Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBoneTX

Red Alert -- Guides Correction Needed

22 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

See this thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/346279-how-can-a-k-1-misrepresentation-denial-be-overturned/page__pid__5187927__st__75#entry5187927

and look particularly at post #78.

Some (perhaps most) U.S. consulates would take a very dim and suspicious view of being handed documents with redacted information. It's an invitation to trouble. Accordingly, I suggest that the Guides (all of them in which the statement appears) be corrected to say "Do not include enclosures or attachments with lines of text blacked out" or similar.

At the same time, a strong warning should be added to the K-1 Guide to say, "In electronic correspondence and on social websites, do NOT under ANY circumstances refer to yourselves as 'husband' or 'wife' even playfully, and perform extra checking to ensure that no such information is available to the consulate where the beneficiary will interview. Ignoring this warning can risk refusal of the visa and a finding of fraud."

Admiral, si man?


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I'd rather suggest leaving out messages in their entirety if they are too personal. Have folks really had issues with redacting personal portions of printed documents? The basic requirement is simply to prove folks have met in the last two years and intend to marry within 90 days of entry to the US. Some consulates in high fraud countries like to see that the relationship is indeed valid more than others and this proof helps with that.


I am an Ewok. I am here to to keep the peace. Please contact me if you have a problem with the site or a complaint regarding a violation of the Terms of Service. For the fastest response please use the 'Contact Us' page to contact me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add to note I have never head of a CO having an issue with personal info being redacted. It is always possible I suppose but I have not heard of it.


I am an Ewok. I am here to to keep the peace. Please contact me if you have a problem with the site or a complaint regarding a violation of the Terms of Service. For the fastest response please use the 'Contact Us' page to contact me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick response, Admiral. I'll see if I can get pushbrk over here to comment. And, I do remember a rather recent thread in which this pickle was mentioned, but I have no way of re-finding it unless I re-stumble upon it.

---

Edited to add: pushbrk contacted. Hitting the hay soon (me, that is).

Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add to note I have never head of a CO having an issue with personal info being redacted. It is always possible I suppose but I have not heard of it.

Well, I have. The couple needed to provide the unredacted version before a visa would be issued. The CO said it looked like they were discussing how to commit fraud. My recommendation is that if something needs to be redacted in some correspondence or document, don't use the document at all. Choose another one. I also agree with the admonition to avoid calling your unmarried fiance any name one would use to mean spouse. That one, I've seen lots more problems with.


Facts are cheap...knowing how to use them is precious...
Understanding the big picture is priceless. Anonymous

Google Who is Pushbrk?

A Warning to Green Card Holders About Voting

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/606646-a-warning-to-green-card-holders-about-voting/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly reasonable -- I'll adjust it to match.


I am an Ewok. I am here to to keep the peace. Please contact me if you have a problem with the site or a complaint regarding a violation of the Terms of Service. For the fastest response please use the 'Contact Us' page to contact me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along this line of reasoning, might it be prudent to include an explanation of what a K1 is... a visa to marry in the US? And a warning not to marry elsewhere? I have seen a lot of people lately who say they want to get married in the home country after visa issuance (and before POE) or have a "non-legal" wedding ceremony with a priest, one of which is outright fraud and the other is skating a very thin line, if it's not fraud itself.

On the other hand, I am not sure if a website is responsible for all of people's crazy ideas...


AOS for my husband
8/17/10: INTERVIEW DAY (day 123) APPROVED!!

ROC:
5/23/12: Sent out package
2/06/13: APPROVED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that something else needs to be addressed for Pakistan, India and the Mid East......K1

when a formal engagement is done the couple needs to be very careful and give proof it was only an engagement because some of the embassy's will insist that it was a wedding.....

Also from the problems we had not having a formal engagement put a red flag up..... if both people are not Muslim it is not so much of a red flag but for both to be Muslim with out the formal engagement it is

'

just my opinion

sara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly reasonable -- I'll adjust it to match.

Complete.


I am an Ewok. I am here to to keep the peace. Please contact me if you have a problem with the site or a complaint regarding a violation of the Terms of Service. For the fastest response please use the 'Contact Us' page to contact me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an Ewok. I am here to to keep the peace. Please contact me if you have a problem with the site or a complaint regarding a violation of the Terms of Service. For the fastest response please use the 'Contact Us' page to contact me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushbrk and the Admiral to the rescue, si man. :thumbs:

Please review the updates I made with the above suggestions. Very top of the guides (k-1 has extra on the bottom as well as the top):

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?autocom=custom&page=k1guide

In this one, the final paragraph reads:

"A K-1 Visa holder may enter the United States only one time with their visa. If the K-1 Visa holder leaves the country before they are married, they may not be allowed back into the United States without a new visa. Also, if they have applied for and are waiting on approval of an adjustment of status petition, do not leave the US without also having applied for and received an approved advance parole as doing so may result in the inability to re-enter the US and in abandoning the petition for adjustment of status."

