LlamaInvasion

While I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread so far about racism; how to deal with it, ignoring it, etc - I do feel like I want to comment on something.
I'm quite surprised that as a teacher, you've never seen this before. I'm Asian of origin (adopted) and have always lived in extremely predominantly Caucasian countries/cities/areas. I have white siblings, white parents, a white family, and grew up in a white upper-middle class neighborhood.
In my experience, the age you described this child to be is exactly when they start questioning and commenting on skin color. It was in the first grade someone first commented on my "squinty, funny-looking eyes." It was in the second grade I was first asked why I looked "browner than my sister." And that girl quickly concluded that she didn't think my sister was really my sister, because if she was, we'd either both be brown or both be white. That was devastating to me at the time, but there was no inherent racism behind this girl's conclusion; she was just trying to make sense of how and why I looked different.
Still to this day, children around the 7-10 age range are the ones commenting on my looks, on the rare occasion it does happen. They are simply curious, and have no filter. Any remark coming from a child that age, I personally would take with a grain of salt.

While I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread so far about racism; how to deal with it, ignoring it, etc - I do feel like I want to comment on something.
I'm quite surprised that as a teacher, you've never seen this before. I'm Asian of origin (adopted) and have always lived in extremely predominantly Caucasian countries/cities/areas. I have white siblings, white parents, a white family, and grew up in a white upper-middle class neighborhood.
In my experience, the age you described this child to be is exactly when they start questioning and commenting on skin color. It was in the first grade someone first commented on my "squinty, funny-looking eyes." It was in the second grade I was first asked why I looked "browner than my sister." And that girl quickly concluded that she didn't think my sister was really my sister, because if she was, we'd either both be brown or both be white. That was devastating to me at the time, but there was no inherent racism behind this girl's conclusion; she was just trying to make sense of how and why I looked different.
Still to this day, children around the 7-10 age range are the ones commenting on my looks, on the rare occasion it does happen. They are simply curious, and have no filter. Any remark coming from a child that age, I personally would take with a grain of salt.

While I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread so far about racism; how to deal with it, ignoring it, etc - I do feel like I want to comment on something.
I'm quite surprised that as a teacher, you've never seen this before. I'm Asian of origin (adopted) and have always lived in extremely predominantly Caucasian countries/cities/areas. I have white siblings, white parents, a white family, and grew up in a white upper-middle class neighborhood.
In my experience, the age you described this child to be is exactly when they start questioning and commenting on skin color. It was in the first grade someone first commented on my "squinty, funny-looking eyes." It was in the second grade I was first asked why I looked "browner than my sister." And that girl quickly concluded that she didn't think my sister was really my sister, because if she was, we'd either both be brown or both be white. That was devastating to me at the time, but there was no inherent racism behind this girl's conclusion; she was just trying to make sense of how and why I looked different.
Still to this day, children around the 7-10 age range are the ones commenting on my looks, on the rare occasion it does happen. They are simply curious, and have no filter. Any remark coming from a child that age, I personally would take with a grain of salt.

I would really suggest meeting first not only for k1 purposes, but because I think meeting him and spending time with him physically even just for a while is an important factor before you decide to be engaged with someone.. do not rush into this, marriage is a serious matter..

US citizenship can be revoked for a naturalized person at any time for immigration fraud. Look up all the old Nazis who lied to enter the US after World War II. Even in their 80s and 90s, they were stripped of their US citizenship and deported.

The length of time she's been in the US and having a US citizen baby do not exempt her from being deported if she was found to have committed fraud for immigration benefits.

This does NOT require a prayer, I'm sorry. This requires for you to open your eyes. He's still lying to you. This is NOT a trial; he does NOT need to prove he's innocent. The only thing he can do, is go and get the random test. If it's positive, there's your answer. If it's negative, then request an in depth investigation. If you want to ask a lawyer or an expert on these tests, go ahead. That would be my best advice. And the other best advise, would be a little controversial: I do not know you and I don't know how far you went in your relationship with him, but, if I was you, I'd get tested for everything. I'd never trust a drug abuser (be it recreational/ illegal drugs or prescription drugs). You never know what kind of diseases he might of transmitted. Not every disease may be sexually transmitted. A lot of marihuana smokers end up getting mononucleosis due to sharing a joint. If cigarette smoke kills non-smokers, go figure what hard core stuff can do. Also, should you plan to procreate, think about your children's health. I'm just sheding a limelight to other realities VJers haven't pointed out. Lastly, and going out of the limb here, let's say within a year he's clean and you succesfully bring him over, what makes you think he won't relapse here?
In conclusion: proceed carefully. This must be a horrendous heartbreak, I understand. Look at this with fresh eyes, because the truth is this: he DID drugs and tested positive. Period. No matter what he says, that's the truth. Think of your future; that should be your prayer.

