K1 visa DENIED - Public Charge - pretty outraged.

[LeftCoastLady 441]

Not sure if this will help, but plugging that URL into Archive.org's "Wayback Machine" brings up previous iterations. Here's one from last year: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf'>http://web.archive.org/web/20110703082302/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

It appears that the Foreign Affairs Manual has recently been updated regarding the I-134.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3, practically the entire chapter on the I-134 has been revised by a change transmittal dated October 10, 2012. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me to save a copy of the old version, but it does seem to be substantially different than I remember it.

Anybody got a copy of the previous version of this section of the FAM?

[X Factor 1,112]

You might have better luck with the Cr1 with a co sponsor, go back and get married. Some countries do not allow the k1 to have a co sponsor( It states they do but routinely denied in countries like Vietnam). Best of luck.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Not sure if this will help, but plugging that URL into Archive.org's "Wayback Machine" brings up previous iterations. Here's one from last year: http://web.archive.org/web/20110703082302/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

Ahhh! I completely forgot about the "Wayback Machine". Thanks!

In comparing the two, it looks like the chapter didn't really change that much. They added paragraph "a" which just clarifies the authority that allows a consular officer to request and consider an I-134. INA 213 gives the CO the discretion to issue a visa to an alien who would otherwise be inadmissible for the "public charge" requirement if the alien posts a bond "or other undertaking". The new paragraph "a" defines an I-134 as an "other undertaking" under INA 213.

Inserting a new paragraph "a" changed all of the other paragraph letters in the chapter, which is why most of the chapter was hilited as having been changed. Very little of the other text appears to have actually changed.

In short, I don't think the recent FAM changes explain why the consulate in Naples is apparently refusing some K1's with joint sponsors. The FAM does define a joint sponsor as someone who submits an I-864, however, the FAM has always defined a joint sponsor that way. The FAM also does not make any specific reference to joint sponsors in cases where the CO cannot require an I-864, and requests an I-134 from the petitioner, but the FAM never really addressed the topic of joint sponsors with the I-134. These aspects of the FAM have never prevented consulates from accepting joint sponsors for K1 visas in the past.

[VisaK1ITA 2]

Update: We reached out to absolutely everybody from the consulate to the visa center to all of our representatives. We are extremely pleased with the responses, in fact both Senators and our congresswoman responded within days and all offered to take up the case. I laid out my argument as to why she would not be a public charge, including that I had received a job offer and they forwarded this to the consulate. The result was that the visa rejection was overturned and instead we are now being given the 90 days to show additional evidence through a new interview! We are very excited and will keep you informed on the progress. We are likely going to wait until I have some pay stubs just to help "seal the deal".

Thank you so much for your help.

[rade2rising 205]

you are going to get rejected again if you do not gather some new evidence. waiting for some paystubs seems a great idea.... you have to overcome the initial denial. Its not going to be easy. good luck.

[melissa-n-alfredo 10]

Update: We reached out to absolutely everybody from the consulate to the visa center to all of our representatives. We are extremely pleased with the responses, in fact both Senators and our congresswoman responded within days and all offered to take up the case. I laid out my argument as to why she would not be a public charge, including that I had received a job offer and they forwarded this to the consulate. The result was that the visa rejection was overturned and instead we are now being given the 90 days to show additional evidence through a new interview! We are very excited and will keep you informed on the progress. We are likely going to wait until I have some pay stubs just to help "seal the deal".

Thank you so much for your help.

Congrats on this accomplishment, and not giving up, when I've seen so many comments only to discourage you even more!!!! Way to go!!! I wish you the very best, and you HAVE overcome the largest hurdle of all, by getting that decision overturned with an opportunity to prove yourself!!!! Very few could have pulled that off and I am very happy to see it CAN be done

[VisaK1ITA 2]

you are going to get rejected again if you do not gather some new evidence. waiting for some paystubs seems a great idea.... you have to overcome the initial denial. Its not going to be easy. good luck.

For sure, I have a letter from the vice consul that states that proof including a job offer letter is sufficient. But I want to give them that plus an employment letter and paystubs as you say to make sure.

Thank you. And again thank you all for your words of encouragement.

[reese1 68]

Best of luck to you in the new interview!

[OrderofProtection 42]

Update: We reached out to absolutely everybody from the consulate to the visa center to all of our representatives. We are extremely pleased with the responses, in fact both Senators and our congresswoman responded within days and all offered to take up the case. I laid out my argument as to why she would not be a public charge, including that I had received a job offer and they forwarded this to the consulate. The result was that the visa rejection was overturned and instead we are now being given the 90 days to show additional evidence through a new interview! We are very excited and will keep you informed on the progress. We are likely going to wait until I have some pay stubs just to help "seal the deal".

Thank you so much for your help.

Hey Congrats to you, such good news!! Best of luck to you both!

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

Update: We reached out to absolutely everybody from the consulate to the visa center to all of our representatives. We are extremely pleased with the responses, in fact both Senators and our congresswoman responded within days and all offered to take up the case. I laid out my argument as to why she would not be a public charge, including that I had received a job offer and they forwarded this to the consulate. The result was that the visa rejection was overturned and instead we are now being given the 90 days to show additional evidence through a new interview! We are very excited and will keep you informed on the progress. We are likely going to wait until I have some pay stubs just to help "seal the deal".

Thank you so much for your help.

Smashing stroke of luck.

I'm happy to read that some Senators do indeed act on behalf of the constituents.

