ellis-island

Hi.
1. I have no Vietnamese wife. I have no wife.
2. I remember this client in question. I did ask rather a woman in the office - who is
not my wife to leave the room so that I could interview this client in confidence. I'd hardly
call it a "yell". I pointed my finger and said "out". That's verbatim.
A client should expect - attorney/client confidentiality without extraneous people
listening in. She wasn't a paralegal, translator or clerk. She had no business sitting
in on this particular client's interview.
3. I can't say whether "this consulate" likes me. I have a couple of friends there.
Some others may not. I necessarily have an "adversarial" relationship with consulates.
4. It's not my job to be liked. It's my job to point out when the consulate is
wrong about the facts or the law, or both on any particular case. And I do that quite a lot.
I point it out to the consulate. I point it out to USCIS in revocation proceedings, and
if the need arises, I'll do that in Federal District Court or the US Court of Appeals and even
the news media if an egregious enough case comes along.
This consulate - like a lot of others in the world - get the facts or law wrong on a lot of cases.
It's getting better. But it still gets them wrong far too often. The decision-makers don't spend as much
time on a case as I do. They're not as careful as I am.
Concerning the information I gave to the lady, without breaking confidentiality, I can say
that this consulate generally does look at living arrangement of petitioner and ex-spouse, both
post-separation and pre & post-divorce. It looks at other information that is available in nationwide databases.
Whose names are on the income taxes? Filed single or married? Does one share a bank account or credit card with another? Is the address-of-record of the ex-spouse the same as the address-of-record of the petitioner? Drivers' license addresses? Phone number listings? Bank statement mailing addresses?
These all can raise red flags.
All the Best,
m.e.

Hi.
Two words, 4th from paragraph from the bottom from my OP: "pro bono". (Emphasis added this time around).
Mods, if you like, delete the final sentence of that paragraph. It's too late for me to delete it. Or delete the whole thing.

.
You're right. I've navigated the process at least two hundred times.
And I've interviewed at least a thousand clients who have been denied K-1 or
family visas at consulates.
I'll consider you to have opted out though.
Finally,
I assume he's offering his service pro bono publico as well.
Two thoughts here.
1. It's better to be lucky than good.
And
2. Voltaire's prayer: "O Lord, make my enemies look ridiculous."
There is a pretty good history of CSC's policy of reviewing expired K-1's returned
by consulates from 2007 to the present, contained in my OP. In fact, I don't think you'll find
it anywhere else. And I'm definitely not soliciting paying clients. I'm doing this pro bono,
as I assume Gary and Alla are also offering their translation service pro bono.
Mods feel free to remove the thread. But I will be handling requests for
expedited review of expired K-1 petitions pro bono publico with CSC.
The grounds will be "USCIS error" and "Compelling Interest of USCIS".
I can't guarantee an outcome. But there is a serious problem here. Nothing is
happening. There is a paralysis between two agencies. People have brought
me emails from CSC stating it is reviewing cases returned from consulates in 2002.
There are hundreds if not thousands of these petitions returned by consulates
every year. I don't blame CSC for the problem. Really, Department of Homeland
Security should be training consular officers in immigration law and taking a greater
role in supervising the visa process, as DHS is the responsible agency - not DOS.
I'm not sure DHS knows it's in charge yet though. (Sec 402 & 428 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002).

Hi. ILW.COM has published an article of mine that connects the dots between visa refusals, revocations & findings of material misrepresentation
against beneficiaries. It might interest some of you, particularly those people who have had visas refused.
P6c's - Department of State's War on Love, Logic & Law

Hi. ILW.COM has published an article of mine that connects the dots between visa refusals, revocations & findings of material misrepresentation
against beneficiaries. It might interest some of you, particularly those people who have had visas refused.
P6c's - Department of State's War on Love, Logic & Law

Tran versus Napolitano
I was in Guangzhou last week, I got a call from Brent Renison. My cell phone said 4 a.m. It was actually 5 a.m.
He said, "Marc, I'm filing a class-action on K1's".
I said, "It's 4 in the morning,".
Then I asked, "Which consulate?"
He said, "Ho Chi Minh City,"
After we talked a bit, I went back to sleep thinking, "That's a really nice way to start out any morning."
The last class action Brent Renison filed - he won. It got rid of the Widow Penalty
for widowed spouses of US Citizens.
I've written a lot about the problem of K1 returns by consulates, expirations & reviews.
Brent told me he'd read what I wrote on INFONET.
Brent is seeking review rather than expiration, but he wants it within 30 days.
There is another serious problem I hope can be raised in the litigation.
That's the issue of automated misrepresentation findings. But this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT NEWS
for any US Citizen petitioners who have had K1's refused at any consulate. Stay tuned.

Tran versus Napolitano
I was in Guangzhou last week, I got a call from Brent Renison. My cell phone said 4 a.m. It was actually 5 a.m.
He said, "Marc, I'm filing a class-action on K1's".
I said, "It's 4 in the morning,".
Then I asked, "Which consulate?"
He said, "Ho Chi Minh City,"
After we talked a bit, I went back to sleep thinking, "That's a really nice way to start out any morning."
The last class action Brent Renison filed - he won. It got rid of the Widow Penalty
for widowed spouses of US Citizens.
I've written a lot about the problem of K1 returns by consulates, expirations & reviews.
Brent told me he'd read what I wrote on INFONET.
Brent is seeking review rather than expiration, but he wants it within 30 days.
There is another serious problem I hope can be raised in the litigation.
That's the issue of automated misrepresentation findings. But this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT NEWS
for any US Citizen petitioners who have had K1's refused at any consulate. Stay tuned.