Embassy won't accept our I-824

[GnG 0]

This might be a long story, but if anyone can follow it through and give us any advice, we'd really appreciate it!

The NVC erroneously sent our case file to Ciudad Juarez instead of London. (It had processed and acknowledged in writing a change of address, but then ignored it.) Then Ciudad Juarez insisted that it had no knowledge of our case file.

The USCIS advised us that because our petition had been approved, we should pay $200 for an I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition. The USCIS explained that the I-824 confirms petition approval and contains photocopies of all the documents that we originally submitted with our I-129F, therefore London would be able to process our case with the I-824 alone.

In late September, the USCIS approved the I-824 and sent it to London. The very same day, Ciudad Juarez finally found the original case file and sent it to London.

The London Immigration Visa Unit has received the I-824, but refuses even to begin to process our case until it receives the original case. But London says that Ciudad Juarez may have sent our case file in the diplomatic pouch via Washington DC and that this could take up to three months.

The USCIS says London should use the I-824 to immediately begin processing our application. But it says it has no capacity to communicate directly with an embassy. It told us to contact the State Department, but State says each consular mission is free to process visa applications however they see fit.

So it seems that 1. it will take up to four months for our case file to go from the NVC to London (according to visajourney's statistics, this normally takes six days); and 2. we have paid the USCIS $200 for something it cannot deliver.

We're pissed off about 2., but we can stomach it. The desperate thing is 1. Coming after five months' extra processing time for IMBRA, another four months' unnecessary processing time feels like being kicked when we're down.

Can anyone suggest a way out of this situation?

Thanks - and thanks for reading all the way through this!

GnG

[kitkat1 5]

Don't have a way out for you - but I would start by contacting your state senator via their website and privacy form. Once you fax over the form and your story, find out who is assigned to you case and call to follow up so you can make sure they are doing something. Good luck.

[Yodrak 7]

GnG,

Agree that #1 is the issue that needs to be dealt with, hopefully you just haven't found the right people in the IV unit at the consular section in London or at DoS stateside who can tell you what you want to hear and make it happen. Keep looking. Getting an elected official, as kitkat suggests, may help. A US immigration attorney practising in London may also help (more expensive than the elected official, but possibly faster acting as well). Either of these two might know who the 'right people' are.

With respect to #2, CIS delivered precisely what you paid for.

Yodrak

....

So it seems that 1. it will take up to four months for our case file to go from the NVC to London (according to visajourney's statistics, this normally takes six days); and 2. we have paid the USCIS $200 for something it cannot deliver.

We're pissed off about 2., but we can stomach it. The desperate thing is 1. Coming after five months' extra processing time for IMBRA, another four months' unnecessary processing time feels like being kicked when we're down.

....

GnG

Edited November 2, 2006 by Yodrak

[GnG 0]

With respect to #2, CIS delivered precisely what you paid for.

Hardly. USCIS told us we should pay for the I-824 because (according to USCIS) London would use it in lieu of the original case file. We paid; the USCIS approved the I-824; London refuses to use it. Did the USCIS deliver the I-824? Yes. Did it deliver what we paid for/what the USCIS told us we were getting for our money? No.

And that's the infuriating thing: the USCIS charged us $200 for an I-824 (so that we could overcome *its* mistake, not ours), when there is no mechanism or policy in place to ensure a consular mission will accept it.

But thanks for the tips about elected officials and lawyers, that looks like our next step.

[Yodrak 7]

GnG,

What you paid for was the I-824. Nothing more. And that is what USCIS delivered. Nothing more.

If USCIS led you to have different expectations, well you've learned why a person should consult with knowledgeable attornies rather than the USCIS if one has questions. Or VJ if you prefer. USCIS is not responsible for the consequences of any mis-information that its' employees disseminate. (Neither are VJers.)

Yodrak

With respect to #2, CIS delivered precisely what you paid for.

Hardly. USCIS told us we should pay for the I-824 because (according to USCIS) London would use it in lieu of the original case file. We paid; the USCIS approved the I-824; London refuses to use it. Did the USCIS deliver the I-824? Yes. Did it deliver what we paid for/what the USCIS told us we were getting for our money? No.

....

[GnG 0]

What you paid for was the I-824. Nothing more. And that is what USCIS delivered. Nothing more.

