Elon
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Partners
Immigration Wiki
Guides
Immigration Forms
Times
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by Elon
-
-
16 minutes ago, Faraz Hanif said:
I sued the embassy in Islamabad. I’ve been waiting 8 months since the interview. What is a FOIA?
also i just signed up for Visa Journey and I got a notification that two devices from Chicago logged into my account, did this happen to you? Im a little worried they have my information now.
I would recommend using Google Authenticator in account settings
-
1 minute ago, Faraz Hanif said:
I sued the embassy in Islamabad. I’ve been waiting 8 months since the interview. What is a FOIA?
also i just signed up for Visa Journey and I got a notification that two devices from Chicago logged into my account, did this happen to you? Im a little worried they have my information now.
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?
-
43 minutes ago, Family said:
No. The misrep in your quoted sec here is concealing a previous visa denial only..
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.
-
2 hours ago, Family said:
The true facts example you quote does not apply since marital status is relevant to the current visa application.
You will find example ( in sec you are reading) of instance where a son of USC misrepresents marital status to get F-1 priority date benefit ..where True Fact ( married status ) . Even there , a very narrow ser of circumstance where they would not deem it material .
It will always go back to cutting off a line of inquiry .
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.
-
2 hours ago, Family said:
The true facts example you quote does not apply since marital status is relevant to the current visa application.
You will find example ( in sec you are reading) of instance where a son of USC misrepresents marital status to get F-1 priority date benefit ..where True Fact ( married status ) . Even there , a very narrow ser of circumstance where they would not deem it material .
It will always go back to cutting off a line of inquiry .
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.
-
17 minutes ago, Boiler said:
I am not sure how new it is but do not see how it is relevant to your situation.
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
-
16 minutes ago, Boiler said:
I am not sure how new it is but do not see how it is relevant to your situation.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Boiler said:
I am not sure how new it is but do not see how it is relevant to your situation.
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.
-
41 minutes ago, Boiler said:
A Misrep finding would require a I 601 to be filed.
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.
-
26 minutes ago, Boiler said:
Are they denying the case on misrepresentation?
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.
-
On 2/17/2024 at 10:12 PM, nastra30 said:
The response was definitely timely so highly doubt they are going to deny based on that. Easily appeal-able if that happens. Now let's see if USCIS bites on misrep.
Thanks for updating us.
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.
-
On 2/16/2024 at 8:24 AM, Elon said:
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.
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.
-
On 2/13/2024 at 7:15 AM, Moda25 said:
@Elon hi, any update on your wife’s case?
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.
-
20 minutes ago, Elon said:1 hour ago, Family said:
The fact that DOS did not issue a Refusal and misrep/fraud finding is cause they are skewering with you. ..she’s a repeat offender so no surprise.
Once YOU process the fact that your wife admitted to the misrep/fraud at her IV interview..in itself that is sufficient for a finding…ask yourself WHY ?
If you then accept the fact that a lie about marital status is a material misrep /fraud ..( do this by reading through AAO USCIS non precedent decisions on I-601s) …you may have a chance at clarity. Don’t get stuck on
looking for exact fact pattern ..Important is also to accept the reality of consular non
reviewability …no one can force them to change their finding …or as in your case bother to actually issue the finding . ( Well , I already laid out my $50 K strategy 😂)
As an example, here , where a good argument persuaded AAO /USCIS that DOS finding of fraud were not warranted,..the ultimate result is ..oh sorry , but nothing we can do, DOS has final say.
We acknowledge the Applicant's appeal assertion that her failure to establish a bona fide marriage does not necessarily support the DOS' finding that she is also inadmissible for having committed fraud or made a willful misrepresentation during her immigration visa process. However, DOS makes a final determination concerning admissibility and eligibility for an immigrant visa. Here, the record contains evidence based on which the DOS reasonably found the Applicant inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we may consider only whether the Applicant qualifies for a waiver of her inadmissibility.
That’s why, keep in mind these policies change
a. (U) Misrepresentations in Family Relationship Petitions: USCIS retains exclusive authority to deny or revoke family-relationship IV petitions. Thus, a misrepresentation with respect to entitlement to the classification based on the relationship, e.g., a sham marriage in an IR-1 case, cannot be deemed material if the petition remains valid. Upon discovery of a misrepresentation, you must return the petition to the appropriate USCIS office via the National Visa Center.
I'm not sure if you've followed the entire conversation, but I want to make it clear that I won't attempt to deny her misrepresentation. In fact, as soon as I discovered she had misrepresented herself, I encouraged her to be truthful during IV interview. I value dealing with the truth above all else, and therefore, I won't be making any efforts to deny her misrepresentation.
-
58 minutes ago, Family said:
The fact that DOS did not issue a Refusal and misrep/fraud finding is cause they are skewering with you. ..she’s a repeat offender so no surprise.
Once YOU process the fact that your wife admitted to the misrep/fraud at her IV interview..in itself that is sufficient for a finding…ask yourself WHY ?
