Ok, I have been asked to start this topic here in this forum. Including myself (K1), there are many of us going through several consulates whose petitions have been sent back to the United States for review.

We need a central place to discuss this issue and help each other out...posts in other forums keeping dropping off.

I am hoping this topic will be "pinned" as it is a very serious issue that many of us are dealing with right now. I refuse to let this topic die! So, if this topic touches you personally as it does me...post here. If this topic interests you because you may face it going through Morocco or other consulates...post here.

My Story:
Like the story of so many others recently, I really thought we were denied when my fiance received this 221g...apparently this is a "soft" denial, not a "hard" denial. Our K1 petition was sent back to the United States for further review of the validity of relationship...basically the consular officer was not satisfied during my fiance's interview even though she refused to take ALL of our evidence into account to make a fair assessment.

I and my Senator fought and fought to get the consulate to look at all of our evidence of a valid relationship BEFORE they sent it back to the US and it did not work...all efforts here were fruitless.

The petition is being sent back and we have to wait for the USCIS to make a decision in our case. It will be about 6 months before I hear anything from the USCIS. This however does not mean I will sit still during this time...oh no, no, no. The USCIS office who initially processed AND approved my petition is receiving all of our proof that the consular officer refused to look at during the interview as well as proof of our ongoing relationship before they make that decision.

You can view the thread of posts regarding my case as these events transpired just after the interview:

K1 Visa Denied in Morocco

The Research:
Myself among others in the ME/NA forum have done extensive research in this area in attempt to help ourselves figure out WTH is going on with our petitions and how to fight this in the United States before actually being denied by the USCIS.

Here are links US Department of State website unclassified telegram communications to Consulates regarding the official process for returning "approved" K1 and K3 visa petitions back to the United States:

GUIDELINES AND CHANGES FOR RETURNING DHS / BCIS APPROVED IV AND NIV PETITIONS

GUIDANCE ON PETITION REVOCATIONS

9 FAM (Visas) - Section 40.0 of the Foriegn Affairs Manual Specific to revocation:

9 FAM 40.0

Poll:
General Poll I created in an attempt to gather basic information from other VJ users going through this issue:

221g Notification, Visa Petitions Sent Back to the United States


~Kiya~

WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP! OHIBOUK RAJLI...LHBIB DYALI

Ok, back to researching and have a question. There seem to be 2 types of appeals, and I am confused at which one would apply to cases sent back for review then being denied:

1. Administrative Appeals Office

I-290B Form and Process

2. Notice of Appeal of Decision Form I-694

Now, I 'think' that the I-290B is the correct form and process for denied petitions but it is not very clear. From what I understand now, not every case can be appealed. When the petitioner receives notification of denial from the USCIS the notice will tell them if the can appeal and which office to appeal to.

Concerning a K1 there is probably no right to an appeal...which really doesn't matter to me. In the even we are denied we will get married and file for the K3. The timeframe of an appeal is HUGE and from what I hear most of the appeals are fruitless. Still I want to research everything I can...even if it does not help our case, maybe it will help someone else.

Has anyone else researched the appeal process? Which form is correct?

~Kiya~

Very interesting article by an immigration attorney in New Orleans...I wish I could hire this man.

~Kiya~

Clash Of The Titan Bureaucracies? The Battle Between DHS And US Consulates
by Marc Ellis, Esq.

It is hard to imagine a bigger bureaucratic blunder than granting fifteen Saudi hijackers tourist and student visas to enter the United States. But that is exactly what happened in Saudi Arabia in 2000 and 2001.

More than any other Federal agency, the US Consular Corps is responsible for allowing the 9-11 hijackers into the United States. In the months following September 11th, periodicals like the National Review posted photos of the DS-156 forms submitted by the hijackers. They were so scribbled and incomplete, as to be facially unapprovable. Yet, Consular Officers in Saudi Arabia approved them without even scheduling interviews!

As a result of September 11th, the US Consular Corps now find themselves subject to the oversight of a government agency outside the State Department, perhaps for the first time in their two-hundred plus year history. The Department of Homeland Security now has the final authority over the issuance of visas at the US Consulates. Consular Officers cannot issue a visa without DHS signing off on it.

DHS is also responsible for adjudicating visa petitions filed inside the United States. This is a historic and structural change in US immigration law. For the first time, a single agency plays a major role in overseeing the immigration process at both the consular level and at the CIS Service Centers inside the United States. The implications and consequences of this change are yet to be fully understood by practitioners and perhaps by the agencies themselves.

The focus and the priorities of DHS and DOS are quite different. Consulates focus on fighting visa fraud. DHS is focused on fighting terrorism and strengthening national security. Mundane visa fraud in family and fiancee petitions while important, is less important than preventing terrorists with weapons of mass destruction from entering the United States.

