clear, *He* is the principal applicant and was married before. His divorce wasn't finalized from previous marriage before the current marriage. So he was married to two people (for about a week) and that's why his current marriage isn't valid. So I guess they're not married per US law since it doesn't recognize more than one marriage at a time? So I guess you're right. HE is not married per US law. 

Well not just US law. And yes Genders are confusing.

 

So did they marry?

 

[nastra30 2,284]

16 hours ago, Alex G33453425 said:

CO also told them that the family members who are able to travel should sponsor her spouse.

Ok so I'm a bit confused. Why would the CO say this?  If the principal applicant is ineligible for a visa, every other derivative is ineligible. 

[appleblossom 2,478]

1 hour ago, nastra30 said:

Ok so I'm a bit confused. Why would the CO say this?  If the principal applicant is ineligible for a visa, every other derivative is ineligible. 

 

It doesn't sound like he's ineligible for a visa. It's his 'wife' that is, as they're not legally married so she cannot get a visa as a derivative.

[nastra30 2,284]

47 minutes ago, appleblossom said:

 

It doesn't sound like he's ineligible for a visa. It's his 'wife' that is, as they're not legally married so she cannot get a visa as a derivative.

Ahh I see, wife is the derivative not the principal.