Dreaded 221(g)

[Wesekat 1]

Ekaterina had her interview in Moscow on June 6, 2010. The case went into Administrative Review 10 weeks after that. On January 26, 2010 she received the following shocking letter:

Section 221 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits a consular officer from issuing a visa to an alien if the consular officer has reason to believe that the alien is ineligible. Based on indications that petition (WAC-10-092-50456, MOS2010536012) contains inaccurate information, we are returning it to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for review and possible revocation. Under INA 222 , which addresses the confidentiality of visa records, we are unable to provide any further detail.

Sincerely,

Immigrant Visa Chief

Our Senator liaison assistant started working on it that day while Moscow sleeps. Senator Murray is awesome!!!!!!

I am thankful for all the information on this forum but I am still confused as to our course of action. We wait for information from USCIS and what it is we are being accused of? I have no idea what it could be they deem "inaccurate."

Some details:

We met on a social site on my birthday, March 10, 2009. We hit it off immediately, writing every day, and after 2 months phoning often. I was still married to my ex, but separated. Ekaterina was divorced and has a son, now 3. Don't know if this matters in a visa case, but she has police records of her ex almost killing her in a severe beating shortly before she filed for divorce. His second major beating.

In July 2010 I went to Russia and we spent 30 wonderful days together. I fell in love. She is the kind of woman I had been looking for since I was 18 (not including my married daze, where I was not in love, but very loyal.) I am now 49. She is 28. That is not an issue with us. She thinks I look young!

I was ignorant of US visa policy and I used to be an eternal optimist until this past year from hell. I invited her to visit me in USA. I wanted to return the favor; she was a wonderful host. Foolish fellow personally invited her on the tourist visa app. What a moron! She went the 600km to Moscow for the interview and called me crying when the rude lady denied her tourist visa. We were both shocked and very upset. It was the first of my many shames of being an American.

I flew back and spent another 30 fabulous days in October 2oo9. This time she fell in love with me. I proposed and presented the diamond ring (I was still an optimist!) She accepted!

I did not consider myself married spiritually, physically, mentally, or emotionally, but i knew I was legally. So I filed for divorce. Before falling in Love with Katya I had no need to divorce. Now I did because we wanted to get the K-1 visa. My divorce was finalized on Dec 30, 2010. That day I bought a new car and called it Liberty.

We had plenty of photographs and excerpts from the 800 pages compiled Word doc of our emails, letters from friends and relatives, letters of intent to marry, train tickets, hotel receipts, plane boarding passes, as evidence of our relationship. The DNA donor who rarely ever sees his biological son signed an affidavit giving permission for the boy to move to the USA. I guess he thought it would get him out of the $20 a month he rarely pays. I hired a lawyer to assist in all the documents. He reviewed and approved them.

At the interview the officer seemed not to care about our evidence of relationship. He laughed when she answered that we communicate in English. He asked about my ex wife who Ekaterina knew not much (nor cared to know)about. But he was concerned about my self employed income and he denied the visa and said we needed a co-sponsor. He told her that's all we need, everything else seems in order.

NOTE TO SELF EMPLOYED PETITIONERS: Immigration gods deem "Income" to be business profit minus self employment tax. And they want a 3 year average. Bank statements showing a good deposit history are irrelevant apparently. Plan 3 years ahead and stop taking all those nice deductions.

After a frantic search we found a co-sponsor. But the case was put into A.R. 7 months later they decided there was fraud. Where, I have no clue. Now in 221(g). Back to step 1???!!!?

ANYBODY HAVE SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT TO DO OR WHAT TO EXPECT OR TIMELINES?!!!!!!!!!??

My just get a job in Turkey where they have a higher value for families..

[Wesekat 1]

I know there is another thread on this topic. Maybe I should put this post there? I'm burnt out from a long day of BS and no sleep last night.

[pushbrk 12,877]

Based on indications that petition (WAC-10-092-50456, MOS2010536012) contains inaccurate information, we are returning it to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for review and possible revocation. Under INA 222 , which addresses the confidentiality of visa records, we are unable to provide any further detail.

Sincerely,

Immigrant Visa Chief

Please see bold above. They are saying that there are indications the petition contains inaccurate information. In my experience, when this happens, one or both of the parties is aware of what is or has been perceived to be inaccurate. If they really mean "the petition" then it may well be something inaccurate on your part but there's a G325a and divorce decree from the beneficiary as well. I would be searching the documents and your minds to figure out what they might have thought was inaccurate, so that several months from now, IF you have an opportunity for rebuttal, you will be prepared.

Unfortunately, with CSC I-129F cases, the service center elects to cop-out and simply let the approval expire instead of giving an opportunity to rebut and reaffirm.