Moving to IR-Cr-1 forum as that's what you will be doing. He can't adjust status because he entered as EWI>
AOS from tourist, student, work visa.
OP, whatever you decide to do, you need to understand the only option you will have is to get your husband back to Mexico. Once I-130 is approved, at his interview in the embassy he will be denied for overstaying and for entering without inspection. At that time you will need to file waivers I-601 and I-212 which will need to be approved before he will be allowed back into the US.
Be prepared for a long wait and a lot of $$$ for lawyers. Laurel Scott does Wednesday free chats, so you may want to contact her - she has a lot of experience with Mexico waivers.

High level US officials are aware that they do this in extreme circumstances. I disagree that the questions are perverse or alarming. They are personal and embarrassing, but should be easily answered by a legitimate couple. Detail is not required. I don't know my husband's favorite color at all (in fact I thought it was blue but then he said it was "burgundy"), but I sure know about our sex life. I don't know his favorite food; I don't think he has one. In the OP's case, she said that it was a fast courtship, so "favorite places visited as a couple" doesn't exist. Regarding C-section, I would hope that someone's SO would know the details of a life-changing event like the birth of a child, the general story of what happened, whether it was difficult, easy, was there a C-section, etc.
There were other factors that caused this line of questioning. A normal couple is not subjected to this. Sorry you're going through this OP.

I think that given 1) you had previously petitioned for someone else, and 2) the age between your fiance's kids and the two of you meeting is not that far apart (meaning he had a child and then quickly got into a relationship with you) are red flags. Are these reasons to outright deny the visa? Absolutely not. Are they reasons to scrutinze for fraud more closely? Absolutely. Since you weren't told what inconsistencies there were in the answers it is impossible to know exactly which question it was that they feel is inconsistent. Regarding the questions themselves... while personal in nature, I think the questions are very fair. Maybe the last time you had sex is irrelevant, but the first time you had sex, C-section or natural birth, who called who on new years eve, do you use birth control in the US, etc... are all very fair questions in my opinion especially for a couple that they want to scrutinze because of the 2 red flags from the get-go that I mentioned above. Ultimately, they proved what they needed to prove.... that perhaps there is fraud because one or the other doesn't know the intimate details of the relationship. Based on that reason alone, there is no reason for them to even look at pictures, phone logs, etc. It doesn't mean that your fiance won't get a visa. It simply means now you are going to have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it. It sucks, but the red flags were there so the CO did their job and asked intimate questions to prove the relationship and unfortunately you guys didn't pass. Don't give up hope. Just be more prepared next time around.

Given that your husband entered the U.S. with no visa and got married to a U.S. citizen when the ink on your divorce paper wasn't even dry, you are opening Pandora's box. If the I.O. feels that he's being played for a fool, he can put an end to this with one signature alone: his own.
Usually the applicant can appeal such a decision, but such an option does not exist for people who signed it away when participating in the VWP. That makes it easy for the I.O. to be "mean," as nobody can kick him in the buttocks for that.
Worse yet, the I.O. can decide that your husband does not have ties to the U.K anymore if he quit his job, sublet his flat, or euthanized his gold fish and calls it misrepresentation. In this case the denial notice can be accompanied by a deportation order, also exclusively signed by him as he has God-like powers when adjudicating such a petition, which really can end you American Dream for good. Is it likely? No. Is it possible? Yes. Do you want to take that chance? Only you can answer that question.
I, personally, suggest going the CR-1 route in a case like yours.

