What is your personal feeling why AP is taking so long in many cases?

[mybackpages 0]

never mind. already said

Edited October 4, 2007 by mybackpages

[sarah and hicham 3]

understandable I believe this.

I just wish they could be more efficient and why do others get no checks at all or very short ones even though they may be bad people, abusive or a just as easily deceiving everyone and they get there visa in a month or two ? It dosen't make sense to me I think everyone should be put through these long amount of checks if it in the name of security and how things must be done not just the chosen few.

Every case is different and they really shouldn't be compared. I don't think that saying that everyone should have long checks and no one should get their visa quickly is a great thing to say.

Like everyone said, each case is different and we really have no insight into what the process is inside of the Consulate.

[sarah and hicham 3]

[Do you think that the fraud factor of some MENA countries compared to that of Europe means nothing?

This is an interesting aspect. How do you know that marriage fraud is a bigger problem, percentage wise in MENA than any other country?

Based on my experience, I see much more that cases are denied for suspected fraud where none exists, than denied for fraud that does exist. This is based primarily on experiences where the basis for the fraud accusation is a suspicion or 'gut feeling' the consular has because of some red flag issue like the wife is older than the husband or some similar nonsense. That is not proof of fraud. It is not a reason to accuse someone of fraud.

The State Dept. have felt the need to send TWO cables on the issue to embassies, to me that seems to indicate a systemic problem that the government has recognized exists and their only response so far has been first to send those 2 cables to clarify what the law is, what the burden of proof is on the government to lay out (beyond what is in the FAM) of how this should be handled and that accusations of fraud based on suspicion are not supposed to happen. They also changed the handling process to have the NVC start tracking the number of returned petitions. Again, a sign this is not a small problem. But the effects on families is devastating.

So anyway, I definately question the fraud rates of any embassy when they see fraud everywhere that doesn't exist. That is not to say fraud doesn't exist, but simply that their detectors senses of fraud are defective and therefore their statisics are defective.

And how do you know that the fraud doesn't exist? Because the man says he loves his wife and will love her forever? How do you know the man's intentions?

I bolded the part that I am going to discuss. While I agree this is not a definete indication of fraud let's put ourselves in the shoes of the CO. DISCLAIMER:**Please look at this as open mindedly as possible as I think that it could help any of you in this situation when you proceed. And I am not coming at this blindly, in my work I have had conversations with for example the Chief CO in Cairo, and other Middle Eastern Countries.**

You may think that age has nothing to do with the validity of your relationship however it does play a role. Honestly it does, the CO's have told me this. Ok so back to the roleplaying - You are the CO and 3 days every week you have people who are applying for US marriage visas enter, now mind you marriage visas while difficult to secure also offer the fastest route to permenant residency and citizenship so there is need for extra caution. Every day during these interviews guess what over half the stories are out of these countries: large age difference, met online, visited once - you may have talked for hours on the phone, and chatted and have loads of pictures from your trip to visit but how much weight does that hold in the big picture. Now they are seeing this every day they have these visa interviews - what would you think. Please look at this objectively and not in any one of your situations. Does it suck yea absolutely but their job is not to make you happy (really) their job is to protect the country. Immigration is not a right, nor is it your right as a citizen to bring someone you like here - it's a privelage and you have to prove that you should be allowed this privelage. Also as MK pointed out in a previous post - the CO does find out other things about fiances or even husbands that the US Citizen doesn't know.

So what should you do: a) visit them more than one time, for longer periods of time. B) be suspicious of their intentions, have those hard discussions, about money (and sending money home), the future, kids (if they say they don't want kids and you're an older woman don't just take it at face value question it), c) learn the culture and see if you are being treated the same way a woman from their culture who was engaged to or married to their son/brother would be (this is a big indication of the validity of the relationship - this is also the reason the CO wants to see pictures of you with his family). Those are just a few of the things that I have been told from CO's.

Marriage fraud happens frequently and it's the CO's job to weed out those cases even if your case seems obvious to you. Not to mention the extra precautions for security and terrorism but I won't delve into that here unless warrented.

