lloy0076

CBP are highly unlikely to have shredded the documents; as someone else pointed out, you could likely try to call/contact the POE to explain the confusion and get the originals back.

5 hours ago, Boiler said:

US dies not ask about denials elsewhere.

Hmmm, so it doesn't - I was remembering the question about US visa denials

If I recall correctly, most VISA applications would ask if you had been "denied" a VISA from some other country, and not just the USA. These forms talk in USA "legal speak" and there are subtle differences (if I recall correctly, you can be turned away from the USA without necessarily having any VISA denial on record).

I wonder if there was a discrepancy in the answer to this question, i.e. did the applicant say they'd never been denied a VISA anywhere before but the US Consulate discovered the denial?

18 hours ago, Lynxyonok said:

FYI, please work with a lawyer prior to exercising that option. It's costly and may backfire.

Indeed - if you're doing anything legal, or have any legal concerns, an experienced immigration lawyer is a must.

To be honest, the process will take as long as it takes; and many things could factor into it.

If it takes an excessively long time, it is possible a local US congress person (senator or house) - although it's likely their actual office staff rather than the elected person - might be able to get some sort of response from USCIS. And, if I recall, there is a process to sue any US Government department for a decision of some type (IANAL but I think after a very lengthy period of time, there is a way to file a write of mandamus against USCIS/the relevant party).

In my case, I found that once USCIS started "talking" about in-person interviews and/or biometrics they moved to interview within 6 months of that. Three of my "decisions": the initial denial at the embassy, the subsequent approval at the embassy, and the final adjustment of status were all approved by the officer(s) on the spot, with the formal letters/cards being produced as fast as USCIS ever does. The initial preliminary green card approval was delayed for a few weeks because the officer needed to check with their supervisor but that only took two weeks.

I wish the OP luck - use the time to get to know each other more, if you're able.

On 5/16/2022 at 2:00 AM, EllisAndRenz said:

Consider this: Her voyage here was crazy for her from a mental standpoint.  She's left her whole world behind.  She is alone, except for with you. She's about as far away from home as she can get. Don't underestimate what that does to any person, especially one that has likely never traveled outside of her country.  She's transitioning from a long distance relationship to being a full time wife and partner.  That doesn't excuse the threats or the abuse.  In fact, I'd recommend asking her to go to therapy together, so a third party can help you find methods to work thru these things.  Many Filipinas have insane level jealously issues, even when unjustified.  She may need therapy to learn to deal with those feelings, which likely drive some of her behavior.  

The only thing I might add is if there are any substances such as alcohol or any one of the myriad illicit ones (whether pot is illegal or not depends on where the OP lives), they can also really make bad situations worse; so, whilst the OP most likely couldn't stop their wife from drinking (etc) they can stop themselves.

At worst, they'll most likely become more healthy over time - at best they may be able to figure out a solution easier when "sober" much easier; and honestly, a single standard glass of wine (or two - few at home drink a real standard glass) can seriously change thought patterns. Don't ask me how I happen to know this; plenty of scientific evidence to back me up but unfortunately I also know first hand.

I DO wish the OP the best, though; others have given great advice. I hope the OP and his wife - whatever happens to them - recovers from the situation and they can move on slowly to a better place in life, together or apart.

30 minutes ago, Kor2USA said:

You can't bring a lawyer to the embassy interview. 

 

Only applicants with appointments will be admitted into the U.S. Embassy. Due to space constraints we are unable to allow third parties, including friends, employees, or attorneys, to accompany applicants to interviews. Minor children (under 18 years of age) may be accompanied by a guardian adult, and disabled applicants needing assistance may bring an escort. Petitioners of family-based IV applicants may attend the interview but are not required to do so.

https://www.ustraveldocs.com/kr/kr-iv-appointmentschedule.asp#:~:text=not be accepted.-,Only applicants with appointments will be admitted into the U.S.,to accompany applicants to interviews.