Yet, for US consulates, fighting visa fraud is still Job One. And the priorities of consular officers don't appear to be completely aligned with the priorities of the DHS. As an example, consular officers in Saudi Arabia approved Mohammed Atta's visa without a single fraud inquiry. Yet in Moscow, Guanxi, and Ho Chi Minh City, fiancees, spouses and their US Citizen petitioners must pass through a Kafkaesque gauntlet of obstacles and interrogations, the tactics of which at times are reminiscent of totalitarian governments.

Are we safer as a nation, with a consular corps that fights valiantly to protect us from foreign fiancées and yet issues Mohammed Atta a visa without making a single fraud inquiry?

I know of a case where consular officers in Ho Chi Minh City forced a beneficiary to sign a confession to marriage fraud. The officer told her if she did not sign this confession, she would never be allowed to enter the US. The officer was making a misrepresentation of the law - or else it was not translated correctly to the beneficiary. The officer did not mention the IMFA, which provides that any person who has been found to commit marriage fraud would never be eligible for an immigration benefit. The frightened beneficiary dutifully wrote out her confession, believing she still might have her visa approved, if she just did what the consular officers ordered her to do.

In another HCM case, a consular officer issued a 221(g) letter demanding a divorced US citizen petitioner obtain copies of the birth certificates of his former in-laws! I wonder, how many divorced consular officers would be comfortable requesting copies of their former in-laws' birth certificates? It is a shame consular officers did not exercise similar vigilance in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in the months leading up to September 11th, 2001.

Because DHS is now ultimately responsible for the adjudications of visa petitions filed by US Citizen petitioners inside the United States, it is also the agency which finds itself sued as a defendant in Federal District Court for the actions of consular officers.

Try to understand the dynamics of this relationship. DHS is legally responsible and must answer for the actions of consular officers. And yet, DHS has no direct operational control over what consular officers do, or how the consular corps sets its own priorities. The operational control of consular officers still resides with DOS. Yet DHS is held legally accountable when a consular officer crosses the line and violates a petitioner's constitutional rights.

A relationship like this is bound to create a little friction. Perhaps as a result of this inherent conflict, we see advisory cables periodically issued by DOS, cautioning consular officers that DHS/CIS approval of a petition is prima facie evidence of eligibility and that a CO must meet a high evidentiary standard before he or she can recommend revocation of that approval.

Perhaps the most recent evidence of a skirmish between the two agencies can be seen in a February 4th guidance cable issued by the Department of State to all consulates. I have included the entire memo and added emphasis where appropriate.

Every immigration lawyer should copy this cable and keep it handy. We'll be using it a lot in the months and years to come. This cable also announces some important changes to the revocation procedure.

One of the changes is that all recommendations for revocation will now be forwarded to the National Visa Center, and not to the CIS Service Center directly. The NVC will forward them to the CIS Service Centers. The NVC Fraud Unit will track the progress of the revocation in an attempt to minimize delays or the loss of the petitions. Also, the NVC Fraud Detection Unit says that it will "...utilize the data obtained from revocations to track trends for future intelligence dissemination....".

Every immigration lawyer should make note of this language from paragraphs 5,6,7 and 8.



5. "...The Department is regularly named as a co- defendant with DHS in cases involving the return of immigrant or nonimmigrant petitions to DHS. Therefore, it is particularly important that consular petition adjudications are well documented and clearly state the basis for the petition return.

6. In adjudicating visa cases involving petitions, posts should bear in mind three important factors: A. the consular officer's role in the petition process is to determine if there is substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not previously considered by DHS, and not to merely readjudicate the petition; B. the memo supporting the petition return must clearly show the factual and concrete reasons for recommending revocation (observations made by the consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant) and; C. consular officers must provide to the applicant in writing as full an explanation as possible of the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return. Post must maintain a copy of the returned petition, other evidence relevant to the case, and a copy of the written notification of the denial. No readjudication of petitions

7. In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification - which are examined in the petition process - have been met. Where Congress has placed responsibility and authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for status which are examined in the petition process have been met, consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition.

8."...DHS regulations require DHS/BCIS to provide the petitioner notice of intent to revoke, and to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the grounds for revocation. DHS regulations require that, in the case of nonimmigrant petitions, the revocation must be based only on grounds specified in the regulations. Those grounds include evidence that the statement of facts in the petition was not true and correct, or that the approval involved gross error....".


