Appeal denial ok K1 visa

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

here it is.... it is in French

Ta da it is also blank

Get some sleep. Talk to your fiance and let us know what the senator will find out.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

there

Yep, it's a g !

It says as previously stated "for immigration benefits only" and no other boxes are marked. It shows it is dated before the interview

took place

Edited May 29, 2014 by Ebunoluwa

[Boiler 43,883]

The Intern will be told what has been stated.

I think there is probably enough info in this thread to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Boiler

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

Exactly, He went to the interview and she told what happened and posted what the paper's 221(g) said. It was what most everyone following this thread from the beginning thought. The CO used the engagement date basically as an excuse and used the broad response of 'for immigration purposes only'. All these questions that were already answered and the derailment of the issue are not going to help the OP get this settled. It is just confusing things, being repetitive and going around in circles.

Yes, there is no 221 B, which is why that response just confused things more. Muddying up the waters is not needed.

Good luck to you. Rbssteph!

[RP&SP 8]

sorry that's what I've been trying to explain but I had to find a way to add it here because I was not home and couldn't do it over the phone that's why I had said earlier will do when I get home but I guess that didn't help much. hopefully everyone could see now

[RP&SP 8]

Exactly, He went to the interview and she told what happened and posted what the paper's 221(g) said. It was what most everyone following this thread from the beginning thought. The CO used the engagement date basically as an excuse and used the broad response of 'for immigration purposes only'. All these questions that were already answered and the derailment of the issue are not going to help the OP get this settled. It is just confusing things, being repetitive and going around in circles.

Yes, there is no 221 B, which is why that response just confused things more. Muddying up the waters is not needed.

Good luck to you. Rbssteph!

so with that being said the question is can I appeal it or do I start over?

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

so with that being said the question is can I appeal it or do I start over?

This advice from Ebunoluwa was really good, before you decide to re-file for a K-1 or marry and go for a CR-1 > http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/498216-appeal-denial-ok-k1-visa/?p=7037460

[rmarkwallace 7]

221 B is the section of the Immigration law that deals with time frames for resolution of cases. It provides for incomplete applications being denied for being incomplete (extraneous commentary removed - VJ Moderation. ) She told me off line that she talked to a lawyer who said that it is best to let it go and refile. She is going to use a lawyer. I am not sure that the beneficiary is clear what happened. Not everybody should handle a petition themselves. The lawyer, starting with a clean filing, will see what is going on and, if there are issues, will know how to answer the questions before they get asked. That is the real secret. Anticipate problems and answer them in the filing so that the petition only has to be read once at each stop and approved, rather than having them constantly asking for more information that the petitioner and/or beneficiary isn't completely clear about what is being asked for.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove unnecessary extraneous commentary

[rmarkwallace 7]

I did read the entire thread and it mostly indicated that the real issue hadn't been identified. An examiner would be reprimanded for even asking about an engagement other than for establishing the legitimacy of the relationship. An engagement would only be relevant in that they are suspicious of relationships that violate local cultural norms. (extraneous, off topic commentary has been removed - VJ Moderation) They handle the interview differently in different countries because of local practices and I don't think that her beneficiary ever knew what hit him. The hearing was only a day or two ago.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove unnecessary extraneous commentary

[Boiler 43,883]

It was 221 G not B, certainly on my computer screen it is clear.

My French is rusty, but it says what I would expect it to say. The OP has described the situation pretty well.

[MIDUVIL 34]

221 B is the section of the Immigration law that deals with time frames for resolution of cases. It provides for incomplete applications being denied for being incomplete . . . , (extraneous commentary removed - VJ Moderation) She told me off line that she talked to a lawyer who said that it is best to let it go and refile. She is going to use a lawyer. I am not sure that the beneficiary is clear what happened. Not everybody should handle a petition themselves. The lawyer, starting with a clean filing, will see what is going on and, if there are issues, will know how to answer the questions before they get asked. That is the real secret. Anticipate problems and answer them in the filing so that the petition only has to be read once at each stop and approved, rather than having them constantly asking for more information that the petitioner and/or beneficiary isn't completely clear about what is being asked for.

Why don't you check the scan? it's written 221(g).

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41

[rmarkwallace 7]

I stand corrected. Section 221 G deals with administrative procedures on the handling of petitions. It was a typo, But it does not address the issue of engagements.. Moreover, the petitioner already sees the need for getting a lawyer. That I strongly support because there is now a denial on file that Immigration is liable to bring up. Your previous petitions are considered relevant when you file a new petition. Immigration can take a pattern of frivolous or fraudulent applications in the past into consideration when considering a new petition.

Edited May 29, 2014 by rmarkwallace

[belinda63 2,990]

OMG.....just go visit the person again, have lots of evidence of a relationship. Marry would be better. Refile. Appeal takes forever and will be unlikely to work.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

I did read the entire thread and it mostly indicated that the real issue hadn't been identified. An examiner would be reprimanded for even asking about an engagement other than for establishing the legitimacy of the relationship. An engagement would only be relevant in that they are suspicious of relationships that violate local cultural norms. (extraneous, off topic commentary has been edited out- VJ Moderation ) They handle the interview differently in different countries because of local practices and I don't think that her beneficiary ever knew what hit him. The hearing was only a day or two ago.

It is normal for COs to ask about engagements. Even the one we had in Sweden asked. They ask lots of personal questions, none of this is improper behavior on their part. Perhaps you should stop giving advice on this issue?

This type of ruling is common enough in high fraud countries that most of the experienced members here know what it is about and how to handle it. Lots of people have had success with refiling for a CR1 or with additional front loading. A handful have been able to get second interviews. A very select few have gotten any sort of decision overturned.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove off topic and extraneous commentary from quote

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

I did read the entire thread and it mostly indicated that the real issue hadn't been identified. An examiner would be reprimanded for even asking about an engagement other than for establishing the legitimacy of the relationship. An engagement would only be relevant in that they are suspicious of relationships that violate local cultural norms. (extraneous, off topic commentary has been removed - VJ Moderation) They handle the interview differently in different countries because of local practices and I don't think that her beneficiary ever knew what hit him. The hearing was only a day or two ago.

A consular officer would never be reprimanded for asking anything about an engagement, that is his job.

We are aware of cultural differences in engagement but it does not pertain to the OP's issue.

There was no hearing, it was an interview.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kathryn41