If USCIS led you to have different expectations, well you've learned why a person should consult with knowledgeable attornies rather than the USCIS if one has questions. Or VJ if you prefer. USCIS is not responsible for the consequences of any mis-information that its' employees disseminate. (Neither are VJers.)

We couldn't disagree more. 'What we paid for' was - according to a USCIS customer service operator, a USCIS customer service supervisor and a USCIS immigration officer - a document that a consular mission should accept in lieu of an original approved case file. (Note also the title of the I-824: Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition.) The USCIS did not deliver what it told us we were getting.

Your argument that we have no legitimate grievance in this matter is unusual. If a washing powder guarantees it will leave your whites whiter than white, you buy it and find it does nothing, is it your fault for not consulting a cleaning products expert beforehand? Trading-standards legislation in the US prohibits 'guarantees' like that on the basis that you have to provide what you claim to be providing. The fact that a material good has changed hands is not enough. (If it were, people would still be selling snake oil and magic beans.)

As for your argument that the USCIS should not be relied upon... No - people should be able to rely on a government agency, especially if it is evident (as in our case) that the information being given out is not the opinion of a single employee, but the clear position of the entire agency. Sure, hire a lawyer if you need help understanding or acting on the information. But here the information was straightforward, easy to understand, easy to follow ... and wrong. This is not a matter of arcane legal subtleties that can only be navigated by expert lawyers.

And your argument that the USCIS is not responsible for the information it gives out... Again, let's keep in mind the information was not the mistaken opinion of an errant employee - it is the policy position of the entire agency. Is our situation the consequence of the information the USCIS gave us? Yes. So, yes, it is responsible.

Maybe you meant to say the USCIS is not legally responsible, ie. accountable, for information it gives out. Well, the general principle that government is accountable to the people is well-established in the US. It's enforcing accountability that's difficult. Does the USCIS have some kind of legal disclaimer we're not aware of that accompanies all information given out?

[Yodrak 7]

GnG,

It's not my arguement, it's a decision of the Supreme Court. Google the newsgroup <alt.visa.us.marriage-based> for posts by folinskyinla on the subject if you are interested in an authoritative opinion on the subject.

In any event, I apologize for distracting you from the more important issue at hand - finding someone at the consular section in London who will pick up that I-824 file and act on it. Best wishes for success with that.

Yodrak

....

And your argument that the USCIS is not responsible for the information it gives out... Again, let's keep in mind the information was not the mistaken opinion of an errant employee - it is the policy position of the entire agency. Is our situation the consequence of the information the USCIS gave us? Yes. So, yes, it is responsible.

Maybe you meant to say the USCIS is not legally responsible, ie. accountable, for information it gives out. Well, the general principle that government is accountable to the people is well-established in the US. It's enforcing accountability that's difficult. Does the USCIS have some kind of legal disclaimer we're not aware of that accompanies all information given out?

[GnG 0]

Yodruk,

Thanks for the good wishes, we appreciate it. Yes, if someone in London's IVU would pick up our I-824 and process it, that would be fantastic. Sadly, so far we have only been told that the IVU refuses to do so - with no reason given to explain why not.

And many thanks for the information about the Supreme Court ruling, I followed it up. Yes, the issue of the USCIS' control (or otherwise) of visa processing is a secondary one. But in case you're interested...

The Supreme Court ruling on Schweiker v Hansen is here: www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/oasi/09/SSR83-39-oasi-09.html. Folinskyinla is right when he says the ruling means an employee of a government agency cannot be held accountable for failing to give complete or accurate information.

(The Supreme Court ruling justifies this on the grounds that this would prompt too many lawsuits, costing too much money - the ruling prioritizes federal legislation requiring judicial costs to be restricted.)

But our case is different on three counts.

First, we weren't mislead by a single employee - we spoke to three people on three different clerical levels. That raises the question of whether we dealt with an individual employee or with the non-personal legal entity of the USCIS. If the latter, this is not covered by the Schweiker ruling.

Second, we weren't actually misled - we were accurately told what the USCIS' policy is. (The USCIS truly believes a consular mission should process an I-824.)

Third, the Supreme Court ruled against the claimant in part because they had failed to file a written application at the appropriate time. In contrast, we have complied with every necessary procedural requirement.

$200 isn't a big sum and not worth the trouble to try to recoup it. We're not planning on suing the government to get it back. But if we did? Well, it's not certain what the outcome would be.