My wife’s CR1 was denied and sent for administrative processing and been waiting for 1 year and half

[SalishSea 16,851]

5 hours ago, Elon said:

I am sorry but you clearly don’t understand it. I recommend you read this order  https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2711.pdf . Rwandan government recognizes our marriage as valid  and Rwanda is where our marriage happened. No records shows that she has ever been married.Try and spend more time to help VJ instead of negativity 

LOL, okay, I'm out.   Good luck.

[Elon 17]

Thank you all guys. I will keep you posted. The misrepresentation is my worry here. In terms of polygamous charge, I promise I have pretty good case. Of course he will try to deny it and I will take to appeal. 

[Elon 17]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

The onus is not on them and anyway they have two sworn statements.

 

The B application does not ask where the marriage took place.

 

sworn statements don’t make a marriage legal. There is also other sworn statement saying that what was filled in b and f1 are not true. If marriage is valid and Rwanda never recognized the previous marriage wherever it happened, the other marriage is invalid according to the Rwandan law.

[Boiler 43,683]

2 minutes ago, Elon said:

 

sworn statements don’t make a marriage legal. There is also other sworn statement saying that what was filled in b and f1 are not true. If marriage is valid and Rwanda never recognized the previous marriage wherever it happened, the other marriage is invalid according to the Rwandan law.

 

I do not know how USCIS will treat this, we do know that some Consulates, Lagos being the classic example just issue a RFE for the dissolution. On the other hand I have come across cases where people have adjusted successfully having being given the opportunity of filing a waiver.

 

Whether Rwanda recognises a legal marriage that happened outside of Rwanda or not is irrelevant, US does.

 

I may have seen a lot of similar cases but I have not come across this fact pattern, Rwanda, sent back to USCIS and 2 visa applications.

 

 

 

 

 

[Elon 17]

18 minutes ago, Boiler said:

 

I do not know how USCIS will treat this, we do know that some Consulates, Lagos being the classic example just issue a RFE for the dissolution. On the other hand I have come across cases where people have adjusted successfully having being given the opportunity of filing a waiver.

 

Whether Rwanda recognises a legal marriage that happened outside of Rwanda or not is irrelevant, US does.

 

I may have seen a lot of similar cases but I have not come across this fact pattern, Rwanda, sent back to USCIS and 2 visa applications.

 

@Boiler I understand, But you might be interpreting the law in the wrong way. Marriage validity according to INA is governed where the marriage happened the exception is about polygamous. 

[Elon 17]

37 minutes ago, Boiler said:

 

I do not know how USCIS will treat this, we do know that some Consulates, Lagos being the classic example just issue a RFE for the dissolution. On the other hand I have come across cases where people have adjusted successfully having being given the opportunity of filing a waiver.

 

Whether Rwanda recognises a legal marriage that happened outside of Rwanda or not is irrelevant, US does.

 

I may have seen a lot of similar cases but I have not come across this fact pattern, Rwanda, sent back to USCIS and 2 visa applications.

 

 

 

 

 

How can you establish that the was a legal marriage, the legal means you know it happened and there is evidence that it happened. I can see if there was marriage certificate or some other documents that was submitted during non immigrate  visas but a sworn statement on DS 160 and in front of officer alone  do not make marriage legal. Legal according to what jurisdiction? 

[Elon 17]

11 minutes ago, Elon said:

45 minutes ago, Boiler said:

 

I do not know how USCIS will treat this, we do know that some Consulates, Lagos being the classic example just issue a RFE for the dissolution. On the other hand I have come across cases where people have adjusted successfully having being given the opportunity of filing a waiver.

 

Whether Rwanda recognises a legal marriage that happened outside of Rwanda or not is irrelevant, US does.

 

I may have seen a lot of similar cases but I have not come across this fact pattern, Rwanda, sent back to USCIS and 2 visa applications.

 

@Boiler I understand, But you might be interpreting the law in the wrong way. Marriage validity according to INA is governed where the marriage happened the exception is about polygamous. 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-g-chapter-2

[Boiler 43,683]

26 minutes ago, Elon said:

How can you establish that the was a legal marriage, the legal means you know it happened and there is evidence that it happened. I can see if there was marriage certificate or some other documents that was submitted during non immigrate  visas but a sworn statement on DS 160 and in front of officer alone  do not make marriage legal. Legal according to what jurisdiction? 

 

She has to establish she was free to marry when she married you having previously stated she was married before.

 

Around and around in circles we go, the reality of the situation is that USCIS have to accept she lied.

[Elon 17]

18 minutes ago, Boiler said:

 

She has to establish she was free to marry when she married you having previously stated she was married before.

 

Around and around in circles we go, the reality of the situation is that USCIS have to accept she lied.

They have to go with the misrepresentation. If he revokes it on polygamous ground, I am confident that I will appeal successfully. I spent quite a lot of time analyzing this case. My worry was not the validity of the marriage honestly.The burden is on me but arguing the marriage validity in my case, will be so much easier. 

[nastra30 2,030]

1 hour ago, Elon said:

My worry was not the validity of the marriage honestly.The burden is on me but arguing the marriage validity in my case, will be so much easier. 

