How can a K-1 misrepresentation denial be overturned?

[Stu4Lee 66]

Stu I have seen posts where the CO pulled up BOTH peoples facebook and asked who these friends were or what this post was.

I have also heard that a CO questioned a married man about his chats with other women during the first 2 years of him and his wifes (she was just a girlfriend when he was chatting and writing others) 5 year relationship. He knew their names. He then called the wife in the USA and asked her if she knew who these women were. She knew thank God. Cause the couple was honest wih each other. But if he would have hidden those relationaships from his wife, i am sure they would have been denied.

Have NO doubts. They can dig up anything they want

At the interview??

I'm not going to chance asking the CO to bring up my FB page instead of passing my evidence under the glass tho

I have no doubt they can dig all they like, I want them to find "what they want" in order to approve us

[Love's JAA 100]

Yes, you could be denied. You're either lying to each other or lying to the CO. In both instances a red flag raises up and high. Especially if you're petitioning someone from a high fraud country. MENA embassies are notorious, so please do yourself a favor and act like you're engaged, not married.

The "baby" reference is a very bad analogy and it makes me believe you're not getting the point. There are countries where by simply calling each other "husband" and "wife" you're technically married. Only a signature away separates the couple from making it legal. The US will make sure you're not lying or misrepresenting yourself or your beneficiary. You're either married or you're not. If you're in the "limbo area" (religious or ceremoniously married, but not legally), they consider you married. This is a legal issue, not just a vocabulary issue.

We are not lying to each other, since lying is the attempt to deceive. We know we aren't married to each other. As far as lying to the CO, our correspondences are addressed to each other, first, and second why would be lie about being married when we are single and applying for K-1? Can I put a note in the file explaining and clarifying the references are nick names/endearments only? I mean, if we were applying for a K-3, they aren't going to approve it because we referred to each other as husband and wife in our correspondences, and so that means we are. The inclusion of the correspondence is meant as supplementary information to prove an ongoing relationship, that we are regularly in contact and maintaining a relationship is all. I can see that it could raise a question, but a rejection seems harsh. I'm from the U.S. and my fiancee is from the Philippines, currently residing in Dubai. I don't believe any of these countries consider one married by reference only.

Thanks for reading.

[NY_BX 397]

We are not lying to each other, since lying is the attempt to deceive. We know we aren't married to each other. As far as lying to the CO, our correspondences are addressed to each other, first, and second why would be lie about being married when we are single and applying for K-1? Can I put a note in the file explaining and clarifying the references are nick names/endearments only? I mean, if we were applying for a K-3, they aren't going to approve it because we referred to each other as husband and wife in our correspondences, and so that means we are. The inclusion of the correspondence is meant as supplementary information to prove an ongoing relationship, that we are regularly in contact and maintaining a relationship is all. I can see that it could raise a question, but a rejection seems harsh. I'm from the U.S. and my fiancee is from the Philippines, currently residing in Dubai. I don't believe any of these countries consider one married by reference only.

Thanks for reading.

Good luck!

[AKSinghSingh79 143]

WHY do they think they are married? This may determine the answer.

The CO believed them to be married because of an online photo album that was discovered after the beneficiary was instructed to open his and the USC petitioner's Facebook accounts. The album was entitled our "wedding".

In addition, the beneficiary provided photos as evidence of a trip they took together to a popular touristy beach town (trip was taken after their engagement) and the CO interpreted the trip as their "honeymoon" after their "wedding".

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I appreciate the advice, and will heed that from now on. It was meant as a romantic affirmation of the commitment we are making to one another. You are right, that if we were married we probably wouldn't call each other these names. It's the desire to be married, not being married, that inspired us to use these names. I will accept your statement that visas have been denied because of this, but it just seems so unreasonable. Have the application denials been overcome? I wish you wouldn't be so harsh in your judgement because we called each other that, implying we are wacko for having done so. Thanks for the advice, though.

I don't think you are whacko, but it seemed an appropriate little face.