A flaw in the English language is the lack of a gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun, sigh man. Other tweaks can make things clearer. To avoid misreading, I suggest the following (changes = boldface):

"A K-1 Visa holder can enter the United States only one time with this visa. Upon entry, the K-1 visa is cancelled, and the I-94 form issued upon entry becomes the controlling document. If the K-1 entrant leaves the U.S. before marriage to the original petitioner, re-entry into the U.S. might not be allowed without a new visa. Also, if the K-1 entrant has applied for and is waiting on approval of an Adjustment of Status petition, the K-1 entrant should not leave the U.S. without also having applied for and received approved Advance Parole -- doing so could result in the inability to re-enter the U.S., and it indicates abandonment of the petition for Adjustment of Status. (Note that even approved Advance Parole does not guarantee re-entry into the U.S.)"

The new second and final sentences can help drill these eternally re-asked points into people's brains.

I may have set a new record for number of times "preview post" has been hit, si man. Edited to add: Bummer -- had to formally edit to apply a tweak, man.

Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushbrk and the Admiral to the rescue, si man. :thumbs:

In this one, the final paragraph reads:

"A K-1 Visa holder may enter the United States only one time with their visa. If the K-1 Visa holder leaves the country before they are married, they may not be allowed back into the United States without a new visa. Also, if they have applied for and are waiting on approval of an adjustment of status petition, do not leave the US without also having applied for and received an approved advance parole as doing so may result in the inability to re-enter the US and in abandoning the petition for adjustment of status."

A flaw in the English language is the lack of a gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun, sigh man. Other tweaks can make things clearer. To avoid misreading, I suggest the following (changes = boldface):

"A K-1 Visa holder can enter the United States only one time with this visa. Upon entry, the K-1 visa is cancelled, and the I-94 form issued upon entry becomes the controlling document. If the K-1 entrant leaves the U.S. before marriage to the original petitioner, re-entry into the U.S. might not be allowed without a new visa. Also, if the K-1 entrant has applied for and is waiting on approval of an Adjustment of Status petition, the K-1 entrant should not leave the U.S. without also having applied for and received approved Advance Parole -- doing so could result in the inability to re-enter the U.S., and it indicates abandonment of the petition for Adjustment of Status. (Note that even approved Advance Parole does not guarantee re-entry into the U.S.)"

The new second and final sentences can help drill these eternally re-asked points into people's brains.

I may have set a new record for number of times "preview post" has been hit, si man. Edited to add: Bummer -- had to formally edit to apply a tweak, man.

Wow.blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushbrk and the Admiral to the rescue, si man. :thumbs:

In this one, the final paragraph reads:

"A K-1 Visa holder may enter the United States only one time with their visa. If the K-1 Visa holder leaves the country before they are married, they may not be allowed back into the United States without a new visa. Also, if they have applied for and are waiting on approval of an adjustment of status petition, do not leave the US without also having applied for and received an approved advance parole as doing so may result in the inability to re-enter the US and in abandoning the petition for adjustment of status."

A flaw in the English language is the lack of a gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun, sigh man. Other tweaks can make things clearer. To avoid misreading, I suggest the following (changes = boldface):

"A K-1 Visa holder can enter the United States only one time with this visa. Upon entry, the K-1 visa is cancelled, and the I-94 form issued upon entry becomes the controlling document. If the K-1 entrant leaves the U.S. before marriage to the original petitioner, re-entry into the U.S. might not be allowed without a new visa. Also, if the K-1 entrant has applied for and is waiting on approval of an Adjustment of Status petition, the K-1 entrant should not leave the U.S. without also having applied for and received approved Advance Parole -- doing so could result in the inability to re-enter the U.S., and it indicates abandonment of the petition for Adjustment of Status. (Note that even approved Advance Parole does not guarantee re-entry into the U.S.)"

The new second and final sentences can help drill these eternally re-asked points into people's brains.

I may have set a new record for number of times "preview post" has been hit, si man. Edited to add: Bummer -- had to formally edit to apply a tweak, man.

It was pretty plain to me at least before. I don't see a flaw in the English language. I had to read the correction twice to be sure I read it right. And since I am so highly intelligent myself I can just imagine what is going to do with some of the brains we have here when they read it.blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×