Immigration lawyers should take note of that language. However, I wish consular officers would take note of this language:

"...conoffs are normally less knowledgeable about the basis for petition eligibility than DHS personnel; they therefore should not jump to conclusions regarding petitions. In addition, conoffs should return petitions only where there is specific, material and clear evidence to provide the DHS a basis to initiate petition revocation procedure...".

I have attended dozens of immigration interviews all over the United States. I have never seen an INS/CIS officer who was not knowledgeable in the laws at issue in the case being adjudicated. And I have never seen INS/CIS issue a request for evidence demanding a petitioner obtain copies of his former in-law's birth certificates! Sadly, at the consular level, I have seen both.

A Modest Policy Proposal:
I am not the first to recommend this. But it bears repeating. A good step toward both improving national security and giving visa applicants fair treatment overseas, would be to take visa issuance authority away from the Department of State and give it to Homeland Security.

This change will have at least three salutary effects.

(1) It will make the officers who issue visas legally accountable to Bivens' actions in Federal court, as they will no longer be 'consular officers'. They will be DHS adjudicators.

(2) It will allow allow DHS operational control over the people who issue visas. The priorities of the two agencies can at last be brought into alignment.

(3) It will improve our national security by allowing the officers who issue visas to focus on preventing terrorists from entering the United States, rather than spending their days terrorizing law-abiding US citizens and their fiancées and spouses.

There is no constitutional problem with this proposal. The US Constitution does not grant consular officers a degree of immunity. The doctrine of non-reviewability of consular decisions is statutory and found in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Nor does the Constitution require that the persons who adjudicate visas in US Consulates be called "Consular Officers". They could just as easily be working for DHS. And the United States would probably be safer if they did.

The battle lines are drawn between these two agencies. Immigration lawyers should be prepared to use this latest advisory cable on our clients' behalf at the US Consulates, and also use it at the DHS/CIS Service Centers, if we represent a client whose petition has been recommended revoked by a Consular Officer.

_________________________________________________

[ All Emphasis Supplied ]
Department of State Announces Guidelines for Returning for Revocation Approved NIV & IV Petitions to DHS.

R 251642Z FEB 04
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS
SPECIAL EMBASSY PROGRAM
AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE
AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM
AMEMBASSY KABUL
AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA
UNCLAS STATE 041682

VISAS - INFORM CONSULS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS
SUBJECT: SOP 61: GUIDELINES AND CHANGES FOR RETURNING DHS / BCIS APPROVED IV AND NIV PETITIONS

1. Summary. Effective immediately, all immigrant, K-1 and K-3 visa petitions being returned with a recommendation to the DHS Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) for revocation will be forwarded to the National Visa Center (NVC). This cable provides guidance to posts on proper processing of DHS petitions submitted in support of immigrant or nonimmigrant visa applications. It cites and provides supplemental material to already existing FAM procedural instructions. End Summary

2. Effective immediately, posts should forward all immigrant and K-1/K-3 visa petitions being returned to the BCIS with a recommendation for revocation to the NVC. The NVC has developed a system for tracking all immigrant and K-1/K-3 visa petition cases returned from posts with recommendations for revocation. There are two reasons for the change in procedure. First, many petitions returned to BCIS with recommendations for revocation have been lost. In other cases, post has not received any information from BCIS on the status of the revocation request. The NVC will track all cases returned to BCIS and ensure that the cases are sent to and received from BCIS in a timely manner. Second, the NVC Fraud Prevention Unit intends to utilize the data obtained from revocations to track trends for future intelligence dissemination.

3. Revocation cases will be forwarded to the NVC for review and data collection, and forwarded by NVC to the appropriate BCIS Service Center. Cases will be returned from the BCIS Service Center to the NVC and then routed back to the post of origin. The NVC will follow up on cases lacking information from BCIS in a designated timeframe. Please note that conforming changes will be made in the relevant section of 9 FAM 42.43, N2, "When to Return Petitions," N3 "Returning Petitions" and PN1 "Returning Petitions for Possible Revocation" and 9 FAM 41.81 N6.6 "Additional Factors That May Raise Questions in K-1 Cases." Nonimmigrant visa petitions other than K-1/K-3 petitions returned with a recommendation for revocation will continue to be sent to the appropriate BCIS Service Center.

4. All Immigrant and K-1/K-3 Visa Revocation cases are to be returned to the following address:

National Visa Center
32 Rochester Ave.
Portsmouth NH 03801
Attn: Fraud Prevention Manager

5. Unlike consular determinations regarding visa eligibility, which are not subject to judicial review, actions relating to DHS petitions are potentially subject to administrative and/or judicial review. The Department is regularly named as a co-defendant with DHS in cases involving the return of immigrant or nonimmigrant petitions to DHS. Therefore, it is particularly important that consular petition adjudications are well documented and clearly state the basis for the petition return.