What if the parents are both US citizens, they have US citizen children, and mom wants to move back with her family in New York but dad wants to stay with his job in California? Children are the victims of any divorce.
Immigration law currently doesn't provide legal status to anyone just because they have children born in the US. If US citizen children are to become a basis for legal status then they would also have to be a basis for people who overstay or enter without inspection. Anyone who wanted to stay in the US would only need to have a child here. Immigration law specifically prevents this by not allowing a US citizen to file a petition on behalf of it's parents until it's 21 years old. Why would this necessarily be different for someone who married and then divorced a US citizen?
Personally, I think birthright citizenship should only be granted if one of the parents is also a US citizen, or if the child has no valid claim to citizenship in any other country. The United States is one of very few countries that allows a child to acquire citizenship by birth when neither parent is a citizen.
EWI's also often leave behind everything to come to the US, and they have substantially less to look forward to, including the virtual certainty that they will never get lawful status here. Yet many of them come here with no intention of ever returning to their home country. There are no provisions in immigration law to grant them lawful status out of compassion because they abandoned their lives to come here. In fact, there are no provisions in any part of the immigration law for an immigration officer to consider that the intending immigrant has abandoned their life in their home country. It's simply not a relevant factor.
In addition, if you know with certainty what will happen depending on the long term status of your marriage then you can plan accordingly. For example, don't sell your house in your home country until you've been married for at least five years, and you know you're going to be living permanently in the US. Nobody is required to completely abandon their lives in their home country, and nobody is guaranteed a lifetime of lawful status in the US, even under the current laws, because immigration officers have discretion over your future status at every step of the way. This is equally unfair because legitimate couples are often punished because of an arbitrary decision by a USCIS officer who is primarily trying to root out fraud. What I suggest are methods to eliminate the motive for fraud, and reduce or eliminate the discretion of immigration officers.
The law, as it's currently written, has no teeth. There has always been a requirement for the US consulates to vet the relationship before issuing a visa. A fraudster who can gather enough evidence to convince a consulate officer to issue a visa isn't going to have any trouble keeping up the charade a little longer so that they can gather evidence to show they entered the marriage in good faith. Whereas fraudsters would previously pull the plug on the marriage immediately after arriving in the US (if they got a spousal visa) or after getting a green card (if they got a fiancee visa), they now wait a few extra months to get the additional evidence before walking out on the marriage (if they intend to seek the divorce waiver) or applying a few self-inflicted bruises and calling the cops (if they intend to seek the abuse waiver). There's little point in even having a two-year period for the conditional green card since they don't need to wait two years remove those conditions.
My point is that entering the marriage in good faith should not, by itself, be grounds for permanently immigrating to the United States. If that's the only requirement then why impose a two-year term on conditional residence? Why not only six months or even three months. After all, it doesn't matter what happens during the two years - it only matters if they entered the marriage in good faith, right?
A fraudster has it relatively easy since they know they only need to focus on the initial evidence. Once they've gathered that evidence then they know they can drop the charade and leave the marriage anytime. I think a substantial number of fraudsters wouldn't bother with the scam if they knew they'd have to stay in a loveless marriage for five years before getting an unconditional green card. Further, I think eliminating the VAWA route would save thousands of American citizens from having their lives ruined by false claims of spousal abuse.
In addition to increasing the conditional residence period to five years, I think removal of conditions should be automatic. You file jointly, pay the fee, and get the 10 year green card. No interviews. No discretion on the part of USCIS.

The most significant thing Congress has done in the past 50 years to reduce immigration fraud is conditional resident status. The biggest problem with their plan was they provided a huge loophole - the conditional resident can remove the conditions and get a 10 year green card on their own, without filing jointly with their USC spouse. Most fraudsters who have the patience, and don't reside in a state with a mandatory separation period before divorce, will use the divorce waiver. The ones who don't have any patience, or who live in a state where divorce takes a long time, will resort to the VAWA waiver. The ones with absolutely zero patience will file a VAWA petition to get the initial green card. Closing this loophole would have a significant impact on the level of fraud. Increasing the period of conditional residence to five years would have a huge impact on the level of fraud.
Yes, I'm saying that if the marriage doesn't last five years then they should lose their permanent resident status and have to return to their home country. I think it would be fair if their US citizen spouse were obligated to provide for their transportation back to their home country - an additional condition of sponsorship.
I know a lot of people will claim that the alien spouse would then be held hostage in a loveless or even abusive marriage for the sake of the green card, but in my opinion any spouse who would ALLOW themselves to remain in a marriage such as that just because their immigration status depends on it is being motivated more by the green card then they are by their marital relationship.

