Consulates Returning Petitions to the United States via 221g

[LostInIllinois 1]

We should start a campaign -N to ask the correct congressional subcommitee to:

1) review the 221g denials to date

2) Determine the circumstances and legality of such denials

3) Gather data from DHS as to the final outcome of the 221g denials

4) Track 221g denials to individual conoffs for patterns of illegal case handling.

If this is a problem, I believe that this group could "clean a little house".

First Step: Which congressional subcommitee is responsible for immigration matters at foreign counsulates? Who is the leader of this subcommitee?

[kerewin21 2]

And as I expect you know, under immigration law a visa applicant must prove their case to the government, not the other way around, a person is ineligible until they can prove themselves eligible. And rules of engagement are quite different from those in a court. The visa applicant is not defending themself against a charge, they're asking for a benefit. And until they demonstrate that they're entitled to the benefit, the answer is 'no'.

"Why?" "Because you didn't prove your case."

"What do I need to provide prove my case?" "Provide whatever you have to provide, whatever you wish to provide - I'll consider it. If it satisfies me I'll answer 'yes', until then the answer is 'no'."

Umm, I don't know if you're trying to be facetious here or not, but as far as I can tell, you're not. Do you really think that is an appropriate way for an agency providing a public benefit to carry out procedures? Let's say we all were applying for our US Passports. We have brought all the documentation asked for. Then we get a letter in the mail saying that we aren't entitled to a passport. We ask why, and they say because we didn't prove that we were eligible.

In our society, they would have to say WHY we hadn't proved it. They have to have procedures delineating what makes people eligible, and they have to share those procedures with the public. That's the way public benefits work in this country. If they were denying passport applications without telling anyone why, there would immediately be an outcry. Why? Because that's how things work in this country. Government agencies are expected to have clear policies and to adhere to them. We don't live somewhere that random administrators are allowed to arbitrarily make decisions as they please.

I really don't think that the scenario you posit is an appropriate way for a government to run its business. Perhaps that is what often ends up happening, but it is certainly not the ideal, nor is it even acceptable.

[pax 0]

I think you may be missing Yodrak's point with that example. U.S. citizens, assuming that they're not criminally barred from leaving the country (and who knows, maybe even then they can still get a passport) are legally entitled to passports. It is my right as a U.S. citizen to apply for and receive a passport.

Meanwhile, it is no one's right to be granted a visa, at least legally speaking. Visas are granted to eligible persons at the discretion of the DoS. If it was a legal right to be allowed entry into the U.S., we wouldn't bother issuing visas at all and everyone from your sweetie and mine to Osama Bin Laden could just wander in at will.

That's Yodrak's point: You're dealing with an adversarial system. You have to make your case. And it's not the right of a foreign national to be granted a visa.

I'm not saying any of this to be mean or cruel. I can't imagine how frustrating, painful, and sad it must be to be facing an even longer separation from your loved one when you and your partner feel strongly about your relationship. But that's all the more reason, I suspect, to look at your situation objectively and understand what you're up against. And I think that's all that Yodrak is trying to say. (If I'm not right, Y, please correct me.)

[morocco4ever 63]

I think you may be missing Yodrak's point with that example. U.S. citizens, assuming that they're not criminally barred from leaving the country (and who knows, maybe even then they can still get a passport) are legally entitled to passports. It is my right as a U.S. citizen to apply for and receive a passport.

Meanwhile, it is no one's right to be granted a visa, at least legally speaking. Visas are granted to eligible persons at the discretion of the DoS. If it was a legal right to be allowed entry into the U.S., we wouldn't bother issuing visas at all and everyone from your sweetie and mine to Osama Bin Laden could just wander in at will.

That's Yodrak's point: You're dealing with an adversarial system. You have to make your case. And it's not the right of a foreign national to be granted a visa.

I'm not saying any of this to be mean or cruel. I can't imagine how frustrating, painful, and sad it must be to be facing an even longer separation from your loved one when you and your partner feel strongly about your relationship. But that's all the more reason, I suspect, to look at your situation objectively and understand what you're up against. And I think that's all that Yodrak is trying to say. (If I'm not right, Y, please correct me.)

