JR2008

October 5, 2008

http://www.votenader.org/

October 4, 2008

Following is part 4 of 6. Watch all 6 parts and you'll know what's really going on in the world around you. Many of his predictions are coming true in 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY59nsr-SkU...feature=related

October 4, 2008

Election 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MQcNLQGRJg

October 4, 2008

September 13, 2008

Relax, my lesbo fvcktard sisters! The guy above is correct in saying that this happens at almost every consulate. Nonetheless, these same consulates deny your visas for "ethical" reasons - see my link Visa Denials http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=148299.

September 12, 2008

Unless you're a **, here's the relevance:

When Bill Clinton selected the homosexual James Hormel to become ambassador to Luxembourg, some senators objected to Hormel not due to his sexual orientation as such but rather because he was considered likely to use his ambassadorship as a government-sanctioned platform for gay-rights advocacy. There were no similar concerns about Guest, who was a 20-year career diplomat, lifelong Republican, and former Reagan administration press aide.

Now I find out the Bucharest Romania has a reputation for being perhaps the least accomodating embassy when it comes to fiance visa applicants. When your turn comes you are called to stand before a bullet-proof panel of glass and to speak to your beligerant and uncooperative interviewer as s/he barks questions, refuses to explain procedures and is likely to send you off on a wild goose-chase for more documentation at a whim. Evidently Bucharest has had a lot of complaints and peope who are familar with the Ukrainian Embassy mention the stark contrast between it and the embassy in Romania. I have to send my fiance and her Rusiian speaking mother there in a few months. There is no way I can make another trip to accompany her. And, it seems, that Bucharest officials are known for arbitrarily deciding that a fiance visa application is a sham, especially if the American fiance isn't there. So how did I get all the luck? (2004)

Those bisbehaving 5 to 9 don't behave 9 to 5 either.

September 12, 2008

On September 24, 2001, Michael E. Guest, an openly gay man, was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Romania. Guest's presence made Bucharest a more attractive assignment for other gays in the Foreign Service.

Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA)*, lists increasing opportunities for same-sex partners accompanying personnel on assignment overseas and securing taxpayer-funded health insurance and benefits for the partners and children of lesbian and gay employees in its mission statement. As the gay marriage debate raged at home, taxpayers began to foot the bill for defacto union in Bucharest.

Advertisements for the annual Christmas parties invited not just spouses but partners. Suddenly it was like there was a club running thing, said one Foreign Service veteran who had been stationed there. If you weren’t part of the gay clique, you did not belong. After Guest began his mission, the persistent recognition and endorsement of same-sex partners prevented a devout Evenglical Christian and father of five, who had been accustomed to his post being a family-friendly environment, from participating in certain events to avoid having to explain homosexuality to his young children.

Others who have worked in Bucharest claim that the cultural shift at the embassy was not limited to the formal approval of same-sex relationships and make graver charges. These witnesses claim that promiscuity among some Americans stationed in Romania increased to levels that threatened to jeopardize the mission's reputation and subject U.S. government employees to blackmail. They stated that some diplomats were engaging in homosexual relations with Romanian citizens and other foreign nationals.

Such dalliances led some to ridicule the U.S. diplomatic presence in Romania as the pink embassy and the Bucharest bathhouse. A letter sent by a group of Romanian NGOs and individuals to President Bush and Secretary Powell in January named high-level appointees responsible for having "transformed the U.S. diplomatic addresses in to havens of debauchery", and further alleges that ased on reports and pornographic photos circulating around newspapers they.. use their privileged positions to corrupt young Romanians, paying them for sexual relations, by both cash and visas to the U.S. The signatories of this letter include the Union of War Veterans, the National League of December 1989 Combatants, and three former Romanian parliament members.

An erstwhile gay lover of a former high-ranking official at the USAID mission in Bucharest has described such conduct in a sworn statement. He says that he lived with this official for four years in his government housing under the guise of serving as household help. There he claims to have witnessed U.S. government employees engaged in lewd acts and entering into other compromising positions.

According to his deposition, these acts included multiple sexual encounters with young Romanian men, some of whom may have been minors. The high-ranking USAID official's taxpayer-provided residence was said to be the site of wild sexually charged parties where participants allegedly used drugs and viewed pornography. He states that this official has made sexually explicit photographs of himself available on the Internet. He accuses other officials of paying for sexual favors as well as offering foreign nationals visas in exchange for money or sex. Asked for comment, the USAID press office said it was unaware of any such allegations. Calls to the Inspector General's office were not returned.

Over the last ten years, GLIFAA, or Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, has helped the quality of life of gays and lesbians in the Department of State and USAID - James P. Theis, 2001-2002 GLIFAA president.

This goes beyond moral and cultural tensions over homosexuality. If true, these serious betrayals of diplomatic responsibility are incompatible with the professional climate required to represent this country abroad effectively. Contrary to a firm U.S. policy against illicit sexual liaisons and the corruption of minors, they would constitute illegal acts using taxpayers' property and money with the potential to harm national security.