6. In adjudicating visa cases involving petitions, posts should bear in mind three important factors: A. the consular officer's role in the petition process is to determine if there is substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not previously considered by DHS, and not to merely readjudicate the petition; B. the memo supporting the petition return must clearly show the factual and concrete reasons for recommending revocation (observations made by the consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant) and; C. consular officers must provide to the applicant in writing as full an explanation as possible of the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return. Post must maintain a copy of the returned petition, other evidence relevant to the case, and a copy of the written notification of the denial.

No readjudication of petitions

7. In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification - which are examined in the petition process - have been met. Where Congress has placed responsibility and authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for status which are examined in the petition process have been met, consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition.

8. When a petition is returned to DHS, if DHS concurs with the officer's recommendation, DHS regulations require DHS/BCIS to provide the petitioner notice of intent to revoke, and to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the grounds for revocation. DHS regulations require that, in the case of nonimmigrant petitions, the revocation must be based only on grounds specified in the regulations. Those grounds include evidence that the statement of facts in the petition was not true and correct, or that the approval involved gross error. The FAM often only summarizes the petition approval criteria because they are too lengthy and complicated to reproduce fully (the H regulations, for example, contain about 25 pages of double column material). Absent access to the full DHS regulations, conoffs may not be aware of all of the factors considered by DHS in approving a petition. In addition, conoffs are normally less knowledgeable about the basis for petition eligibility than DHS personnel; they therefore should not jump to conclusions regarding petitions. In addition, conoffs should return petitions only where there is specific, material and clear evidence to provide the DHS a basis to initiate petition revocation procedures.

Sufficiency of evidence

9. 9 FAM '42.43, Procedural Note One states that when returning petitions for possible revocation, "The original petition, along with all supporting documents, shall be returned under cover of a Form DS-3096, Consular Return/Case Transfer Cover Sheet, and a memorandum supporting the recommendation for revocation. The report must be comprehensive, clearly showing factual and concrete reasons for revocation. The report must be well reasoned and analytical rather than conclusory. Observations made by the consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant." The criteria cited in this note derive from the Board of Immigration Appeals case, Matter of Arias, in which the Board determined that the memorandum supporting a petition return did not constitute "good and sufficient cause" for petition revocation, because it consisted of "observations of the consular officer that are conclusory, speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant to the bona fides of the claimed relationship".

10. Memoranda supporting petition returns should be scrutinized carefully and objectively, bearing in mind that they may become relevant in litigation. The memoranda should be based on specific factual evidence, rather than conclusions, and should be clearly reasoned. For example, a statement that unnamed neighbors told a fraud investigator that a couple was not married is likely to be viewed as of relatively little value compared to a statement that names the neighbors, explains the nature of their relationship to and knowledge of the couple, and sets out the specific facts that led to the conclusion that the couple was not married. Signed statements are of greater value than second hand reports. Where a statement is prepared in English by a non-native English speaker, it should be proofread carefully. Posts can consult with CA/VO/L/A on cases where there are questions or concerns over the sufficiency of evidence cited in the memo supporting a petition return.

Notice to Applicant

11. INA 212( requires the conoff in most cases to "provide the alien with a timely written notice that- (A) states the determination, and ( lists the specific provision or provisions of law under which the alien is inadmissible." 9 FAM 42.81 Procedural Note one instructs the conoff to provide: "1) The provision(s) of law on which the refusal is based; (2) The factual basis for the refusal (unless such information is classified); (3) Any missing documents or other evidence required; (4) What procedural steps must be taken by the consular officer or Department; and (5) Any relief available to overcome the refusal."

12. There are legitimate reasons why in some cases a conoff should not release all information relating to a visa refusal; such reasons could include classification of the information, confidentiality concerns, the need to protect an informant, or the "third agency rule" (information from another agency should only be released with that agency's permission). However, absent such considerations, conoffs should provide the applicant with the full factual basis for a visa refusal, as well as a reasonable opportunity to overcome the finding. This is particularly important to ensure that the Department's interests are protected in any subsequent litigation. It is important that conoffs maintain a record at Post showing that Post provided a written notice of the legal ground for refusal to the applicant, and, if possible, the factual basis for the refusal (this will normally consist of a copy of the OF-194). Conoffs are also reminded that in accordance with 9 FAM 42.81 Procedural Note 9, and 41.53 Note 2.3, copies of returned petitions and all other relevant material must be retained at Post.