Your right, but on the other hand, if they are eligible in every sense of the word with the exception of mere suspicion of the CO, well then us, the U.S. citizen has lost the right to be with our loved one based on the mood of the CO the day of the interview? They have guidelines they are suppose to follow. In those guide lines it clearly states that they cannot send back petitions based on suspicions, but factual and concrete evidence. They are not following their own guidelines. That is the problem we are having.

[Yodrak 7]

pax,

You understand correctly. kerewin is trying to apply principles that are not applicable to the situation, as are some others.

Yodrak

I think you may be missing Yodrak's point with that example. U.S. citizens, assuming that they're not criminally barred from leaving the country (and who knows, maybe even then they can still get a passport) are legally entitled to passports. It is my right as a U.S. citizen to apply for and receive a passport.

Meanwhile, it is no one's right to be granted a visa, at least legally speaking. Visas are granted to eligible persons at the discretion of the DoS. If it was a legal right to be allowed entry into the U.S., we wouldn't bother issuing visas at all and everyone from your sweetie and mine to Osama Bin Laden could just wander in at will.

That's Yodrak's point: You're dealing with an adversarial system. You have to make your case. And it's not the right of a foreign national to be granted a visa.

I'm not saying any of this to be mean or cruel. I can't imagine how frustrating, painful, and sad it must be to be facing an even longer separation from your loved one when you and your partner feel strongly about your relationship. But that's all the more reason, I suspect, to look at your situation objectively and understand what you're up against. And I think that's all that Yodrak is trying to say. (If I'm not right, Y, please correct me.)

[Yodrak 7]

Morocco,

The consular officer is not denying you any right to be with your loved one. They are denying your loved one the ability to immigrate to the USA, which is something that person does not have any right to. Meanwhile, you have the right to go be with your loved one anywhere that will have you.

Agreed, the consular officer cannot act on suspicions, and I have been remiss in giving that impression. Whike the consular officer is required to give the visa applicant the reason for visa denial they are not required to give the detail underlying the decision. They are following their guidelines by not doing so. As I posted earlier to Jenn by way of analogy, when a consular officer has reason to believe that a visa applicant is trying to commit visa fraud to enter the USA illegaly, they are not required, nor should they be required, to tell such person what they can do to be successful in their fraud.

By sending the petition back to the USCIS, with the reasons why they are doing so, they are giving the visa applicant an opportunity to have the case and the evidence reviewed once again by a different set of eyes. If the USCIS believes that the consular officer has made an error, the USCIS will re-affirm the petition approval and send it back to the consulate. Sending the petition back to the USCIS is not the end of the road, although it does make the trip longer.

As I have also posted, when one knows that they are dealing with a consulate that takes a particularly hard look at its cases, one is being 'penny-wise and pound-foolish' to not seek the aid of an immigration lawyer who has experience dealing with the consulate in question. It's no guarantee of immediate success, but it sure will improve the presentation and change the odds.

Yodrak

Your right, but on the other hand, if they are eligible in every sense of the word with the exception of mere suspicion of the CO, well then us, the U.S. citizen has lost the right to be with our loved one based on the mood of the CO the day of the interview? They have guidelines they are suppose to follow. In those guide lines it clearly states that they cannot send back petitions based on suspicions, but factual and concrete evidence. They are not following their own guidelines. That is the problem we are having.

[scy 0]

Yodrak, I agree with you on this. But I think the beef here is that the CO is not giving visa applicants a chance to rectify and provide further evidence regarding their visa applications before arbitrarily sending the petitions back to USCIS. You yourself mentioned that your wife visa application was placed on 221(g). Imagine if you will that instead of allowing you and your wife time to consult an attorney and provide further documents, the CO just send your petition back to USCIS with a recommendation for revocation.

But instead you were allowed time to rectify the problem and your wife received her visa. This practice of allowing visa applicants time to further submit evidence and documents is not written in law, but widely condone. And it should be so. If every denial resulted in petitions being sent back to USCIS, then USCIS will never get any work done.

But you are correct that a CO only has to cite the underlying law for denial. It's up to the applicant to submit enough evidence to overcome the denial.

By law, the only time a visa applicant has a chance to make his case is when he applies for a visa, which is at the interview. So visa applicants should prepare as much as possible at the interview and do not expect to be allowed to submit additional evidence after the interview. Any forbearance is at the discretion of the CO and the consulate.