Dude your issues at this point are best addressed by an attorney practised in family law.
You do not have immigration drama you have crazy people drama.
Call a qualified attorney and do not go back to your house unless you have a witness. I mean really don't go back there. I think you can just kick her out actually. Put her up in a hotel or something. Attorney can advise you on this.
Then let her leave (where and how is up to her) then go work on yourself. And don't beat yourself up for it. Just go fix you to your own liking.
I think that course of action could bring an end to your immediate issues with this person but I might be simplifying things.

Ok...no offense but the only person you need to blame is yourself! You knew she was evil to you...your mom...and YOUR CHILDREN! Yet when they were ready to deport her you helped her out. I have a philosophy...if someone gets hit by a car I feel sorry for them. If they throw themselves in front of that car they got what they deserved. I was sympathetic until you kept helping and trying to be with that woman. From that point on you're to blame for your misery. Sorry...don't use love as an excuse and make better decisions for your kids!

I think my perception of what's going on is quite clear. The pool of candidates submitted applications over the course of 30 days, and because the computer software was flawed a large percentage of applicants chosen were from the first few days of submissions. When the results are skewed that badly it's impossible to claim that the results were random, as the law requires.
I've read Mr. White's letters to David Donahue, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services, and also to Harold Geisel, Deputy Inspector General for the Department of State. Mr. White fails to make a cogent legal argument in these letters, though he claims these letters spell out his legal strategy for a class action lawsuit. His arguments are laughable:


"Many people who got jilted are going to sue. This is a waste of taxpayer money." This is a ridiculous assertion. If DoS reinstates the original drawing winners then there will be nearly 15 million whose applications were never even considered because of the software flaw. Doesn't he think they would have an even better basis for a lawsuit? I don't think the potential cost of litigation should even be a factor in deciding whether or not to do the right thing, but if it WAS a factor then I'd think DoS would be far more worried about being sued by 15 million people who were disqualified because of a clear mistake then they would be by 22 thousand who had to try again because the mistake had been corrected.
"US public image abroad will be adversely affected." By what? Making an obvious mistake and then correcting it? I would think that letting the mistake ride would have a worse effect on US public image abroad. Nobody will trust the visa lottery again if the US government admits it was unintentionally rigged, and they didn't do anything about it.
"The existing lottery was random and fair." Mr. White's reasoning was that it's physically possible that a truly random drawing could have yielded the same results. This is like admitting that there's a magnet under the roulette wheel, and saying the results are fair because it's possible the same number would have come up if the magnet weren't there. Would anyone think this argument would fly in Las Vegas? Why does Mr. White think it should fly with DoS?
"Department of State has a duty to honor those notices." Mr. White further claims that there's no procedure outlined in the law for redoing the visa lottery based on an obvious error. The fact is that there's no procedure whatever in the law for actually conducting the lottery. The procedures are established by Department of State policy. There's also nothing in the law that states that Department of State is legally bound by the results of the lottery, regardless of any irregularities they find. Further, Department of State frequently makes mistakes and grants benefits erroneously, and they routinely revoke those benefits when it's determined that they were granted in error. How does this particular event qualify for immunity from DoS revocation?
I'll withhold my final opinion until I read his petition. So far, it sounds like he's drumming up donations for a lawsuit he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

I won't join for the following reasons:
1. I'm not a member of Facebook, and do not intend to join. Ever.
2. I disagree with what you're trying to accomplish. For most of the people who were erroneously notified that they'd won a visa, there are many people who were never given a chance. The only fair way to fix this is to do it again.

This has been said time and time again, and you refuse to listen. You are way too far in denial.
Your lawyer can NOT help you, she's stringing you along and taking your money. You need to think of your children and leave.
Of course, you still won't listen to this, and come back like a month from now to post about the next asinine thing your lawyer claims to want to do for you that will surely help...

The hidden tragedy with the K-1 is how many fat old american victims are pressured into sex with these young, beautiful, and exotic foreigners.

All of a sudden you want advice--you have discarded every attempt to help you, but having said that, we really do want to help. Unfortunately you have kept you wife away from this website, so none of us really know all the details...shame on you !!