In addition, our national reputation has suffered enough recent damage in Romania due to the case of Kurt Treptow, a prominent historian the U.S. embassy in Bucharest placed on the Fulbright Commission. Yet Treptow was a convicted sex offender. He videotaped himself engaging in sexual acts with children as young as seven, some of whom were allegedly orphans, and was sentenced to seven years in Romanian prison for pedophilia and child abuse.

"How important it is to keep working past how comfortable we are in our own issues, and how our work here resonates with gay youth,” says Bryan Dalton, a founder and former president of GLIFAA.

In addition to the allegations about Guest’s role in Treptow appointment, newspaper articles accused Guest of poor leadership in presiding over an embassy that the paper says is plagued by mismanagement. Several of the articles accuse embassy officials, including Guest, of engaging in influence-peddling in the appointment of outsiders to embassy posts. One article accuses the embassy of assisting U.S. citizens in obtaining legal assistance in Romania to adopt children in what it calls a multi-million dollar adoption effort in which U.S.-owned adoption agencies allegedly charge $10,000 or more to facilitate adoptions for Americans.

In July 2004, Guest was recalled to the U.S. Department of State following a yearlong onslaught of articles in an English language newspaper in Bucharest accusing Guest of corruption and mismanagement. Whoever is posted as U.S. ambassador to Romania will be responsible for maintaining acceptable standards of conduct. On December 4, 2007, Guest resigned (retired) over State Department's discrimination against gay and lesbian employees.

September 9, 2008

Foreword: Doctrines are not laws. One court rules something one way, which gets cited over and over again in other court cases, and before long, you have a doctrine. Almost every consular official has his or her own understanding of what this doctrine means. One deputy or vice consul I talked to believed it to be something similar a to a diplomatic immunity. Needless to say, this doctrine, or perception thereof, is one of the major culprits why things are as they are as consulates. Following is the truth behind this very misunderstood doctrine.

Rationale of the doctrine is that since 29% to one-third of all non-petitioned visa applicants are refused a visa, if only 16% of these 29% refused aliens were to take it to federal courts, the numbers are so large, that it would double the litigation load in federal courts, and therefore, a door best left closed.

Since non-petitioned to petitioned visa issuance ratio is 13 to 1 (according to the 2006 figures), such scenario is possible with petitioned visa cases only if all 100% of the petitioned visas are denied, and all 100% of the respective petitioners litigate in federal courts. Therefore, it is obvious that the same justification does not hold true in petitioned visa denial litigation. Also, the DHS/ CIS reviews all petitioned visa denials, something that cannot co-exist with consular non-reviewability.

But since only 5% of the petitioned visas are actually denied, mostly for lawful reasons, even if as many as 1/2% of petitioned visas are denied unlawfully, and even if as many as every other petitioner litigates, it accounts for less than one case per month per district. If that's is still too much, then might as well just do away with the judiciary.

Romero v. U.S. Consulate at Barranquilla, Columbia

In sum, exercising jurisdiction over the claims of these ALIENS would violate the longstanding.. doctrine of consular non-reviewability.. Although the doctrine.. is not without it’s critics, it is well-grounded in established principles of national sovereignty.. if rules were the rules to be otherwise, federal courts would be inundated with claims of disappointed and disgruntled OFF-SHORE ALIENS seeking review of consular officer’s denials of their requests of NONIMMIGRANT (non-petitioned) VISITOR VISAS. Romero v. US Consulate at Barranquilla, 1994 (860 F.Supp. 319, 322-24).

Although the above involved non-petitioned visitor visas, consular official(s) didn’t simply fantasize Mr. Romero and Mr. Navarro to be suspected drug smugglers by both being Columbians, but because both were identified as such in the government's computer, and therefore, visa denial was lawful under INA § 212(a)(2)©.

More Examples

njustifiable refusal to vise a passport may be ground for diplomatic complaint by the nation whose subject has been discriminated against [but is] beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Court ruling in London v. Phelps, 1927 (22 F.2d 288), which involved a British woman who applied for a visitor visa from Canada.

Consular officers have discretion to issue a NONIMMIGRANT (non-petitioned) VISA based on a proper application. This power has consistently been held as not being subject to judicial review. Angelo A. Paparelli & Janet J. Lee.

Chairman Weldon, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the Administration's proposed legislation, which gives the new DHS exclusive authority over the visa function. And if DHS is to be held accountable for it's authority, then it should have it's own officers overseas to monitor and supervise visa operations.. Otherwise DHS will just be "business as usual" and only the names on door will change. The new DHS should "control" the visa function and that Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the "exclusive authority" to issue or refuse visas. US federal courts have consistently sustained a doctrine of consular non-reviewability in nonimmigrant (non-petitioned) cases. The section does not alter the employment status of diplomatic or consular officers processing visas abroad. - John J. Tkacik, Jr. in Testimony submitted to the Subcommittee on Civil Services, Census, and Agency Organization of the Committee on Government Reform, 07/15/2002.

