It does make sense and I am going to start organizing things a bit more as soon as I get home. Do you have any idea why I would have a priority date of 6/02/06? This is the priority date on the notice telling me the cr-1 was returned. The date from my NOA 1 5/2/06, and it was approved in 9/23/06, so I dont see how THAT makes any sense...

Limah
[/quote]

That is pretty weird, I can't say I have seen where they have retro dated it before. Anyone else?
[/quote]



my quess is it an error. i wouldnt worry about it. there were plenty of errors made in our case such as these.

chi

It does make sense and I am going to start organizing things a bit more as soon as I get home. Do you have any idea why I would have a priority date of 6/02/06? This is the priority date on the notice telling me the cr-1 was returned. The date from my NOA 1 5/2/06, and it was approved in 9/23/06, so I dont see how THAT makes any sense...

Limah
[/quote]

That is pretty weird, I can't say I have seen where they have retro dated it before. Anyone else?
[/quote]



my quess is it an error. i wouldnt worry about it. there were plenty of errors made in our case such as these.

chi
[/quote]


I was thinking it's an error myself. I was just reading the link brnidokiegurl provided, along with my daily dose of VJ,the exclusive group, and other internet sources............ what is the NVC compared to the NBC? Thats always confused the heck outta me?

Also, what is the purpose of the priority date? Is this supposed to be a date they would have to review the returned CR-1..... had the date been for sometime in the future?

Limah

The priority date is suppose to be similar to the date that they originally gave you for the initial petition. The only problem is that there is no site you can go to to see what priority date they are working on for this type of situation. Not only that, when you call to try and find out what dates they are working on you will be told that these returns are not "high priority" and that they will "get around to them when the have the time". They will also tell you "this is the price you pay for marrying a foreigner. I just love those people, don't you?

Anyway, I think I would try to get your senator or congressman involved to get the date fixed, and let them deal most of the time with the USCIS. Once they have crossed the line of a reasonable wait time then you can get assistance from the ombudsman. You don't want to contact the ombudsman though until it is unreasonable or they will not help. I did find them very helpful. Once they got involved it was amazing how within 1 week the sent the NOIR, although they claimed to the ombudsman that they were still within their timelines.

this is great info to know!

chi

Well, I have emailed the NVC asd the congressional reps that have been assisting me from day 1. So we shall see......


Limah

Well, I have emailed the NVC asd the congressional reps that have been assisting me from day 1. So we shall see......


Limah
[/quote]


do you think your case is still at NVC?

chi

Well, I have emailed the NVC asd the congressional reps that have been assisting me from day 1. So we shall see......


Limah
[/quote]


do you think your case is still at NVC?

chi
[/quote]


No. I don't. I have emails from NVC saying to contact USCIS because the case was sent to CSC. I also got a letter in the mail saying the samething. This is the letter I speak of with the back date.

Limah

No. I don't. I have emails from NVC saying to contact USCIS because the case was sent to CSC. I also got a letter in the mail saying the samething. This is the letter I speak of with the back date.

Limah
[/quote]


oh ok. how long has it been since they sent it to the service center Limah?

chi

No. I don't. I have emails from NVC saying to contact USCIS because the case was sent to CSC. I also got a letter in the mail saying the samething. This is the letter I speak of with the back date.

Limah
[/quote]

The dates on the email and notice are a few days apart. Dated the 27th and 29th of march. But with the way things go, you think its still at NVC?

Limah
oh ok. how long has it been since they sent it to the service center Limah?

chi
[/quote]

The dates on the email and notice are a few days apart. Dated the 27th and 29th of march. But with the way things go, you think its still at NVC?

Limah

[/quote]
[/quote]


since NVC said they sent it to the CSC i would guess they did that.

ask one of your reps call CSC and ask them if it has beeen received. you can have them call every few weeks until you find out.

chi

Hi there. Sorry I've been out of touch so long. As of today, I've recieved a resonse for each of our FOIA requests (4 in total, I sent 2 each for my husband and myself, just in case they want to say that the information is his or mine). The letter states they have recieved my FOIA petition and will contact me once they have located the documents. Very standard. In the mean time, I'm planning to visit my husband for 10 days in JUNE!!! I can't wait!!! and we are documenting everything. We've gathered letters from our parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins and close friends. After my trip in June, I plan to send my first batch of 'additional' evidence to the NVC Fraud Unit and the CA service center. I'm expecting that between June and August, I should recieve the NOIR letter and I WILL BE READY!!!! My spritits are high, I'm focusing on the positive, using my time effectively and being as proactive as I can. I haven't heard a thing from NVC or DHS concerning our petition, but I'm going to ask the Congressial assistant to ask for the Consular Pouch today!! As always, thank you for the support and good luck to all of you who are in the same boat!


I wanted to share the latest response from the Vice-Consul in Bogota, Colombia concerning my husband's K3 visa. As some may remember from a previous post, the visa was denied on the basis of a Labor Certification and below is the consul's response:

This petition is being returned per INA 212(A)(5)(a) 9 FAM 41.81 N6.5. The
consular officer finds that the spousal relationship is not bona fide, but
rather entered into solely for immigration purposes. This category of refusal
is used for immigrant visa applicants who are not determined to be eligible for
the immigrant visa category for which they have applied.