**** Please dont' take this as any type of attack - I am offering you information from my personal conversations with CO's regarding such issues - I really do want to help and am not trying to disapoint or discourage any of you - I really wish you all the best*****

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mow/news2006/elouerrassi.ple.htm

very well put.

[blueblue 0]

[Do you think that the fraud factor of some MENA countries compared to that of Europe means nothing?

This is an interesting aspect. How do you know that marriage fraud is a bigger problem, percentage wise in MENA than any other country?

[..]

So anyway, I definately question the fraud rates of any embassy when they see fraud everywhere that doesn't exist. That is not to say fraud doesn't exist, but simply that their detectors senses of fraud are defective and therefore their statisics are defective.

And how do you know that the fraud doesn't exist? Because the man says he loves his wife and will love her forever? How do you know the man's intentions?

LOL, where did I ever say fraud did not exist? If you read the last line, I clearly said fraud DID exist, the problem is that their ability to detect it is suspect, when too often the accusation is based on mere suspicion, unsubstantiated feelings, etc.

The FAM and the cables spell out how it is supposed to work. Yes, there is a burden of proof on the petitioner to show they qualify for the visa, but there is also a burden of proof on the GOVERNMENT at the embassy level to prove that the fraud exists with some REAL evidence, not mere speculation. This relates to due process, and if they perform some investigation and uncover real evidence of fraud, then that is fine. My problem is when they don't do any real investigation, they ignore evidence presented that conflicts with their preconcieved notions that this is a fraud case, they base decisions on speculation with no evidence whatsoever.

Anyway, this is an rhetorical conversation as we aren't going to solve the problem here. But I hope everyone can recognize there IS a problem and hope that the government will do more to correct it than just tracking it at the NVC.

Here is a section from one of the cables on the point and even mentions a prohibition against "Deep Sixing" petitions, presumably where rather than making a decision where they have no proof, they just put it on a shelf until the couple gives up. That is not allowed, but that they have to mention it speaks to the fact that it happens. http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1415.html

The FAM guidance on revocations makes this point on several occasions -- posts seeking revocations must show the "factual and concrete reasons for revocation." USCIS has asked us to remind consular officers that revocation requests must provide solid, factual evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, evidence that is likely to stand up in a court of law. In the case of sham marriages, for example, 9 FAM 42.43 N2.2 notes that USCIS requires at the least either documentary evidence that money changed hands between the petitioner and beneficiary or factual evidence that would convince "a reasonable person" that the marriage was entered into solely to evade immigration laws. Without such evidence, USCIS will be unlikely to obtain a petition''s revocation if a petitioner chooses to contest a notice of intent to revoke.

No "deep sixing"

5. Posts should not return petitions to USCIS based on mere suspicion or as a substitute for making a decision at post. If the evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status is strong enough to lead to a likely revocation, returning the petition would be warranted. However, if post believes the evidence is not likely to lead to a revocation and returning the petition would be a wasted exercise, the petition should not be returned. Returning cases that are only suspect or that appear too complex to figure out is not appropriate and only increases USCIS'' administrative burden and prevents the applicants and petitioners in these cases from obtaining the timely decision on their petitions to which they are entitled.

Edited October 4, 2007 by blueblue

[blueblue 0]

You may think that age has nothing to do with the validity of your relationship however it does play a role. Honestly it does, the CO's have told me this. Ok so back to the roleplaying - You are the CO and 3 days every week you have people who are applying for US marriage visas enter, now mind you marriage visas while difficult to secure also offer the fastest route to permenant residency and citizenship so there is need for extra caution. Every day during these interviews guess what over half the stories are out of these countries: large age difference, met online, visited once - you may have talked for hours on the phone, and chatted and have loads of pictures from your trip to visit but how much weight does that hold in the big picture. Now they are seeing this every day they have these visa interviews - what would you think. Please look at this objectively and not in any one of your situations. Does it suck yea absolutely but their job is not to make you happy (really) their job is to protect the country. Immigration is not a right, nor is it your right as a citizen to bring someone you like here - it's a privelage and you have to prove that you should be allowed this privelage. Also as MK pointed out in a previous post - the CO does find out other things about fiances or even husbands that the US Citizen doesn't know.