Additional Considerations

13. Post's requests for petition revocation are often based upon investigation results. Consular managers should ensure that their fraud prevention programs actively tie investigations to legally-pertinent factual questions, and that they are likely to produce concrete evidence. In other words, if an investigation that confirms conoff's suspicions will not serve to allow DHS to revoke the petition, post is not managing its investigations effectively. Posts can find useful guidance on managing investigations and other aspects of fraud prevention at CA/FPP's intranet site at http://intranet.ca.state.gov/fpp/fpphome.htm. In accordance with the guidance in 9 FAM 40.63 Note 10.1, where there is evidence that the petition was approved based on fraud, the fraud cannot be considered to be material until the petition is revoked, and therefore while post can enter such cases into CLASS as P6CI, post should not pursue a 6C finding until the petition is revoked or abandoned. As stated in 9 FAM 40.4 note 10.1, post should be aware that any evidence presented to DHS in support of a petition revocation may be passed to the petitioner as part of the petition revocation procedures. Finally, Posts should review 9 FAM 40.51 Note 10 on the handling of petitions where there is evidence that a labor certification was obtained by fraud or material misrepresentation.

Article Link

the attorney who wrote that letter is a poster on this forum..ellis island...

This issue has got to get pinned somewhere!!!

This is happening all over the place in Morocco and we need a central place to retrieve/share extremely important information to help us through this issue.

More and more this consulate in Morocco is handling visa petitions by giving the beneficiary a 221g stating:

"We have returned your application and petition to the Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Service. Any further inquiries to your application and petition can be directed to their attention at the CIS office where the petition was originally filed."

Thus...returning the petition to the United States, and not for Administrative Processing. Moreover it seems to be the same consular officer treating visa petitions like this no matter the amount of proof they have during the interview. There is something very serious going on at the consulate in Morocco.

~Kiya~

A mountain of VJ user support regarding pinning this issue:

Returning petitions to the United States via 221g

Thank you everyone for your support...there are many of us going through this issue who not only want to help themselves but also want to help and educate others who may face this issue in the future.

~Kiya~

First Kiya I want to let you know about denials. There is no such thing as a "soft" or "hard" denial. The 221g is a denial by the consulate only. The CO must make a decision on the day of the interview whether to issue a visa or not. (Well, that is according to their guidelines).

If you look at the bottom of the letter it gives a *WARNING:

*WARNING: IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE THE ACTION REQUESTED WITHIN ONE YEAR FOLLOWING VISA DENIAL UNDER SECTION 221 (G) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT SECTION 203 (G) OF THE ACT REQUIRES THAT YOUR APPLICATION BE CANCELLED.

Then it has the signature of the CO who denied you. So as we see the form letter it does inticate that it is a denial by the consulate. We need to have this issue clarified.

Now about the other issues concerning appeals.

Casa sends your case back to NVC to the Fraud Section.

Then NVC sends it to the BCIS office where you filed the petition.

BCIS will send you a letter notifying you that they have received information that the beneficiary does not appear eligible for the benifit sought.

Everyone calls the letter a NOID. On my letter is is an ITR (Intention to Revoke)

In it they write:

The consular officer concluded that the realtionship bewteen the petitioner and the beneficiary is not valid for immigration purposes. The letter goes on to say the it appears there is "good and sufficient cause" that exists to deny the present case. Do they give you the "good and sufficient cause"? No they do not.

Then they quote some board decisions and inform you that they intend to revoke the petition.

They then give you 30 days to offer evidence to support the petition and in opposition to the proposed revocation.

This is your opportunity to rebutt the findings of the consulate.

It is at this point that you get the chance to respond with all of the proof needed to stop the revocation. Ellis has stated before it is difficult to do. However, I did not find it difficult.

It BCIS agrees with you, the case id reaffirmed and sent back to NVC for the DOS to take action on it.

If you fail to prevent the revocation, the petiton is revolked by BCIS. You will then have a period of time to make an apeal to the Administrative Appeals Office. (Should a petition or application be denied or revoked by the USCIS, in most cases you may appeal that decision to a higher authority.)

You would be using the I-290B Form and Process for this situation.

This is back logged a few years. So you get into another line to go to appeals for your petition. Sorry to say I am sure this process will be very lengthy to say the least.

Lastly you will recieve the Notice of Appeal of Decision. The decision will be fianl at this point.

I do believe you can refile another 129 if you feel you have new evidence to support a new petition.

Whelps thats my take on all of this! I am sure you will not get this far...ie appealing your case Kiya. From what I read those who actually went to appeals had nothing to satnd on in the first place!!