 

 

It is still, nonetheless, best to leave legal questions to legal experts; anyway, I hope the applicant's case goes well regardless.

Whilst I'm only reading one side of the story, it would be difficult not to conclude that your husband's drinking behaviour was at least problematic. It sounds like it is out of control. Even without the alcohol problem, completely ignoring you when you can demonstrate no good reason why he would do so, sounds very callous and mean to me.

I don't know why they requested a ROC but they can do so for any reason I guess.

I'm sorry to hear your story.

4 minutes ago, milimelo said:

You think you have a grasp of the process yet you’re conflating USCIS IO with consular officers in US embassies. 
 

And embassies have local staff members who are able to translate if the applicant’s English is lacking. 

I'm not sure what the purpose of `You think you have a grasp of the process yet...` is - apart from attempting to grandstand.

Nothing you've said indicates that USCIS or a consular office is able to make a ruling that is contrary to the INA, or to those who are performing work related to that act or the immigration process no matter which part of the US government they work for.
 

Just as a general note, whilst it might be true that there are no appeals when a VISA is denied, it is possible to argue that the denial itself was invalid. Usually, this is because the potential immigrant (the non-USC) says something they shouldn't have; apparently, a typical instance of this is if the sponsee "admits to fraud" because that's what any typical English (or other) speaker might answer, but the law might argue something else (in layman's terms, something like "that which happened is not applicable to that clause in the INA".)

I discovered that one treats any USCIS officers politely, and when answering questions that might establish one's relationship with one's partner, answer truthfully and fully. When answering LEGAL questions - especially if they're fishing for anything legal in one's past - the best answer is "please ask the lawyer."

On 2/2/2022 at 5:28 AM, zacharynsw said:

my husband was very good to me for the first 3 years together and the first 2 years of our marriage.
turns out he just got sick of me, made new friends and wanted to go out drinking, having fun as a single guy. and I did not like that. 

 

 he doesn't help me with anything, the only thing that makes this marriage exist yet are the feelings I have for him.

I don't think he has feelings for me anymore or for anybody else. in my humble opinion he has some kind of mental health problem, something that could be a kind of autism or just sociopathy (seriously).

 

How much drinking? If it is excessive - and if he "sleeps excessively at home due to alcoholism as might be defined by DSM-V" - it may be easier to build a picture of an abusive relationship; both for VAWA or a divorce judge.

I am not a lawyer but:

• The INA does allow a single "minor offense" of certain types to be "ignored" or "not form a reason for inadmissibility"
  • However, if there are: more than one of those; or
  • They intersect with something else...
  • ...then it's lawyer time.

I would say it's dangerous to try to represent yourself especially if it's possible that anyone might have misrepresented themselves on any visa document or visa-like document process (i.e., ESTA --> it's still under the same law, just very streamlined).

I needed a lawyer who basically told me:

• The way law uses the "English Language" is different to what any typical Australian (or US person etc) uses it
• Very subtle differences can trigger very different outcomes
• Consulate Officers ask legal questions (which they themselves can misunderstand or unwittingly misrepresent/say), and you answer in "typical Australian" and BINGO! You've been denied admissability, whereas if you'd said something like "In this part of the INA as decided by [some relevant case], this does not trigger [any inadmissibility] because [of this mountain of evidence probably provided by a lawyer]"...leading to my next point:
• If you have anything that could possibly be "fraud", "moral turpitude", "went to jail/prison for 1+ years", "could have done so", i.e., anything that triggers "inadmissability", get a lawyer to examine the case
  • And then politely but firmly say, "Read the lawyer's analysis" NO MATTER WHAT the officer says to you
  • (Because if YOU confess to it, even if the Consulate Officer got the law wrong, YOU get stuck with the misinterpretation; you can fix this but it is expensive, and not guaranteed to "work")

Unfortunately, said lawyer surmised the my original CO was probably having a bad day or not being nice. The lawyer's words were a little stronger than that.