Morocco,

The consular officer is not denying you any right to be with your loved one. They are denying your loved one the ability to immigrate to the USA, which is something that person does not have any right to. Meanwhile, you have the right to go be with your loved one anywhere that will have you.

Agreed, the consular officer cannot act on suspicions, and I have been remiss in giving that impression. Whike the consular officer is required to give the visa applicant the reason for visa denial they are not required to give the detail underlying the decision. They are following their guidelines by not doing so. As I posted earlier to Jenn by way of analogy, when a consular officer has reason to believe that a visa applicant is trying to commit visa fraud to enter the USA illegaly, they are not required, nor should they be required, to tell such person what they can do to be successful in their fraud.

By sending the petition back to the USCIS, with the reasons why they are doing so, they are giving the visa applicant an opportunity to have the case and the evidence reviewed once again by a different set of eyes. If the USCIS believes that the consular officer has made an error, the USCIS will re-affirm the petition approval and send it back to the consulate. Sending the petition back to the USCIS is not the end of the road, although it does make the trip longer.

As I have also posted, when one knows that they are dealing with a consulate that takes a particularly hard look at its cases, one is being 'penny-wise and pound-foolish' to not seek the aid of an immigration lawyer who has experience dealing with the consulate in question. It's no guarantee of immediate success, but it sure will improve the presentation and change the odds.

Yodrak

[maryandatif 0]

Yodrak, I agree with you on this. But I think the beef here is that the CO is not giving visa applicants a chance to rectify and provide further evidence regarding their visa applications before arbitrarily sending the petitions back to USCIS. You yourself mentioned that your wife visa application was placed on 221(g). Imagine if you will that instead of allowing you and your wife time to consult an attorney and provide further documents, the CO just send your petition back to USCIS with a recommendation for revocation.

But instead you were allowed time to rectify the problem and your wife received her visa. This practice of allowing visa applicants time to further submit evidence and documents is not written in law, but widely condone. And it should be so. If every denial resulted in petitions being sent back to USCIS, then USCIS will never get any work done.

But you are correct that a CO only has to cite the underlying law for denial. It's up to the applicant to submit enough evidence to overcome the denial.

By law, the only time a visa applicant has a chance to make his case is when he applies for a visa, which is at the interview. So visa applicants should prepare as much as possible at the interview and do not expect to be allowed to submit additional evidence after the interview. Any forbearance is at the discretion of the CO and the consulate.

Morocco,

The consular officer is not denying you any right to be with your loved one. They are denying your loved one the ability to immigrate to the USA, which is something that person does not have any right to. Meanwhile, you have the right to go be with your loved one anywhere that will have you.

Agreed, the consular officer cannot act on suspicions, and I have been remiss in giving that impression. Whike the consular officer is required to give the visa applicant the reason for visa denial they are not required to give the detail underlying the decision. They are following their guidelines by not doing so. As I posted earlier to Jenn by way of analogy, when a consular officer has reason to believe that a visa applicant is trying to commit visa fraud to enter the USA illegaly, they are not required, nor should they be required, to tell such person what they can do to be successful in their fraud.

By sending the petition back to the USCIS, with the reasons why they are doing so, they are giving the visa applicant an opportunity to have the case and the evidence reviewed once again by a different set of eyes. If the USCIS believes that the consular officer has made an error, the USCIS will re-affirm the petition approval and send it back to the consulate. Sending the petition back to the USCIS is not the end of the road, although it does make the trip longer.

As I have also posted, when one knows that they are dealing with a consulate that takes a particularly hard look at its cases, one is being 'penny-wise and pound-foolish' to not seek the aid of an immigration lawyer who has experience dealing with the consulate in question. It's no guarantee of immediate success, but it sure will improve the presentation and change the odds.

Yodrak

Alright....I'll take that into consideration. NOW the question is for me and my husband....HOW or WHAT evidence should be gathered for preperaring for ROUND 2? He had e-mails, YMESSENGER print-outs, copies of my phone bills, letters from me and Cards from me and my son, and pics that my son had drawn for him and mailed to him. My husband also answered all of her questions correctly. He first had the interview in English and then had the exact same questions in Arabic[w/translotor] he gave the same answers and even corrected the translator when she tried to say my parents were still liveing[they died several years ago]. He Also had a photo album with pics of our wedding and honeymoon and from this summer...the ones from this sumer were dated thanks to the camera I have.