Hi Kiya

My Fiance visa was sent back July 2005 and received by CSC Auguat 2005,until today i don't have an unswer on their last email i got in October 2005 they said they are reviewing petitions from January 2005 and before.
My fiance was given a 221-g asking for a cosponsor i located the cosponsor and mailed it to the consulate in Tbilisi Georgia.
They sent my petition back to DHS, for review and possible revocation, the consular officer has too many questions and concerns regarding the relationship.
December 2005 i traveled and saw my fiance for the second time, you cannot imagine how much the denial effected her , The American consulate is a SIX her bus ride from Yerevan Armenia, and she whent twice for a young girl its hard and you also have to stay their overnight you can not travel back home after the interview.

Dear Kiya,

I have read your posts and I just don't understand what's going on. I feel so badly for you. I have nothing to offer other than my admiration for your determination and spirit as well as my heartfelt sympathy for being separated from the man you love. I hope your upcoming visit to Morocco will be blissfully happy.
My mother's best advise to me has always been everything happens for a reason and while I'm sure you can't imagine why this would happen, try to trust that it will all work itself out eventually.

Best wishes

I am really new to this fiance visa, but can you give me some ideas why they keep denying your fiance his visa? Were you missing any proofs?

We all wish we knew that, but the consulate doesn't feel the need to tell us. BTW, its not just the fiance visa they are denying, it is also the CR1. You see, we weren't missing proof, some of us didn't even get an opportunity to show it. I hope this won't happen you you, but I think you need to be prepared for all possiblilites. One important thing....make sure that your fiance understands the question completely before he answers anything. They love to confuse them if they can. If he doesn't understand the question tell him to tell them to explain it better or translate it until he does understand.

Good luck!

I think the large number of denials and/or delays in Morocco is due to volume of applicants and suspicion of marriage fraud. Many Moroccan men meet women online and propose or marry in a matter of months.

I have heard that Morocco is one of the top fraud countries, so this isn't suprising. But a quick engagement doesn't always point to fraud. There was a girl there when I flew out to marry my husband. She is from England and she met my husbands friend just 3 weeks earlier. I was a bit shocked that she would fly out there so quickly and marry someone she hardly knew. Here we are a year and a half later and they are still together and she is expecting their first child. Its a shame, they were denied the visa. They are now appealing. The sad thing is that he can't be there to see his first child born. Lucky for them that she lives so close and it is much easier for her to go there. She has already been there 8 times since they met. So....this is what they call a fraud marriage? Of course it is the British consulate, but they sound similar.

My wife had her interview last month and she also got a 221g from HCMC. They asked for my tax return, family/relative info (like ssn, address, how they immigrated to the US, etc), and also any of her family that's in the US. We still haven't heard anything from them yet. Does anyone know how to find the timeline for how long this usually takes? The blue slip didn't say anything about going back to the US for review, so is it safe to assume it's being reviewed in Viet Nam and not sent back to the US? Actually, it doesn't even say anything about being reviewed. It basically just said "turn this in." Does this usually mean we're close to being approved pending those documents? Also, where where on this forum can I find people's timelines except looking at their signatures.

Hey,

I am also in the same boat as you guys. I got a 221(g) 3 times and this last time, they said they were sending it back to the NVC. According to the letter, there wasn't enough credible evidence to prove our relationship and I don't understand why. I guess this happens in the New Delhi embassy as well. Right now, Mandi my fiancée. The link to my forum topic is here if you want to see what I went through: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=57777

At this point if I start the K3 (Spousal Visa) process, does this help?. I know I have to go back there to marry and all.

You have the right attitude, NEVER GIVE UP, Sorry to say you will have a longer wait then 6 months. Our petition was sent back to the service center that approved it was on September 2005, her interview was July 19, 2005 The petition will sit at the consulate until they decide to send it back to the NVC where it will sit until they send it to USCIS service center. The petition will sit there until they, USCIS, sends you a notice where you now have the opportunity to rebut the CO findings. If all goes well, USCIS will send you a letter that they have REAFFIRRMED the petition. USCIS will send it the Consulate (I think it goes back to NVC first) then on to the consulate, where it will sit until they schedule you a new interview date. We got blue sheeted again! At the second interview, where we waited about three more months… then, we finally got the K-1 visa last week.


Some of you may think to file a new K-1 or a new K-3 remember, "you are in the system" the results of your initial petition could haunt the new petition. Then all that time and money will have been wasted. I chose to stay the course and overturn the CO findings and get a reaffirmed petition. Remember, you can be blue sheeted again or green sheeted too or both (we were at the first interview) then blue sheeted at the second interview. Should your petition go to AR Admisistrative Review, then it can be up to one year before the CO can get to your petition. Should the CO not have the time to review your petition they can cancel your petition entirly. Then you have to start all over again… “this is very rare.”

I hope this information gave you some insight. again, this is my experence. I hope the process goes much faster for you folks who have had your petitions sent back.


Hang in there!