As a result, the petition is being returned to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A memo will
accompany the returned petition outlining the consular officer's reasons for
returning the petition.

DHS will provide the petitioner with a copy of this memo. The petitioner is welcome to
file a FOIA request, but DHS will already provide her with a copy of this memo
as soon as it receives the case.

As I stated previously, the decision of the consular officer is not final,
however. A decision to revoke a petition, or to return it to the U.S. Embassy
for continued processing, rests with DHS.

If the petitioner wishes to pursue his application for a fiancée visa, she or he
should contact his or her local USCIS office for further consideration.

I hope your constituent finds this information useful. If I can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Well All, I am heading out in the weeeeee hours of the am.

I will be online when I return. I am going to try to get some sleep now. Im sure there is none to be had as I wish this moment would never come! DAMMIT!

Limah

PS: Dont be suprised if I stay here all night................

awww...sweet dreams my dear

chi

thought i would post this info here for those looking for help


RETURNING DHS / BCIS
LINK>>>>>>>



http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...rams_1388.html#


R 251642Z FEB 04
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS


VISAS - INFORM CONSULS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS
SUBJECT: SOP 61: GUIDELINES AND CHANGES FOR RETURNING DHS / USCIS
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 (USCIS) 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 USCIS 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 USCIS with recommendations for revocation
have been lost. In other cases, post has not received any
information from USCIS on the status of the revocation request.
The NVC will track all cases returned to USCIS and ensure that
the cases are sent to and received from USCIS 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 USCIS
Service Center. Cases will be returned from the USCIS Service
Center to the NVC and then routed back to the post of origin.
The NVC will follow up on cases lacking information from USCIS 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 USCIS 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 retur[/b[b]]n. 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/USCIS 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.





--------------------




Married in 04

"Being happy doesn't mean everything is perfect. It means you've decided to see beyond the imperfections."





ce

SUBJECT: GUIDANCE ON PETITION REVOCATIONS


1. SUMMARY: From time to time, most posts have occasion to return IV and petition-based NIV petitions to the approving USCIS service centers to request reconsideration and revocation. Posts should be judicious about returning petitions, since the revocation process is lengthy and the evidentiary standard that must be met to sustain a petition revocation is relatively high. Posts should not use the revocation request process as a means of disposing of problematic cases in which fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status is only suspected but cannot be clearly established. When posts have determined that a petition merits a revocation request, the case should be returned to the approving service center quickly to avoid lengthy delays in processing. To help posts with this process, CA/VO/F/P and CA/FPP are currently working with USCIS to develop a standard petition return memo and guidelines for writing effective revocation memos. END SUMMARY.

Be judicious in returning petitions

------------------------------------------------------

2. Several months ago, CA/VO/F/P conducted an informal survey of posts'' petition revocation processes to determine post practices and needs in regard to revocation requests. We learned that, for the most part, posts return relatively few petitions to USCIS for revocation. This is a positive practice from our perspective, since as a general rule petitions should only be returned to USCIS when fraud or misrepresentation or ineligibility for status can be clearly established or when the petition merits automatic revocation because of such circumstances as the death of the petitioner.

3. 9 FAM 42.43 provides general guidance on preparation of memos to USCIS requesting revocation of IV petitions. Separate sections in 9 FAM 41 on petition-based NIV categories (H, K, L, O, P) provide similar guidance on when to return those petitions. In all cases the guidance Amphasizes that USCIS approval of a petition is prima facie evidence of the applicant''s entitlement to visa status, and that consular officers should not attempt to readjudicate petitions. Rather, a consular officer should only seek revocation of the petition if the officer knows, or has reason to believe, that the petition approval was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or other unlawful means, or that the beneficiary is not entitled to the status conferred by the petition. Petitions generally should not be returned unless the post uncovers new information not known to USCIS at the time of petition approval. The FAM cautions that posts should seek revocations "sparingly," to avoid inconveniencing the petitioners and applicants and to avoid creating an additional administrative burden for USCIS.

4. Providing solid evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in a petition relationship may not be achievable in many cases, particularly those involving marriage or relationship fraud. 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.

Use 221(g) with IV cases

------------------------

6. Please keep in mind the differences between revocation of the petition and denial of the visa application. In the absence of hard, factual evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status, consular sections are advised to issue the visa, assuming the alien is otherwise qualified, or if further investigation is warranted and holds a potential for resolving post''s concerns, use a 221(g) refusal to obtain additional information. Posts should be generous in allowing applicants every opportunity to supplement their applications following a 221(g) refusal. Many consular sections polled by VO reported that they usually use 221(g) rather than petition return to USCIS as the most effective way of handling cases in which fraud is suspected and where further Information-gathering is likely to be able to resolve the doubts one way or the other.7. VO supports this use of 221(g) with IV petitions, as returning a petition based on suspicion alone is not appropriate, and providing the applicant an opportunity to address post''s doubts is a fairer way of dealing with suspect cases. We encourage posts to use 221(g), except in those IV cases in which fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status can be clearly established. 221(g) allows petitioners and beneficiaries to supplement the initial application and in many cases overcome the refusal. Per 22 CFR (9 FAM) 42.83(, if an applicant fails to present evidence purporting to overcome the basis for the 221(g) refusal within one year of the refusal, post can initiate 203(g) termination procedures (9 FAM 42.83 N1.2).