If you then accept the fact that a lie about marital status is a material misrep /fraud ..( do this by reading through AAO USCIS non precedent decisions on I-601s) …you may have a chance at clarity. Don’t get stuck on
looking for exact fact pattern ..Important is also to accept the reality of consular non
reviewability …no one can force them to change their finding …or as in your case bother to actually issue the finding . ( Well , I already laid out my $50 K strategy 😂)
As an example, here , where a good argument persuaded AAO /USCIS that DOS finding of fraud were not warranted,..the ultimate result is ..oh sorry , but nothing we can do, DOS has final say.
We acknowledge the Applicant's appeal assertion that her failure to establish a bona fide marriage does not necessarily support the DOS' finding that she is also inadmissible for having committed fraud or made a willful misrepresentation during her immigration visa process. However, DOS makes a final determination concerning admissibility and eligibility for an immigrant visa. Here, the record contains evidence based on which the DOS reasonably found the Applicant inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we may consider only whether the Applicant qualifies for a waiver of her inadmissibility.
That’s why, keep in mind these policies change
a. (U) Misrepresentations in Family Relationship Petitions: USCIS retains exclusive authority to deny or revoke family-relationship IV petitions. Thus, a misrepresentation with respect to entitlement to the classification based on the relationship, e.g., a sham marriage in an IR-1 case, cannot be deemed material if the petition remains valid. Upon discovery of a misrepresentation, you must return the petition to the appropriate USCIS office via the National Visa Center.
-
13 minutes ago, Family said:
Here is what the light at the end of the tunnel looks like ..if you get a chance to I-601…for you, your wife and child.
The Director ofthe Chicago, Illinois Field Office denied the application, concluding the Applicant did not establish that her U.S. citizen spouse, the only qualifying relative, would suffer extreme hardship upon her separation or his relocation to Nigeria. The Applicant later filed an appeal that we dismissed. The matter is before us again on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider.
In preparation of this case, I already read hundreds of these cases. Non precedents and precedents ones. These are not new to me.
-
44 minutes ago, Family said:
The fact that DOS did not issue a Refusal and misrep/fraud finding is cause they are skewering with you. ..she’s a repeat offender so no surprise.
Once YOU process the fact that your wife admitted to the misrep/fraud at her IV interview..in itself that is sufficient for a finding…ask yourself WHY ?
If you then accept the fact that a lie about marital status is a material misrep /fraud ..( do this by reading through AAO USCIS non precedent decisions on I-601s) …you may have a chance at clarity. Don’t get stuck on
looking for exact fact pattern ..Important is also to accept the reality of consular non
reviewability …no one can force them to change their finding …or as in your case bother to actually issue the finding . ( Well , I already laid out my $50 K strategy 😂)
As an example, here , where a good argument persuaded AAO /USCIS that DOS finding of fraud were not warranted,..the ultimate result is ..oh sorry , but nothing we can do, DOS has final say.
We acknowledge the Applicant's appeal assertion that her failure to establish a bona fide marriage does not necessarily support the DOS' finding that she is also inadmissible for having committed fraud or made a willful misrepresentation during her immigration visa process. However, DOS makes a final determination concerning admissibility and eligibility for an immigrant visa. Here, the record contains evidence based on which the DOS reasonably found the Applicant inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we may consider only whether the Applicant qualifies for a waiver of her inadmissibility.
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.
-
29 minutes ago, Family said:
😂 Does you not seeing it mean I did not see it ?
By “normal” I take you mean cases where the misrep worked and person is facing issue in the US and is cured w I-601…that indeed is common.
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.
-
15 minutes ago, Family said:
Unfortunately, on this trip your brain is playing tricks on you…
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
-
-
1 hour ago, Family said:
@appleblossomEt tu Brutus 😂..i would have pegged you for a Hacking fan..though he is neither a favorite of mine , nor my point of reference 😂..his podcast is abundant with callers w same fact pattern.
If the issue ( saying one is married to increase chances for a non immigrant visa ) is discovered after the alien is already in the US..then USCIS will ask for I-601 ….with Consulate, it’s a NO GO.
OP, my intention is not to antagonize you.. but for your sake , I hope you change course.
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.
-
53 minutes ago, Family said:
That is a faulty premise ..there is no magic wand by which a Rawanda marriage cures /invalides any previous marriage . ..their Family Law Codes /Acts tackle many country specific practices such as customary or informal -come we stay” cohabitation..but you are misinterpreting
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.
-
1 hour ago, Boiler said:
https://marryonchain.com/p/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-marriage-in-rwanda
https://www.rwandainusa.gov.rw/services/service-details/marriage-uganda
I am intrigued as I have never heard of this anywhere and wondered how it worked and how the Rwandan authorities checked.
I read these two and looked through others and found nothing, do you have a link?
Here is the comprehensive document:
New member and received notification that my account has been access(split)
in Site-Related Discussion - Updates, Ideas, etc.
Posted
What do you mean by They?If you are talking about consular accessing your VJ account no.