Advise please

[Boiler 48,585]

There was a big difference in their situation 

[KaneKorso 0]

29 minutes ago, Boiler said:

There was a big difference in their situation 

Really, please explain since you seem to have personal knowledge about their cases 

[JeanneAdil 7,440]

18 hours ago, KaneKorso said:

Really, please explain since you seem to have personal knowledge about their cases 

we have read a few cases with a member married to USC in prison / questions were asked about the proceedure but i don't think either of the 2 i read let us know the outcome and the offenses (as told to VJ ) were not 1st degree felony / the offenses were misdismeaners 

it is hard to say if this can be overcome as his criminal background can not be excused by immigration.  and a convicted felon is the biggest issue 

 

when the site says USC sponsor may not be able to attend and they excuse it , its often because the USC is military and deployed and the wife has stayed in the US to do the AOS  

 

Its quite different when a USC is in prison and that is not a judgement call on my part but rules the immigration officer has to go by and is always under the guidance of a supervisor .   Again, I repeat,  they have a job to protect the immigrant as well 

 

My CO walked away during my interview and checked with a supervisor / later i found out it was my wife had signed marriage certificate in name she used from deceased husband and the judge who did the certificate wrote it out in her maiden name as was on her birth certificate ( women in my country do not change the last name when married) .  it was checked to be legal as she had listed all names on petition

 

What i am saying is "the officer had to check on rules he/'she must follow" and did and is at her/his discretion when they see all the evidence to not allow what you wanted /any good immigration attorney knows this

 

but you paid out good money for lawyer so let him/ her do their work 

[KaneKorso 0]

15 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

we have read a few cases with a member married to USC in prison / questions were asked about the proceedure but i don't think either of the 2 i read let us know the outcome and the offenses (as told to VJ ) were not 1st degree felony / the offenses were misdismeaners 

it is hard to say if this can be overcome as his criminal background can not be excused by immigration.  and a convicted felon is the biggest issue 

 

when the site says USC sponsor may not be able to attend and they excuse it , its often because the USC is military and deployed and the wife has stayed in the US to do the AOS  

 

Its quite different when a USC is in prison and that is not a judgement call on my part but rules the immigration officer has to go by and is always under the guidance of a supervisor .   Again, I repeat,  they have a job to protect the immigrant as well 

 

My CO walked away during my interview and checked with a supervisor / later i found out it was my wife had signed marriage certificate in name she used from deceased husband and the judge who did the certificate wrote it out in her maiden name as was on her birth certificate ( women in my country do not change the last name when married) .  it was checked to be legal as she had listed all names on petition

 

What i am saying is "the officer had to check on rules he/'she must follow" and did and is at her/his discretion when they see all the evidence to not allow what you wanted /any good immigration attorney knows this

 

but you paid out good money for lawyer so let him/ her do their work 

Appreciate the answer, but they have guidelines in their own policy that allowed them to waive the personal appearance of the incarcerated petitioners. their own policy states this. It's not same made up story. My experience is that they have no idea what to do with cases like mine this is where the law and their policy comes into play. They should just base the case on the merits of the marriage  not on personal opinion or misapplying of the law. They may have discretion but it has to be within reason. expecting a petitioner to show for the the interview when he absolutely cannot is ridiculous. This is why case like matter of McKee exist because they are officers not attorneys and their personal opinion should not play a role in denying an application 

Edited yesterday at 10:15 PM by KaneKorso

[TBoneTX 49,015]

7 hours ago, KaneKorso said:

They may have discretion but it has to be within reason

Consular officers' decisions are among the most final events in our world today.

[KaneKorso 0]

5 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Consular officers' decisions are among the most final events in our world today.

Then I wonder why people sue . What would be the point? 

[JeanneAdil 7,440]

https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/questions-and-answers-appeals-and-motions

 

you can find answers on that site

 

and yes, people file a WOM to sue for a decision on a petition 

it doesn't mean the decision is in favor of the person filing it 

 

your answers are with your lawyer and how much u want to pay

 

we can not help u here '

time to close this post

[Boiler 48,585]

I always think of a WoM as a fast forward option, when something has got stuck and makes then make a decision, here they made one.

[KaneKorso 0]

14 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I always think of a WoM as a fast forward option, when something has got stuck and makes then make a decision, here they made one.

Yes they made an incorrect decision.

[KaneKorso 0]

31 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/questions-and-answers-appeals-and-motions

 

you can find answers on that site

 

and yes, people file a WOM to sue for a decision on a petition 

it doesn't mean the decision is in favor of the person filing it 

 

your answers are with your lawyer and how much u want to pay

 

we can not help u here '

time to close this post

Why do you keep bringing up how much I want to pay and it's a money maker for my attorney?  You correct you cannot help. the point of my post was to reach to to see if anyone had gone through what I am currently experiencing. there many in here who clearly do not know about the law and how it applies. 

[Crazy Cat 46,124]

17 hours ago, KaneKorso said:

but they have guidelines in their own policy that allowed them to waive the personal appearance of the incarcerated petitioners. their own policy states this. It's not same made up story.

The key word is "allows"...not "requires"...i.e., the word "may" in their policy.  There is also the possibility that they have doubts about the relationship.  The fact that you said it took them 4 years to adjudicate your case implies (to me) there is something else going on.  Did you have RFEs? Unfortunately, I don't think denial is the decision of just one officer.  I'm sure there is a review process.  Good luck. 

As I said before, your case is a real money maker for an attorney.

Edited 7 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[Crazy Cat 46,124]

7 minutes ago, KaneKorso said:

Yes they made an incorrect decision.

Based on?