In California, the office of Senator Boxer was a compelte waste of time, never did anything other than to write me that my FIancee needed to prove that she has ties to her home country and this is on a K1 - so clearly they have no clue over there. Senator Feinstein did contact my Embassy but folded when they received the same denial letter that was given to my Fiancee. I have no Congresspperson until January when they get sworn in.

Congrats on the second chance.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Smashing stroke of luck.

I'm happy to read that some Senators do indeed act on behalf of the constituents.

In California, the office of Senator Boxer was a compelte waste of time, never did anything other than to write me that my FIancee needed to prove that she has ties to her home country and this is on a K1 - so clearly they have no clue over there. Senator Feinstein did contact my Embassy but folded when they received the same denial letter that was given to my Fiancee. I have no Congresspperson until January when they get sworn in.

Congrats on the second chance.

That's funny about Senator Feinstein. She has introduced more private bills in an attempt to stop deportation and get green cards for illegal immigrants than all other senators combined. Some of those private bills have been successful. At appears Ms. Feinstein cares more about illegal immigrants than she does about legal immigrants.

Your case doesn't require a private bill because you're not asking for an exception to the law be granted. Maybe you could get a little more action from Ms. Feinstein's office by attracting a little media attention to your case. I doubt she'd like the public knowing that she'll try to move mountains for illegal immigrants, but won't lift a finger for legal immigrants.

[USCNaples 0]

Same thing pretty much just happened to my fiance in Napoli. We would have NEVER done the Fiance Visa if we knew this would happen. I have a job and make above what is necessary to support him but I only have been working for a few months as I was living the year before that with my fiance in Italy. Our joint sponsor also make more than double the amount of the 125 percent above poverty level. We are still pursuing it and I am going to my Congressman and if necessary we will hire an attorney. It is very deceiving and I am so very disappointed in this system. How do they expect me to now leave my new job and go to Italy, get married, return and wait the 1 to 2 year wait for the spousal Visa???? There has to be a better solution!!!

The same thing happened to us today. I feel the same way. My fiance also asked the officer after she denied him: "But you accept co-sponsors?" the answer was simply "yes" even though the co-sponsor made above the guidelines and, according to the law, should have been accepted leading to a visa approval...I literally feel sick to my stomach.

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

Wow.

I used to have a knee jerk reaction that our denial was because it was Nigeria but it seems that this craziness extends to 1st world countries too.

I'm sorry that you got denied, it's a sickening feeling and I hope that the embassy staff understands the direct impact to fellow taxpaying US citizens.

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

That's funny about Senator Feinstein. She has introduced more private bills in an attempt to stop deportation and get green cards for illegal immigrants than all other senators combined. Some of those private bills have been successful. At appears Ms. Feinstein cares more about illegal immigrants than she does about legal immigrants.

Your case doesn't require a private bill because you're not asking for an exception to the law be granted. Maybe you could get a little more action from Ms. Feinstein's office by attracting a little media attention to your case. I doubt she'd like the public knowing that she'll try to move mountains for illegal immigrants, but won't lift a finger for legal immigrants.

I thought about getting media attention but I do still want to get a visa from the Lagos office at some point. I thought it was best just to go along with the program and get married as they suggested.

I continue to be highly dissapointed in the process but we're getting married in 13 days and then back to the end of the line I go. Again.

[USCNaples 0]

One's beneficiary is not entitled to a visa. One, as the petitioner, does not have a right to 'give or grant' a visa. While I certainly can understand the disappointment with not getting what one wants, at this point in time, the Government is the only entity that has the authority to legally grant admission of a person to the United States. That authority is exercised by well trained individuals that represent the Government. I DO NOT claim that those individuals can not make mistakes, nor do I claim that it is not possible for some of those individuals to fail to do their job in accordance with the laws, rules, regulations, principles and guidance that is the operating policy of the United States Govenment. I freely admit that I am not an immigration expert, HOWEVER, in the case in this thread (and in many others that I have read) it appears to me that the individuals denied did not meet the stated requirement that the Applicant prove that either the beneficiary [aka the applicant] or the petitioner [aka the USC] could financially support the beneficiary.

The Counselor Officer isn't the only person involved in the decision making process and doesn't operate alone and in a complete vacuum.

I agree that applicants have the responsibility of proving they have evidence. And I COMPLETELY agree that the Counselor Officer doesn't operate alone and in a complete vacuum. They are supposed to follow the regulations which are provided in the instructions of the packet. That's the whole problem.

Weddings and marriages are something that people plan. It's in a sense the creation of a family. If someone provides all the evidence requested by the law and an individual still says that it's not enough, then they must be basing decision in something other than the law. If that is the case, what is it? I am an American citizen and I wanted to do this in an honest way. I provided more than the necessary evidence that my fiance would in no way become a public charge. We wasted so much money only to be told we didn't have enough! It's ironic that we will have a lot more expenses now that we have to continue to travel back and forth...and not having the comfort of rent-free living in an owned home that we could have had here.

The word Consul means advice giving. Shouldn't they at least respond to emails or provide some information when people are paying 15 euro to make calls. Don't get me wrong, they Officers I spoke with seemed very nice and polite and I agree it's the system not the individuals, but shouldn't the system be more transparent. I would appreciate a clearer motive for our visa denial since it has shattered everything we have been planning for for a year. Shipping clothes, moving, changing jobs, visits and other things we have done to try to get ready for a life together.