Justification for Consular Discretion in Non-Petitioned Visas

Even in non-petitioned visas, the only reason consular officials are allowed discretion is because most decisions in such cases are based upon vaguely defined concepts, such as strong ties, used as a qualifier for the nonimmigrant status.

Strong ties differ from country to country, city to city, individual to individual. Some examples of ties can be a family, a job, a house, a bank account. “Ties” are various aspects of your life that bind you to your country of residence: your family and social relationships, employment, and possessions. Each person’s situation is different.

September 8, 2008

For those for whom being led to water isn't enough, I will offer a brief foreword. These advisory cables clearly show that there is a problem at consulates, which the DOS is well aware of at the highest level. When a petition is returned by consulate to the CSC for a review, it implies that beneficiary met all of the legal requirements at the consulate, as did the petitioner at the CSC, else consulate would never have received the petition in the first place. Nearly all petitions are returned over proof of relationship, which is the only subjective requirement at the consulate's end. The reason the word factual appears so frequently in these cables is that the DOS knows that petitions are returned for non-legal reasons under the pretense of lack of proof of relationship, which is exactly what this guy is talking about (see Experiences of Others).

My fiancee got denied after 2 interviews and now they are sending it back to USCIS. I have had multiple marriages before and they do not tell us clearly that but they use our unusual circumstances to deny visa and harass us this way so we drop the case. My case has cost me a lot of financial loss as well as aggravation. Their whole goal is to deny visa no matter what you have. I think, they use their power to deny unusual case, just because they can. (2007)

Because you are just BS'ing, such petition revocation memos tend to encompass an entire paragraph, which is what the DOS means when it says observations made by consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant, and this is what Marc Ellis refers to when he writes (in case you didn't see the relevance):

It doesn't matter how many thousands of hours it would take to [re]adjudicate these returned petitions. It doesn't matter how much money all this would cost the taxpayer. It doesn't matter how speculative, conclusory, equivocal, irrelevant and even factually incorrect these return memorandums often are. What matters is that DOS is miffed that CSC is ignoring its petition return memorandums.

Legally, it's called fraud.

1. PROCESSING REVOCATIONS OF NONIMMIGRANT VISAS BY MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT - 12/30/1999 ON PETITIONED VISAS

Many consulates (particularly those in Eastern Europe, South America and parts of Asia) seem to routinely re-adjudicate petitions previously approved by the INS. It has always been our understanding that consulates may investigate approved petitions for misrepresentations or fradulant documentation, but that they may not re-adjudicate cases.

2. REMINDER REGARDING VISA REFUSAL PROCEDURES BY COLIN A. POWELL VIA VISA OFFICE - 06/12/2001 ON NON-PETITIONED VISAS

I am sending this message because I want to remind all consular officials of the current rules that must be followed for refusals of visas. It is important that consular officers follow all statutory and regulatory provisions in the issuance and refusal of visas -- we must exercise caution and work within the fundamental legal framework that governs visa adjudication law. This is not a matter or traditionalism or resistance to change. As stated in 9 FAM 41.121 N2, it is the policy of the Department of State to give visa applicants every reasonable opportunity to establish their eligibility to receive a visa. We are wary of any practices or procedures that may encroach on or in any way potentially jeopardize this doctrine [of consular non-reviewability]. Visa refusals, however, require extra protections, and there are limits to how far we can go in that area.

III. GUIDANCE ON PETITION REVOCATIONS BY COLIN A. POWELL - July 1, 2001 ON PETITIONED VISAS

1. Posts should be judicious about returning petitions, since the revocation process is lengthy and the evidentiary standard that must be met to sustain a petition revocation is relatively high.

2. Posts return relatively few petitions to BCIS for revocation. This is a positive practice from our perspective, since petitions should only be returned to BCIS when fraud or misrepresentation or ineligibility for status can be clearly established or when the petition merits automatic revocation because of such circumstances as the death of the petitioner.

3. In all cases BCIS approval of a petition is prima facie evidence of the applicant's status.. a consular officer should only seek revocation of the petition if the officer knows, or has reason to believe, that the petition approval was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or other unlawful means.

4. Posts seeking revocations must show the "factual and concrete reasons for revocations." BCIS has asked us to remind consular officers that revocation requests must provide solid, factual evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, evidence that is likely to stand up in a court of law.

5. Posts should not return petitions to BCIS based on mere suspicion or as a substitute for making a decision at post. If the evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status is strong enough to lead to a likely revocation, returning the petition would be warranted. However, if the evidence is not likely to lead to a revocation and returning the petition would be a wasted exercise, the petition should not be returned. Returning cases that are only suspect or that appear too complex to figure out is not appropriate and only increases BCIS'' administrative burden and prevents the applicants and petitioners in these cases from obtaining the timely decision on their petitions to which they are entitled.

