mr and mrs

please post the source for this information.
this is (at least) the second time you have posted this. it is NOT ACCURATE.
affidavits are NOT REQUIRED but are accepted as a form of evidence for the i-751.

quick translation of jimbo's nationalist rhetoric:

well, after happily cheering others approvals, i can report with equal happiness (+1) that my husband got an approval letter today.
he strolled in with a letter and handed it to me. i handed it back. for a moment i worried very slightly that it was a summons for an interview, but he scanned it and then yelled 'congratulations!'.
details for those interested:
decision date 4/5
letter rec'd 4/7
est 60 days to rec card
sent from local office
no text/email rec'd
woo!

good grief.
you are experiencing the spectrum of the process. your wife's ROC went quick. faster than the advertised time of 6 months. (were you singing the praises of the USCIS then?) now your son's is taking longer and its 'inconvenient' for you. but he is not yet out of normal processing times. (feb 3 will be 6 months for him.)
have you even looked through the august 2011 filers thread? only about a third of CSCers have been approved!
you seem to suffer from a lack of patience (and reading comprehension at times). this will only make the wait more difficult for you. youll probably get an approval in the next couple of months. long before the GC extension expires.

I FORESEE MORE CAPS IN THIS THREADS FUTURE.

you certainly can. i think you meant to say 'ideally, i wouldnt have to go six months without seeing my boyfriend.'
many k1 veterans have survived time apart. i think our longest was 1.5 years. that was utterly wretched. but that was 5 years ago. now hes sleeping on the couch just a few feet away from me. much nicer.

I FORESEE MORE CAPS IN THIS THREADS FUTURE.

Now I'm going to be serious and cut this kid a break - not out of sympathy (I'm not) but because hammering is not really what this board is for.
There is nothing all that serious about this case. It has already been ruled that failure to disclose facts not of a material nature is not grounds for denial of an immigration benefit. The fact that the petitioner was previously married (to her brother in law then divorced and married her brother in law snicker) but divorced prior to the current marriage is not a material fact. Convoluted, but not material. Same kind of stuff happens in kentucky / west virginia all the time or so I hear.
Example of fact of Material nature: Previously married but never actually divorced. Disclosure would make the petitioner/benificiary ineligible
Not of material nature: Previously married, divorced, failed to disclose out of fear or desire for privacy. Previously married, divorced prior to marriage does not effect the eligibility of the petitioner/beneficiary
From an (appealed / won appeal) case where citizenship was denied based on information required but willfully not disclosed on an immigration form:
As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States:
“It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”
For entertainment (make sure the seat is down first)
http://imminfo.com/Library/how_to_begin/material_misrepresentation.html
It should also be noted that the courts clearly outlined that failure to disclose information is NOT the same as filing a false statement and if the information is not MATERIAL to the case anyway then it does not effect eligilibility for the immigration benefit.
Hope that helps.

I FORESEE MORE CAPS IN THIS THREADS FUTURE.

the only thing that is unclear is the REASON for the denial. where is the slip? you must find out the denial reason.
if it is material misrepresentation, thats bad bad news. you will need a lawyer and something like $5000 to see if this can be overcome. im not sure you understand the
how serious material misrepresentation is. it cannot be excused by claiming that you were young and stupid.
im sorry if my sympathy for you is not abundant. not only did you knowingly lie to USCIS,whats worse you lied to your husband.

i am extremely hurt by his actions....
nov-2006 we are officially broken up, im so heartbroken and childish his brother and i elope secretly and the next day we regret everything
dec 2006- i came back to new york
Hopefully your husband won't feel the same way (hurt and deceived) and go pork some other woman to get even (like say your sister or some close relative of yours)

I FORESEE MORE CAPS IN THIS THREADS FUTURE.

The penalties are clearly written down and you still made a calculated decision to risk your marriage.
In the meantime - since you are still justifying your actions - it is evident that you are not crying because you felt like you did anything wrong. You are crying because you got caught doing it.
Feedback: Your husband is better off without a wife who selfishly risks his future and the future of his son by putting little dirty secrets above the marriage. This could have backfired later.

