Elon

What do you mean by They?If you are talking about consular accessing your VJ account no.

I would recommend using Google Authenticator in account settings

Okay that is really good. I hope you did service of process. Regarding two devices logged into your account, it didn't happened too. Who do you think have your information?

Thank you for your insights. which tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the individual's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that they be inadmissible." So on known facts, my wife couldn't be qualified as non immigrant. I know someone can show the strong ties to their home country in many different ways(well paying job, owning a home, spouse and many more).I know all this will depend on the consular officer and his/her discretion. But I would like to understand your view on the following part: but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant. The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case. c. (U) “Rule of Probability” Defined: (1) (U) In General: The second part of the Attorney General's definition refers to a "misrepresentation which tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the individual's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that they be inadmissible." These are cases where the exercise of further consular judgment is required. Past judicial and administrative decisions concerning this part have evolved into what has become to be known as the "rule of probability." (2) (U) “Tends” Defined: The word "tends" as used in "tended to cut off a line of inquiry" means that the misrepresentation must be of such a nature as to be reasonably expected to foreclose certain information from your knowledge. It does not mean that the misrepresentation must have been successful in foreclosing further investigation by you to be deemed material; it means only that the misrepresentation must reasonably have had the capacity of foreclosing further investigation. (a) (U) If an applicant was found ineligible for a visa under a different and unrelated ground of ineligibility (for example under INA 214(b)) a subsequent discovery that they had misrepresented certain aspects of the case would not be considered material since the misrepresented facts did not tend to lead you into making an erroneous conclusion. Let us use the example of an applicant for an NIV who made a misrepresentation on the visa application by claiming to have a well-paying job to show that the applicant has a residence abroad, but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant. The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case.

Who did you sue in your mandamus? I filed one and it was successfully but it was filed after one year of waiting. If I were you, I would also put in a request of FOIA to department of states asking the consular notes and other information that could give you an idea of what might be going on. I have done all these on my current case too.

I see what you are saying now. This is applicable for previous visa applications. This section right? (b) (U) Misrepresentations Concerning Previous Visa Applications: (i) (U) An IV applicant’s misrepresentation of the fact that the applicant previously applied for or was refused a visa would not be considered material unless the misrepresentation also concealed the existence of an independent ground of ineligibility, or the misrepresentation is now directly relevant to the current visa case. (ii) (U) An NIV applicant's misrepresentation of the fact that the applicant was previously refused an NIV under INA 214(b) is not, in itself, a material misrepresentation. Where the misrepresentation, however, conceals not only the fact of the previous refusal, but also objective information not otherwise known or available to you, there may be a basis for finding that the absence of such facts tended to cut off a line of inquiry and thus rendered the misrepresentation material.

Actually I was not quoting the true facts. I was looking at the second part of the attorney General definition. a "misrepresentation which tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the individual's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that they be inadmissible." These are cases where the exercise of further consular judgment is required. c. (U) “Rule of Probability” Defined: (1) (U) In General: The second part of the Attorney General's definition refers to a "misrepresentation which tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the individual's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that they be inadmissible." These are cases where the exercise of further consular judgment is required. Past judicial and administrative decisions concerning this part have evolved into what has become to be known as the "rule of probability." (2) (U) “Tends” Defined: The word "tends" as used in "tended to cut off a line of inquiry" means that the misrepresentation must be of such a nature as to be reasonably expected to foreclose certain information from your knowledge. It does not mean that the misrepresentation must have been successful in foreclosing further investigation by you to be deemed material; it means only that the misrepresentation must reasonably have had the capacity of foreclosing further investigation. (a) (U) If an applicant was found ineligible for a visa under a different and unrelated ground of ineligibility (for example under INA 214(b)) a subsequent discovery that they had misrepresented certain aspects of the case would not be considered material since the misrepresented facts did not tend to lead you into making an erroneous conclusion. Let us use the example of an applicant for an NIV who made a misrepresentation on the visa application by claiming to have a well-paying job to show that the applicant has a residence abroad, but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant. The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case.

