ForumTitleContentMemberSexCountryDate/Time
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionNew Article on Consular Denials
What I have listed, I have seen on NOIR & NOID letters sent by DHS to petitioners.
These letters normally quote the consular return memo.

I have also seen some of these on the letters that USCGHCMC mails to petitioners.
To my knowledge, USCGHCMC is the only consulate that actually mails the petitioner
a letter explaining the reasons for the denied K-1. IMHO, more consulates should be
following that example.

In my experience, these are not normally stand-alone reasons used to justify denials.
But they're definitely red flags that cause consular officers to look deeper into a case.
And I have definitely seen these reasons used in NOID & NOIR letters sent by DHS.

Consular officers in this forum are probably in a better position to comment on that.

The important part of the article is the part that describes the misrepresentation trap
that exists for visa applicants. It's my opinion that DOS doesn't need to go that far.
There is an element of "willfulness" that DOS needs to look at, before making a finding
of "misrepresentation". I don't think they're giving "willfulness" the careful consideration
it deserves.

But I'm just a lawyer. I don't make policy decisions. DOS needs to look at that though.

Edited by ellis-island, 23 March 2006 - 12:54 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2006-03-23 00:52:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionNew Article on Consular Denials
For those who are interested, "Immigration Daily" has just published an article of mine about consular denials of K-1 visas and an interesting process of more or less "automated" findings of misrepresentation. It is here.

I've written it from a more or less neutral perspective. "Just the facts, M'aam."

It will change the way a lot of lawyers & petitioners file I-130 & I-129F petitions.
I've known some of this stuff for a long time. But there is other information in the article
I've only just learned.

Edited by ellis-island, 22 March 2006 - 07:01 PM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2006-03-22 19:00:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionI am so pissed
1. Where is your case? Are you sure it has been sent back to NVC?

Maybe. But that seems like a quick turnaround. Congressional liaison staff can be very helpful in finding out exactly where a case is.

2. Income issues: Since the K-1 uses the I-134, consulates have more discretion to require more income than the 125% of the poverty level that is specified for immigrant visas. At some consulates, a well-put together job offer can be helpful in overcoming that problem. At other consulates, a properly documented co-sponsor is sufficient.

To be on the safe side, a job offer should have:

A. Offer of employment specifying salary, starting date, and whether the job is full-time or part-time, on letterhead (if the biz has letterhead).

(1). If a training period is required, the letter should specify whether the beneficiary will be paid during that training period.

B. Copy of the business license (if there is a business license.)

C. 1 year certified tax transcripts from the IRS for the business.

D. Proof that the person offering the job is in legal immigration status.

I've seen consulates accept less documentation with job offers. But I always advise my clients to get A,B,C,D, if they possibly can.

3. Assuming the petition was returned, a lot depends on which USCIS Service Center you filed it with. If it's California, you may just get an expiration letter, stating that you can reapply with an IMBRA waiver. Nebraska & Vermont may give you an opportunity to counter the consulate's findings with evidence.

If you file a new K-1 petition, you will need an IMBRA waiver, according to current USCIS interpretation.

4. If the case is still in AR, you may still have a chance to overcome it by submitting more evidence. (See #1 above - use your congressional rep to find out exactly where the case is.)

5. How many trips have you made there? A lot of interviews occur before petitioners have made subsequent visits. Sometime another visit, with accompanying documentary evidence is the only thing a petitioner will need to overcome the refusal.

Everything depends on where your case is.

Marriage?

I think it is unnecessary and unwise to withdraw a K-1 petition that has been returned, in order to marry the beneficiary. There has been a 212(a)(6)© misrepresentation marker placed in the database file of visa applicants whose petitions have been returned. Withdrawing that petition could trigger auto-revocation provisions of 8 CFR 205.2 (as they apply to 8 CFR 214.2, (the fiancee visa section).

That's all very complicated. But once you find out exactly where your case is - it's easier to figure out what to do.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2007-03-07 13:02:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionCongressional letter BEFORE the K1 interview
QUOTE (JayandZou @ Apr 27 2009, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (TBoneTX @ Apr 26 2009, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The OP might want to write a PM to Marc Ellis (immigration attorney), who is a member of VJ under the name ellis-island.

It would be very interesting, and perhaps valuable to many VJ members, to hear what Mr. Ellis says about an advance letter.



I emailed Marc so we'll wait for his answer. Good idea. smile.gif


If the case is refused & returned, ask the congressional rep for a copy of the return memorandum,
or at least the specific factual reasons - not boilerplate - the visa was denied.

Most of them won't carry it that far. They'll just 'express an interest' and the consulate will send
back a bland boilerplate reply. Then your rep will say, "so sorry, nothing more we can do."

We had one recently from Mary Landrieu that DEMANDED in very strong terms a re-interview.
It demanded that I be present at the re-interview. It pointed out the out dated information
a refusal had been based on.

Rather than go through the hassle of trying to reply to a certain loser of a refusal -
point-by-point, the chief took the easy way out and approved the visa, over-riding
the interviewing officer.

If your Congressional rep gets pissed off at the way his or her constituents are being treated --
they can help a lot. If they don't care, they won't be much help.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-27 11:36:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionRe-approval of k1
BTW, here is a blog I write. The first 3 links are about K-1 denials.

LINK

The information is as up-to-date as yesterday.