It just seems very contrived to me, like it is actually an effort to do so, and it is not done by married people. At any rate, I can agree it may seem unreasonable but the consulates you are discussing here are rife with fraud and they look for fraud and frankly a CR-1 takes longer to process so some married couples may try to defraud them and say they are not married, and DO say this, so it is something you want to avoid.

Also keep in mind that the US recognizes religious marriages even if the government of that country does not. This may be the case in the Armenian Orthodox case above. Ukraine does not recognize religious marriages (I would not be surprised if Armenia, also FSU, is the same)a marriage in the Orthodox church in Ukraine is not legal unless you also have a civil wedding, BUT the US will recognize the religious marriage.

The US approaches religious freedom as honoring ALL religious traditions equally, Ukraine recognizes religious freedom but not honoring ANY religious tradition. Other countries can be the same.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The CO believed them to be married because of an online photo album that was discovered after the beneficiary was instructed to open his and the USC petitioner's Facebook accounts. The album was entitled our "wedding".

In addition, the beneficiary provided photos as evidence of a trip they took together to a popular touristy beach town (trip was taken after their engagement) and the CO interpreted the trip as their "honeymoon" after their "wedding".

See this is where they really get in a bind. Best bet now IS to get married, for real, get a marriage certificate and re-file for a CR-1

Appealing this will likely take longer and cost more anyway. The fact that they have a new marriage certifcate can be more easily explained than "well that is not really our wedding even though it says it is" The CO documented this and they are not just going to let it go without a dispute and that means a lot of time will pass, even if they could win. A senator is not going to go up against the consulate when they have this evidence, they can't. What can a Senator say "Yeah I know it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it is not a duck, trust me" Ironically,the new marriage certificate will be the best evidence they can provide that they were NOT married. But then they WILL be married so they need to file a CR-1

People really have to avoid this silliness, especially in high fraud consulates. Those kind of photos do not need to be used as evidence or posted all over the place.

Bottom line, this was dumb. They made a dumb mistake and it is going to cost them some time and money. It happens when you make dumb mistakes in life. Good news? I doubt they will attach a ban to this.

IF they do, then they should see their congressperson or Senator.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[AKSinghSingh79 143]

We are not lying to each other, since lying is the attempt to deceive. We know we aren't married to each other. As far as lying to the CO, our correspondences are addressed to each other, first, and second why would be lie about being married when we are single and applying for K-1? Can I put a note in the file explaining and clarifying the references are nick names/endearments only? I mean, if we were applying for a K-3, they aren't going to approve it because we referred to each other as husband and wife in our correspondences, and so that means we are. The inclusion of the correspondence is meant as supplementary information to prove an ongoing relationship, that we are regularly in contact and maintaining a relationship is all. I can see that it could raise a question, but a rejection seems harsh. I'm from the U.S. and my fiancee is from the Philippines, currently residing in Dubai. I don't believe any of these countries consider one married by reference only.

Thanks for reading.

I didn't only post this case for suggestions. It should also serve as a learning experience for future applicants. Do not give the COs any ammunition that they could use as a basis to deny you or flag you for material misrepresentation (if they believe you to be married and filing for a K-1 fiance visa). This means do not include any chat logs, cards, or emails where you refer to each other as husband and wife. I don't think attaching a note explaining the reasons behind the nicknames would help your case. In fact it may hurt it because it is directing attention to the content of your conversations.

I agree, a rejection is harsh, being slapped with a denial for fraud and material misrepresentation is even more extreme. It's always better to be safe. Surely there are other things you can attach as evidence. Instead of the cards showing the content you can attach a copy of the envelope they were sent in which lists the recipients address and the date is was postmarked. Also you can show call records or chat logs without the content of the conversation.

If you do want to include correspondence, screen your messages meticulously. Also I wouldn't recommend blacking out husband and wife either because the CO reviewing your case may think you are trying to hide something especially if there is a pattern involved.

Best of luck! I wish you a smooth process and a quick approval!

