My wife was wrongly denied - what can I do?

[RhettVoe 282]

I must be missing something....on average, who knows more about this entire process...? A CO, who has had the training and experience with these matters, or some random person who is involved with the process one and only one time in his or her life?

Easy answer.

All of you who think or believe you know more than any CO should stop by the DoS in Washington DC, present yourselves as the quintessential Subject Matter Experts on these things, and wait for them to offer you a job as their Grand Adjudicator, All Knowing and Omniscient Consular Big Cheese. (I don't think that will happen).

Many of you have overlooked something...when an immigrant visa case is denied, that denial has to be reviewed by a senior consular officer and/or the Consul General. Now, that individual has considerable experience with these issues....and I really doubt that any poster on this site has vastly more knowledge about our immigration laws and requirements than those who have actually been working in this field for years. If the senior consular official does not agree with the denial, they provide additional instruction to the more junior CO, to collect whatever may be needed, or do another interview, or something, in order to bring the case to a certain level. In CDJ, the people in the IV section have beaucoup years of experience in immigrant visas, because that is just about the #1 embassy in the world in terms of volume, and expertise.

[Boiler 47,483]

Then why did they get it so wrong?

[CIrcle110 10]

Then why did they get it so wrong?

Thank you, Boiler.

But in any case, we're taking the path of least resistance. No sense trying to explain to the "experts" that they goofed up. I have a certain insight into this situation since my entire professional career has been advising government agencies on how to clean up and streamline their convoluted processes using computer systems. This is a major case in point.

DCF is for people who have residency overseas but are now returning to the US with a spouse they married while abroad. Almost all of them are in a similar position to me. Either they lived off of assets while overseas (like me), or they had a job in the foreign country. However, the previous year's income from a job in the foreign land is not allowed to qualify since the foreign income won't travel with them to the US, so their last year's taxes won't help them. We sabbatical/pretirement folks didn't have income while abroad because we didn't need it due to our financial resources. That's why they created a qualification by assets - precisely for people in our situation. Lotta good it has done us. :S

Yes, CDJ is the #1 place for resident visas but 99.999% of the applicants have petitioners that are Mexican nationals who are now US permanent residents or naturalized citizens and have lived and worked in the US for years and are now bringing in their family. They are not moderately well off US natives who took a sabbatical for a few years, got married and then accepted a job back in the USA. That's why there is confusion.

Our case is a pretty unique for those "experts", so they didn't want to hear about the gringo that took a 5 year "pretirement" and is now returning to the US. They just want to apply the regulations that they were taught to use and apply 99.999% of the time. So, in a zen sort of way, we decided to behave like the cattails and bend with the wind instead of trying to resist it and running the risk of breaking.

[RhettVoe 282]

'apply the regulations' is exactly the point, not 'bend the regulations' to suit one person who thinks he knows more than they do. So you are claiming you know more than any CO about the rules and regulations surrounding immigrant visas? Out of curiosity, how did you come by that vast knowledge?

[Boiler 47,483]

He meets the income requirements.

He meets the asset requirements.

So what is the issue?

[RhettVoe 282]

Apparently not. However, if you called CDJ and told them you know better than they do, gee, I guess they would slap their foreheads in dismay and issue the visa.....maybe.

[Boiler 47,483]

So what is it that they know better?

[RhettVoe 282]

Why not give them a call tomorrow, tell them who you are and why they are wrong? What do you have to lose? I mean really, if you honestly believe you are right and they are wrong, then why not make even a token effort to see justice done? A phone call is free. No doubt the embassy operator would put you through immediately to the consul general....and everyone will live happily ever after. I think they open around 8:30 am.

[Boiler 47,483]

I can not wait until tomorrow, I want to know now!

How about a clue?

[RhettVoe 282]

202-647-4000

[Darnell 8,479]

CLueing via Consular Affairs/DC district?

ok... sweet, but ok...

[RhettVoe 282]

No doubt the Bureau of Consular Affairs will be tripping over themselves to hear what certain 'experts' have to say....yet, neither of them appear motivated to make a simple phone call....

[Boiler 47,483]

We have you to tell us.

[CIrcle110 10]

Why not give them a call tomorrow, tell them who you are and why they are wrong? What do you have to lose? I mean really, if you honestly believe you are right and they are wrong, then why not make even a token effort to see justice done? A phone call is free. No doubt the embassy operator would put you through immediately to the consul general....and everyone will live happily ever after. I think they open around 8:30 am.

I actually did return and speak with them yesterday (BTW, they open at 7:30, not 8:30) and everyone there agrees that I meet the official requirements 100% and that our case should have been decided differently. However, they can't review the cases once they are initially decided so we are out of luck. The only way to get a review to happen is to go through the State Department in Washington.

I came by my "vast" knowledge by reading the instructions and regulations that they have posted in several places on the State Department website. Those instructions are very specific and clear and I way, way over qualify and have the appropriate documentation as requested in those regulations.

Plus, your comment about making an "exception" in our case is ridiculous. We aren't asking for an exception, just asking that they apply the regulations that they give you when you apply. If I would have known that they don't accept assets nor current income and only go by the last 1040, or if I would have though that our case was going to be a close call in any way I would have sought a joint sponsor before applying to avoid this headache.

[RhettVoe 282]

Who is 'everyone'?