So what should you do: a) visit them more than one time, for longer periods of time. B) be suspicious of their intentions, have those hard discussions, about money (and sending money home), the future, kids (if they say they don't want kids and you're an older woman don't just take it at face value question it), c) learn the culture and see if you are being treated the same way a woman from their culture who was engaged to or married to their son/brother would be (this is a big indication of the validity of the relationship - this is also the reason the CO wants to see pictures of you with his family). Those are just a few of the things that I have been told from CO's.

Marriage fraud happens frequently and it's the CO's job to weed out those cases even if your case seems obvious to you. Not to mention the extra precautions for security and terrorism but I won't delve into that here unless warrented.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mow/news2006/elouerrassi.ple.htm

Thanks for the insights. The fact that the COs have told you that age plays a role in a relationship speaks to a prejudice in their thinking which certainly coincides with the experience of some couples. That one item is a given red flag. Red flags in and of themselves, I don't have a problem with. If it is used to give extra scrutiny or extra investigation, I can understand that. But when it is used as THE REASON for a fraud accusation, that I have a serious problem with.

If you think about it, this particular item is very clearly evident in the initial approved petition. The dates of birth are all over the petition I-130 or I-129F, when it was approved. USCIS doesn't see that as a valid reason to deny the petition, an approved petition is prima facie evidence of a valid relationship and eligibility for a visa. For the embassy then to come back later and deny the visa because of the couples 'irregular' age difference is not a valid evidence or proof. The problem is compounded by the absense of a mediation avenue or complaint structure for the spouse to pursue. They are left in limbo effectively because the CO decided to abuse their discretion.

Anyway, I hate to go on and on, this is obviously a personal sticking point for me. In our case, they accused us of fraud because we had asked questions at the embassy as to what our options were before we filed the petitions and they said because our divorce was discovered at the interview. However, we had provided copies of our divorce papers along with our petition to USCIS long before the interview as well as noting dates and names of our previous marriage on the petition. All of which was considered before it was approved. And I would think asking questions about the process is a normal thing people would do when they need to decide how to proceed.

So, when they invent evidence or simply use speculation without any investigation or allowing a couple to defend themselves against the accusation, that I have a BIG problem with and it happens WAY too often. There really needs to be some better avenue for couples that are wrongly accused to get the situation resolved than just sitting and waiting for years or having to start all over again.

[MrsAmera 41]

Well the way that I have been explained as that US based processing is really just a clearing house - processing the applications, if there is a security flag that comes up than Bam your out of the pile. The real weight of the argument is in the CO/consulate's hands to prove the relationship and decide whether or not to issue the visa. How many cases have we had where the cases were denied while in the US - I can't think of one. So really I doubt that anyone even assesses the relationship at the USCIS level, the DOS checks security if that's ok then the consulates are in charge of verifying validity. I can think of cases where people have filed K1's gone back gotten married done k3's and been approved - enough proof. Or done K1 or K3 and then moved to their SO's country thus again proving the relationship.

[blueblue 0]

Well the way that I have been explained as that US based processing is really just a clearing house - processing the applications, if there is a security flag that comes up than Bam your out of the pile. The real weight of the argument is in the CO/consulate's hands to prove the relationship and decide whether or not to issue the visa. How many cases have we had where the cases were denied while in the US - I can't think of one. So really I doubt that anyone even assesses the relationship at the USCIS level, the DOS checks security if that's ok then the consulates are in charge of verifying validity. I can think of cases where people have filed K1's gone back gotten married done k3's and been approved - enough proof. Or done K1 or K3 and then moved to their SO's country thus again proving the relationship.

Yes, as I said, there can be valid reasons for further investigation at the embassy level. But you're missing the point of the issue, there is a burden of proof on the GOVERNMENT in accusations of fraud that they are based on REAL EVIDENCE, not mere conjecture.