8. 221(g) may also be appropriate for NIV petition cases. However, posts should note that there is no 203(g) termination process for NIV cases. If post obtains information not known to USCIS at time of petition approval which indicates that an applicant is not eligible for the visa category covered by the petition, the petition should be returned to the approving service center in accordance with FAM guidelines pertaining to the relevant visa category.

Don''t sit on cases

------------------

9. Once post has decided that a case warrants return to USCIS, the memo requesting revocation should be prepared expeditiously and the case returned as quickly as possible. Keeping a case for a lengthy period because officers do not have time to prepare the revocation memo is not fair to the applicant or petitioner, only invites more work in the long run in the form of congressional inquiries and calls about the case, and can even lead to litigation. It places an unfair burden on the petitioner and beneficiary, who in many cases would choose to contest the revocation but cannot do so until USCIS has received the file and sent a notice of intent to revoke to the petitioner. As a rule of thumb, posts should not allow petitions earmarked for return to USCIS to languish more than a week or two. Our e-mail poll revealed that by-and-large posts are aware of this need for quick processing and are preparing revocation memos with dispatch.

Working with USCIS to develop revocation memo guidelines

------------------------------------------------------

10. CA/VO/F/P and CA/FPP are currently working with USCIS to develop a consular return cover worksheet which posts will be able to use in returning petitions meriting revocation to the approving service centers. We are also developing guidelines which posts can use in preparing effective revocation memos that will satisfy USCIS'' evidentiary requirements and thus most likely lead to a successful guidelines which posts can use in preparing effective revocation memos that will satisfy USCIS'' evidentiary requirements and thus most likely lead to a successful revocation. We hope to be able to post this guidance on the Intranet later this summer.

11. Minimize considered.




********************************************************************************
*****




Here's more info from the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR), Title 22: Foreign Relations, current today as of April 12, 2007:

§ 42.81 Procedure in refusing individual visas.

(a) Issuance or refusal mandatory. When a visa application has been properly completed and executed before a consular officer in accordance with the provisions of INA and the implementing regulations, the consular officer must either issue or refuse the visa under INA 212(a) or INA 221(g) or other applicable law. Every refusal must be in conformance with the provisions of 22 CFR 40.6.

( Refusal procedure. A consular officer may not refuse an immigrant visa until Form DS-230, Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration, has been executed by the applicant. When an immigrant visa is refused, an appropriate record shall be made in duplicate on a form prescribed by the Department. The form shall be signed and dated by the consular officer. The consular officer shall inform the applicant of the provision of law or implementing regulation on which the refusal is based and of any statutory provisions under which administrative relief is available. Each document related to the refusal shall then be attached to Form DS-230 for retention in the refusal files. Any documents not related to the refusal shall be returned to the applicant. If the grounds of ineligibility may be overcome by the presentation of additional evidence and the applicant indicates an intention to submit such evidence, all documents may, with the consent of the alien, be retained in the consular files for a period not to exceed one year. If the refusal has not been overcome within one year, any documents not relating to the refusal shall be removed from the file and returned to the alien.

Review of refusal at consular office. If the grounds of ineligibility upon which the visa was refused cannot be overcome by the presentation of additional evidence, the principal consular officer at a post, or a specifically designated alternate, shall review the case without delay, record the review decision, and sign and date the prescribed form. If the grounds of ineligibility may be overcome by the presentation of additional evidence and the applicant indicates the intention to submit such evidence, a review of the refusal may be deferred. If the principal consular officer or alternate does not concur in the refusal, that officer shall either (1) refer the case to the Department for an advisory opinion, or (2) assume responsibility for final action on the case.

(d) Review of refusal by Department. The Department may request a consular officer in an individual case or in specified classes of cases to submit a report if an immigrant visa has been refused. The Department will review each report and may furnish an advisory opinion to the consular officer for assistance in considering the case further. If the officer believes that action contrary to an advisory opinion should be taken, the case shall be resubmitted to the Department with an explanation of the proposed action. Rulings of the Department concerning an interpretation of law, as distinguished from an application of the law to the facts, are binding upon consular officers.

(e) Reconsideration of refusal. If a visa is refused, and the applicant within one year from the date of refusal adduces further evidence tending to overcome the ground of ineligibility on which the refusal was based, the case shall be reconsidered. In such circumstance, an additional application fee shall not be required.