6. In absence of hard, factual evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status, consular sections are advised to issue the visa.

IV. GUIDELINES AND CHANGES FOR RETURNING DHS/BCIS APPROVED IMMIGRANT VISA & NONIMMIGRANT VISA PETITIONS BY COLIN A. POWELL - February 24, 2004 ON PETITIONED VISAS

5. The department is regularly named as a co-defendant with DHS in cases involving the return of petitions to DHS.

6. The memo supporting the petition return must clearly show the factual and concrete reasons for recommending revocation (observations made by consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant) and; consular officers must provide to the applicant in writing as full an explanation as possible of the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return.

7. In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification have been met.

8. DHS regulations require DHS/BCIS to provide the petitioner notice of intent to revoke, and to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the grounds for revocation. DHS regulations require that revocations must be based only on grounds specified in the regulations.

9. The report must be comprehensive, clearly showing factual and concrete reasons for revocation. The report must be well reasoned and analytical rather than conclusory. Observations made by the consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant." The criteria cited in this note derive from the Board of Immigration Appeals case, Matter of Arias, in which the Board determined that the memorandum supporting a petition return did not constitute "good and sufficient cause" for petition revocation, because it consisted of "observations of the consular officer that are conclusory, speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant to the bona fides of the claimed relationship".

10. Memo supporting petition returns should be scrutinized carefully bearing in mind that they may become relevant in litigation. The memoranda should be based on specific factual evidence, rather than conclusions, and should be clearly reasoned.

11. INA 212(B) requires the conoff to "provide the alien with a timely written notice that- (A) states the determination, and (B) lists the specific provision or provisions of law under which the alien is inadmissible." 9 FAM 42.81 Procedural Note one instructs the conoff to provide: "1) The provision(s) of law on which the refusal is based; (2) The factual basis for the refusal; (3) Any missing documents or other evidence required; (4) What procedural steps must be taken by the consular officer or Department; and (5) Any relief available to overcome the refusal."

September 7, 2008

Now I find out the Bucharest Romania has a reputation for being perhaps the least accomodating embassy when it comes to fiance visa applicants. When your turn comes you are called to stand before a bullet-proof panel of glass and to speak to your beligerant and uncooperative interviewer as s/he barks questions, refuses to explain procedures and is likely to send you off on a wild goose-chase for more documentation at a whim. Evidently Bucharest has had a lot of complaints and peope who are familar with the Ukrainian Embassy mention the stark contrast between it and the embassy in Romania. I have to send my fiance and her Rusiian speaking mother there in a few months. There is no way I can make another trip to accompany her. And, it seems, that Bucharest officials are known for arbitrarily deciding that a fiance visa application is a sham, especially if the American fiance isn't there. So how did I get all the luck? (2004)

During the mid 1980's I underwent 3 attempts to bring my wife from Iran, with both of us flying to Istanbul, Turkey for each visa interview, accumulating a debt of $10,000 in the process. This is when an average home in the midwest cost $30,000. In the second attempt my wife was visibly pregnant, and with an infant on the third attempt. (1987)

My Uncle Ralph Roubicek of Southampton married a beautiful Japanese woman around the year 2000, but yet here we are in 2007 and he still hasn't been able to have their marital legal papers completed with Immigration. This is awful treatment as my Uncle truly loves his wife Fumiko and they are very dedicated to each other. (2008)

Was married in aug 2005 in egypt, had K3 interview feb 2006, as i thought all went well. its now march 2008 and ive received nothing in mail or anything at all, im expecting his child now sucks he will miss out on alot when i call and ask about where case in all pass and say we sent to nvc or we sent to uscis for reajudication but when i contact all 3 no one calims to having it its like a run around im a us citizen so this makes em very angry they leave u in the dark with no answers adn not knowing whats going on. I contacted some congressmen they told me its at national benefit center for review and reajudication. and there is not timeline on how long makes me sick. (2008)

Feb.2007, I went to Nigeria and married my wonderful husband. After coming home I filed papers to bring him and my step-daughter to the US, his interview was Nov.26,2007 in Lagos. We recieved an 221-g and were also told he needed DNA testing for the daughter, they charged us $800. for the test! We were also told the administrative processing would take from 6-12 months because they are having staffing and budget trouble. This really just isn't fair, we paid our fees and did everything they told us to do and now we are in this black endless whole, with no end in sight. Something really need to be done to correct this. (2008)