You've been scammed. Leave now. Go back to your grandmothers house. File for a divorce. Have no further contact with him. If he can't get a green by marriage then he'll try to get one through VAWA, which means claiming you abused him. Don't give him an opportunity to manufacture any evidence of this sort, like calling the cops on you.
DO NOT GO TO THE GREEN CARD INTERVIEW!!! I can virtually guarantee you would be subjected to a grueling Stokes interview, given his serious history with immigration. You DON'T want to go through this.
I can recall only one or two cases where the evidence of fraud was more clear than this one.

All this talk about "hacking" is a little silly, and somewhat naive. Someone who presumes that the US government needs to hack your account in order to find out what's there doesn't really understand how the internet works.
The internet is comprised of millions of subnets. If you have a dial-up or DSL account then your connection to the internet ends in your own private subnet. If you have a cable broadband, fiber link, or use a corporate network, then your subnet may be shared with other users. Your subnet is probably merged with other subnets downstream to form larger subnets. These may be merged again with other larger subnets, eventually forming a "trunk" of hundreds or thousands of internet connected devices. The "master" trunk is called the "backbone". When two internet connected devices communicate with each other then that data will travel over the local subnets to each device, at a minimum. It may travel through other larger subnets, trunks, or even the internet backbone. Anyone with the proper hardware and software tools can monitor ALL traffic over the subnet to which they are connected.
The US government monitors traffic on the internet backbone, most of the large trunks, and many of the smaller subnets. They may be viewing your internet traffic in multiple locations. They can analyze any unencrypted traffic in real-time, meaning at the same time the traffic is transmitted. Encrypted traffic takes longer, and has to be analyzed "offline". With the proper authorization, they can specifically monitor ALL of your internet traffic through your ISP. The results of the analysis are stored in large databases that can be searched, when needed, by US government officials.
You should also understand that most foreign governments are also monitoring internet activity. Some are actively monitoring and filtering all traffic within their own country (communist countries, countries with strict laws against defamation or anti-government activities, etc.). Those governments monitor and filter internet traffic right at the internet service provider's servers.
There are also private organizations that are constantly recording the state of various internet sites, and maintaining a snapshot of what appeared on a given site on a given day. This is how Google can pull up an archive of a web page that was deleted some time ago. The Internet Archive Project (archive.org) has been recording webpages for more than a decade. Anyone can pull up a copy of a web page that was deleted years ago. This means that even if you now change your profile to "private", there's a reasonable chance that a copy of your original page exists somewhere.
Again, if you want something to remain private then don't post it on the internet - ever.

will you stop trying to lure people into joining the trucking industry?
there are as many cons as pros to working in this industry and you never seem to mention those.youre becoming like a second _
___
(fill in the blank
) who always suggests people get ready for their spouse's education while waiting on noa2.
him getting a job right now wouldnt help because he needs to show a steady paycheck for the last year if not the past two years.

Actually, I did.
Is e-mail communication and substituting sex for a marriage also common? Because those, in conjunction with the refusal of any counseling or steps to repair their marriage whatsoever, is what's making this look really damn bad for this woman. After all, the alternative to taking corrective steps is the OP leaving her. That's got nothing to do with culture. That's got to do with whether she wants to stay married to the man she supposedly loves or not. She clearly does not. My advice remains the same: Divorce her ####.
You know absolutely nothing about whether the ex was a more reliable cash cow or not. We don't have any information about his financial situation, vs the OP's financial situation, besides the fact that the ex gave her an "allowance." What will she get from the OP? Couldn't possibly be, oh, say, a green card. Derp.
...in my VERY first post in this thread, I was more lenient towards that, than the opposite. I think you're the one not reading posts very carefully.
Personally, I'd be happy if you do check out of this argument, since none of your conclusions have been sensible, logical or helpful.

Nope, Russian women aren't any different than any other women. They may express themselves differently, but the psychology is the same.
What she wrote to him in that email was not an expression of anger or disappointment. She was not shutting him out emotionally. What she wrote was cold and matter-of-fact. The marriage isn't real. She thinks it's silly to pretend that it is. She believes marriage counseling is for people with real marriages, so it doesn't apply to them. She's willing to give up a little sex now and then in return for him basically leaving her alone. In her mind, this was an arrangement and she wants him to abide by it.
I'm sorry, but I've seen too many people get screwed by a foreign spouse because they kept trying to chalk up every obvious red flag as a cultural misunderstanding. This is no misunderstanding. She made herself quite clear.