[52 FR 42613, Nov. 5, 1987; 53 FR 9112, Mar. 21, 1988, as amended at 66 FR 10364, Feb. 15, 2001; 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006]




*******************************************************************************





This is a 2001 memo from Sec. Colin Powell, Secretary of State at the time, to all consulates that I intend to follow up regarding the statutes and regs cited:

UNCLASSIFIED TELEGRAM June 12, 2001

To: ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS - ROUTINE
Origin: VO
From: SECSTATE WASHDC (STATE 102813 - ROUTINE)
TAGS: CVIS, CMGT
Captions: None
Subject: REMINDER REGARDING VISA REFUSAL PROCEDURES
Ref: A) 99 STATE 185477 (b.) 97 STATE 114760 © 93 STATE 213853 (D) 9 FAM 41.102 AND 121

1. SUMMARY. Questions often arise about visa refusal procedures and the necessity of interviews. While we in CA will explore the possibility of expanding the circumstances under which consular officers may adjudicate visa applications without interview, I am sending this message because I want to remind all consular officers of the current rules that must be followed for refusals of visas. It is important that consular officers follow all statutory and regulatory provisions in the issuance and refusal of visas. While we are under constant pressure to find management solutions to the ever-present circumstance of decreasing resources, we must exercise caution and work within the fundamental legal framework that governs visa adjudication law as we create new ways of performing our responsibilities. This is not simply a matter of traditionalism or resistance to change. CA takes all recommendations for streamlining seriously. In evaluating suggestions to streamline the visa process, one of our primary considerations is whether the suggestion is consistent with the consular officer's unique role in adjudicating visa applications and with the principles that underpin the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. We are wary of any practices or procedures that may encroach on or in any way potentially jeopardize this doctrine, and it is partially for this reason that we have decided that mail-in applicants should not be denied on substantive grounds without an interview.

2. It is essential that all consular officers adhere strictly to the following key rules regarding visa refusal procedures, even as we continue to consider suggestions for streamlining the process:

-- Consular officers should not refuse visa applicants on substantive grounds without first giving the applicant an opportunity to be interviewed in person.

-- When refusing a visa application, consular officers should inform the applicant of the section of the law under which the visa was refused, as well as the underlying factual basis for the refusal, unless the facts are classified or SBU.

-- When the refusal is based on substantive grounds (i.e., other than 221(g)), the explanation for the refusal should be done in person at the time of interview. END SUMMARY


NO REFUSALS WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INTERVIEWED

3. As stated in 9 FAM 41.121 N2, it is the policy of the Department of State to give visa applicants every reasonable opportunity to establish their eligibility to receive a visa. This policy is in keeping with the spirit of American justice and fairness.

4. In line with this policy, consular officers should not refuse a visa application on substantive grounds (i.e., grounds other than 221(g)) without first calling the applicant in for an interview. This policy is based on the fundamental principle of fairness that the alien should be given an opportunity to be heard and to personally make his/her case to a consular officer.

5. This policy also helps ensure that our visa determinations are sound and as accurate as possible and reflects the unique ability of the consular officer to resolve questions of credibility based on first-hand interview of the applicant. As noted in 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.2(h)(3), in cases where nonimmigrant intent is an issue, consular officers should rely primarily on the interview itself and only minimally on supporting documentation. While review of the OF-156 is an indispensable step in assessing a visa applicant's eligibility, when it comes to judging credibility -- a key issue in cases in which immigrant intent is an issue -- there is simply no substitute for a personal interview. Without an interview, consular officers could end up refusing qualified aliens who may have appeared weak on paper but could have overcome the presumption of immigrant intent through a strong showing of credibility at the time of interview.

6. 22 CFR (9 FAM) 41.102 requires most aliens seeking nonimmigrant visas to apply in person and be interviewed by a consular officer. Although 22 CFR 41.102(a) allows posts to waive personal interviews in certain classes of NIV cases, the principal purpose behind this regulation is to permit waiver of the interview when it is clear that the alien is eligible for the visa and an interview would be an unnecessary inconvenience. As noted in 9 FAM 41.102 PN1, the OF-156 was designed to enable consular officers to determine whether a visa may be issued, repeat, issued without an interview. It was not designed with the intent that it alone would be sufficient to establish that an alien was not eligible for a visa and could therefore be refused without an interview.

7. For the above reasons, posts should not use the authority of 22 CFR 41.102(a) to waive visa interviews in order to refuse a visa applicant under INA 214 (b.) or some other substantive ground. Rather, per 9 FAM 41.102 PN2, if a consular officer is in doubt concerning the visa eligibility of an NIV applicant whose application was submitted by mail or messenger, the officer shall request the alien to appear in person.

8. We recognize that this policy has workload implications and also may engender complaints from some aliens who may travel great distances for interviews, only to be refused. Nonetheless, we believe that fundamental fairness requires us to follow this policy. We are however exploring modification of this policy which, while remaining true to the underlying principle of fairness, may provide for avenues to reduce some workload in this area. Such modifications will require regulatory changes. Posts will be informed as soon as any such amendments are implemented.


PERSONALLY INFORM THE APPLICANT OF THE GROUND OF REFUSAL

9. INA 212(b.) and 22 CFR (9 FAM) 41.121 and 42.81 require consular officers to inform the applicant of the provision of the law upon which a refusal is based. In addition, as noted in refs B and C, it has been the long-standing policy that consular officers generally should also inform the applicant of the factual basis underlying the refusal. However, the underlying factual information should not be divulged to the applicant if the information is classified or SBU, or if it was obtained from another agency and the agency has not authorized release of the information.