Applied k-1 visa 3/06. Interviewed 11/06.Its now 1/08 . Still no decision. Daily illegals come to this country. During this election year many politicians say how cruel it would be to send them back to their countries. But what do you get if you try to have your loved one come legally? If you follow our laws. Nothing but humiliation. You are judged by if they think you should be in love. Not if in fact there is a relationship. Made to put your life on hold. Made to daily which illegals enjoy life in this country while your life remains in limbo.If you have no security issues you should be given your fair chance at life together. We take part in the process because we are innocent and law abiding.Judge the security issues and if cleared let us have our lives.The illegals are rewarded with life here , while honest applicants are made to suffer and wait indefinitly. Where is my right to persue happiness? What benefits do you get for following the law and wanting to do things the correct way? None that i have found.The illegals are having the last laugh at honest applicants and at our government.Our government bars the honest applicants while making things easy for the illegals.If you go to consular office you are treated like a criminal.You are treated worst then the real illegal immigrants.Thats if they even bother to speake with you.Many times they simply refuse you audience,and dont bother to even give a reason for the refusal.As a tax payer they should serve me. Not degrade me.My taxes pay their salary so they can treat me like a third class citizen.And what crime have i committed? Just to fall in love and dare to ask to have my fiance' join me in my country. (2008)

yes i have experianced the same indegnates with my gov in morocco saying 221g with not even a explianation of why,today tho i have found that the proof of relationship was not up to my countrys standerds of love i guess .i have sent my love with a stack of ims that go on for a yr worth of personal talks and photos of us together for 2 dear weeks with our engament cerimony with my wounderful husband to be s family . we didnt expect to fall in love it was a long slow prosses that evoled into love but becouse i cant jump on a plane and miss work and trying to be responceable and frugle with financess it was turned away. i work every day with illeageal immagrants , i see they just cross the boareders and do things like marry a american to become leagal . but the fact is i fell in love with a man over seas, trying to exercise the right to love , to be happy to do things the right way, for what for someone who desides awe he dont love her what a terrible thing to do to someone who belives in this country and what is right and fair. (2008)

I applied for a K3 visa for my Nigerian husband, father of my 18 month old son. My I130 petition was approved very quickly and forwarded to the NVC while my I-129F sat on a shelf in Vermont. I was informed that I am no longer eligible for a K3 since I have the I130 aproval. I did my research, this is NOT USCIS policy. They told me this after I had already waited 5 months for the approval. Now I have to start over and wait 2-6 months for the NVC approval and at least 10 months for an interview. If they did not terminate my K3 petition, I would have had an interview in about 3 months! I have seen that the majority of CR1 cases end in AP in Lagos, Nigeria which could take a few months to years! When is my American son going to get to live with his Father? Why do they intend to destroy families???? (2008)

i am married for 2 years to an american citizen all our immigration papers approved for CR1 visa but at the us embassy cairo/egypt i was given back my passport and asked to wait so called administrative processing that is issued in first place because i am a muslim born in middleast which i have no problem with but my question is why do i have to wait months after interview while they had me applying for immigration 1 year and a half ago was not that enough to do security checks? by the way its now 4 months since my interview and still havenot heard anything from embassy and some people had to wait more than 1 year after interview to get their visas. (2008)

I'm married to a man in Egypt. And have been for 2 years. We are cought up in administrative processing for over 9 mo's. Something needs to be changed. It is not right or fair that they keep us apart for so long. It has been 2 years of this journey. And they never give a answer to the delays. (2008)

I begun the process back in 2006, my husband and I had to delay the ending of the process because we could not take the distance. The strain it puts on me to raise a child here while he is stuck in Jamaica was/is too much to bear. (2008)

I have personal experiences in this matter. We married in Egypt. We are on our 2nd year and still waiting after being denied then they tell us to wait for their call to tell us our next step. (2008)

I have a personal experience with the Consulate in Casablanca Morocco, and it sure seems like a lot of people have had the same eperience. On September 4th 2007 I arrived at the US Consulate and i have to say embarassed to call that building my Consulate or Embassy those people there are a joke! I was entranced to the building my tax money and your tax money built!!! I could not believe my ears, nor could i believe the nerve of these people that call themselves US citizens. I think living in the other Country's have damaged there senses, because no one there was like myself at all. They where not nice to me at all. i was told oh no you cannot ask any questions, you can not call any Consulate , you must sit across the street in the cafe and wait. As I sat across the street staring at this building I said to myself 8,000 miles i have traveled to go inside this building and make sure these people do not try to shaft my fiance, like i know they will try to do! So i was denied to enter the building when he went in and after he came out. what is the reason i can not go inside my own Embassy??? DISCRIMINATION!!! in the biggest form. iF I was in the USA and this was done to me, some heads would be rolling, but America is making us pay the salaries of these people who are without any consideration for other peoples lives. I agree with all the people who have placed their stories on this website. My fiances story of his interview that these interviewers are frustrated and angry with their jobs and DO NOT TREAT PEOPLE WITH RESPECT. Grill them unmercifully and give them a paper with the excuses of 221g. we all are american citizens wanting a good husband and we are finding what we want! in the laws of America we have this right, and our loved ones fiances husbands have the right to be with us in a timely fashion.it should not take 2 or 3 years for these people to do there jobs that we pay them not once but twice this is not a freebee! if i treated my customers at the retail stores the way they treat me, I would not have a job!!! We need to fire them all! Hopefully our new president might hear our voices. I know so many Congressmen will hear mine so we can live our American dream we are promised. And the blood of our fathers brothers and uncles sheld for us to marry any man we want. (2008)