She misrepresented her marital status twice. She was denied both two visas under 214b, a subsequent discovery of her misrepresentation wouldn’t make her past misrepresentation material since on know facts, she wasn’t qualified to receive non immigrant visas. That’s what I wanted to brainstorm on

How are you interpreting this @Boiler I am brainstorming here. a) (U) If an applicant was found ineligible for a visa under a different and unrelated ground of ineligibility (for example under INA 214(b)) a subsequent discovery that they had misrepresented certain aspects of the case would not be considered material since the misrepresented facts did not tend to lead you into making an erroneous conclusion. Let us use the example of an applicant for an NIV who made amisrepresentation on the visa application by claiming to have a well-paying job to show that the applicant has a residence abroad, but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant. The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case.

Okay I see. she was denied those two visas under 214B twice. I am looking into misrepresentation being material or not.Reading this statement and example they provided, having a well paying job is showing strong ties to your home country same as being married. But since on known facts she couldn’t be qualified as non immigrant, her misrepresentation isn’t material. That’s what I was looking at it and want to get your interpretation if that makes sense.

Right I understand that. I was asking about their new policy about finding the misrepresentation that’s what I was asking about. If you read new policy, I wanted someone to enlighten me and interpret the above policy.

Not yet, I was saying the scenario if USCIS buys into my response and send the case back to consular office back in Rwanda. It’s likely that they will deny the visa under misrepresentation. I was checking some new foreign policy manuals and someone from VJ to weigh in and interpret the above statement.

Yes let’s see if they buy into that… can you weigh in: this foreign policy manual: https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html a) (U) If an applicant was found ineligible for a visa under a different and unrelated ground of ineligibility (for example under INA 214(b)) a subsequent discovery that they had misrepresented certain aspects of the case would not be considered material since the misrepresented facts did not tend to lead you into making an erroneous conclusion. Let us use the example of an applicant for an NIV who made a misrepresentation on the visa application by claiming to have a well-paying job to show that the applicant has a residence abroad, but before the misrepresentation was discovered, the visa was refused because the applicant could not, on the known facts, qualify as a nonimmigrant. The subsequent discovery that the applicant misrepresented their well-paying job and is in truth unemployed would not support a finding of materiality because it had no bearing on the proper adjudication of the case. 6) (U) The True Facts: (a) (U) An applicant will never be ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) if they can demonstrate eligibility on the true facts. For this reason, an assessment of ineligibility under this ground is not complete until you have considered (to the extent possible) the true facts considering the applicant's misrepresentation. The applicant bears the burden of establishing the true facts and bears the risk that uncertainties caused by their misrepresentation may be resolved against the applicant. However, if the true facts support a finding that the applicant is eligible for a visa, the misrepresented fact is not material.

It seems like they received the response today. The response was delivered on Feb 6,2023 and the deadline was on Feb 13. I am afraid that they might deny it due to the response was not timely. So I will have to appeal their decision.

No update yet. I just responded to NOIR last two weeks. Their system wouldn’t let me upload the docs so I had to mail them in. Waiting on them to see what they have to say. I will keep you posted when I hear back.

In preparation of this case, I already read hundreds of these cases. Non precedents and precedents ones. These are not new to me.

You shifted to misrepresentation now?that one is another argument.I already admitted that it’s hard to prove the extreme hardship but certainly not impossible.

This is so different from what I have on my hands. I didn’t say that my case is easy. The misrepresentation charge gonna hit me hard but I am so certain that the charge of my wife is not freely married to me because he was married to another guy won’t stick. So certain that I am even willing to bet $50K.

Nahh!!! When I posted this, I saw how many VJ members overthink stuff. One member said case is over, no NOIR you are ######.The other king 👑 member said that what was I trying to achieve filing a writ of mandamus… obviously people here overthink, Every individual case is different.I will come back here to show that the original charge didn’t stick. Thank you too

Well, you know, sometimes I take the scenic route to solutions – less cunning, more adventurous. Keeps life interesting!

No you are good. I don’t get Angry that easy. I have been working on this case for quite a bit. I am pretty darn good that this charge won’t stick. The misrepresentation yes. If someone want to be bet, I am so down.

At this point, we are going into circles.I have a good case and I promise to share it once everything is settled. They will hit me with misrepresentation but the other won’t stick. I expect the director to deny it and we will go for sure on the appeal. Wait and we will see.

Here is the comprehensive document: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/rwa208272.pdf