Visa Denied because I am ugly???

[indiana_sweetie 120]

I'm no expert but I've read here on VJ, the suggestion to back and get married after a failed K1

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Are you inferring that a CR-1 is harder to deny/more easy to defend because there is a legal, marital union established between the petitioner and beneficiary? I've always wondered about this. I mean, they really would be no sense in telling someone "your wife is too beautiful for you" because you're already married and are thus a legal entity thereafter. Am I making sense?

The simple answer is no. A I-130 petition cannot expire so if the visa is denied the I-130 petitioner gets a chance to rebut the findings when the I-130 is revoked. So in that sense it has more staying power. A I-129F just expires most of the time, so people can try again.

But a lot of people think marriage is a stronger immigration case so they get a meaningless marriage and think it is the key to a visa. It's not. You still have to prove a bona fide marriage and relationship. The fact that two people are legally joined is not that meaningful for someone wanting to commit fraud, unfortunately.

[indiana_sweetie 120]

But a lot of people think marriage is a stronger immigration case so they get a meaningless marriage and think it is the key to a visa. It's not. You still have to prove a bona fide marriage and relationship. The fact that two people are legally joined is not that meaningful for someone wanting to commit fraud, unfortunately.

Good point. However I thought it was a stronger immigration case. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's only cheaper.

[David & Diana R 1,005]

The simple answer is no. A I-130 petition cannot expire so if the visa is denied the I-130 petitioner gets a chance to rebut the findings when the I-130 is revoked. So in that sense it has more staying power. A I-129F just expires most of the time, so people can try again.

But a lot of people think marriage is a stronger immigration case so they get a meaningless marriage and think it is the key to a visa. It's not. You still have to prove a bona fide marriage and relationship. The fact that two people are legally joined is not that meaningful for someone wanting to commit fraud, unfortunately.

And with all due respect I think wedding photos, expenses are a big part of the required proof of a bonafide relationship...just saying. In the end it is up to someone in the embassy to decide if a relationship is real. I know in Manila they have many cameras watching people as they wait and it is suggested that perhaps embassy employees are watching the interaction, or lack thereof of persons waiting for an interview. So if that is true it is also possible that the fiance or spouse appearing at the interview is a plus. I was there with my wife and we were both sworn in. I am 36 years older than my 20 year old Filipina wife and I am pretty sure my being there and us having hundreds of wedding photos could not have hurt us. Even after the American consular asked me, "So your son is almost twice the age of your new wife?" I answered in the affirmitive and after a few tense seconds the officer said, " Congratulations maam, your visa is approved." Had I not been present at the interview and were we not married might things have been different, I think so. But that is just my humble opinion.

Aloha Ke Akua

[Juliet and Steve 93]

Are you inferring that a CR-1 is harder to deny/more easy to defend because there is a legal, marital union established between the petitioner and beneficiary? I've always wondered about this. I mean, they really would be no sense in telling someone "your wife is too beautiful for you" because you're already married and are thus a legal entity thereafter. Am I making sense?

Yup. That's what I had in mind. It seems to me that often the answer here in VJ has been "if you fail on K1--get married and they'll accept you then."

Now Harpah Timsah threw in a curve--but I heard nothing about it being "your evidence shows a lack of relationship." With adequate proof of relationship it seems to me that ugliness gets thrown out as in impediment--it's a done deal--they are married.

Therefore the ugly part no longer matters.

It's sort of a circular argument though--if the petitioner is too ugly for the petitionee and they go and get married I suppose that a consular could say: "it's fraud, because you're too ugly to marry," but the consular official really did not accuse fraud... or maybe they did.

I dunno... the whole thing makes my head hurt. Poor OP I can imagine if it makes my head hurt thinking about it...it must be rough.

[indiana_sweetie 120]

I feel bad for the OP. His head must be really hurting! Beauty (and handsomeness) are in the eye of the beholder.