What more could they be looking for? I truely believe that the decision for my case was made long before he had his interview. OH! This woman also questionsd him about my co-sponsor and why would someone who doesn't know him do that? He told her because tey are friends of mine. That's all they should have needed to know....the people know me....End of story.....but evidently not.

Any suggestions and advice will be helpful and taken into consideration.

Mary K.

Edited March 2, 2006 by maryandatif

[~*Dorothy*~ 2]

I completely and fully support the pinning of this topic...I have seen you Kiya doing so much to get the answers and to fight the system...you are absolutely that this topic needs to be there to get the word out about all that is happening and that means the unfair and unreasonable tactics in Moroccan consulate...On a personal note, I am praying for you and your fiance and a positive resolution

[Yodrak 7]

scy,

I think one of the things that we agree on is that sending the petition back to the USCIS is not to be an arbitrary action - the consular officer has to have good reason, documentation of the reason(s), and obtain the concurrance of their supervisor. One thing that we don't agree on is whether or not the consulate in Morocco is being arbitrary when it shouldn't be. The people to whom it is happening feel it's arbitrary, but from the information I see some of them presenting in their posts I can see that the action may not be arbitrary at all - it may very well be quite justified.

For example, Morocco4ever reports that her husband is thought to be paying her for the marriage so that he can use marriage as a way to immigrate to the USA. Whatever evidence the consulate has of this, it's quite possible that the evidence came to light in the visa application and may not have been available to the USCIS with the petition, and so it may very well not be arbitrary at all that the petition is being sent back.

Morocco is a high-fraud post. The consular officers who process visa applications there are intimately familiar with their environment, what things need to be looked for in the cases that are put before them, and how to do the looking. USCIS adjudicators, who process petitions for people all around the world and probably relatively few for people from any one place, may realize which are the high-fraud posts but are not so familiar with the local conditions that require close scrutiny at each post. I don't find it at all surprising that at a high-fraud post it's the local consular officers, who also get to see the applicants in person, who uncover things that USCIS adjudicators cannot be aware of.

221(g) is a very broad area, there are any number of issues that could be involved. It may not have been fair of me to implicitly compare my wife's situation to the situation of concern here. I wanted it to be known that I'm not speaking from the point of view of someone who flew through the process without incident, but it's true that my incident was not as extreme as the issue under discussion here.

That being said, even the issue of bonafide relationship does not always result in the petition being sent back. If it's simply that the bonafides have not been proved then the petition should not be sent back, rather the applicant should be told to provide more evidence. But, if the consular officer has obtained information in the course of processing the visa application that was not available to the USCIS when the USCIS was processing the petition, then the petition should be sent back to the USCIS with the new information for reconsideration.

Yodrak

Yodrak, I agree with you on this. But I think the beef here is that the CO is not giving visa applicants a chance to rectify and provide further evidence regarding their visa applications before arbitrarily sending the petitions back to USCIS. You yourself mentioned that your wife visa application was placed on 221(g). Imagine if you will that instead of allowing you and your wife time to consult an attorney and provide further documents, the CO just send your petition back to USCIS with a recommendation for revocation.

But instead you were allowed time to rectify the problem and your wife received her visa. This practice of allowing visa applicants time to further submit evidence and documents is not written in law, but widely condone. And it should be so. If every denial resulted in petitions being sent back to USCIS, then USCIS will never get any work done.

But you are correct that a CO only has to cite the underlying law for denial. It's up to the applicant to submit enough evidence to overcome the denial.

By law, the only time a visa applicant has a chance to make his case is when he applies for a visa, which is at the interview. So visa applicants should prepare as much as possible at the interview and do not expect to be allowed to submit additional evidence after the interview. Any forbearance is at the discretion of the CO and the consulate.

Morocco,

The consular officer is not denying you any right to be with your loved one. They are denying your loved one the ability to immigrate to the USA, which is something that person does not have any right to. Meanwhile, you have the right to go be with your loved one anywhere that will have you.

Agreed, the consular officer cannot act on suspicions, and I have been remiss in giving that impression. Whike the consular officer is required to give the visa applicant the reason for visa denial they are not required to give the detail underlying the decision. They are following their guidelines by not doing so. As I posted earlier to Jenn by way of analogy, when a consular officer has reason to believe that a visa applicant is trying to commit visa fraud to enter the USA illegaly, they are not required, nor should they be required, to tell such person what they can do to be successful in their fraud.