We discuss affidavit of support from self employed sponsors here frequently. Being in business is a two-edged sword in this context. Those nice "deductions" reduce "income". Line 22 on the 1040 is your "current income" like it or not. The only reason they asked for a three-year average was probably to give you a chance to show other past years with higher income, when the most recent year didn't qualify.

Many self employed sponsors in the process NOW are preparing to file a 2010 tax return that shows qualifying income on line 22.

Edited January 29, 2011 by pushbrk

[KiwiBird 132]

My divorce was finalized on Dec 30, 2010.

They probably found you to be ineligible because of this. Based on your timeline, you stated you filed the I-129F on Feb 10th, 2010.

"I-129F Sent : 2010-02-10"

Your divorce was not yet final. Therefore, you were ineligible for the I-129F.

In order to be eligible for the I-129F, you MUST be eligible to marry. Being your divorce was not yet finalized, you were not.

[TBoneTX 45,267]

Your divorce was not yet final. Therefore, you were ineligible for the I-129F.

I noticed this, too. As is always wise, follow what pushbrk says. Review all of your papers for additional items that could be questioned.

[pushbrk 12,877]

They probably found you to be ineligible because of this. Based on your timeline, you stated you filed the I-129F on Feb 10th, 2010.

"I-129F Sent : 2010-02-10"

Your divorce was not yet final. Therefore, you were ineligible for the I-129F.

In order to be eligible for the I-129F, you MUST be eligible to marry. Being your divorce was not yet finalized, you were not.

More likely a typo. I expect the divorce was finalized at the end of 2009. Fits with the rest of the story. The inaccuracy is probably something else but one of them has a good clue what it is. It's not the only date typed wrong. He indicates her interview was in June 2010 but 10 weeks later in January 2010, she got a denial.

OP, please correct the dates.

Edited January 29, 2011 by pushbrk

[Wesekat 1]

Ekaterina had her interview in Moscow on June 6, 2010. The case went into Administrative Review 10 weeks after that. On January 26, 2010 she received the following shocking letter:

Section 221 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits a consular officer from issuing a visa to an alien if the consular officer has reason to believe that the alien is ineligible. Based on indications that petition (WAC-10-092-50456, MOS2010536012) contains inaccurate information, we are returning it to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for review and possible revocation. Under INA 222 , which addresses the confidentiality of visa records, we are unable to provide any further detail.

Sincerely,

Immigrant Visa Chief

Our Senator liaison assistant started working on it that day while Moscow sleeps. Senator Murray is awesome!!!!!!

I am thankful for all the information on this forum but I am still confused as to our course of action. We wait for information from USCIS and what it is we are being accused of? I have no idea what it could be they deem "inaccurate."

Some details:

We met on a social site on my birthday, March 10, 2009. We hit it off immediately, writing every day, and after 2 months phoning often. I was still married to my ex, but separated. Ekaterina was divorced and has a son, now 3. Don't know if this matters in a visa case, but she has police records of her ex almost killing her in a severe beating shortly before she filed for divorce. His second major beating.

In July 2010 I went to Russia and we spent 30 wonderful days together. I fell in love. She is the kind of woman I had been looking for since I was 18 (not including my married daze, where I was not in love, but very loyal.) I am now 49. She is 28. That is not an issue with us. She thinks I look young!

I was ignorant of US visa policy and I used to be an eternal optimist until this past year from hell. I invited her to visit me in USA. I wanted to return the favor; she was a wonderful host. Foolish fellow personally invited her on the tourist visa app. What a moron! She went the 600km to Moscow for the interview and called me crying when the rude lady denied her tourist visa. We were both shocked and very upset. It was the first of my many shames of being an American.

I flew back and spent another 30 fabulous days in October 2oo9. This time she fell in love with me. I proposed and presented the diamond ring (I was still an optimist!) She accepted!

I did not consider myself married spiritually, physically, mentally, or emotionally, but i knew I was legally. So I filed for divorce. Before falling in Love with Katya I had no need to divorce. Now I did because we wanted to get the K-1 visa. My divorce was finalized on Dec 30, 2009. That day I bought a new car and called it Liberty.

We had plenty of photographs and excerpts from the 800 pages compiled Word doc of our emails, letters from friends and relatives, letters of intent to marry, train tickets, hotel receipts, plane boarding passes, as evidence of our relationship. The DNA donor who rarely ever sees his biological son signed an affidavit giving permission for the boy to move to the USA. I guess he thought it would get him out of the $20 a month he rarely pays. I hired a lawyer to assist in all the documents. He reviewed and approved them.