There have been plenty of petitions denied at the USCIS level where they did not provide evidence to support the petition, could be divorce or marriage certificates, could be having met within the time frame, could be other issues. The fact is that under the law, the approved petition IS 'prima facia' evidence of a valid relationship. Under the law, it takes real evidence of fraud to support a revocation of that approval.

The problem is that for couples in this situation, it can take years to overcome a false accusation, if you can survive the separation.

As the State Dept. cable says,

"Returning cases that are only suspect or that appear too complex to figure out is not appropriate and only increases USCIS'' administrative burden and prevents the applicants and petitioners in these cases from obtaining the timely decision on their petitions to which they are entitled."

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

There are two completely different and separate issues being discussed here:

#1. Egypt often takes months and months to complete an AR, and many say it does so unfairly.

#2. Morocco sends back a lot of petitions for "invalid relationship", and many say it does so unfairly.

Here is a section from one of the cables on the point and even mentions a prohibition against "Deep Sixing" petitions, presumably where rather than making a decision where they have no proof, they just put it on a shelf until the couple gives up. That is not allowed, but that they have to mention it speaks to the fact that it happens. http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1415.html

The FAM guidance on revocations makes this point on several occasions -- posts seeking revocations must show the "factual and concrete reasons for revocation." USCIS has asked us to remind consular officers that revocation requests must provide solid, factual evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, evidence that is likely to stand up in a court of law. In the case of sham marriages, for example, 9 FAM 42.43 N2.2 notes that USCIS requires at the least either documentary evidence that money changed hands between the petitioner and beneficiary or factual evidence that would convince "a reasonable person" that the marriage was entered into solely to evade immigration laws. Without such evidence, USCIS will be unlikely to obtain a petition''s revocation if a petitioner chooses to contest a notice of intent to revoke.

No "deep sixing"

5. Posts should not return petitions to USCIS based on mere suspicion or as a substitute for making a decision at post. If the evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status is strong enough to lead to a likely revocation, returning the petition would be warranted. However, if post believes the evidence is not likely to lead to a revocation and returning the petition would be a wasted exercise, the petition should not be returned. Returning cases that are only suspect or that appear too complex to figure out is not appropriate and only increases USCIS'' administrative burden and prevents the applicants and petitioners in these cases from obtaining the timely decision on their petitions to which they are entitled.

But this passage has nothing to do with a consulate (such as Egypt) taking a long time to complete security checks, investigations, etc. It's instructing consulates not to return petitions without "solid, factual evidence" -- I don't see where it addresses the "Deep Sixing" issue at all.

[sarah and hicham 3]

There are two completely different and separate issues being discussed here:

#1. Egypt often takes months and months to complete an AR, and many say it does so unfairly.

#2. Morocco sends back a lot of petitions for "invalid relationship", and many say it does so unfairly.

Here is a section from one of the cables on the point and even mentions a prohibition against "Deep Sixing" petitions, presumably where rather than making a decision where they have no proof, they just put it on a shelf until the couple gives up. That is not allowed, but that they have to mention it speaks to the fact that it happens. http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1415.html

The FAM guidance on revocations makes this point on several occasions -- posts seeking revocations must show the "factual and concrete reasons for revocation." USCIS has asked us to remind consular officers that revocation requests must provide solid, factual evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, evidence that is likely to stand up in a court of law. In the case of sham marriages, for example, 9 FAM 42.43 N2.2 notes that USCIS requires at the least either documentary evidence that money changed hands between the petitioner and beneficiary or factual evidence that would convince "a reasonable person" that the marriage was entered into solely to evade immigration laws. Without such evidence, USCIS will be unlikely to obtain a petition''s revocation if a petitioner chooses to contest a notice of intent to revoke.

No "deep sixing"

5. Posts should not return petitions to USCIS based on mere suspicion or as a substitute for making a decision at post. If the evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status is strong enough to lead to a likely revocation, returning the petition would be warranted. However, if post believes the evidence is not likely to lead to a revocation and returning the petition would be a wasted exercise, the petition should not be returned. Returning cases that are only suspect or that appear too complex to figure out is not appropriate and only increases USCIS'' administrative burden and prevents the applicants and petitioners in these cases from obtaining the timely decision on their petitions to which they are entitled.