10. As with the no-refusal-without-an-interview policy, the policy of informing the applicant of the facts underlying the denial is rooted in notions of fundamental fairness and also serves to ensure that our visa decisions are based on a thorough and accurate understanding of the facts. From a fairness perspective, the applicant, where possible, ought to be told the factual basis for the finding so that he understands the decision and has a reasonable opportunity to rebut it. In addition, if the consular officer's decision is based on an erroneous understanding of the facts, there is a significant likelihood that the factual error will be corrected by the alien when the consular officer informs the applicant of the officer's factual findings, thus increasing the likelihood that a proper decision will be made.

11. 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.2 states that when an alien is found ineligible to receive a visa, the consular officer should inform the alien orally of the basis for the refusal, in addition to the required written notice. Per Ref A, while we are willing to permit consular officers to forego an oral explanation in cases involving non-substantive refusals under 221(g), we do not believe it is appropriate to substitute a written explanation for an in-person oral explanation in cases where the refusal is based on 214(b.) or some other substantive ground. As noted above, such refusals require a personal interview, and the required oral explanation of the basis for the refusal can be made at the end of the personal interview.

12. While providing a thorough oral explanation for the basis of the refusal may take a little more time, in the long run it saves work for everyone. Inadequate (or no) explanations for refusals merely prompt subsequent written and phone inquiries from the applicant, his/her family, members of Congress, and others. Many such inquiries are directed to VO, which must then contact post to find out the basis for the refusal. Regardless of whether post is contacted by VO or by the inquirer directly, post ends up having to provide a report on the basis for the refusal, and in most instances the time spent on such follow-up queries, at post and in the Department, far exceeds the time it would have taken to provide a sufficient explanation at the time of interview.

13. We know that many of you would like to be able to further streamline the NIV application process and rely to a greater extent on mail, drop box, and other procedures that do not require personal appearance. We agree that this is a very worthy goal, and we fully support you in your efforts to streamline the process for visa issuances. Visa refusals, however, require extra protections, and there are limits to how far we can go in that area. While we understand that prohibiting substantive refusals by mail will have workload implications, we want to be as fair as we can to those applicants we refuse, and we do not want to risk consular nonreviewability for the sake of efficiencies in processing. It is in light of these constraints that we are reminding posts to continue following current refusal procedures, as we examine possible regulatory changes that might address some of the workload concerns while still ensuring that refused applicants are given full and fair consideration of their cases. Warm regards.

POWELL

I just want to post the updates I got in my email today. Nice welcome home gift from CRIS!

*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***

The last processing action taken on your case

Receipt Number: WAC**********

Application Type: I130 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE, FIANCE(E), OR
ORPHAN

Current Status: This case has been received from the State Department
with a request we review it.

On April 16, 2007, our CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER location received this
case from the State Department with a request that we review it. We
will notify you when we complete our review, or if we need something from
you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. You
can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just
follow the link below to register.

If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case
status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from
USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS
Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.

*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at
www.uscis.gov under Case Status & Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.


Sincerely,


The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

This is 5 months after Abdels interview and 4 days after an inquiry made by the congressional reps that have been working with me. I know we still have a long road ahead of us, but like Mama used to say....."An is betta then nan"

So this is definitely a pick me up!


Limah

Limah I'm really happy to see that USCIS has shown a sign of life with your case.

Hang in there!!

I am trying! This does give me a reason to smile after crying so much today! And still going and going and going........


Limah

So this is definitely a pick me up!


Limah
[/quote]



i am so happy for you!!!!

next step>>>>>>>>>>

THE NOIR!

are you ready?

let me know if i can help

chi

So this is definitely a pick me up!


Limah
[/quote]



i am so happy for you!!!!

next step>>>>>>>>>>

THE NOIR!

are you ready?

let me know if i can help

chi
[/quote]


Of course you can help! If you can bless me with your presence in the other group????? I have a few questions already laid out there. Once I have my next move in black and white...... I will update in VJ.

Thanx Chi! I was hoping I'd see u today!

Limah

This really is good news Limah. I know it has been a long road, and you still have a long way to go, but at least it is being addressed. Now you start really organizing and preparing your evidence. When I sent in mine I wrote a letter explaining our relationship. This was an 8 page letter btw. I spelled out everything. The things on the NOIR that they stated the reason for the return, plus everything else. The age difference, his family in the US....everything. In this letter I would reference my evidence often. I had my evidence in catagorized so that they could easily view what was in the letter as they were reading it. The consulate pretty much told my husband that this was an extremely organized rebuttal, and I believe it was a factor in readudicating it so quickly.

Hang in there Limah, and all of the others. Your time will come.

I know its not over, but we feel like we are making progress. Hearing something from them specifically is really good I'm jotting ideas down for a rough draft of this rebuttal letter so I dont forget anything. I'm trying to cover all the bases here. What I "think" the issue(s) could have been. VIH!, might you breeze thru the other group today?

Limah

Limah, thank you for your update. I'm very happy to hear that you recieved a notice about your case. Its an awful feeling being in limbo. Today has been 2 months since my husband's interview, if my paperwork is processed at the same rate as yours, I should be hearing something from USCIS in July!!!!! Good luck with the next step, I'll keep you in my prayers.