IMO, it's not going to be much easier; that's the crux of issue at hand. The meer fact is you can't proof a negative. From your end you know she's been married only to you; from DOS/DHS end they have evidence under oath twice that the beneficiary admitted being married to 'original husband' in two separate interviews. And that marriage hadn't been terminated before marrying you.

1 hour ago, Elon said:

They have to go with the misrepresentation. If he revokes it on polygamous ground, I am confident that I will appeal successfully.

I will say this differently, they will most likely revoke based on ineligibity of beneficiary because she wasn't free to marry you. This is where you believe you can easily overcome but I just don't see how that's possible (can't proof a negative).

But then again, you've established your plan to pivot the situation from 'ineligibity' to 'misrepresentation based on lies'; let's see if USCIS will bite on that argument. I doubt they will but I will never say never. I have read all the matters stated and all other relevant matters to those stated and I opine DHS has the upper hand. Perhaps, we will soon have a Matter of Elon vs DHS, if DHS doesn't pivot to the misrep route.

Edited January 13 by nastra30

[Elon 17]

5 hours ago, nastra30 said:

IMO, it's not going to be much easier; that's the crux of issue at hand. The meer fact is you can't proof a negative. From your end you know she's been married only to you; from DOS/DHS end they have evidence under oath twice that the beneficiary admitted being married to 'original husband' in two separate interviews. And that marriage hadn't been terminated before marrying you.

I will say this differently, they will most likely revoke based on ineligibity of beneficiary because she wasn't free to marry you. This is where you believe you can easily overcome but I just don't see how that's possible (can't proof a negative).

But then again, you've established your plan to pivot the situation from 'ineligibity' to 'misrepresentation based on lies'; let's see if USCIS will bite on that argument. I doubt they will but I will never say never. I have read all the matters stated and all other relevant matters to those stated and I opine DHS has the upper hand. Perhaps, we will soon have a Matter of Elon vs DHS, if DHS doesn't pivot to the misrep route.

In this specific situation, I am genuinely confident in addressing the concerns raised by USCIS. It's not akin to proving abstract negatives like the non-existence of a God; rather, it's a matter of strategically demonstrating the absence of a previous marriage. I have carefully crafted a strategy.And I believe, will effectively address any doubts about legitimacy of our marriage. Your insights have been invaluable in strengthening my case, and I appreciate the guidance provided. Thank you all for your help.

[Lemonslice 4,583]

7 hours ago, Elon said:

They have to go with the misrepresentation. If he revokes it on polygamous ground, I am confident that I will appeal successfully. I spent quite a lot of time analyzing this case. My worry was not the validity of the marriage honestly.The burden is on me but arguing the marriage validity in my case, will be so much easier. 

 

Second quote from Elon:

"How can you establish that the was a legal marriage, the legal means you know it happened and there is evidence that it happened. I can see if there was marriage certificate or some other documents that was submitted during non immigrate  visas but a sworn statement on DS 160 and in front of officer alone  do not make marriage legal. Legal according to what jurisdiction? "

..........

 

In their letter, there's nothing saying she got married in Rwanda, in which country, or by proxy.  If the marriage was valid (in the eyes of USCIS) where it happened, then she's married (I understand she did not, but how will you get evidence of that?).

 

Again, best of luck to you and your family. 

[Elon 17]

18 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

 

Second quote from Elon:

"How can you establish that the was a legal marriage, the legal means you know it happened and there is evidence that it happened. I can see if there was marriage certificate or some other documents that was submitted during non immigrate  visas but a sworn statement on DS 160 and in front of officer alone  do not make marriage legal. Legal according to what jurisdiction? "

..........

 

In their letter, there's nothing saying she got married in Rwanda, in which country, or by proxy.  If the marriage was valid (in the eyes of USCIS) where it happened, then she's married (I understand she did not, but how will you get evidence of that?).

 

Again, best of luck to you and your family. 

Yeah another thing is that if our marriage is valid in Rwanda, according to the immigration law, it has to be valid everywhere. Our marriage happened in Rwanda. To understand you really need to understand the complexity of this case honestly. I will get back to you guys when things are over. Like @Boiler we are going in circles but I am very confident that Director will not pull the beneficiary was not legally free  to marry me charge.  At least not in this particular case. 

Edited January 13 by Elon

[Boiler 43,683]

3 minutes ago, Elon said:

Yeah another thing is that if our marriage is valid in Rwanda, according to the immigration law, it has to be valid everywhere. Our marriage happened in Rwanda. To understand you really need to understand the complexity of this case honestly. I will get back to you guys when things are over. Like @Boiler we are going in circles but I am very confident that Director will not pull the beneficiary was not legally free  to marry me charge.  At least not in this particular case. 

There was a lady on here a few days ago who thought she had been divorced because her ex had remarried, turned out he had not divorced her so her remarriage was void as was the petition for her new husband.

 

 

[Elon 17]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

There was a lady on here a few days ago who thought she had been divorced because her ex had remarried, turned out he had not divorced her so her remarriage was void as was the petition for her new husband.

 

 

What was the context?