Edited by ellis-island, 07 July 2009 - 06:57 PM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-07-07 18:55:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionRe-approval of k1
FWIW:
QUOTE
"...he referred me to a place that studies cases and coaches you for the interview in the consulate. We're currently waiting on word from the consulate before we go ahead with that."


I don't do that. I people in my office who help with interviews. I've never referred any client to anyone outside
of my offices to be coached for an interview. That would be nuts.

I don't recall the case. But if someone referred you to an office that was not one of mine, it wasn't me.

I'm outside VN right now. Back tomorrow.

Feel free to call.

All the Best,

m.e.
QUOTE (kosuke85 @ Jun 23 2009, 11:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (JimVaPhuong @ Jun 23 2009, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reasons usually are petty. As I said, they were fishing for an excuse to deny the visa and return the petition. There is abundant evidence that the CO has made up their mind before your fiance ever gets to the window for the interview. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the girls see the paper - white, blue, green, or pink - already filled out and ready to be signed by the CO at some point during the interview. There is also evidence that the final decision as to which paper to fill out and have ready is made between the time your fiance is called up to submit her documents, and the time she is called up for the interview, though it's probable they have a pretty good idea which way it's going to go before she's called up for the documents.

The point is that they didn't like your package before they asked her a single question, and were intent on denying, so they grilled her.

So, let's see if we can reverse engineer this and figure out what they REALLY didn't like about it.

How many times did you visit her before asking her to marry you? How many times before you submitted the petition? How many times before she went to the interview? How long was each visit?

Were you present in HCM when she interviewed? You can't actually go into the interview, but it seems to help a LOT if the CO knows you are there waiting for her (they often DO ask).

Did you have an engagement ceremony? If so, how many people attended the party? Did you include any pictures of this with your petition?

Did you have pictures of you with her family? Were these included with your initial petition?

You were introduced by a relative of hers (this is always a red flag). Did you address this in the petition, and describe how you knew her relative? In cases like this they will always suspect that the relative was setting you up to get their family member to the US. You have to bend over backwards to make it clear that YOU were in charge of the relationship from the beginning. If the family member aided you in any way, such as helping to pay for your visits, then it looks very bad to the CO. It looks like the family was buying her an American husband.

I realize many of these things aren't needed by USCIS, so it might seem pointless to include them with the initial petition. The point, as I said above, is that the decision is often made before the interview begins, which means before they have an opportunity to see the evidence your fiancee brought to the interview. Adding the evidence to the petition helps to ensure that the CO will actually see it, since they often don't even ask for much at the interview.

Anyway, give it some thought and let us know. Also, it wouldn't hurt to start a thread in the regional forum and describe your experience. You'll get lots of advice, but more importantly your experience will help others who are just getting started.


1. The first time I met her in person was when I asked her to marry me. I was there for two weeks and submitted the petition upon returning.

2. I was not present for the first interview, but when it was denied I hopped on a plane to confront the consulate and was granted another interview with the visa chief himself.

3. We had an engagement ceremony and invited almost 80 of her relatives, several pictures of the ceremony were included in the petition.

4. We have many pictures of me with her and her family and a sampling of them was included in the petition.

5. I included a letter with the petition (I don't remember if it was required or not, but my lawyer told me to write it and what all I needed to say in it) about how the relationship started and progressed and made it clear that there were no financial contributions from my fiancee's family in the US towards the relationship.

The whole system is very unfair towards the innocent petitioner/beneficiary, where we have to as you said, "bend over backwards" to prove that our petition is true. I should think that the very fact that there are little inconsistencies here and there would add more evidence that the relationship is real rather than a spotless, orthodox relationship petition would be. The relationship between my fiancee and I is by no means "normal" but we are held to the standards of what is perceived in the mainstream to be a "normal" relationship.


ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-07-07 18:44:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionAILA versus Ho Chi Minh City Round 2
QUOTE (Anh map @ Dec 14 2009, 06:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (rebeccajo @ Dec 14 2009, 01:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Gary and Alla @ Dec 14 2009, 11:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Reminds me of how copper wire was invented...two attorneys fighting over a penny.


Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what this means?


It implies that two attorneys are holding firmly to the same penny and pulling on it so that it stretches so much that it resembles copper wire.


QUOTE
T-Bone Tex:

"06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC)..."


That is what my point is all about. Foreign national "investigators" making false
accusations against US citizen petitioners.

Your Stokes interview wasn't in Ho Chi Minh City. So why is AILA focusing
on HCMC? What happened to you is happening to US Citizens all over the world.

Edited by ellis-island, 14 December 2009 - 08:35 PM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-12-14 20:33:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionAILA versus Ho Chi Minh City Round 2
Hi.

Several months ago an AILA* Board member contacted me and told me that
AILA was going to complain to DOS about the US Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City.
Apparently a lot of clients and lawyers were having a hard time.

(*American Immigration Lawyers Association)

I told the gentleman I thought it was a stupid idea to focus on one consulate,
when the problems with DOS are systemic, long-term and emanate from
management in Washington, DC - not from Ho Chi Minh City.

I also told him, that in some ways, giving specific reasons for refusals
on OF-194's, for example, HCMC is better than most consulates. Most consulates
just hand out bland, non-informative boilerplate on their refusals.

Anyway, I was confident nothing would happen, because AILA was involved.
I was right. Round I - nothing happened.