But this passage has nothing to do with a consulate (such as Egypt) taking a long time to complete security checks, investigations, etc. It's instructing consulates not to return petitions without "solid, factual evidence" -- I don't see where it addresses the "Deep Sixing" issue at all.

[doodlebug 3]

Well the way that I have been explained as that US based processing is really just a clearing house - processing the applications, if there is a security flag that comes up than Bam your out of the pile. The real weight of the argument is in the CO/consulate's hands to prove the relationship and decide whether or not to issue the visa. How many cases have we had where the cases were denied while in the US - I can't think of one. So really I doubt that anyone even assesses the relationship at the USCIS level, the DOS checks security if that's ok then the consulates are in charge of verifying validity. I can think of cases where people have filed K1's gone back gotten married done k3's and been approved - enough proof. Or done K1 or K3 and then moved to their SO's country thus again proving the relationship.

But how is it that they decide to prove any relationship? That's the part that makes no sense. I know you're not supposed to compare but I know of two other cases almost exactly the same as mine and one got the visa within two months and the other within five months of the interview. Ok so I'm not exactly out of the second one's timeframe but still those two cases in and of themselves show there is a big gap.

And not for nothing and I know I'll get slammed for saying this but if the dude/dudette is not a threat to national security and if the couple is happy, how is it the US Government's duty to decide if the guy is using the girl? Dayum I wish they had done that with my US Citizen ex 'cause then he wouldn't have gotten away with what he did!!! I mean seriously, at some point isn't this good ole fashioned meddling into people's affairs?

If my husband is not a threat to national security, yet he's duping me for all I'm worth, isn't that my problem, since I'm the one signing the form stating that I'm financially responsible for him for the next two years? How is that the US Gov'ts problem?

And as for checking if he's already married, that is done at the courthouse in Cairo where you get married,...and of course he can have three other wives so it's more like they look to see if he has more than four. (he doesn't ...i'm just sayin' )

[sarah and hicham 3]

Well the way that I have been explained as that US based processing is really just a clearing house - processing the applications, if there is a security flag that comes up than Bam your out of the pile. The real weight of the argument is in the CO/consulate's hands to prove the relationship and decide whether or not to issue the visa. How many cases have we had where the cases were denied while in the US - I can't think of one. So really I doubt that anyone even assesses the relationship at the USCIS level, the DOS checks security if that's ok then the consulates are in charge of verifying validity. I can think of cases where people have filed K1's gone back gotten married done k3's and been approved - enough proof. Or done K1 or K3 and then moved to their SO's country thus again proving the relationship.

But how is it that they decide to prove any relationship? That's the part that makes no sense. I know you're not supposed to compare but I know of two other cases almost exactly the same as mine and one got the visa within two months and the other within five months of the interview. Ok so I'm not exactly out of the second one's timeframe but still those two cases in and of themselves show there is a big gap.

And not for nothing and I know I'll get slammed for saying this but if the dude/dudette is not a threat to national security and if the couple is happy, how is it the US Government's duty to decide if the guy is using the girl? Dayum I wish they had done that with my US Citizen ex 'cause then he wouldn't have gotten away with what he did!!! I mean seriously, at some point isn't this good ole fashioned meddling into people's affairs?

If my husband is not a threat to national security, yet he's duping me for all I'm worth, isn't that my problem, since I'm the one signing the form stating that I'm financially responsible for him for the next two years? How is that the US Gov'ts problem?

And as for checking if he's already married, that is done at the courthouse in Cairo where you get married,...and of course he can have three other wives so it's more like they look to see if he has more than four. (he doesn't ...i'm just sayin' )

I'm sorry but these statements are ridiculous. I dont' even know where to start. So we should just let everyone into the US without scrutinizing over the details because in the end if he comes here and leaves his wife or does something illegal it's the woman's burden? Umm no.