~Martindart~

Martindart...
Thank you for your input on this topic. I appreciate every nugget of information that's provided. I do have few questions regarding your timeline. On what date was your fiance's visa finally approved? And why were you given a blue slip at the post-reaffirmation interview? And this question is for anyone, an attorney told me that once the Visa is "reaffirmed", my husband will not have another interview at the embassy, the he will only need to go and pick up the visa...is this true? It doesn't sound fair that we go through all of this, get 'reaffirmed' and then face another possible denial at the consular level?

Dre

Visa approved May 11, 2007. My Fiancee attended the second interview and when asked the year of our engagement she said 2005, 2004 is the correct answer. she was nervious and was blue sheeted once again. You will have to do another interview.

Not true, A reaffirmed petition is a stronger petition but you are expected to provide all the answers the CO asks, study study study The CO has all the power to say approved, denied, requests more information or put the petition in Admisitrative Review. I'm sure they have other aveune to slow or block your petition. I have only encountered the for mentioned.

Good Luck and if you truely love each other, prepare for the worst. It will save you a lot of disapointments and time.


Don

Martindart.. congratulations is not enough. I can't believe the horror you and your fiance had to live through for 2+ years in immigration red tape. I only hope my relationship is as strong as yours. Thank you once again for sharing your story and for your advice. Its incredible how misinformed, even "expert" lawyers are in these matters. I've been advised by several people to discuss my case with Mark Ellis and now that I'm expecting a NOIR letter in the next 10 weeks, I will definitely contact him. Its good to know that he is so familiar with this topic and has successfully handled cases like yours and now my own. Once again, I congratulate you and wish you both a long and happy life TOGETHER!

Dre

This gives us encouragement...

Congratulation MArtin.
Thankyou for your sharing. I also have problem with my paper which was returned to USCIS last year. Last month they sent letter to me and said that my paper is being reviewed, they will notify me of any action they take on my case. I don't know how to do now. I'm looking for a lawyer who can help me to solve my problem, Could you recommend me to your lawyer?
I'm new on this site , I wish I could know this site before.
Good luck to everyone.
SID

SID,

Wait until USCIS sends you a letter requesting more information to show you have a true relationship. Better yet, collect documents, letters from friends stating they know about your relationship and your true intent to marry. get a petition going and have neighbors, family, friends and co-workers who know you and are willing to sign it with the truthful understanding you are in love and you do intent to marry this person within the 90 days of arrival. Then make copies and send originals to USCIS. one week later send them copies again.


Hang in there...

Here is what is happening to me when the consulate sent back our case.
My case was denied at HCMC 221g in October 2006. The consulate sent it back to NVC and they sent it to CSC. When I originally filed the I129-f , i sent it to NSC. Now CSC tells me they don't know why the case was sent to them and it should be sent to NSC but they never said they will send it to NSC. I am now working on having the case sent to Nebraska so I can rebut the consulars findings.

here is what CSC wrote:
We do have the case here at our office, although I'm not sure why we have it since the Nebraska Service Center adjudicated the I-129F Petition. We really should not review a Consulate return from a decision issued by another office. We really should send this back to the Nebraska Service Center.

Additionally, at this time, due to our limited resources, our office is not sending the Petitioner any further notification from an Embassy or Consulate return on I-129F Petitions since the validity period has already expired (4 months), and we will not revalidate the petition. There would be no further action for the USCIS to take since we would not be revoking an approval that already expired. For the most part, concerning I-129F Petitions, the Embassy or Consulate returns the case to the USCIS as cancelled since the visa was not issued during the authorized period. The Petitioner may file a new I-129F Petition.


I thought about accepting this answer and file a new I129-F petition but my attorney says it is the consulates policy to return "do-over" petitions when the original returned petition was never adjucated by USCIS. So I could be wasting a lot of time filing a new case and having it denied again because the old case was never officially resolved.

Martindart gives me hope that happy endings do exist!

Hi MArtin and Dave,
My case also was sent back to CSC while I filed my case in TSC, I also wonder why it been to CSC for futher review in stead of in TSC. And they have nothing for reviewing because all of our documents was sent back to my fiancee from US Consulate in HCM city when they decided to send my case back to US. LAst month CSC sent notice I-797 to me and told me that my case is being review but my senator told me that my case is expired. I don't know what happen and think why USCIS don't give someone a chance to rebut as what they say??? Do they tell lie??? Can I request to extend my case???
MArtin, how long did you receive notice from USCIS ask you to submit proof for review since your case sent back to US? Did they give you another number for review? I confused from what USCIs do.
Sid

Did either of you guys get a letter from the Vietnamese Embassy/Consulate in Washington D.C. of their intent to return your petitions? The Director of the Service Center that approved your petitions can revaladate your petitions due to passage of time. The Service Center that approved these petitions should have or will soon send you the CO notes listing the specific reason(s) why he or she denied the petition. Then you have the chance to rebut the CO findings. This is the path I went through...