Dre

Thank you and I hope u do hear something soon.

Limah

For those of you that have had the opportunity to face USCIS with a rebuttal..... what are some of the things you did in preparation for it. I know how to write a letter and I have an idea of what it should say. Is there anything "special" related to these letters? Should they be constructed in a certain way? I know I have a minute before they request this from me but I feel like I can't just sit here and do nothing.

This question is being posed to the people that have ACTUALLY prepared a rebuttal packet after your spouses' petition was returned, of course anyone can reply. Thats not what Im saying. Experience is the best teacher. Sorry but I just want to get straight to the issue I'm having.

limah

i would be more than happy to send you a copy of our NOIR and my response to it to your private e mail addy. i dont really want to post it publically.

chi

Hi Kiya,

I'm new to VJ and have been reading as much as I can bc my husband has his interview in Amman for the K3 on 4-16-2007 and was given a 221g paper. Nothing else was said other than they need to go over his paperwork and take more information and that they would call him in 2 or 3 weeks. My husband said he thought it went nicely and the interviewer seemed sincere and positive.

But from what I've been reading on VJ about this 221g, receiving a 221g doesn't sound good. I am shocked to read that his case can be sent back to USCIS and possibly revoked or denied. It doesn't make sense to me that after the evidence I sent them, that they would need to review it again.

Is it true that the 221g is a "soft" denial? And do you know how many ppl are actually granted a visa at the embassy, after the embassy has been given time to review their case? I mean, is it possible that when they call my husband, they can grant him a visa?

Sorry for so many detailed questions for a first email but I'm sure you understand as We are ALL, unfortunately, going through this immigraion nightmare.

Any advice, comments, etc will be greatly appreciated. Also, what does AP/AR and NOIR mean?

Thanks for your time and ear:-)

--SEI--

A 221g is not necessarily a "soft denial"..... in fact, usually it isn't. The wording can sound intimidating -- "We are unable to issue a visa blah blah blah" -- but it's just the standard form. It is used for any case where they need additional info, as well as where they intend to return the case to USCIS.

What exactly did your 221g state as the reason for the delay ?

Most of the time, a 221g means they want more evidence from you, or a particular piece of paperwork like a police report or a birth certificate, or because they need additional time to complete the review and security checks. Usually they will tell you straight up if they are returning the petition to USCIS.

So please let us know what exactly your 221g said.



-MK

Hi SEI. Section 221g of the INA is used by the Department of State. For the most part this section is used to communicate additional evidence needed, administrative review, or administrative processing. However, section 221g is also used to communicate that a petition/application is being returned to the USCIS office where it was originally filed for review and ultimately revocation.

Acronym Key:

AP = Administrative Processing
AR = Administrative Review
NOIR = Notice of Intent to Revoke
NOID = Notice of Intent to Deny

You need to see what the 221g says in your specific case...this document will say in black and white whether it is being returned or not. The space underneath 221g checked on the document received by the applicant will be specific in regards to additional evidence, AP, AR, and even petition return.

If the document states the petition/application is being returned, it will say something like this:

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

This is a refusal or soft denial to issue a visa under Section 221g of the INA, also stating petition/application return to USCIS. The USCIS, not the embassy reviews the case. It does not turn into a hard denial until the USCIS actually revokes (denies) it, and even that happens after the petitioner is given an opportunity to rebut the visa refusal.

I am sure you will be fine, we do not see alot of petition returns out of Amman. To ease your mind, make sure the beneficiary sends you a copy of the 221g they received at the conclusion of their interview. This document will be specific about what is happening to the visa application.

I hope this helps.

~Kiyah~

Abdel and I both got this email this morning..... I thought the I-129 expired. Why and how was it transferred? What are they processing the return or the expiration?

Ok folks, as if this ain't confusing enough!



*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***

The last processing action taken on your case

Receipt Number: MSC**********

Application Type: I129F , PETITION FOR FIANCE(E)

Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing.

On April 23, 2007, we transferred this I129F PETITION FOR FIANCE(E) to our
CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER location for processing and sent you a notice
explaining this action. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will
be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something
from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We
process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to
estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our CALIFORNIA
SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You
can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow
the link below to register.

If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status
results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within
the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at
(800) 375-5283.

*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov
under Case Status & Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.


Sincerely,


The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

What happens to your case file when you file a FOIA? Do they send the my case from CSC to NRC in Missouri. CSC told me that they don't have any documetation that they received my file from NVC. They said once my FOIA is resolved they will try to locate my file. NRC tells me it will take at least 12 months to get to my FOIA. Did I just add another year to the process by filing an FOIA?

Ok..Dave....PLEASE don't freak us out!!!! what is NRC? And please explain yourself clearly. I have a K3 case sent back for NOIR which I havent recieved yet, but I submitted the FOIR last month. The last thing I need to hear is that I'm setting myself back. Where are you in the process?