By sending the petition back to the USCIS, with the reasons why they are doing so, they are giving the visa applicant an opportunity to have the case and the evidence reviewed once again by a different set of eyes. If the USCIS believes that the consular officer has made an error, the USCIS will re-affirm the petition approval and send it back to the consulate. Sending the petition back to the USCIS is not the end of the road, although it does make the trip longer.

As I have also posted, when one knows that they are dealing with a consulate that takes a particularly hard look at its cases, one is being 'penny-wise and pound-foolish' to not seek the aid of an immigration lawyer who has experience dealing with the consulate in question. It's no guarantee of immediate success, but it sure will improve the presentation and change the odds.

Yodrak

[Jenn! 918]

That being said, even the issue of bonafide relationship does not always result in the petition being sent back. If it's simply that the bonafides have not been proved then the petition should not be sent back, rather the applicant should be told to provide more evidence. But, if the consular officer has obtained information in the course of processing the visa application that was not available to the USCIS when the USCIS was processing the petition, then the petition should be sent back to the USCIS with the new information for reconsideration.

Yodrak

I fully agree with you, Yodrak. Unfortunately, cases where evidence of a bonafide relationship are not sufficient to meet the standards of the Moroccan consulate ARE being sent back to the U.S. without an opportunity for the applicant to provide more evidence.

I am unaware of whether the COs processing such cases have discovered new information since the approval of the 129F by the USCIS. In such a circumstance, I agree that the petition should be returned.

I am glad that I was not aware of the reputation Morocco has as a high-fraud country, particularly when the male is the beneficiary. Had I known of such issues, I think I would have been a nervous wreck, despite the fact that my relationship is legitimate (I do realize that most everyone feels their relationship is legitimate and could potentially be unaware of a fraud situation). I would not wanting to be trying to get a K1 out of Casablanca these days...

[Yodrak 7]

Mary,

I wish I could answer that question for you, but I cannot. As Morocco4ever correctly points out, I don't know the detailed particulars of her - or your - situation and neither does anyone else on an internet board such as VJ.

I can say this about what more the consular officers are looking for - they are looking for things that confirm the bonafides of the relationship on the part of the visa applicant. Let's examine the things that you list in your post.

- your son has drawn pictures for you husband and mailed them to him. This says something about your son's feelings for your husband - but what does it say about your husband's interest in you and your son? How does your son drawing pictures show that your husband isn't using you to get a visa?

- e-mails, message printouts, letters, phone bills, and cards show that you and your husband communicate. Communication is important in a bonafide relationship, but communication also exists in a relationship that is not bonafide. How does the existance of these things necessarily mean anything more than that you husband is willing to invest the time and effort in communicating with you? Perhaps he is doing it because he has sincere feeling for a bonafide relationship, or perhaps he is doing it in the hopes of fooling you and the US consulate into believing that he has sincere feelings so that he can get a visa. You believe the former, the consulate either isn't yet convinced or perhaps they see other things that convice them the latter is the truth of the situation.

- Pictures of your wedding and honeymoon are good, the marriage certificate even better, but the fact that you're married is apparently not the issue - it's understood that you are. The issue is, why did your husband marry you? Pictures and certificates don't answer that critical question.

- he's answered all the questions "correctly". So he's done his homework. That doesn't answer the core question - why has he done his homework? Has he done it because he has a bonafide relationship with you, or has he done it because he wants a visa?

As to the sponsor - the consular officer's concern is valid. The consular officer needs to be comfortable that the sponsor will put out the money should the need arise, not just be willing to sign the paper and then keep the purse strings tied once the alien has arrived in the USA. It's one thing for a friend to make a promise, it's another for that friend to put out real money - there's more than an ocassional cup of coffee at stake here.

The best evidence is the visa applicant themself, standing before and interacting with the consular officer. The officer may well have an opinion formed based on the documentary evidence that is available prior to the interview. At the interview, the officer will be looking for things that will confirm or counter that opinion. Documentary evidence of any kind can be easily manufactured, its the applicant themself who will make the final difference.

My advice - as I have posted several times now - is to find a US immigration lawyer who

- knows Morocco,

- has experience with the consulate in Morocco,

- knows the consular officers at the consulate in Morocco,

- has a feel for what 'flies' and what doesn't with the individual officers and the consulate in general,

- and can sit down with your husband to delve into all aspects of your situation and relationship.