I wish I didn't have experience in this matter, but I do. My case is lost in the abyss of the "Administrative Review" blackhole. I cannot get any updates, information or answers. I especially cannot get any help no matter where I go or who I talk to in the USCIS. (2008)

My daughter married a wonderful man from Egypt and I now have a beautiful grandaughter who has never seen her father because of these self preserved people who make the rules and tear up families and hearts and don't care. Why should they....they all go home to their families and loved ones when the work day is done and they have accomplished destroying others families. This is a sad sad thing when congressman and senators who are being charged with child molesting and stalking and drugs and doing God knows what in public rest rooms are able to decide the future of an innocent child and keep her father from her in the most informative years. (2008)

I filed for a visa for my husband. we were denied on our K-3 visa under section 221g in October of 2006 which is amazing my husband had everything and anything with him at the time of his interview. However the women who conducted the interview had no interest in looking at anything. The thing that confusses me is that we were sent back for more evidence while he had it from day one and they didnt look at it. We then got the approvle on our I-130 in November of 2006 our approvle was not processed we were sent back to USCIS for futhur review. Which we now go to the bottom of the pile and start all over again. It has been there for 9 months and nothing has been done on our case. We are still waiting for them to even look at our case. I was born and raised in the US and am a US citizen and I fell in love with a man from another country and I cant even be with him. I have been there 3 times to see him and have to plan another trip due to the fact that they are not processing our case. Alot of people have children and jobs that we can not walk away from, but have to do what we can to try to see our loved ones. (2008)

My fiance was denied in Casablanca July 23,2007....because he could not explain the progression of our relationship in English ( which we speak at least 5 hours a day) ..or Arabic, which is his native tongue)..they wouldn' even look at our pictures...we had ove a 6 month chat log, , phone calls almost daily log, emails, cards .two printed chats from each month, I spent three months there...and it's not easy to go because I am on social security...no hve to refile, am going back for another few months....had to hire a lawyer... I am broke...but nothing will keep us apart...unless the lies of the interviewer will count again. ALl she ws interested in was, what do you want with an older woman??? she badgered him relentlessly!!! HE is 42 years old...never married...don't you think he knows what he wants....he would happily stay in Morocco...only reason for wanting to come here is me...what is wrong with this picture? (2008)

My wife was deneid a K3 visa in panama despite all the evidence and one hour of questions. The consular in panama was rude and made is on assumptions about our relationship before my wife even had a chance. (2008)

My husband and I have been married since 2004. We applied for the K3 visa since May 2006. Currently we are still waiting to be approved. I don’t understand why couples that applied after we did are already approved and have their spouses living with them already. Neither our I-130 or the I-129-F have been approved. It is very difficult to live apart from family and loved ones. It brings lots of physiological, emotional, physical and economical strain on both parties. It’s not easy to maintain our perspective household and yet be able to save enough money for all the expenses that are incurred while living continents apart. It’s not easy financially or because of work to be able to travel half way across the world just to be with your loved ones for merely days at a time. Travel is not cheap. And those of us who work to sustain our families only get no more that 2 weeks out of the year to be with our loved ones. Since our spouses are not allowed to come and visit us this complicates things even more. This process is very unfair. I don’t understand how I being AN AMERICAN BORN AND RAISED US citizen can easily be stepped over my NON US CITIZENS to bring their families to this country. There are many fellow people that I got to know while going to college who came here on international student visas. Upon graduating from university companies sponsored them with work visas and then these “new residents “ go back to their home countries like India and they are able to bring their new spouse to the US immediately. Now how fair is that to AMERICAN CITIZNENS who were born and raised here? How is it that because they are here on a work visa they can bring their spouses here with out a separation or a long and painful wait. Don’t we have more right to be reunited with our loved ones AS QUICKLY AND EFFECTIVELY than people that are NOT EVEN AMERICAN CITIZENS? (2008)

my case (I129f) was returned after the interview from the Dominican Republic to Vermont to be reviewed. according to the embassy, they said i did not bring them enough evidence. my case is being in Vermont now for about 19 months. i sent to Vermont and to the embassy all the evidence that i have. pictures,telephone statements,e-mail print outs,proof of every time i traveled to see my fiance, witnesses statements and much more. but nothing helps this process to move any faster. i am planing to go back and get married. i was told that there are chances to get denied again. i am very confuced now. in the interview, the officer just wanted to deny the visa. they lied and contradicted each other very much. also, they were asking most of the questions about sex and acused me verbaly and in writing that this relationship was a fraud. (2008)