I am sorry if I freaked you out. I didn't mean to. NRC is National Records Center for the Department of Homeland Security USCIS. It is located in Missouri.
Our I129-f petition was denied and sent back with 221g denial. It was received by NVC and sent to CSC. My congressional liaison sent me an email from CSC stating that they received it:

From CSC 2-07-07
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the above listed 129f F petition. Said petition was returned to the California Service Center (CSC) by the State Department's [consulate/NVC] for review and was received in the CSC on or about 2/6/2007. All returned petitions are reviewed in the order in which they are received, and due to the high volume of petitions returned to our center daily and the various complexities involved in returned petitions, we may make no predictions as to the amount of time necessary to complete our review nor may we release the reasons for return to our center until the review is completed.

Once adjudicative review is completed, a CSC officer will notify the petitioner of his findings and what actions are available to the petitioner in response. If the petitioner has not received any notice from our center within eight to ten months of this notice, please do not hesitate to contact our office for additional information

The congressioal Liaison recently asked about my case at CSC and she received this email:
From CSC 2-18-07:
The A-file was recently received by this office and is currently pending FOIA action. There is no update showing the petition has been returned to this office for further action from the Department of State.
Once the FOIA request is completed, you may contact this office to insure the petition was returned to this office. Once received into our system, it will be approximately 12 months before final action is taken.



I don't know where my case is now. I called NRC and they said I am 77,800 on a list of 88,700 FOIA request. They are working on requests dated November 2005 and it would be 12-18 months before they would get to mine. I am not sure if this works in parallel with my returned case or if I have to wait until the FOIA is resolved.

I am waiting to here back from CSC about where my case is located.

OMG! I'm more freaked out now! Maybe I need to write and cancel my FOIA request. What is the congressional liason saying now? I'm soooo sorry about this. I trully hope and pray its just a mix up. This RED TAPE can't be the way to treat USCs! It makes me CRAZY!!!!! I hope KIVA and CHIQUITA can chime in and lend their expertise on this one. DAVE keep you head up and keep us posted. You're in my prayers. This is a nightmare for all of us.

Dre

Hey Guys n' Gals,

I don't know how true it is that filing an FOIA actually slows down the process. I have heard that it does. There are very few people that can actually get that info. I have the letter from my husband giving me authorization to request it but I never did. Too many people say its a waste of time, and now that I'm hearing more often than not... that it slows down the process...................

I hope thats not the case for your sake!


Good Luck and I hope your congressional reps have some answers for you soon. My reps have been pretty consistent.

I am really wondering whats going on with this I-129 that is allegedly supposed to be expired.
USCIS is not really a big help at all. I got this email today..............


*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***

The last processing action taken on your case

Receipt Number: MSC**********

Application Type: I129F , PETITION FOR FIANCE(E)

Current Status: This case is now pending at the office to which it was
transferred.

The I129F PETITION FOR FIANCE(E) that was transferred to our CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER location is now pending there. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done, counting from when USCIS received it. This case is at our CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You
can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.

If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.

*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov under Case Status & Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.


Sincerely,


The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
_________________


Some action is better than none, I must admit. I do at least feel good that we didnt fall into the abyss of lost apps!

I AM SOOOOOOOOOOO FRIGGIN CONFUSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just got off the phone with USCIS and this lady tells me the I-129 is still valid. What the?????? She told me not to be concerned with the dates on the NOA 2, and that it is still being processed and when the make a decision on it, they will either deny it or send it back to Casa for a 2nd interview????????? I am so trippin right now and I dont know what to think!!???

quote]


I AM SOOOOOOOOOOO FRIGGIN CONFUSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just got off the phone with USCIS and this lady tells me the I-129 is still valid. What the?????? She told me not to be concerned with the dates on the NOA 2, and that it is still being processed and when the make a decision on it, they will either deny it or send it back to Casa for a 2nd interview????????? I am so trippin right now and I dont know what to think!!???
[/quote]


i sooooooooooo understand!

it is ok though.

check this out!

i was told yesterday by an immigration officer in our local office that those people who answer the calls are people who are contracted out and know NOTHING!!!

i wanted so much to ask WHY then do we not get to talk to a REAL officer. but i wanted her not to get pissed off since she was already was a ######.

we are trying to get our green card situation straightened out now since Aug 06. we are in the black hole again where one office says one thing and another says another and those on the phone say another. trust me it is enough to drive you nuts! but i at least have my husband here with me to go through this together.

i would not put to much into what anyone says until you get the official notice. maybe, just maybe then you will get a glimmer of what the heck is going on. event that notice could be wrong from my experience.

hang in there. no one will ever understand what is like going through this until it happens to them. many claim they do but it is not true. we know and that is all that matters.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{HUGS}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

chi

I AM SOOOOOOOOOOO FRIGGIN CONFUSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just got off the phone with USCIS and this lady tells me the I-129 is still valid. What the?????? She told me not to be concerned with the dates on the NOA 2, and that it is still being processed and when the make a decision on it, they will either deny it or send it back to Casa for a 2nd interview????????? I am so trippin right now and I dont know what to think!!???
[/quote]


i sooooooooooo understand!

it is ok though.

check this out!

i was told yesterday by an immigration officer in our local office that those people who answer the calls are people who are contracted out and know NOTHING!!!

i wanted so much to ask WHY then do we not get to talk to a REAL officer. but i wanted her not to get pissed off since she was already was a ######.

we are trying to get our green card situation straightened out now since Aug 06. we are in the black hole again where one office says one thing and another says another and those on the phone say another. trust me it is enough to drive you nuts! but i at least have my husband here with me to go through this together.

i would not put to much into what anyone says until you get the official notice. maybe, just maybe then you will get a glimmer of what the heck is going on. event that notice could be wrong from my experience.

hang in there. no one will ever understand what is like going through this until it happens to them. many claim they do but it is not true. we know and that is all that matters.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{HUGS}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

chi
[/quote]



The things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMM...... What's the purpose of their jobs then? For the people that dont have internet access. I dont get it? Where are they getting the "extra" information from then, are they just making it up?

