P6c's - Department of State's War on Love, Logic & Law

[ellis-island 6]

Hi. ILW.COM has published an article of mine that connects the dots between visa refusals, revocations & findings of material misrepresentation

against beneficiaries. It might interest some of you, particularly those people who have had visas refused.

P6c's - Department of State's War on Love, Logic & Law

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Nice work, Marc. This goes into a lot more detail on the subject than your previous article. Bookmarked!

I am curious, though - since this happens with such regularity, do you not think that CO's know what the consequences are of a petition revoked on the basis of their accusations against the beneficiary? When the beneficiary returns for an interview for a subsequently filed petition, and the CO hands them an I-601, the CO can't tell them what they misrepresented that resulted in their being inadmissible, but don't you think the CO knows the process that actually caused it, especially if the CO was the one who interviewed the beneficiary the first time?

I ask because I suspect this may go beyond the CO's simply being inadequately trained. I think some CO's may know darned well the potentially devastating consequences of a denial based on suspicion of a "sham relationship for the purpose of evading immigration law". I suspect they know they're holding a big gun here, and they know what will happen when they pull the trigger, and in many cases it's exactly what they wanted to happen. In their opinion, something smells very rotten about the beneficiary's case, and they intend to blow a huge hole in it with a P6C marker. I think it may be disingenuous of them to shrug their shoulders and claim they don't know why the beneficiary has a material misrepresentation in their file when they may very well be the CO who is responsible for it being there.

[ellis-island 6]

Nice work, Marc. This goes into a lot more detail on the subject than your previous article. Bookmarked!

I am curious, though - since this happens with such regularity, do you not think that CO's know what the consequences are of a petition revoked on the basis of their accusations against the beneficiary? When the beneficiary returns for an interview for a subsequently filed petition, and the CO hands them an I-601, the CO can't tell them what they misrepresented that resulted in their being inadmissible, but don't you think the CO knows the process that actually caused it, especially if the CO was the one who interviewed the beneficiary the first time?

I ask because I suspect this may go beyond the CO's simply being inadequately trained. I think some CO's may know darned well the potentially devastating consequences of a denial based on suspicion of a "sham relationship for the purpose of evading immigration law". I suspect they know they're holding a big gun here, and they know what will happen when they pull the trigger, and in many cases it's exactly what they wanted to happen. In their opinion, something smells very rotten about the beneficiary's case, and they intend to blow a huge hole in it with a P6C marker. I think it may be disingenuous of them to shrug their shoulders and claim they don't know why the beneficiary has a material misrepresentation in their file when they may very well be the CO who is responsible for it being there.

Ho Chi Minh City is ahead of a lot of consulates in many ways. I talked to a previous Chief about this problem in 2006. He began putting

the 212(a)(6)(c )(i) consequences on refusal sheets. So the officers in HCMC knew about the consequences. But Guangzhou is telling

petitioners and beneficiaries that it was USCIS that made these misrepresentation findings. So one consulate knew. One didn't.

But even if they were all aware of the consequences of revocation, that doesn't mean they know the basic nuts and bolts law behind it.

There is a difference between mere ineligibility and a material misrepresentation.

I've met a lot of USCIS people. And I've seen a lot of consulates in action. There is no comparison as far as their knowledge

of immigration law. The DHS/USCIS people know what they are doing. The whole ethos at consulates is,

"Let's give the case back to USCIS and see what they say,".

DOS supervisors in DC designed this nutty procedure. DOS is not a legal culture. DOJ/DHS are more cognizant of laws & legal consequences.

An agency can't just boot-strap brand new grounds of inadmissibility, with no record to support it, and expect not to be challenged

eventually. That's just stupid.

There is a flaw in the design here. The logic is incorrect. The law is incorrect. And this procedure was designed in Foggy Bottom.

So I don't fault the people in the field. There may be some exceptions to that too. Some of the designers may be working in the field now.

I can think of a couple. But they're not doing visa work anymore.

[Darnell 8,478]

Hey Marc - thanks !!!!

[TBoneTX 43,188]

What a magnificent article, si man. Bookmarked here, too!

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Ho Chi Minh City is ahead of a lot of consulates in many ways. I talked to a previous Chief about this problem in 2006. He began putting

the 212(a)(6)(c )(i) consequences on refusal sheets. So the officers in HCMC knew about the consequences. But Guangzhou is telling

petitioners and beneficiaries that it was USCIS that made these misrepresentation findings. So one consulate knew. One didn't.

But even if they were all aware of the consequences of revocation, that doesn't mean they know the basic nuts and bolts law behind it.

There is a difference between mere ineligibility and a material misrepresentation.

I've met a lot of USCIS people. And I've seen a lot of consulates in action. There is no comparison as far as their knowledge

of immigration law. The DHS/USCIS people know what they are doing. The whole ethos at consulates is,

"Let's give the case back to USCIS and see what they say,".

DOS supervisors in DC designed this nutty procedure. DOS is not a legal culture. DOJ/DHS are more cognizant of laws & legal consequences.

An agency can't just boot-strap brand new grounds of inadmissibility, with no record to support it, and expect not to be challenged

eventually. That's just stupid.

There is a flaw in the design here. The logic is incorrect. The law is incorrect. And this procedure was designed in Foggy Bottom.

So I don't fault the people in the field. There may be some exceptions to that too. Some of the designers may be working in the field now.

I can think of a couple. But they're not doing visa work anymore.

Ok, understood. I guess it's natural for a 'customer' of the two agencies to be a little suspicious that there might be actual malice intended when the consequences are so severe, and not just lack of knowledge.

Phuong and I will be back in Saigon sometime this fall (after the green cards come). If you're available we'll be sure to say hello.

[ScottThuy 140]

A thought just crossed my mind regarding this whole material misrepresentation thing... The same consulate that has investigators call up applicants, petitioners and thier families and lies about the pretense of the calls and who they are to ask questions about the relationship, is the one saying others have made a material misrepresentation?

I guess since its the VN clerks and not the CO that are actually doing the calls it does not count...