Our case is pending a K-1 review since March 07, 2006. Most employers offer vacation time on average of 2 weeks. Since it can take 30 days to marry my employer would not approve this time off, leaving me without employment, creating financial hardship. I was present for the interview it made no difference...Our evidence was not touched. Neither were we informed why our case was returned. To date we are still unaware of the reason or reasons. USCIS and DOS does not work together , they are separate entities. Therefore creating confusion, multiple filings and many times a big let down at the consulate who demands these cases are reviewed. DOS follows a guidance for returned petitions. However USCIS does not consider these cases a priority or guidance, resulting in cases being stuck in pending status indefinitely, not counted as part of their backlog. There has been cases where communication with USCIS is difficult or non-existant. If a new case is refiled many time the consular officer may "hold" a decision pending a review decision from USCIS. So what are the options? Marriage has seemed to work for some who have returned K-1 petitions at some consulates. Other consulates may hold their decision until the returned petition is reviewed. (2008)

Yes. At both my wife's K-3 and CR-1 interviews the US Consulate in Lagos, the consulate personnel (1) point-blank refused to review the evidence we had been instructed to produce for the interviews (2)rudely accused my wife of not being married to me and just seeking a visa, without proof of such claim. For how long will US consulates abroad continue to use all this unfair and inconsistent bureaucracy to plausibly justify their attempts to limit legal immigration? (2008)

my wife immigrant visa was denied last july 23,2007 and her i-130 petition sent back to uscis califournia for review eventhough we provided sufficient proof of our relationship. the horrible thing is that no information was given for the reason no visa issued. 1- consular officers should not deny family petition if evidence has been given 2- consular officers should not make any pre-judgment or prejudices at any case 3- consular officers should act with professionalism not with their own desires. (2008)

My k1 fince visa just got denied last week in Chennai. They gave me a blue letter asking me to submit more proof of our relationship via the VFS. I took all the letters, emails, cards,phone bills, etc with me to the interview and they didn't even took a look at any of them. Now they are asking to send all those proof via VFS. WHat does this mean? The letter says that i was denied under the section 221g and tells me to submit more proof to overcome this and to complete the processing of my application.we have like 14 years of difference between us with she being the elder. Is this a reason for the denial? Is it possible still to get the visa after initial 221g? Our relationship is 2 years old and we have all the emails and letter we sent during these period.and phone call details. And all the recepts of the money she sent me, hotel bills with both mine and her name on it. And photographs of us together which we submitted with application. (2007)

My fiancee got denied after 2 interviews and now they are sending it back to USCIS. I have had multiple marriages before and they do not tell us clearly that but they use our unusual circumstances to deny visa and harass us this way so we drop the case. My case has cost me a lot of financial loss as well as aggravation. When they invited my fiancee second time, there was not fixed appointment. She was told to come any day at 8 am. Then they did not allow her to enter based on email letter they had sent us. Finally she got hold of some agent outside and she helped her get in. But now they started interviewing again. Their whole goal was to deny visa no matter what you have. I have decent income and asset and would not risk to marry someone for fraud as I would be the loser. I think, they use their power to deny unusual case, just because they can. (2007)

I Got Denied A K1 Visa Under Section 221g, Accordind To Embassy, I Did Not Bring Them Enough Evidence. My Lawyer Said That I Brought Them More Than Enough. He Also Said That My Bigest Mistake Was To Go With My Fiance To The Interview. He Said That When They See That Both Go To The Interview, That's When They Start Asking Hundreds Of Questions. If You Fail One, That's Enough Reason For Them To Deny.

My fiancee just got denied nder 221g. I heard that you cannot appeal. If thats true, lady who interviewed us lied because she said we have one year to appeal. I went to a lawyer, he told me that I cannot appeal until they send me the results from the administration or investigation. The USCIS told me that in 128 days they would give me an answer. Now it's been 200 days and nothing. (2007)

It is unthinkable what they get away with. it might sounds crazy, but i think they set people up to deny them the visa. for example, they told me that i did not have enough evidence. they said that because they ignored all what i brought to them. they were asking me questions about her grand parents and things that are not related to a relationship and things that they knew that i might didn't know. they could have given me at least 30 days to present more evidence,but they returned my case for investigation. one week after the interview, they sent us a leter accusing us of fraud. they are saying that our relationship was just for immigrate to US. i have nothing to hide and i have proof and thousands of witnesses of this relationship. in the other, they will find nothing to prove that this relationship of seven years is fake. (2007)

September 6, 2008

On July 30th, 2007, the filing and processing of all K-1 petitions shifted to two USCIS Service Centers, California and Vermont. The two service centers have different procedures for reviewing K-1 petitions which are returned by consulates for review and possible "revocation". Vermont reviews the consular returns, following the guidelines of 8 CFR 205.2. California normally allows the already expired K-1 petitions to remain expired, which seems reasonable. After all, the K-1 petition has expired. It's no good unless it's revalidated. And consulates return thousands of K-1 petitions.