[doodlebug 3]

Well the way that I have been explained as that US based processing is really just a clearing house - processing the applications, if there is a security flag that comes up than Bam your out of the pile. The real weight of the argument is in the CO/consulate's hands to prove the relationship and decide whether or not to issue the visa. How many cases have we had where the cases were denied while in the US - I can't think of one. So really I doubt that anyone even assesses the relationship at the USCIS level, the DOS checks security if that's ok then the consulates are in charge of verifying validity. I can think of cases where people have filed K1's gone back gotten married done k3's and been approved - enough proof. Or done K1 or K3 and then moved to their SO's country thus again proving the relationship.

But how is it that they decide to prove any relationship? That's the part that makes no sense. I know you're not supposed to compare but I know of two other cases almost exactly the same as mine and one got the visa within two months and the other within five months of the interview. Ok so I'm not exactly out of the second one's timeframe but still those two cases in and of themselves show there is a big gap.

And not for nothing and I know I'll get slammed for saying this but if the dude/dudette is not a threat to national security and if the couple is happy, how is it the US Government's duty to decide if the guy is using the girl? Dayum I wish they had done that with my US Citizen ex 'cause then he wouldn't have gotten away with what he did!!! I mean seriously, at some point isn't this good ole fashioned meddling into people's affairs?

If my husband is not a threat to national security, yet he's duping me for all I'm worth, isn't that my problem, since I'm the one signing the form stating that I'm financially responsible for him for the next two years? How is that the US Gov'ts problem?

And as for checking if he's already married, that is done at the courthouse in Cairo where you get married,...and of course he can have three other wives so it's more like they look to see if he has more than four. (he doesn't ...i'm just sayin' )

I'm sorry but these statements are ridiculous. I dont' even know where to start. So we should just let everyone into the US without scrutinizing over the details because in the end if he comes here and leaves his wife or does something illegal it's the woman's burden? Umm no.

I think it's ridiculous that you are the cheerleader for the US Consulate of Cairo. I think it's ridiculous that you had to wait, what....2 whole frikkin days for your AP to get done and you sit here stating that a consulate that you have no personal experience with is doing a bang up job.

Yes to a certain extent it is the woman's burden for trusting in a man who would use her. She should have skills, I would hope, to detect a loser like that and I would also hope that my being a US Citizen affords me some sort of freedom in my relationship where I myself can be allowed to figure that out. If the dude is a felon or a risk to national security then obviously that's something that I would have no way of knowing but if he's just taking me for a ride, well that is MY problem and mine to deal with.

[LaL 418]

But how is it that they decide to prove any relationship? That's the part that makes no sense. I know you're not supposed to compare but I know of two other cases almost exactly the same as mine and one got the visa within two months and the other within five months of the interview.

That is the difference Doodle - AR is not generally used for weeding out fraudulant marriages/relationships. I am sure there are exceptions, but if they were concerned about the validity of your marriage - they wouldn't bother sticking you on AR for months- they would most likely return the petition.

On to security clearances, all people take different amounts of time to clear these background checks so if you are truely in AR and it takes one person 5 months, does not mean anything other than it simply took 5 months, same for a 7 month process. It is so individual.

These are two separate procedures. 1. bonafide relationship (interview/home visits) and 2. security clearance (DOS) Its possible they overlap during thr process. All this is just speculation, and I think trying to figure it all out at times is the only thing we have to grasp to to keep our sanity. I can tell you from experience it does the opposite (without sacrificing being diligent on your case).

Edited October 4, 2007 by LaL

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I think it's ridiculous that you are the cheerleader for the US Consulate of Cairo. I think it's ridiculous that you had to wait, what....2 whole frikkin days for your AP to get done and you sit here stating that a consulate that you have no personal experience with is doing a bang up job.

Yes to a certain extent it is the woman's burden for trusting in a man who would use her. She should have skills, I would hope, to detect a loser like that and I would also hope that my being a US Citizen affords me some sort of freedom in my relationship where I myself can be allowed to figure that out. If the dude is a felon or a risk to national security then obviously that's something that I would have no way of knowing but if he's just taking me for a ride, well that is MY problem and mine to deal with.

It becomes the government's business because they are the ones who will be issuing an immigrant visa, with all the rights and privileges that come with it. A fraudulent marriage with a foreigner wouldn't be just *your* problem -- it becomes all of our problem, because the fraudster can use that permanent resident status obtained through fraud to become a citizen, vote in our elections, even file to obtain visas for others. This affects us all.