Even when I do get the hard copy in the mail, its going to say the same thing as the email does. I've forwarded both emails to the reps and I am waiting on a reply from him. I'm just anxious to see what he says.

THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!

I just got home from visiting my husband in Colombia 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!!!" It takes all my strenght not to cry everytime.

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 are all valid and that she only needs me to send her an updated I-864 with this year's tax return and how SOON DO YOU WANT THE INTERVEIW? (YESTERDAY) She says that the embassy understands that long distance relationships are difficult and that they have to be very carefull about situtations with 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 "lets not revisit the interview, I'm going to give you the opporutnity to have another interview with another officer and to provide more 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"

I don't know if this was prompted by my constant pestering of my congressman, 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!!!

I had to share this with my VJ community

Good Luck

This is incredibly good news, and surprising that the consulate actually treated you with respect. Casa just doesn't do that, even to the US citizen. It kind of sounds like whatever happened in your case has caused this women some big doo doo, and they are giving you a second chance because of her screw up. Be prepared, take everything, provide letters of support from both yours and his family. Good luck and let us know as things unfold.

We have our interview date!!!!!!!!! July 23, 2007 in Bogota. They did not require us to call to schedule through the automated system or to pay the customary fees, the vice-consul emailed me and said that she personally placed us on the list!!! Thank you for your well wishes and for the advice. Believe me, this time I'm going armed to the tee with all of the evidence of our relationship.

Dre

We just found out our own petition is being returned to the states as well for 'invalid relationship'. Myself and my Fiancee are both Africans but then she is a Naturalised US citizen while am a UK Resident. It sucks how someone can just see you and decide that you don't have a VALID RELATIONSHIP, I wonder how valid the CO's relationship is. It's quite devastating but then we going to see the end of it. Please any ideas on how we can go about this or maybe stopping them from sending it back so we could even have a 2nd interview. The silly @ss CO still has my passport even which is so annoying, he said he wanted to do some A/R but then my fiancee only found out about the intending revocation yesterday when she called DOS. She lives in Maryland, can she contact her Congressman or what would be the suggested step we should be taking cos I realise if it goes back then it would take quite a long time to get this back on track. Thanks for any suggestions, my PM is open as well to suggestions.

Many Thanks.

So sorry to hear that Justchillin.
Yes, immediatley ask for a congressional inquiry before it leaves the post.
I hope others will come along and post with more help but really I think that is all you can do for now.
Get more relationship proof together for the congressman/senator but you have to act very quickly.

We have been on AP/AR for over 6 month, he is African and I am a naturalized German USC. I have been
reading in these return petition threads in case we end up like that.

God bless !

Yes we are looking to go down that path for now. We are in no hurry as we are going to Nigeria in September for our traditional engagement and the whole family has bought tickets to fly back home, it just sucks that someone can see you in 5 minutes and decide your relationship is not valid; that's an insult really which is what we would be looking to overturn. I hope they get back to you, it would be very bad to have put you on AP for so long and then send it back but just believe God. Everything will be fine, you need each other now even more. Stay Blessed.

Thanks, keep in touch.
You both will be in my prayers.

Justchillin...
I'm glad that you have positive outlook, but maybe you don't realize that this could take up to 2 years? It is urgent that your fiancee get her congressman involved. Send him/her all the evidence including the plans for your formal engaement. You may still be able to stop them from sending back your case file. Also have her call the Embassy herself and ask to speak to the director of consular affairs and make her case. The more noise she makes, the more likely that you can handle this now. If they kept your passport, than it may be in Administrative Review and you have a better chance at a second interview. Good luck.

Dre

These returned petitions are very time consumming, so it would be wise to contact your rep ASAP. Not many, but a few have been able to stop the return. It is rare though, but considering the alternative its worth the try. I highly doubt though that you can acheive this without assistance from your Rep.

One other point to this, even if it is returned, constance contact with a Rep will help keep your petition on their minds. Too many of them slip between the cracks because no one is pursuing it, and in their minds if your relationship is a fraud you would prefer that the case is just forgotten. So in other words it looks bad if you don't have your Rep involved.

I am impressed with your outlook though. I wonder, is that because you have the patience of a saint or that you just don't know what your up against?

Whatever the reason, I wish you the best.

Hi I was wondering if anyone can help me as far as when they send back your petition for further review to Vermont if it has to go some where else first and also does Casablanca take forever to send it out... Also how long it takes for them to send you a letter letting you know what the review is about plus is there anything I can do in the mean time Thank u in advance for any help you can give me