Perhaps CSC management thinks its resources can be put to better use elsewhere. Let the petitioner file again with more evidence and a request for an IMBRA Multiple Petition Waiver. USCIS service centers are massive operations with a myriad of ever-expanding legal responsibilities. Service Center management has a right to use its staff resources in whatever way best helps it carry out its various missions. However, the U.S. Department of State objects to CSC's policy of allowing expired petitions to remain expired. It would prefer to have CSC management assign adjudicators to each and every one of the thousands of petitions that consular officers return every year.

In a sense it could be argued that DOS wants to participate in the management of CSC's adjudication of returned K-1 petitions. It doesn't matter how many thousands of hours it would take to [re]adjudicate these returned petitions. It doesn't matter how much money all this would cost the taxpayer. It doesn't matter how speculative, conclusory, equivocal, irrelevant and even factually incorrect these return memorandums often are. What matters is that DOS is miffed that CSC is ignoring its petition return memorandums.

Consulates have taken the position that it will not adjudicate re-filed K-1 petitions that CSC has approved. Rather, it will delay the processing of the visa application until CSC makes a new determination on the old petition, one that demonstrates it has paid attention to the consular officer's return memorandum. Has this policy been approved by the State Department? Seasoned USCIS adjudicators know that consulates send thousands of K-1 petitions back to service centers every year. Hundreds of these petitions do not meet the criteria set forth very specifically in "Matter of Arias". Why should USCIS waste its valuable resources reviewing petitions that should have never been returned in the first place?

DOS will remain free to return hundreds or perhaps thousands of petitions where the officers' conclusions are conclusory, speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant to the bona fides of the petitioned relationships. It can continue to be unaccountable to US Citizen Petitioners. And in those cases, US Citizen Petitioners will have to put their futures on ice in a massive bureaucratic deep freeze. Here is an extreme case of this turf war being played out at the expense of US Citizens. This poor guy has been trying for six years to bring his wife to the U.S. This case is revelatory in more than one way. It illustrates what happens when a US Citizen Petitioner is caught between these two agencies. But it also shows that DHS is the agency that often gets sued for the actions for consular officers who are outside its control. I'm not sure why this gentleman sued DHS. It approved all his petitions. It's DOS that keeps saying "no". But I have not read the pleadings and there might be a good reason not mentioned in the story.

A couple of "A" words came to mind when I read his case. "Abuse" is one. "Accountability" is another. At what point can we say, this particular U.S. Citizen deserves better under the law? At what point do federal officers become accountable for actions taken under color of law? But DOS should be careful here. The case law is clear. Aliens outside the United States may have no rights. But US Citizen Petitioners do have rights. And these rights are actionable. In refusing to adjudicate visa applications, DOS may be ignoring the plain language of the law. Adjudication of [petitioned] visa applications is not a discretionary function. Consulates do not have discretion to indefinitely delay the issuance or refusal of visa applications.

Further, the adjudication of visa petitions is clearly the sole domain of USCIS. And in demanding that USCIS adjudicate petitions in the way it desires, DOS may be violating the letter of the law yet again. Now that one half the nation's K-1 petitions are being processed through CSC, DOS may be creating a class-action size group of US Citizen Petitioners who are desperate enough to seek redress in the courts.

September 5, 2008

All nonimmigrant visas, including fiance(e) visas, carry the same risk for the government, that is, an alien may remain in the US against the terms of his or her visa. Yet, you issue nearly 6 million non-petitioned, non-immigrant visas a year to non-taxpaying aliens, but when it comes to 50,000 fiance(e) visas, petitioned by own taxpaying citizens, now that's doing a lot of favor!

Immigrant visas issued

2002 - 389,157, including 41,197 visa lottery visas*

2003 - 364,768, including 48,085 visa lottery visas

2004 - 379,402, including 45,849 visa lottery visas

2005 - 402,247, including 46,099 visa lottery visas

2006 - 449,065, including 44,349 visa lottery visas

Non-immigrant visas issued

2002 - 5,769,437, including 39,008 fiance(e) visas

2003 - 4,881,632, including 44,633 fiance(e) visas

2004 - 5,049,099, including 51,802 fiance(e) visas

2005 - 5,388,937, including 53,968 fiance(e) visas

2006 - 5,836,718, including 48,864 fiance(e) visas

10% of those who enter the US legally on non-petitioned, nonimmigrant visas issued by the US consulates never return. That's a number 12 times greater than all the fiance(e) visas issued in any given year.

* Visa lottery is a program is run exclusively by the DOS, that is authorized to grant up to 55,000 foreign applicants a year permenant resident status (green card), at random, without any regard to their famiy connections, usefulness or humanitarian need.

September 2, 2008