Round 2 has apparently started. I was contacted by a different board member and a
complaining attorney yesterday. But this time, they have some kind of organized
way to approach it.

I told them the same thing. It's a stupid idea to focus on one consulate.
Foggy Bottom is in Washington DC. AILA is in Washington, DC. Why don't
they take a taxi over there and complain to the people in the Visa Office?

I did make two recommendations to AILA if it wants to do something useful.
I thought I'd share those with VJ forumites. Some of you might find one or
both of them interesting. They're not limited to HCMC.

I'll post on developments as I learn of them.

QUOTE
"Thanks.

I have not complained about this consulate.

Two suggestions, if AILA wanted to do something useful, it could:

(1). Teach its members how to properly file an immigrant visa petition.
It's always a nice thing to interview the beneficiary - even if she lives in
a foreign country. Most immigration lawyers don't do that.

It's often helpful to conduct a full background check on the petitioner. By doing that,
a lawyer can point out problems in advance, the case is likely to encounter at a consulate.

The consulate sure as Hell will do that. The vast majority of immigration lawyers don't even interview
foreign beneficiaries and don't bother even to check who else is living in the petitioner's house, who
he might be sharing a checking account with, or carrying on his income tax or insurance.

That kind of legal practice is setting a client up for an ambush when the case gets to the consulate.
And you can't blame consular officers for immigration lawyers not knowing what the hell they are doing.

(2). Another helpful thing would be to bring the conduct of foreign national consular "investigators"
to the attention of a Federal District Court Judge in the DC Circuit. Perhaps there are some extra lawyers
sitting around AILA who could help out. .

Quite often, US Citizen petitioners are wrongly accused of marriagefraud.by these bozos. They operate in
a perverse system where DOS management expects them to find fraud, So they often make stuff up to please
their bosses.

It is not uncommon. Query your members about it and learn something.

This amateurish system set up by DOS results in serious damage to the lives and futures of US Citizen petitioners.
It happens in consulates around the world. It happens here. But it also happens elsewhere.

If AILA could query its members about the examples of this abuse they've seen, you will hear some horror stories.
A very good lawyer told me that one of his clients had a heart attack and died, when he first read what a consular
"investigator" had accused him of.

American families are being abused by this system. I don't understand why there is a focus on the line officers
in Ho Chi Minh City. That's ridiculous.

They work in a system. They have bosses. It's DOS Management in Washington who are responsible for the mess.
And it needs to be brought to the attention of a Federal District Court Judge. I will be happy to help and to give
specific case numbers and name names.

False allegations of fraud by foreign national investigators are causing damage to US Citizen Petitioners.
That is the bottom line. Maybe some of the lawyers in AILA might be intersted in that. .

Probably not.

m.e. "

Edited by ellis-island, 14 December 2009 - 09:35 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-12-14 09:33:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionP6c's - Department of State's War on Love, Logic & Law

Nice work, Marc. This goes into a lot more detail on the subject than your previous article. Bookmarked! :thumbs:

I am curious, though - since this happens with such regularity, do you not think that CO's know what the consequences are of a petition revoked on the basis of their accusations against the beneficiary? When the beneficiary returns for an interview for a subsequently filed petition, and the CO hands them an I-601, the CO can't tell them what they misrepresented that resulted in their being inadmissible, but don't you think the CO knows the process that actually caused it, especially if the CO was the one who interviewed the beneficiary the first time?

I ask because I suspect this may go beyond the CO's simply being inadequately trained. I think some CO's may know darned well the potentially devastating consequences of a denial based on suspicion of a "sham relationship for the purpose of evading immigration law". I suspect they know they're holding a big gun here, and they know what will happen when they pull the trigger, and in many cases it's exactly what they wanted to happen. In their opinion, something smells very rotten about the beneficiary's case, and they intend to blow a huge hole in it with a P6C marker. I think it may be disingenuous of them to shrug their shoulders and claim they don't know why the beneficiary has a material misrepresentation in their file when they may very well be the CO who is responsible for it being there.


Ho Chi Minh City is ahead of a lot of consulates in many ways. I talked to a previous Chief about this problem in 2006. He began putting
the 212(a)(6)(c )(i) consequences on refusal sheets. So the officers in HCMC knew about the consequences. But Guangzhou is telling
petitioners and beneficiaries that it was USCIS that made these misrepresentation findings. So one consulate knew. One didn't.

But even if they were all aware of the consequences of revocation, that doesn't mean they know the basic nuts and bolts law behind it.
There is a difference between mere ineligibility and a material misrepresentation.

I've met a lot of USCIS people. And I've seen a lot of consulates in action. There is no comparison as far as their knowledge
of immigration law. The DHS/USCIS people know what they are doing. The whole ethos at consulates is,
"Let's give the case back to USCIS and see what they say,".

DOS supervisors in DC designed this nutty procedure. DOS is not a legal culture. DOJ/DHS are more cognizant of laws & legal consequences.
An agency can't just boot-strap brand new grounds of inadmissibility, with no record to support it, and expect not to be challenged
eventually. That's just stupid.