Stay strong guys!

I really wish they would pin this here, it is obvious that it happens to many of us.

Just to give you guys all some hope, my husbands initial interview was in Oct of 2005 where he was denied and it was sent back. This is a very lengthy process and you need to stay on top of it so that it doesn't fall between the cracks, but he had his second interview in Nov of 2006 and was approved. He has been here now for 5 wonderful months.

As I have stated in the MENA forum I don't believe they have anything more than suspicions of fraud so they send it back to see if you stand by it. One person was told that by the consulate that "you would be surprised at the amount of petitions that never come back to us". My question is this. Did it not come back because it was a fraud marriage to start or did the consulate break up a true marriage? Lets face it, you have to have a strong will and marriage to survive this.

Hugs to you all that are enduring this, my heart goes out to you.

I was able to get extensive calling card records. I think this is the reason behind the revocation of our petition. I provided the records to the congressman and embassy. the congressman is working on trying to get something set up with the embassy now. I pray we get this turned around quickly.

I hope so too....you two have been through so much for so long!

MArtin,
I don't have any letter from the Vnese Embassy/Consulate in Washing DC. How can you get that letter? CAn we use FOIA for know the reason Co denied the petition?
Hope you both are well and happy marriage.
SID

Sunny,
I would think twice about doing an FOIA. I filed an FOIA to view the consular notes and it would have taken 12-18 months to complete. CSC could not look at my case until the FOIA was finished. I ended up canceling the request. Then csc found my case and told me it was expired.

I filed a FOIA with the Department of state for our denied visa application. It took almost a year to get the answer, and the answer was that they can not give the reason for the denial. My lawyer filed a FOIA ($500.00) with the Department of Homeland Securities about the petition 1 1/2 years ago, no response as of yet. Total waste of time, effort, and money.

Hi Dave,
I still not hear my case is expired by CSC, only hear that from my Senator. What can we do If paper was expired ? Will you refile K1 again, Dave?
Thanks for everyone 's experience , I think it is very useful for someone like me
Sid

I realized today that I hadn't posted my update here and I want all of you to know the good news....

THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!

I just got home from visiting my husband in Medellin last night (6/17/07) and of course, today I'm sitting at work completely bummed out because although we had a wonderful time together, everytime someone asks me how my trip was I want to say "TERRIBLE!! I'm here and he's there and we don't know when he's coming!!!" Its taking all my strenght not to cry.

Well....my cell phone rings..ID UNAVAILABLE...I'm so busy that I hesitate to answer b/c its probably a bill collector (ha ha ha), but I think, sometimes when the hubby calls it says the same thing...so I answered......

"This is the vice-consul from the US Embassy in Bogota..." I almost fell out of my chair! "We have your husband's application under administrative review and want to offer you another opportunity to interview in Bogota" The lady is as nice and polite as she can be, she tells me that the police certificate and medical examsa are all valid and that she only needs me to send her an updated I-864 with this year's tax return and then she says "how SOON DO YOU WANT THE INTERVEIW?" (YESTERDAY, I want to scream!!!) She says that the embassy "understands that long distance relationships are difficult and that they have to be very carefull in order to prevent marriage fraud" (she was almost apologizing to me)...then she says to me...."do you remember that I was the one that interviewed you and your husband in Februrary?" I SURE DID! So with that I started to explain away some of the concerns she raised at the interveiw and she said "let's not revisit the interview, I'm going to give you the opporutnity to have another interview with another officer and to provide additional evidence" I told her that I just got home from Colombia last night and she said "that's great! that will be very beneficial to proving the validity of your marriage" She gave me her email addres and asked me to email her with the dates I'm available to travel to Bogota with my husband and promised to get back to me this week with an interview date!!!!

I don't know if this was prompted by my constant pestering of my congressman (Sentator Saxby Chamblis, GA), incestant prayers to the Almighty or what, but I thank God first for this unbelievable turn of events and secondly to the support from the VJ community!

I have a meeting with my boss today to formally request the time off (I'm out of vacation days and just got home yesterday!) and as soon as I get the OK at work, I'm emailing her with my availability for the appointment!!!!!!! It looks like we can have an interview in less than a month!!!

Thank you to everyone in the Colombia Club and on VJ for your prayers, support and advice....I'll keep you informed of our progress!!! WE HAVE A NEW INTERVIEW ON JULY 23rd in BOGOTA....


Dre