[clairegie 265]

Again, CALL the consulate. Find out if she really showed up. I don't know why you still haven't done this. You already spent 35 mins to get your KEV number and you do nothing with it? First you said you will call the consulate, now you say you will write a letter instead? And on the letter you didn't include the KEV #... ?! For someone who wanted quick answers, you seem like you are avoiding getting them tbh. and now she's suddenly a little harder to reach...

http://www.visajourney.com/consulates/index.php?ctry=Ukraine&cty=Kiev

The contact numbers are on this page

I know people are shocked by the idea of a person being denied because of physical appearances. But CLEARLY that's not the real reason she was denied. At most, its her making this up. Get over it please.

Edited September 26, 2013 by iammrsregi

[r060106 109]

The simple answer is no. A I-130 petition cannot expire so if the visa is denied the I-130 petitioner gets a chance to rebut the findings when the I-130 is revoked. So in that sense it has more staying power. A I-129F just expires most of the time, so people can try again.

But a lot of people think marriage is a stronger immigration case so they get a meaningless marriage and think it is the key to a visa. It's not. You still have to prove a bona fide marriage and relationship. The fact that two people are legally joined is not that meaningful for someone wanting to commit fraud, unfortunately.

I was speaking as if the marriage was bona fide, obviously. All I was asking was is the CR-1 harder to deny on weird grounds like "you're too ugly" because of a legal, bona fide marital union.

Yup. That's what I had in mind. It seems to me that often the answer here in VJ has been "if you fail on K1--get married and they'll accept you then."

Now Harpah Timsah threw in a curve--but I heard nothing about it being "your evidence shows a lack of relationship." With adequate proof of relationship it seems to me that ugliness gets thrown out as in impediment--it's a done deal--they are married.

Therefore the ugly part no longer matters.

It's sort of a circular argument though--if the petitioner is too ugly for the petitionee and they go and get married I suppose that a consular could say: "it's fraud, because you're too ugly to marry," but the consular official really did not accuse fraud... or maybe they did.

I dunno... the whole thing makes my head hurt. Poor OP I can imagine if it makes my head hurt thinking about it...it must be rough.

well said.

[AmyWrites 593]

Folks, if you could deny visas based on ugliness, then pretty much all visa applicants from RUB countries, Thailand, Philipines; ie. anywhere American men go to marry younger women, would be denied.

[David & Diana R 1,005]

Folks, if you could deny visas based on ugliness, then pretty much all visa applicants from RUB countries, Thailand, Philipines; ie. anywhere American men go to marry younger women, would be denied.

Are you kidding me? When I went to the Philippines I was a handsome, dashing, funny millionaire. hahahaha

[David & Diana R 1,005]

Folks, if you could deny visas based on ugliness, then pretty much all visa applicants from RUB countries, Thailand, Philipines; ie. anywhere American men go to marry younger women, would be denied.

Oh, and one more thing. I did not go to the Philippines to marry a younger woman. I went to the Philippines to meet in person the girl I fell in live with on-line. Yes, she's 36 years younger than me but we are so in love and are now together in the US. I am living the dream, married to a beautiful Filipina that is so beautiful inside that she glows.

I did not mean for this to sound snarky. If it does I apologize.

Aloha Ke Akua

Edited September 26, 2013 by David & Zoila

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

I read the entire thread and want to add the following about marrying and filing a CR1.

Yes, a CR1 is a bit of a stronger visa type than a K1 if you provide the needed proof that it is a genuine marriage and not a sham marriage.

There are thousands of sham marriages out there they have to sift through.

In your case you know now that you have to understand what the 'real' reason for refusal is.

If she has misrepresented herself ( I am using this just for an example) the denial will be

written on a 221g paper that she says she didn't get. I know you will verify that with the consulate.

Here is my point, IF she was not approved due to misrepresentation then a CR1 will not be as easy as you think to further shed light on the "just get married advice".

Rule a possible misrepresentation out before you make a decision to marry and take time to think about it.