The thing I learned, though, was under the INA it only needs to be "legal": the INA tries to promote justice and even that elusive thing "truth" but if one has to work with a waiver, or in the presence of something that MIGHT trigger inadmissibility, you need a lawyer to convince the CO and the USCIS that it's LEGAL.

The one thing I've learned through the K1 process (original filing, grant of temporary green card, removal of conditions) is that it always went smoother when we added what we thought was a ridiculous amount of documents to the package or in the last case, the RFE...

To be honest, no-one "wins" in this situation; various people have gotten various "things" both tangible ("pesos") and intangible ("happy married life"); I am sad for both the OP and his (ex?) wife and hope that in time they can look back on this time as a time of learning but also find any nuggets of joy/happiness they had.

9 minutes ago, Ife2020 said:

She didn’t file I-130…she filed k-1…which is why they’re saying there’s misrepresentation. Saying the kid is the stepchild makes it look like they’re married.

Aye, it has to be "legally true".

I typically would call my father's long term, domestic partner my "stepmother" but legally she wasn't and still isn't that (funnily enough they've now been together at least 10 years longer than his first marriage to my mother). But I'm not a "legal stepson" nor is she a "legal stepmother" even though we interact as such.

If you think your house is red and the entire country thinks your house is red but it is legally green, then you have to report it as green no matter how silly it sounds to one's self (or friends etc).

Without being the DHS itself (or a relevant party with sufficient information), it is difficult to say why the field might be blank.

It could be as simple as "someone forgot to fill it out and the computer allows them to submit the form / or they didn't check some paperwork properly" in which case it becomes a case of trying to politely tell USCIS to fix the mistake. If they'll even admit/confess to making one (they won't - they'd likely just claim to add it in or it'd mysteriously appear in the right place later).

That said, things only need to be legally true - as a lawyer once advised me, "It is important to tell the truth at all times, but you need to make sure you tell the legal truth." And with the INA, if you confess to "thing A" or "thing A1", even though a lay person (i.e., not a lawyer) might think they are the same, one could trigger a determination of inadmissibility and the other could be covered by a waiver.

It is quite possibly just an administrative hiccough; or something that the original poster may have said, or written down, to any US agency (USCIS or otherwise), or the sponsor; I believe they would have to give an actual reason if pressed in immigration court to do so but that's the problem - getting them to that stage can take time, money and a lot of stress.

The only comment I can make is that USCIS is well aware that relationships can fail and I suspect are also aware of the extra stress that the immigration process can add to building a relationship; it would be reasonable to say they'd be aware that COVID1 has not made anyone's relationship easier.

However, if you mean the interview BEFORE the K1 has been granted (and you are still in your home country), I suspect it might be better to say something to USCIS rather than do a "no-show" if you believe there is a chance the relationship might continue and has just had a hiccough at a particularly bad time.

That said, if you think the relationship still is viable, you probably need to talk to an immigration lawyer first and a relationship counselor soon afterwards - I'd usually counsel the other order but it seems like you probably don't have much time to decide what to do.

I understand your frustration; my application went to a field office, back to the national processing center for expedition who issued an RFE, back to the same field office and technically my 18 month letter of exemption ran out on the day of the interview!

That said, the officer thanked us for the documents we had sent and indicated that we had sufficient documents; she pointed at a rather large box telling us that our amount of documents was not considered "a lot" by any means but had the right information to prove our bona fide relationship.
 

I would note that USCIS tend to word things such that they indicate the maximum time they might take to process something BUT also expect you (the petitioner/sponsor etc) to jump really quickly and the exact height if they ask for something.

Good luck and I wish you well!

In my experience the main processing centers (e.g. NVC) tend to provide the online updates. In my case, the field office did not update the online status so it was completely unexpected when I received four e-mails and four SMS messages from the national center that produces cards saying that my case was approved.