[sarah and hicham 3]

Well the way that I have been explained as that US based processing is really just a clearing house - processing the applications, if there is a security flag that comes up than Bam your out of the pile. The real weight of the argument is in the CO/consulate's hands to prove the relationship and decide whether or not to issue the visa. How many cases have we had where the cases were denied while in the US - I can't think of one. So really I doubt that anyone even assesses the relationship at the USCIS level, the DOS checks security if that's ok then the consulates are in charge of verifying validity. I can think of cases where people have filed K1's gone back gotten married done k3's and been approved - enough proof. Or done K1 or K3 and then moved to their SO's country thus again proving the relationship.

But how is it that they decide to prove any relationship? That's the part that makes no sense. I know you're not supposed to compare but I know of two other cases almost exactly the same as mine and one got the visa within two months and the other within five months of the interview. Ok so I'm not exactly out of the second one's timeframe but still those two cases in and of themselves show there is a big gap.

And not for nothing and I know I'll get slammed for saying this but if the dude/dudette is not a threat to national security and if the couple is happy, how is it the US Government's duty to decide if the guy is using the girl? Dayum I wish they had done that with my US Citizen ex 'cause then he wouldn't have gotten away with what he did!!! I mean seriously, at some point isn't this good ole fashioned meddling into people's affairs?

If my husband is not a threat to national security, yet he's duping me for all I'm worth, isn't that my problem, since I'm the one signing the form stating that I'm financially responsible for him for the next two years? How is that the US Gov'ts problem?

And as for checking if he's already married, that is done at the courthouse in Cairo where you get married,...and of course he can have three other wives so it's more like they look to see if he has more than four. (he doesn't ...i'm just sayin' )

I'm sorry but these statements are ridiculous. I dont' even know where to start. So we should just let everyone into the US without scrutinizing over the details because in the end if he comes here and leaves his wife or does something illegal it's the woman's burden? Umm no.

I think it's ridiculous that you are the cheerleader for the US Consulate of Cairo. I think it's ridiculous that you had to wait, what....2 whole frikkin days for your AP to get done and you sit here stating that a consulate that you have no personal experience with is doing a bang up job.

Yes to a certain extent it is the woman's burden for trusting in a man who would use her. She should have skills, I would hope, to detect a loser like that and I would also hope that my being a US Citizen affords me some sort of freedom in my relationship where I myself can be allowed to figure that out. If the dude is a felon or a risk to national security then obviously that's something that I would have no way of knowing but if he's just taking me for a ride, well that is MY problem and mine to deal with.

Luckily, the US government doesn't agree that it's your problem and they shouldn't get involved in your personal life.

Are you saying that Jackie, for example doesn't have skills? Do you not realize that some men will do ANYTHING to get to the US, including pretending to be in love with a USC to get here? And guess what, the woman is usually surprised that they were used.

I think it's ridiculous that you are the cheerleader for the US Consulate of Cairo. I think it's ridiculous that you had to wait, what....2 whole frikkin days for your AP to get done and you sit here stating that a consulate that you have no personal experience with is doing a bang up job.

Yes to a certain extent it is the woman's burden for trusting in a man who would use her. She should have skills, I would hope, to detect a loser like that and I would also hope that my being a US Citizen affords me some sort of freedom in my relationship where I myself can be allowed to figure that out. If the dude is a felon or a risk to national security then obviously that's something that I would have no way of knowing but if he's just taking me for a ride, well that is MY problem and mine to deal with.

It becomes the government's business because they are the ones who will be issuing an immigrant visa, with all the rights and privileges that come with it. A fraudulent marriage with a foreigner wouldn't be just *your* problem -- it becomes all of our problem, because the fraudster can use that permanent resident status obtained through fraud to become a citizen, vote in our elections, even file to obtain visas for others. This affects us all.

Thanks MK. Maybe she will listen to you.

Apparently I am the cheerleader for the CO's who make it their job to ruin lives.