At the interview the officer seemed not to care about our evidence of relationship. He laughed when she answered that we communicate in English. He asked about my ex wife who Ekaterina knew not much (nor cared to know)about. But he was concerned about my self employed income and he denied the visa and said we needed a co-sponsor. He told her that's all we need, everything else seems in order.

NOTE TO SELF EMPLOYED PETITIONERS: Immigration gods deem "Income" to be business profit minus self employment tax. And they want a 3 year average. Bank statements showing a good deposit history are irrelevant apparently. Plan 3 years ahead and stop taking all those nice deductions.

After a frantic search we found a co-sponsor. But the case was put into A.R. 7 months later they decided there was fraud. Where, I have no clue. Now in 221(g). Back to step 1???!!!?

ANYBODY HAVE SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT TO DO OR WHAT TO EXPECT OR TIMELINES?!!!!!!!!!??

My just get a job in Turkey where they have a higher value for families..

OOPS! My original had a typo! I was divorced on Dec 30 2009!!! Not 2010!

[Wesekat 1]

It was a bad day yesterday and I was exhausted when I wrote my original post. Yes, two typos, The 221 letter came on Jan 26, 2011. And I was divorced before we applied (Dec 2009) I'm not that naive about the immigration matrix.

I will review our documents very carefully again for the millionth time. I will ask Ekaterina to do the same. We have absolutely no idea what they think is wrong. Hard to believe maybe when I had 2 typos on one form last night. But I am not always sleepy.

We seriously wanted to get married and apply that way. But we were told the k-1 is quicker. So fast we can hardly keep up. Maybe we will just forget about this K-1 nightmare. But I want to be sure there is no fraud marker permanently attached to Ekaterina. Banned for life?! Without a chance to prove our innocence? That's dark ages evil!!

Thanks for the replies everybody... Another day of mind numbing research.

[Used to be broken 147]

It was a bad day yesterday and I was exhausted when I wrote my original post. Yes, two typos, The 221 letter came on Jan 26, 2011. And I was divorced before we applied (Dec 2009) I'm not that naive about the immigration matrix.

I will review our documents very carefully again for the millionth time. I will ask Ekaterina to do the same. We have absolutely no idea what they think is wrong. Hard to believe maybe when I had 2 typos on one form last night. But I am not always sleepy.

We seriously wanted to get married and apply that way. But we were told the k-1 is quicker. So fast we can hardly keep up. Maybe we will just forget about this K-1 nightmare. But I want to be sure there is no fraud marker permanently attached to Ekaterina. Banned for life?! Without a chance to prove our innocence? That's dark ages evil!!

Thanks for the replies everybody... Another day of mind numbing research.

Well hopefully there were no typos in the application regarding your marriage and divorce dates. If they told you you needed a co-sponser, maybe your calculation of your self employment income is the innacurate info they are talking about.

[Wesekat 1]

Yes, maybe the income calculation is the problem. But why wait 7 months to make that determination? We feel like they toy with us because they can. Can that be true? Or are we just fed up?

[Used to be broken 147]

Yes, maybe the income calculation is the problem. But why wait 7 months to make that determination? We feel like they toy with us because they can. Can that be true? Or are we just fed up?

Well, its entirely possible it sat on a shelf or desk of someone who went on emergency leave from the embassy, got stuck in a drawer, was used to prop up a desk, or any number of other odd things. Or, if it went into AP for something else like a hit on a similar name, SAO check, it might have taken that long. It does seem odd the mention of the income but being sent back to USCIS, I thought the consulates just held onto it until new affidavit of support was filed.

I never rule out the possibility of personal bias in these matters, you might have found a consular officer who felt strongly about the beginning of this relationship before your divorce was final and they are basically making you pay for it.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Have you considered the possibility that your fiance withheld something from the embassy or has some sort of past issue? The letter basically says there is something of a sensitive nature that they cannot tell you, the petitioner. I guess the beneficiary might know what it was. Also might explain the AP. Good luck.

[amykathleen2005 441]

Usually they say a denied visitor visa has no real impact on a K-1. But possibly the reason she was originally denied the visitor visa is the same problem now. Drugs or a police record come to mind (and I don't know your fiance, but those are common reasons for denial).

[pushbrk 12,877]

Have you considered the possibility that your fiance withheld something from the embassy or has some sort of past issue? The letter basically says there is something of a sensitive nature that they cannot tell you, the petitioner. I guess the beneficiary might know what it was. Also might explain the AP. Good luck.

Actually, the privacy issues protect both parties. A letter given to the beneficiary indicating private information was left out, would indicate protection of the petitioner's privacy.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Actually, the privacy issues protect both parties. A letter given to the beneficiary indicating private information was left out, would indicate protection of the petitioner's privacy.

Yes, but it said something about the alien being ineligible for a visa, then something about privacy.