There is a flaw in the design here. The logic is incorrect. The law is incorrect. And this procedure was designed in Foggy Bottom.
So I don't fault the people in the field. There may be some exceptions to that too. Some of the designers may be working in the field now.
I can think of a couple. But they're not doing visa work anymore.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2010-07-14 11:15:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionP6c'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
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2010-07-14 05:23:00
Middle East and North Africa221 (g)

I don't think I know of Ellis's case no, i'll search, thanks.


I may have a case number. It would be news to me though if I do.
I hope not. I don't think the beneficiary and I have been properly
introduced yet. That's a red flag for consular officers, if the petitioner
and beneficiary haven't been properly introduced.

If I learn what my case number is, I'll post more often here and
keep y'all apprised of how the case is progressing and how the beneficiary
performs at the interview, whoever she might be and wherever that interview
might be held.

Last time I checked though, I haven't petitioned for anyone.

Am I mistaken or is Ellis an immigration attorney who posts here on occasion?


Now & then I think he does.

Edited by ellis-island, 31 July 2006 - 09:45 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2006-07-31 09:43:00
IR-1 / CR-1 Spouse Visa Process & ProceduresNOIR's are flying out of CSC right now.
This post is for petitioners whose I-130 petitions have been returned to USCIS
by consulates. Get ready.

I've been retained on at least a half-dozen new NOIR cases from
CSC in the past two weeks. It's astonishing! (Note: I've seen no K-1/NOID's).
Make sure USCIS has your correct address - if you're a USC Petitioner.

The NOIR's are from Vietnam, Mid-East and China.

CSC is moving these cases out. Rather than examining the consular memorandum's assertions,
as I commended VSC for doing in my immigration law blog*, most CSC adjudicators seem to be just quoting
the consular memorandum.

(*My TWITTER ID = chaleck. I post updates to my immigration law blog on TWITTER.)

I saw one NOIR today though, where the adjudicator had reduced the case to a single issue. Thumbs up to that adjudicator.

But if you're an I-130 petitioner in the US who has had your petition returned to CSC - get your evidence ready.

Remember "Matter of Ho"- I quoted in my case law thread in my immigration blog*. The burden of proof is on Petitioner -
not the consulate and not USCIS. Essentially, you have to prove your case all over again.

So get your evidence of trips abroad, of frequent and lengthy communication, phone bills, emails, chats, photographs.
Respond to each conclusion stated in the NOIR. Break them down if necessary. I've found that's helpful.

Get your evidence together. Two hole punch them at the top and index them by tabs. The most bothersome thing
to get together are the translations. Translations are more of a problem in my Vietnam cases than in my Chinese cases
or cases in other consulates.

But if you have hundreds of letters, emails & chat pages that need translating from another language - get to work.
Or else hire someone to do them for you. And remember translations have to be certified by the translator -
they don't need to be notarized. Translators don't need to have any special qualifications. They simply
need to be competent in English and in the language that is being translated into English.

Don't let them charge you for a rain dance. Don't get ripped off by translators.

8 CFR 1003.33 - Translation of documents.
QUOTE
Any foreign language document offered by a party in a proceeding shall be accompanied by an English language translation
and a certification signed by the translator that must be printed legibly or typed. Such certification must include a statement that
the translator is competent to translate the document, and that the translation is true and accurate to the best of the translator's abilities.


These cases are flying out of CSC right now. So get ready.

Edited by ellis-island, 18 June 2009 - 06:23 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-06-18 06:21:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & Procedures45 and been divorced 3 times already....could this be a problem filing a 1-129F for my Fiance?
P.S. My IMBRA hypothetical (above) was an attempt at humor.
I was trying to stretch an IMBRA disclosure to its logical absurdity.

I think IMBRA disclosures may have an effect on interviews and on
how interviewers perceive beneficiaries' intent. And I'll prepare my
beneficiaries accordingly.

But I don't actually think interviewers would use some of the terms
I used. And I think it would be a violation of the Privacy Act to make
an IMBRA disclosure to prospective in-laws.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2006-06-11 12:43:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & Procedures45 and been divorced 3 times already....could this be a problem filing a 1-129F for my Fiance?
"I am the poster child of what the USICS will do. I have been married 4 times. 2exs are immigrants.
the USICS - dallas interviewed me< USC> it was the worst experiance in my life. < 2 hours of pure hell >.
I was asked how the last marriage ended. I showed my dear jane letter. but, I dont know if the Adjucator belived me. I was also asked how I met my husband and my exs because they were immigrants. I was able to show proof of a bonified marriage. *whew*"
----

I've sat through interviews like that in INS/USCIS District Offices, including Dallas.
Yes. Those can be grueling interviews. The adjudicators dig into the facts and
take the time they need to take to judge the merits of the case.

I doubt if the officers in Manila are going to interview this beneficiary for 2 hours.
I imagine she'll be asked about the petitioner's previous marriages though.

Gary C:

"Do you have an inside on what and when is gonna happen with this IMBRA thing?"


No. I have no inside on the IMBRA thing. I imagine it will create some absurd
no-win situations for everyone involved though. And it will probably be litigated
in Federal Courts.

I also think that petitioners had better prepare their beneficaries for some very
tough questioning about petitioner's previous marital difficulties.

Here's an IMBRA hypothetical:

Consular Officer:

"This man beat his wife. Did you know that?
He really slapped her around...more than once.

Do you really want to go live with him in the United States?
You should think about your own personal safety."

Beneficiary:

"He's nice to me. He doesn't beat me."