Here is why, a waiver for misrepresentation is very difficult, it is not just a simple form you hand them.

A lie on a form or a previous form she may have submitted years ago (perhaps unbeknownst to you) is misrepresentation which carries

a life time ban.

All data is crossed checked.

Filing a waiver is something you do need a lawyer for, it's not a do it yourself thing.

Fees for a lawyer for a waiver are an average of $4000-$6000.
It is a big undertaking.
You will have to overcome the obstacle she was denied for, be it engaged or married.

My point is filing a CR1 when denied a K1 does not work as easily in some cases, it just depends on the reason for denial and therefore

the need to search it out.

The reason for refusal may be the speculation and assumption of the CO's stupid perception of your looks but the written reason would be worded 'for immigration purposes only' in other words they may believe she is marrying you to get to the USA.

Something caused the CO to see a 'fraud indicator' and he was not comfortable approving.

Age difference, beauty and the beast issues can be a fraud indicator but the denial would be based on the

general ' for immigration benefits only' or not 'convinced of a genuine relationship' reason which is a huge umbrella under which all this crazy age, looks, fat, skinny mismatched couples discrimination sits. Unfair, but a fact that can start the ball rolling towards a refusal.

They make a biased assumption and then justify it as " for immigration purposes only" on paper. You will not see 'ugly' written down and therefore

it would be difficult to proof in court that he really said that to her. They will just say not enough relationship proof even though you submitted

a truck load.

If I were you I would demand to speak to the consular section chief and complain of this discrimination if you are sure it really happened.
Call NVC and DOS. File a FOIA request to find out the real reason if nobody will tell you.
The absence of a 221g paper makes no sense. She should have received one.
Get your senator involved asap and request through him a second interview. If the case is still at the embassy maybe they will, if it has been returned to USCIS they won't. It will die the death of expiration. Tell your senator all details and to act fast. Time is of the essence here.

I am sorry this has happened to you and I know your head must be spinning. I pray you gain clarity.

I am sorry that some members called you a troll, their own small world perspective of how things should be does not match up to real life.

Life itself often paints a picture wilder than novels and movies but it takes a certain kind of life experience to understand that.

And yes....CO's have said much worse things than what is described here. Nothing surprises me anymore. CO's are people not

perfect government robots that never malfunction.

[AmyWrites 593]

Oh, and one more thing. I did not go to the Philippines to marry a younger woman. I went to the Philippines to meet in person the girl I fell in live with on-line. Yes, she's 36 years younger than me but we are so in love and are now together in the US. I am living the dream, married to a beautiful Filipina that is so beautiful inside that she glows.

I did not mean for this to sound snarky. If it does I apologize.

Aloha Ke Akua

I'm not saying you're not in love... what I mean is, a younger woman will always seem too attractive for an older guy. It's not a reason for denial.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I was speaking as if the marriage was bona fide, obviously. All I was asking was is the CR-1 harder to deny on weird grounds like "you're too ugly" because of a legal, bona fide marital union.

But, you see, you cannot deny a K-1 visa because someone is ugly, either. If you have a bona fide relationship or marriage, supplied the necessary documents, and are not otherwise inadmissible you will be approved.

People suggest after a failed K-1 to get married because it shows that you are serious and pursuing your relationship anyway. Not because if you get married you get a visa. A married case after a failed K-1 will have to address the issue that caused the K-1 to be denied in the first place. if they don't address that issue they will be denied again.

[r060106 109]

But, you see, you cannot deny a K-1 visa because someone is ugly, either. If you have a bona fide relationship or marriage, supplied the necessary documents, and are not otherwise inadmissible you will be approved.

People suggest after a failed K-1 to get married because it shows that you are serious and pursuing your relationship anyway. Not because if you get married you get a visa. A married case after a failed K-1 will have to address the issue that caused the K-1 to be denied in the first place. if they don't address that issue they will be denied again.

Yes, I understand that and was just clarifying my initial position.