case expire K1

[Hondatphcm 3]

hi!

I write this topic, because I got something about my denied K1.

basic I got the mail, from California service center where process my K1 application, the letter let me know that my K1 is expire and i could file a new petition K1 with new fee and meet the requirement of K1.

my question is that normal USCIS let case expire no need to reply.

[geowrian 22,337]

Yes, this is the norm as of several years ago. To spare a detailed explanation (lookup P6C1 markers if you're interested), it's actually in the petitioner's and/or beneficiary's interest in most cases to avoid said marker and potential finding of misrep/fraud (along with the bar that would potentially follow) if USCIS decided to revoke the petition.

 

You can refile for a K-1 if the underlying cause of denial was addressed. Do you know the cause for denial?

 

Edit: I just noticed you are now married and filed an I-130. So no need to refile. Sounds like the CO didn't believe in a bona fide relationship. Be sure to load up plenty of evidence this time, and you can "side load" more evidence at NVC as well. Then bring more to the interview.

Edited June 1, 2017 by geowrian

[Hondatphcm 3]

thank you for your information

on the blue sheet paper, said fail on bona fide  test.

I went back and got married certificate, I sent my I-130 already

 

[geowrian 22,337]

1 hour ago, Kumar01 said:

I'd like to add something to the discussion. If you're ever denied the K-1 visa and the USCIS has received the notice, you must answer back.

 

If you don't respond to their NOID or anything else, I believe, by default they'll label your case the P6 marker. So, you chose a path to marry your spouse. However, regardless, you don't want a P6 marker to show up when your spouse has the interview for the spousal visa.

 

Please chime in if this is incorrect.

USCIS won't review the case once returned by the embassy (and therefore won't send a NOID/NOIR). Instead, they let it expire, and there's no action required/requested.. This was changed a few years ago (2012? 2013? It was due to the results after a lawsuit filed in 2010 I believe) to avoid the P6C1 markers turning into hard findings of fraud.