Consular Officer:

"That's because you're not his wife yet. Once you're married, he may
start slapping you around too. What will you do then?

Beneficiary

"He won't do that. He told me his ex-wife made
all that up so he couldn't get married again.

I know him. He's really a nice man.
He's very charming and pleasant to be around."

Consular Officer:

"He's done it before. More than once...

Let's face it. He's a dirt-bag.
Are you sure you want to marry him?"

Beneficiary

"Yes. I love him."

Consular Officer


"I don't believe you. This guy is a real loser.
I think you just want to go to America.
No rational woman could want to marry a man who
beats his wife. "

(Hands her a blue sheet that requests a letter from her mother & father
explaining why they want their daughter to marry a dirt-bag who has a known
history of wife-beating.)


Beneficiary

"I don't believe any of that."
(Takes blue sheet and leaves.
----

I honestly don't think many beneficiaries from Vietnam are going to say,

"I guess I don't want the visa after all. My fiancee had a TRO issued against him
once by one of his ex-wife. I'd better not move to San Jose. I'll just stay in here in My Tho for the
rest of my life."

IMBRA may have that effect in rich countries. But Vietnam? China? Philippines? Nigeria? Russia?
Bangladesh? Pakistan?

I'd wager very few beneficiaries from those countries are going to decline their visas after
being informed of their fiance's previous marital difficulties.

I read IMBRA right after it took effect. I haven't revisited it though.
So I'm no expert. But I know the kinds of disclosures it
mandates. It might make for some interesting interviews.

Edited by ellis-island, 11 June 2006 - 06:52 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2006-06-11 06:48:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & Procedures45 and been divorced 3 times already....could this be a problem filing a 1-129F for my Fiance?

Probably not but make sure your fiance knows all about it because they will ask her about it.

----
Were any of the ex-wives sponsored on immigrant visa or fiancee' petitions?
A common request at consular interviews is for the petitioner to provide the address
& phone number of each ex-spouse.

And I agree. You should definitely brief your fiancee about them. First names of each &
the year of each divorce, at least. I can't recall any beneficiaries I've talked to being
asked the "why" of a petitioner's numerous divorces. But you may want to brief her on
the reasons each marriage dissolved.

Edited by ellis-island, 10 June 2006 - 04:50 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2006-06-10 04:49:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresMichael Aytes Memorandum on IMBRA
Here is the link.

There are a couple of parts of this memo that concern me.
I have underlined them to point them out. One I think raises serious legal questions,
perhaps constitutional issues as well. The other I think is legally incorrect on its face and
I hope the memorandum will be rewritten to clarify this point.
----

"A. Mandatory Submission of Information on Criminal Convictions for Specified Crimes
IMBRA provides that a petitioner for a K nonimmigrant visa for an alien fiancé(e) (K-1) or alien spouse (K-3) must submit with his or her Form I-129F information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any of the following “specified crimes”:

page2

[SNIP]

"If the petitioner indicates that he or she has been convicted by a court or by a military tribunal for one of the specified crimes by checking one or more of the boxes in Part C., question 2 of Form I-129F, or USCIS ascertains through relevant background checks that the petitioner has been convicted, the petitioner will be required to submit certified copies of all court and police records showing the charges and dispositions for every such conviction. This is required even if the petitioner’s records were sealed or otherwise cleared."
__________

Here an obvious issue arises. What if the petitioner is unable to obtain copies of sealed or cleared records? Will DHS be satisfied with a letter from a clerk of court stating that the law forbids the opening of sealed records?

It's important to note, the question of what is a conviction in immigration law is very complicated. There have literally been hundreds of court cases addressing the issue. What if a prosecutor declines to prosecute after the petitioner attends some counseling program. Is this a conviction?

Under IMBRA, petitioners should be absolutely certain they have been convicted, before checking "yes" to that question. It is entirely possible they weren't convicted at all.

Also, a conviction that has been vacated on the merits is no longer a conviction. Some state post-conviction relief statutes are written to overturn a conviction on the merits. Yet, at one point the petitioner had been convicted. Would he be required to disclose a conviction that has been overturned?
----

B. Filing Limitations
IMBRA imposes limitations on the number of petitions a petitioner for a K nonimmigrant visa for an alien fiancé(e) (K-1) may file or have approved without seeking a waiver of the application of those limitations. If the petitioner has filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past, or previously had a K-1 visa petition approved within two years prior to the filing of the current petition, the petitioner must request a waiver. These limitations do not apply to petitioners for a K nonimmigrant visa for an alien spouse (K-3)."
[/i]
-----

The IMBRA law itself specifies that the filing limitations apply to those petitions filed for different beneficiaries. The Aytes memorandum does not specify this. Thus, someone simply refiling to correct a previous filing for the same beneficiary would, according to the Aytes memorandum, be required to obtain a waiver.

This is simply incorrect.

Here is the law:
(underlining added for emphasis).

‘‘(2)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and ©, a consular officer
may not approve a petition under paragraph (1) unless the officer
has verified that—
‘‘(i) the petitioner has not, previous to the pending petition,
petitioned under paragraph (1) with respect to two or more
applying aliens; and

‘‘(ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition previously
approved, 2 years have elapsed since the filing of such previously
approved petition.
_____________

The law here refers to consular officers approving petitions - which is
incorrect. USCIS approves petitions. But ignoring that technical detail,
the rest of the this section of the law is clear. Consular officers must verify that
previously approved petitions were for two or more different
"applying aliens" before referring the case to DHS for a waiver.