First, there's a protocol with caps lock. It is not about being mean purposely. But it comes across as shouting.
It is clear you have a big issue with this process, starting by not taking it seriously. Western union receipts are not evidence of a bonafide relationship. They can easily prove the opposite: you are in a business transaction. If you show them as secondary evidence you must accompany that with other elements of a marriage: leases, insurance, pictures, taxes, etc. Also, you shouldn't show evidence dating all the way back from when you were 12 years old and he was 15.
Ok, now my gasp... your husband found out about your marriage to his brother the day of the interview?
And the lawyer that married and divorced you is in Dominican Republic and claims is off the books, but hands you a divorce certificate? I hate to say this, but I find this incredibly difficult to believe. It's not impossible, but incredibly hard to believe a professional would marry a 16 or 17 year old without parental consent (I don't know what the laws are in DR, but you're USC), and then lie to you. Then you say in "November 2010- we were married again" Either this is a typo, meaning you officially married and you were referring to him as your husband even though he was just your boyfriend, or you did marry him in the past?
I truly believe the misleading information is not coming from the legal professionals that "helped" you. You're clearly delivering conflictive and misdirected facts, thus the end result.
What made you think you could get away with lying to the federal government, knowing they conduct background checks?
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but you need more than the best lawyer and a miracle to overcome this.
Good luck.

the only thing that is unclear is the REASON for the denial. where is the slip? you must find out the denial reason.
if it is material misrepresentation, thats bad bad news. you will need a lawyer and something like $5000 to see if this can be overcome. im not sure you understand the
how serious material misrepresentation is. it cannot be excused by claiming that you were young and stupid.
im sorry if my sympathy for you is not abundant. not only did you knowingly lie to USCIS,whats worse you lied to your husband.

I think some people need to spend less time deleting cartoons and spend more time deleting the filth that some guys write about their wives body parts.

Unlikely to happen, sigh man.This needs to happen. Pick any five (or four, or three) and make examples of them, and then watch how the others fall into formation. Nothing will substantially or permanently change until this happens, no man.

Kathryn - the part in bold is the larger argument I'm making here. If deleting such a post because, according to you, doesn't fall within your definition of a political cartoon, then this level of moderating should be afforded to any thread where sufficient reporting has been made, yet that isn't happening in P&R. The absurdity of the above example is that it's not like Charles started a thread on guns and I came into the thread and wanted to talk about lawnmowers.
So, I'd like for you to address the issue of deleting posts which do not address the topic or title. Gary coming into a thread about supermarket meat coming from sick cows and talking about PETA is an obvious deflection, derailment or trolling of a thread. He does this often and he does it because one, he gets away with it, and it is effective. All he needs is a handful of willing participants who will respond to his post rather than address the OP, and Charles, ironically, was a willing participant. These members know exactly what they are doing and it's been going on for years here. The only difference is that I've always figured that it was par for the course of participating in P&R where it has less moderating. So for all the usual haters who try to pin this as me just whining here, should know that I've been used to this for a long time. It wasn't until I saw how Charles' thread was moderated that I thought then I and any other member will get the same kind of treatment by the Mods.
I'd like to hear your thought process for that. Can all threads in P&R have that level of moderating provided that the OP reports posts that don't follow the topic or are you making a special case for only certain threads?

i imagine because it's sometimes difficult to draw the line between reasonable skepticism and outright insult. Sometimes the difference is obvious but more often it isn't.

yes! i can finally sing the praises of the BEST. NAME. EVER. HERE. ready?
####### journey.

cynthia nixon clarifies gay comments
the advocate; 20 jan 2012
"My recent comments in The New York Times were about me and my personal story of being gay. I believe we all have different ways we came to the gay community and we can't and shouldn't be pigeon-holed into one cultural narrative which can be uninclusive (sic) and disempowering.
"However... I would like to clarify: While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship...
"I do... believe that most members of our community - as well as the majority of heterosexuals - cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships because, unlike me, they are only attracted to one sex.
"Our community is not a monolith, thank goodness, any more than America itself is. I look forward to and will continue to work toward the day when America recognizes all of us as full and equal citizens."

There isn't a single state that has outlawed same sex marriage with anything even close to a majority of eligible voters. Not one. It is also worth noting that the tide has turned against the same sex marriage opposition only recently. I think it was early - mid last year that, for the first time ever, a majority of Americans supports same sex marriage rights. You see, time is working against bigotry. It always has and it always will.

Suggesting homosexuality is caused by child abuse is offensive. Please remember that there are members on Visa Journey who have gay family members and such comments are both insulting and insensitive.
Scientific evidence indicates that homosexuality is not a 'choice', that it has a genetic link probably predicated by certain hormonal influences during pregnancy. This excerpt, while not from a scientific source, provides a good explanation for the author of the above articles experience:
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jun/17/are-we-born-gay-science-suggests-yes/
Homosexuality is not unique to humankind either. People are just one species among many, many, many that practice homosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
I seriously doubt that every single case of these homosexual animals was caused by molestation, failed parenting or associating with other homosexuals.

Normal Americans - unlike you - do not support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, normal Americans support equal marriage rights for homosexuals.

Just the very thought of teen-age girls in your house at a sleepover gives me cold chills.