[StraightShooter 62]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, some folks like to have a religious ceremony "in-country" and then have a civil ceremony once the fiance(e) arrives in the US. It may not have happened in this case, but was obviously deemed by the CO to be a real wedding and not just an engagement celebration.

And the US Embassy in India could easily recognize a "practice" religious wedding as a bonafide marriage, even if it was an engagement celebration. Check the link below.

http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/service/other-citizen-services/marriage.html

[Love's JAA 100]

I don't think you are whacko, but it seemed an appropriate little face.

It just seems very contrived to me, like it is actually an effort to do so, and it is not done by married people. At any rate, I can agree it may seem unreasonable but the consulates you are discussing here are rife with fraud and they look for fraud and frankly a CR-1 takes longer to process so some married couples may try to defraud them and say they are not married, and DO say this, so it is something you want to avoid.

Also keep in mind that the US recognizes religious marriages even if the government of that country does not. This may be the case in the Armenian Orthodox case above. Ukraine does not recognize religious marriages (I would not be surprised if Armenia, also FSU, is the same)a marriage in the Orthodox church in Ukraine is not legal unless you also have a civil wedding, BUT the US will recognize the religious marriage.

The US approaches religious freedom as honoring ALL religious traditions equally, Ukraine recognizes religious freedom but not honoring ANY religious tradition. Other countries can be the same.

This is kind of a tangent to the current conversation, but taking your advice, I will have to cull my log of correspondence of emails and chat transcripts with such marital references. I don't want to start at square one, so how much regular correspondence should be required to be included with the petition then. Normally we chat almost daily. Should I include a sampling (through out the term of the relationship), or include all. Can a couple records per week be enough. For a while we were using the husband and wife reference a lot. It has tapered off, since my fiancee is now on a "baby" kick. Still it does come up periodically (of course will stop it now). So I may have a lot to pull out during certain periods and less during others. It will be a pain to go through though.

[NY_BX 397]

I didn't only post this case for suggestions. It should also serve as a learning experience for future applicants. Do not give the COs any ammunition that they could use as a basis to deny you or flag you for material misrepresentation (if they believe you to be married and filing for a K-1 fiance visa). This means do not include any chat logs, cards, or emails where you refer to each other as husband and wife. I don't think attaching a note explaining the reasons behind the nicknames would help your case. In fact it may hurt it because it is directing attention to the content of your conversations.

I agree, a rejection is harsh, being slapped with a denial for fraud and material misrepresentation is even more extreme. It's always better to be safe. Surely there are other things you can attach as evidence. Instead of the cards showing the content you can attach a copy of the envelope they were sent in which lists the recipients address and the date is was postmarked. Also you can show call records or chat logs without the content of the conversation.

If you do want to include correspondence, screen your messages meticulously. Also I wouldn't recommend blacking out husband and wife either because the CO reviewing your case may think you are trying to hide something especially if there is a pattern involved.

Best of luck! I wish you a smooth process and a quick approval!

Nicely put. People forget that this is not about them or "our love." This is about a total stranger taking OUR future in his/ her hands. It is not personal, its a very difficult business.

[vosnmars 25]

Blessing rings is a part of the marriage ceremony. Will the priest think you are married? This does not sound like a good idea.

Thank you for your response and I understand what you mean. I am Catholic and he is Armenian Orthodox so we are doing things very different from what I know. The priest is aware that this is an engagement and he has to certify that we are engaged, so there is no confusion about what he is doing. He is coming to the restaurant for the dinner/party. Also I believe the rings are blessed because they will also be our wedding rings. For the engagement we both wear them on the right hand and at the wedding ceremony we then move it to the left. There is no other option because they have ways of doing things and we are going to follow it. Certainly, we will make sure everything says engagement such as our invitations, cake, banners, photos, newspaper ads, etc. I hope that will be sufficient for K-1 purposes because I wouldn't want to completely disrespect my future family.

[Love's JAA 100]

I didn't only post this case for suggestions. It should also serve as a learning experience for future applicants. Do not give the COs any ammunition that they could use as a basis to deny you or flag you for material misrepresentation (if they believe you to be married and filing for a K-1 fiance visa). This means do not include any chat logs, cards, or emails where you refer to each other as husband and wife. I don't think attaching a note explaining the reasons behind the nicknames would help your case. In fact it may hurt it because it is directing attention to the content of your conversations.