Thus it is reasonable to assume that DHS need not issue waivers
for those petitioners who have filed two petitions for the same beneficiaries.
But unfortunately, where the law is clear on this point with regard to consulates,
it is ambiguous with regard to DHS.

I fear this Aytes memo will create confusion among adjudicators. It seems
to require waivers for multiple petitions filed for the same beneficiary, which
is contrary to the statute on its face.
___________
‘‘(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary’s
discretion, waive the limitations in subparagraph (A) if justification
exists for such a waiver. Except in extraordinary circumstances
and subject to subparagraph ©, such a waiver shall not be granted
if the petitioner has a record of violent criminal offenses against
a person or persons."
___________

There are problems with the way the IMBRA law was drafted. They Aytes memo
creates more ambiguity in a couple of areas.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2006-08-02 17:10:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresAnswer from Colorado Senator
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. But Match.Com, and perhaps even Yahoo Personals might be exempt from IMBRA. There is an exception written into the law that reads: (emphasis added by underlining)

"(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its principal business is not to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals and it charges comparable rates and offers comparable services to all individuals it serves regardless of the individual's gender or country of citizenship."

As I read that exception, the law exempts singles sites whose principal business is "domestic" dating services, ie., couples inside the United States and not "international" dating services between US Citizens, LPR's and foreign nationals.

Thus, if the bulk of Match.Com's dating services are provided to citizens and residents of the US, they'd be exempt under that section of the law. Ditto for Yahoo.Personals.

This makes me wonder, is this law rationally related to its objective? For instance, small international dating sites like loveofasiavietnam or russianbrides.com or Ethiopianbrides.com or Filipinabrides.com, might actually broker fewer international marriages than a huge site like Match.com. Yet, because the principal business of the huge site is domestic, it is exempt from the law. And the little sites aren't.

I think IMBRA is a probably good idea. I have problems with the way some parts of it are drafted. But the exception for huge match-making corporations whose principal business is to provide US dating services seems very irrational in relation to the law's objective. In fact, it smacks of lobbyists doing what they're paid to do.

I've done an internet search. It's not definitive, but everything I read (mostly from anti-IMBRA sites), mentions both Yahoo Personals and Match.com being exempt from the law.

Please correct me if I've got this wrong.

Edited by ellis-island, 05 August 2006 - 08:44 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2006-08-05 08:39:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresClash of the Titan Bureaucracies - the Sequel
QUOTE (rebeccajo @ Oct 19 2007, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (ellis-island @ Oct 18 2007, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
--
Rebeccajo:
QUOTE
It's interesting to read the article within Ellis' article about Mr. Richardson's case.

It appears that someone somewhere has decided to archive the file to the Cave. How can they just DO this?


A lot of people in USCIS aren't even aware of the two Service Center policy for filing K-1 petitions.
Call the 1-800 number and ask where to file. I've had clients tell me they're told (as recently as two weeks ago,)
to file in the Service Center with jurisdiction over there home.


Nooooooooo....I mean Richardson's case. How can they just archive it? Isn't he appealing?


I haven't read the case. It looks like he is filing a Madamus to force agency action though.
That is most likely. DOS also - BTW, is subject to Mandamus writs.

The problem is - his case never should have been returned to begin with.

The problem began at the Guangzhou Consulate. It usually starts with the consulates.
USCIS adjudicators in my experience, are at least trained in the law.

I've seen both up close. Based on what I've seen, the average rookie USCIS
adjudicator has better immigration law training than most career Chiefs of IV Sections in big consulates. And that goes double for the BCA/VO people in Washington.

A petition was returned by a consular officer that should have been approved.
CSC misfiled it. As a result of both, a US Citizen has waited six years to bring
his wife to the US.

The petitioner sues DHS. But the source of the problem is DOS.
And it hasn't been named as a defendant.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2007-10-19 22:48:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresClash of the Titan Bureaucracies - the Sequel
QUOTE
"Just when I thought everything was going great with our NOA2 , I read this and it appears we don't have a snowball chance in Hell to get our visa when Thao interviews."


Why do you think that?

The Chief at HCMC is trying to get this stuff right. I've seen him make a couple of good calls on cases recently.
He just works for a dysfunctional agency. If you want a smooth, efficient, courteous process with DOS, you're
being unrealistic.

First off, if she interviews in English - she should sail through.
There are some good officers there. She might draw a good one.
If she's not - don't worry. Sloppy officers write sloppy denials. Sloppy denials are
the easiest ones to disprove. And one can derive the satisfaction of making them look
like hacks and utter incompetents.

If she interviews in Vietnamese, ah...then she is at the mercy of the consular clerical/
translation staff. One thing to be alert for - she should make careful notes
about what question is asked by whom?

There has always been a tendency at that consulate
for some Vietnamese National clerks and translators to free-lance.

Vietnamese clerks work double, triple duty as translators and amateur fraud sleuths.
They're not sworn to give accurate translations as translators are in any
stateside legal proceeding. And their other duties create a conflict of interest
to any duty they have to give an accurate translation.

It's bad form to have Vietnamese clerks and translators asking questions
that cause damage to US Citizens back home.