Such a person will then be able to advise you how to best deal with the situation your find yourself in.

Best wishes for a successful conclusion.

Yodrak

Alright....I'll take that into consideration. NOW the question is for me and my husband....HOW or WHAT [/b] evidence should be gathered for preperaring for ROUND 2? He had e-mails, YMESSENGER print-outs, copies of my phone bills, letters from me and Cards from me and my son, and pics that my son had drawn for him and mailed to him. My husband also answered all of her questions correctly. He first had the interview in English and then had the exact same questions in Arabic[w/translotor] he gave the same answers and even corrected the translator when she tried to say my parents were still liveing[they died several years ago]. He Also had a photo album with pics of our wedding and honeymoon and from this summer...the ones from this sumer were dated thanks to the camera I have.

What more could they be looking for? I truely believe that the decision for my case was made long before he had his interview. OH! This woman also questionsd him about my co-sponsor and why would someone who doesn't know him do that? He told her because tey are friends of mine. That's all they should have needed to know....the people know me....End of story.....but evidently not.

Any suggestions and advice will be helpful and taken into consideration.

Mary K.

Jenn,

Given your second statement, I don't see how you can make the first statement.

And that is one of the points I have been trying to make. People are assuming that the first statement is correct and are acting accordingly. But if it's not correct they are attacking the wrong problem and that leaves the real problem unanswered.

Yodrak

... Unfortunately, cases where evidence of a bonafide relationship are not sufficient to meet the standards of the Moroccan consulate ARE being sent back to the U.S. without an opportunity for the applicant to provide more evidence.

I am unaware of whether the COs processing such cases have discovered new information since the approval of the 129F by the USCIS. In such a circumstance, I agree that the petition should be returned.

...

Edited March 2, 2006 by Yodrak

[Jenn! 918]

Sounds advice, Yodrak.

I think that what this all comes down to. If you want a family-based visa through Morocco, be prepared to hire an attorney.

Jenn,

Given your second statement, I don't see how you can make the first statement.

Yodrak

... Unfortunately, cases where evidence of a bonafide relationship are not sufficient to meet the standards of the Moroccan consulate ARE being sent back to the U.S. without an opportunity for the applicant to provide more evidence.

I am unaware of whether the COs processing such cases have discovered new information since the approval of the 129F by the USCIS. In such a circumstance, I agree that the petition should be returned.

...

What I mean is that the USCIS and the Moroccan consulate are not in the business of judging the same things. USICS judges whether there has been a meeting in the past two years. If the consulate somehow determines, by the receipt of new information, that, in fact, the couple did NOT meet within the past two years, then by all means, the petition should be returned.

If, instead, the consulate decides that the petitioner has not proved that the relationship is bonafide, even though they do not dispute the USCIS's decision that the petitioner was eligible to APPLY for the visa, then the CO should provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present more evidence as to the validity of the relationship.

[Yodrak 7]

Jenn,

Thanks for the clarification, I now understand what you were thinking.

And I agree that if the visa applicant has simply failed to show a bonafide relationship they should be given an opportunity to provide more evidence. That is different from the consulate having evidence that it believes shows the relationship is not bonafide. In the former case a decision cannot yet be made on the visa application, in the latter case a decision can be and has been made.

Yodrak

What I mean is that the USCIS and the Moroccan consulate are not in the business of judging the same things. USICS judges whether there has been a meeting in the past two years. If the consulate somehow determines, by the receipt of new information, that, in fact, the couple did NOT meet within the past two years, then by all means, the petition should be returned.

If, instead, the consulate decides that the petitioner has not proved that the relationship is bonafide, even though they do not dispute the USCIS's decision that the petitioner was eligible to APPLY for the visa, then the CO should provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present more evidence as to the validity of the relationship.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Yodrak

[Jenn! 918]

Jenn,

Thanks for the clarification, I now understand what you were thinking.

And I agree that if the visa applicant has simply failed to show a bonafide relationship they should be given an opportunity to provide more evidence. That is different from the consulate having evidence that it believes shows the relationship is not bonafide. In the former case a decision cannot yet be made on the visa application, in the latter case a decision can be and has been made.

Yodrak