I agree, a rejection is harsh, being slapped with a denial for fraud and material misrepresentation is even more extreme. It's always better to be safe. Surely there are other things you can attach as evidence. Instead of the cards showing the content you can attach a copy of the envelope they were sent in which lists the recipients address and the date is was postmarked. Also you can show call records or chat logs without the content of the conversation.

If you do want to include correspondence, screen your messages meticulously. Also I wouldn't recommend blacking out husband and wife either because the CO reviewing your case may think you are trying to hide something especially if there is a pattern involved.

Best of luck! I wish you a smooth process and a quick approval!

Thanks for the advice. I work as a tax accountant, different government branch, but I appreciate the advice of not bringing possible issues to the government's attention - even when you think you're trying to clarify an issue. So I will heed that.

Any more surprises you can think of that one should watch out for?

[AKSinghSingh79 143]

See this is where they really get in a bind. Best bet now IS to get married, for real, get a marriage certificate and re-file for a CR-1

Appealing this will likely take longer and cost more anyway. The fact that they have a new marriage certifcate can be more easily explained than "well that is not really our wedding even though it says it is" The CO documented this and they are not just going to let it go without a dispute and that means a lot of time will pass, even if they could win. A senator is not going to go up against the consulate when they have this evidence, they can't. What can a Senator say "Yeah I know it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it is not a duck, trust me" Ironically,the new marriage certificate will be the best evidence they can provide that they were NOT married. But then they WILL be married so they need to file a CR-1

People really have to avoid this silliness, especially in high fraud consulates. Those kind of photos do not need to be used as evidence or posted all over the place.

Bottom line, this was dumb. They made a dumb mistake and it is going to cost them some time and money. It happens when you make dumb mistakes in life. Good news? I doubt they will attach a ban to this.

IF they do, then they should see their congressperson or Senator.

I agree, this seems like a much better option for them than trying to appeal the case.

The marriage certificate is excellent evidence by far especially since the marriage of a foreigner non-Hindu in India is very different than the marriage of two Hindus.

They could use that, She was only in India for 3 weeks on the trip to India in which they are saying she was married but you have to wait at least 30 days in India to get married when one person is not a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh.

Before they can move forward with a CR-1, they would have to make sure their original K-1 petition has "died", is that correct? After the denial, the petition will go back to their service center (in this case, VSC) where they will either do nothing and allow it to expire or send a NOID to the petitioner. I know that CSC usually just lets the petition expire but I am not sure what VSC has done.

Could they send a letter themselves and close their petition or would they have to wait officially for a decision from USCIS?

[sachinky 464]

You're saying that the K-1 will be denied for having pet names for each other as husband and wife? What should I do with all of my proof of relationship correspondence which includes these references then? My fiancee has enjoyed this playing and so we've referred to each other a lot in this way? These correspondences need to be tossed then, are you saying? Should I go through and blacken out all these references? I mean to refuse a visa on this grounds seems absurd. How about when we call each other baby? Will it be denied because we're underage?

"Husband" and "Wife" are LEGAL terms, implying an ongoing legal relationship unlike pet names or referring to each other as 'baby' which are clearly, terms of endearment.

I understand your desire to be married but you have to be careful when dealing with high-fraud consulates.

[sachinky 464]

The CO believed them to be married because of an online photo album that was discovered after the beneficiary was instructed to open his and the USC petitioner's Facebook accounts. The album was entitled our "wedding".

In addition, the beneficiary provided photos as evidence of a trip they took together to a popular touristy beach town (trip was taken after their engagement) and the CO interpreted the trip as their "honeymoon" after their "wedding".

Good unmarried Indian boys and girls don't take trips to Goa. Chances are most Indian parents wouldn't approve of an overnight trip prior to marriage, even if the couple is engaged. Things like that, it looks bad.