So watch for that. But if she interviews in English, it should be a piece of cake.
The applicants who fail interviews there overwhelmingly interview in Vietnamese.
--
Rebeccajo:
QUOTE
It's interesting to read the article within Ellis' article about Mr. Richardson's case.

It appears that someone somewhere has decided to archive the file to the Cave. How can they just DO this?


A lot of people in USCIS aren't even aware of the two Service Center policy for filing K-1 petitions.
Call the 1-800 number and ask where to file. I've had clients tell me they're told (as recently as two weeks ago,)
to file in the Service Center with jurisdiction over there home.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2007-10-18 16:42:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresClash of the Titan Bureaucracies - the Sequel
http://www.ilw.com/a...1018-ellis.shtm

If anyone is interested, I've written a piece about consular returns of K-1 petitions and
K-1 expirations through CSC. That's the link. I recommend it for anyone whose K-1
was blue-sheeted or returned.

It's a mess right now. But if you read the piece, you'll see that even though USCIS
loses cases and puts petitioners through delays, at least their adjudicators are trained in
the law and at l?ast the agency knows its accountable at the end of the day.

I don't fault CSC for allowing expired K-1's that have been returned by consulates - to remain expired.
I don't fault VSC for going through the Review/NOID process.

I place the blame solely on DOS management in DC - for allowing the return of petitions that should
never have been returned in the first place.

I don't fault line consular officers & supervisors as much as I fault their managers in Washington.
But the Department of State has been a badly-managed bureaucracy for decades. Nothing new about that.

Two consular officers have written me about the piece. ?ne liked it. One thought it was rubbish.
The one who thought it was rubbish was a VO manager. He thought "Matter of Arias" was an
"ancient case". His words.

Did I go over the top? Of course.

Did I describe the conflict between CSC & consulates with precision and clarity?

Absolutely.

Did I take sides? Yes. I think CSC is more in the right than DOS.

Am I doing this to generate more business?

No. I have too many clients right now. I can't take any more.
And I'm leaving for a month's vacation in the States soon.


All the Best,

m.e.

Edited by ellis-island, 18 October 2007 - 09:22 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2007-10-18 09:19:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresEntering the US after the K1
QUOTE
Slightly Bonkers:

Hypothetical....

I have 6 months to enter the US on a K1 visa after issue. Once I enter I can't leave the country for 90ish days without a Parole.

but

Can I enter the US during those six months on a VWP, not marry, go home and return later within the original 6 mths on a K1 and marry?

Ok you should be able to get it with the top two sentences but some more info ...

As most of us .. I hate being away from my guy. There's a good chance my visa will be issued next may/june/july which means I have to enter the country on my K1 nov/dec/jan. If during that 6 months I want to visit my fiance but come home immediately, not 'emmigrate' to the us (not use the K1), is that possible? I have a job that may not release me easily until sept next year so may want to visit after the K1 has been issued buy before the long term emmigration.

Do you just face the regular pre-K1 immigration issues? Or is it actually impossible to enter with a visa and not use it?

Thanks!


On the surface, your intent appears to be non-immigrant. But you have a K-1 visa, which
allows you to immigrate sitting there unused in your passport. You would have already been
interviewed by a consular officer and approved to immigrate to the U.S. Yet, you'd be trying
to enter on a VWPP visa.

You could explain to the Airport Inspector that you are slightly bonkers.
But that would risk a new ground of inadmissibility, INA §212(a)(1)(A)(iii).
Then you'd really have a problem.

Dan & Yu wrote:
QUOTE
"There is a K-1 visa in your passport, the POE officer will see it, and activate it."


I think that is a realistic scenario.

Having a K-1 in your passport does not disqualify you for entry under the VWPP - at least not according to this:

"To qualify for the VWPP, travelers from participating countries must:

Have a valid passport issued by the participating country and be a citizen (not only a resident) of that country;

Be seeking entry for 90 days or less as a temporary visitor;

If entering by air or sea, have a round-trip transportation ticket issued on a carrier that has signed an agreement with the U.S. government to participate in the waiver program, and arrive in the United States aboard such a carrier. (Note - if traveling by private plane or boat you must obtain a visa.)

If arriving by a land border, have proof of financial solvency and a domicile abroad.

Complete and sign a visa waiver arrival/departure form (I-94W). These forms are available from participating carriers and at land-border ports of entry. (Travelers should consult carriers before departure to verify which ones are participating). By signing this form the travelers indicate that they understand the limits of the program and that they waive the right to a hearing of exclusion or deportation (if they are found excludable at the Port of Entry). "
--

There may be another rule, in another part of the regs that requires airport inspectors to validate only the K-1
and refuse admission on the VWPP. I don't know. But I think that's what an airport inspector would do.

--
I'm not sure about your understanding of this though:

QUOTE
"Once I enter I can't leave the country for 90ish days without a Parole."


I'm not sure where that rule is found. You MUST marry within 90 days of arrival.
The K-1/I-94 will be valid for 120 days or so. But you must file for adjustment of
status to change status from K-1 to LPR.

With your adjustment of status application, you can file for advance parole
which allows you to temporarily leave the US while your adjustment application
is pending.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2007-10-19 21:28:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresIs I129F Still needed if my fiance is here on a J1 visa
A fiancee visa is not normally for a person residing in the U.S.
It is for a beneficiary who will interview at a US Consulate.

