Jump to content

Ron12345

Members
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ron12345

  • Rank
    Member
  • Member # 302196

Immigration Timeline & Photos

Recent Profile Visitors

708 profile views
  1. Ron12345

    Refused

    I imagine that multiple K-1 applications raised some red flags... but your overall point is true.
  2. My main concern would be the imminent closure of the embassy. Given the circumstances, I sincerely doubt that they are processing any visa applications. AFAIK only US citizen services are currently functioning. You may want to place an inquiry with a senators office given the urgency of the situation.
  3. You dont have to switch necessarily, but get a second opinion at least.
  4. If it was me, I would get a second opinion from an attorney with travel ban clients.
  5. It sounds like they are already reviewing you for a waiver, so I'm not sure that paying for a waiver package makes sense now. Does your attorney have other travel ban clients?
  6. Is it technically approved before it's physically placed in a passport?
  7. If they were given a 221g then it shouldn't matter when they were given a 221g. You are basically arguing that there is no time limit.
  8. They were "approved", but not issued prior to the ban. Ban came into effect. Visas were held. Ban lifted. Applicants sue. State claims that applicants are pending security checks...
  9. The govt was claiming in court that they could not issue the visas because many of the applicants remained in security checks. The judge ordered them to print the visas.
  10. The govt telling the judge that they have not completed their own background checks would not pass muster. You cannot deny on that basis. Again, this is why it goes back to the original mandamus and what's a "reasonable" amount of time. We are talking about an absolutely tiny number of cases. The vast, vast, vast majority are dismissed by plaintiff.
  11. I'm speculating. The main point is claiming that the government has not completed their own duty and using that as justification to refuse would never hold up in any court of law. There is no provision that authorizes such an action. They would be ordered to immediately complete their own processing and to then provide a proper decision. If they still refused, they would be ignoring a court order. I could imagine the judge ordering them to issue at that point. Here is a recent example of a judge ordering the govt to print visas, despite the claim that they were still undergoing security checks: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-brooklyn-judge-orders-visas-yemeni-nationals-20180601-story.html
  12. Do you actually believe that would hold up in a court of law as to why someone was refused? What provision is that? The judge would laugh. Dare I suggest, they might even order the officer to issue the visa.
  13. Dont know what you are referring to. If they dont share information, then the part about waiting on foreign security partner is irrelevant.
×
×
  • Create New...