K1: What's In A Consular Return Memorandum?

[S_R 148]

list of consular allegations quoted in Notice of Intention to Revoke (NOIR's)

Photographs submitted as evidence of the relationship indicate that the petitioner and the beneficiary have spent only two or three days together.

The beneficiary and the petitioner did not have an engagement ceremony. This contradicts local, social and cultural norms in which many family members and friends are invited to engagement celebrations numbering in the hundreds of guest for even families of modest means.

The beneficiary is unaware of the basic facts of the petitioner's occupational background. She does not know the name of the petitioner's immediate supervisor. The beneficiary is unaware of the basic facts of the petitioner's occupational background. She does not know the name of any of petitioner's co-workers.

The beneficiary is unaware of the petitioner's day-to-day social contacts.

"The consulate official noted the petitioner is nineteen years older than the beneficiary." There appears to be a communication issue between the couple. The beneficiary submitted letters as evidence of communications. The consulate officer reported an individual signed the letters as ______. The beneficiary claimed that "______" is the petitioner's nickname."

The consulate reported that the beneficiary provided insufficient evidence of a bona fide spousal relationship. Written correspondence submitted as evidence of communication consisted of only one letter.

All of beneficiary's phone calls to the United States were made to an unlisted cell phone.

During the interview, beneficiary stated that she was introduced to the petitioner over the phone by her cousin. The petitioner and her cousin are alleged to be co-workers.

During her consular interview, the beneficiary was unable to answer basic questions about petitioner's family and failed to submit sufficient verifiable evidence to support an ongoing and bona fide spousal relationship with petitioner.

During her consular interview, the beneficiary failed to submit sufficient verifiable evidence to support an ongoing and bona fide spousal relationship with petitioner.

The beneficiary stated that the petitioner proposed in March, 2007, immediately after stepping off the airplane during the petitioner's first visit. The petitioner and the beneficiary were married 19 days later."

The beneficiary claimed that he talked to the petitioner every few days on the phone, but he did not know what the petitioner did last week-end.

The beneficiary divorced her ex-spouse within one year of marrying the petitioner.

The petitioner and beneficiary got married during the petitioner's first visit. The duration of petitioner's entire trip was brief.

The petitioner and the beneficiary do not share a common language

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

Well put and gathered information. Thank you for posting this helpful subject.

[Love Eth 14]

Thanks for this incredible information.

[fazmo 24]

This is extremely helpful. Thanks for sharing.

[patient2010 93]

Oh wow!

[S_R 148]

The Department of State has for many years, taken the position that applying for a benefit, being found ineligible for that benefit, and having USCIS revoke the petition for that benefit, somehow constitutes a material misrepresentation by the beneficiary. It's really that simple.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Is this from you own case of a compilation of several returned petitions ?

[S_R 148]

Is this from you own case of a compilation of several returned petitions ?

@NigeriaorBust...compilation of several returned petitions

[Rufus2012 175]

"During the interview, beneficiary stated that she was introduced to the petitioner over the phone by her cousin. The petitioner and her cousin are alleged to be co-workers."

I met my fiance when I used to work with her brother (he is a GC holder in the US and she was visiting him). I still consider him one of my best friends although we now work for different companies. Is this a problem?

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

The getting married on the first ( short ) visit is a big red flag in Lagos. Many USC's don't have the money or time off from work to travel frequently ( a cheap RT ticket is about 1300 and high season is 2400 or so ) Also the Nigerian urban myth is that being married makes it easier. So many uninformed couples plan one short trip to meet and marry and don't do anymore before the interview.

[S_R 148]

"During the interview, beneficiary stated that she was introduced to the petitioner over the phone by her cousin. The petitioner and her cousin are alleged to be co-workers."

I met my fiance when I used to work with her brother (he is a GC holder in the US and she was visiting him). I still consider him one of my best friends although we now work for different companies. Is this a problem?

I hope it doesn't apply to your individual case but you can take these salient points under advisory. They are ALL actual NOIR's from US consulates. Wish you Gods speed.

[S_R 148]

The getting married on the first ( short ) visit is a big red flag in Lagos. Many USC's don't have the money or time off from work to travel frequently ( a cheap RT ticket is about 1300 and high season is 2400 or so ) Also the Nigerian urban myth is that being married makes it easier. So many uninformed couples plan one short trip to meet and marry and don't do anymore before the interview.

As we can see from the list Consulates can allege almost anything and if the petition is revoked - the consulate wins. And the US Citizen's family loses. There is no re-examination triggered by the filing of a new petition. The inadmissibility finding is still there. And the only way around it is a discretionary waiver.

What is a Material Misrepresentation Anyway?

Let's go down the list.

…a misrepresentation is an assertion or manifestation not in accordance with the facts."

Looking at the list of consular allegations provided, which of those meets this criterion?

"Willfully": In order to find the element of willfulness, it must be determined that the alien was fully aware of the nature of the information sought and knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately made an untrue statement."

Once again, look at the consular list of reasons provided, which of those is allegations by a consulate is a 'willful untruth'?

What is "material"?

(1) The alien is inadmissible on the true facts; or

(2) The misrepresentation tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he or she be inadmissible.

Which of those allegations I quoted would make a beneficiary inadmissible on the facts? Which would shut off a line of inquiry by a consular officer?

What's the Solution?

The partial solution is for Department of State to halt the practice of spinning these 212(a)(6)©(i) findings out of p6c markers, merely because a petition has been revoked. This has caused untold damage to hundreds, if not thousands of American families. And it is without legal justification.

If US Citizens or their loved ones, are accused by their government of lying, at the very least, that accuser ought to be required to point out exactly what the lie was. But consulates can't do that. And most of the time, there is no lie in the record and there never was. There is only a computer entry showing a petition has been revoked. That's all.

How does the integrity of the system benefit from this? US Citizen petitioners and their families certainly don't benefit. USCIS doesn't benefit. After all, DOS is increasing its workload and bogging the agency down in needless litigation.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

When quoting Marc Ellis's work you should give the man credit

[jameugiekaxavilon 25]

Thank you for this very useful information!!

[S_R 148]

I hope & pray it doesn't apply to your individual case but you can take these salient points under advisory. They are ALL actual NOIR's from US consulates.Read more courtesy;

www.ilw.com

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol17/2716.pdf

Wish you Gods speed in your journey.