Does the "J" visa have 212(E) stamped on it?
Is he subject to the 2 year home residency requirement?

Best case scenarion - he's got a J visa, not subject to 212(E).
Worst case scenario - he's got a J visa and is subject to 212(E).

In #1 you can marry him and adjust in the US.
In #2 you can marry him here or wait and
sponsor him as a fiancee when he returns to
his home country.

There are waivers to the 212(E) home residency requirement.
You should contact a lawyer near you who handles them.

Good luck.
QUOTE (dmauriceabcd @ Mar 24 2008, 07:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Does anyone know if the I129F still needs to be completed if my fiance is here already on a J1 exchange visa? Many thanks!!

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2008-03-24 21:05:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresA Question of PROOF ....
QUOTE
"I apologize if I ruffled your feathers about Marc Ellis... but here are 2 cold hard facts and not opinion: 1)the consulate here does not like him and if they want to be bitchy and see Marc Ellis as your attorney, do you think that will make them less bitchy or MORE? Secondly, the man has a vietnamese wife but YELLED AT HER while I was there, talked down to her and ordered her out of the room."


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.

QUOTE (WideAwakeInTheUSA @ Feb 16 2008, 05:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Y_habibitk @ Feb 16 2008, 12:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (WideAwakeInTheUSA @ Feb 16 2008, 12:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (truffles @ Feb 15 2008, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
OI OI OI!!!! the lady is simply expressing her experience ,,,,you may think Marc Ellis is the best thing since sliced bread ...and good for you ...you of course, have the right to defend him. You are in a position to be able to explain what he did for you if you have used his services you could have constructive information ....but our primary purpose here is help each other - the OP is asking for confirmation that this information is correct...she is seeking help from people who have been there - she is a little frustrated because as i read her post she has more or less had her hopes dashed ( at least that her perception) and in her shoes i might have written the same kind of sentiment in my haste .....so lets just ease up on the defensive and see if anyone can add to her experience.



I actually prefer flatbread. Regardless ,I do have one piece of advice that I am willing to share with the OP:


If you are using Yahoo Messenger then the chats will be stored on your computer automatically.


Actually you need to set that under "preferrences" then "archive"



I stand corrected. My fault.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2008-03-24 08:54:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresWaiting for K-1 review in California Service Center?
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.

QUOTE
I'm planning on doing the expedited review requests pro bono. I'll need to be reimbursed for costs, such as Fed-Ex, translation costs, copying or other costs associated with the filing. If people want to hire me for the revocation or re-file, that can be agreed to later. There is no obligation.
.

QUOTE
"Personally, I find the idea of lawyers participating on VJ somewhat distasteful. I can easily find tons of immigration lawyers online, many with websites containing useful information. That's not what I am looking for on VJ. I come to VJ precisely because it is a community of people just like me who are navigating the process in real life, with real life stories and experiences. Other than OP, I cannot think of a single VJ member I've run across who is not actively pursuing a personal immigration case, considering beginning such a case, or is an alum that has completed an immigration process and has stayed to counsel others. That distinction alone puts OP in a uniquely different category than everyone else I see on this website and hence I approach his comments differently than I would others. Of course, this is just my personal POV. Others are free to do as they please."


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,
QUOTE
"Gary and Alla is fluent in Russian, Ukrainian, English. And can perform the valuable service to VJ members of document translations. Contact us if we can help."


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).

Edited by ellis-island, 14 April 2009 - 08:54 PM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-14 20:53:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresWaiting for K-1 review in California Service Center?
QUOTE (kaushalia @ Apr 10 2009, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (kaushalia @ Apr 10 2009, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am all for this suggestion. However, we have decided to move on with our lives.


If you need anything from me, let me know. Our case was received back in February of this year, so 6 months have not quite expired. I am flying back out to India (was just there in February) in May to get married. We are now planning for the CR1. Our case was sent back for lack of evidence, including no engagement ceremony. India let our case expire by not looking at our additional proof until after the expiration of the I-129f, which expired on December 4. Said they didn't believe our proof, and returned it back to the USA. I had contacted Senators, the embassy, and anyone else who would pretend to listen, and of no avail. When I saw the memo from ombudsman, we decided there was no point in waiting, and decided to make the wedding preparations. This time, I am making sure we have all of the documentation they requested in the 221g, and February's trip alone, we had over 400 pictures. I am sure we will double for our wedding :yes: I am changing my name on everything, and adding him as the beneficiary to all my insurance, etc. He is adding me in everything Indian. Just trying to dust ourselves off from this blow.


Going for a CR-1 after a refused & returned K-1 is not a bad idea. It is a bad idea in some consulates to simply
file another K-1. Whatever you do - do NOT withdraw the KI- that has been sitting there. Let it RIP.
I don't think my effort will bring any results by May. That's only 2 1/2 weeks away.

Good Luck,

m.e.


ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-10 19:48:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresWaiting for K-1 review in California Service Center?
QUOTE (minimule @ Apr 10 2009, 09:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
csv seem to be doing pretty good, average approval time bw noa1 and noa2 is only 70 days... vermont on the other hand is taking an average of 133 days ...that s a huge difference...but i dunno much about all that stuff..


Hi. I am only referring to K-1 cases that have been refused by consulates and returned to CSC.
It's after the consular interview and long after the NOA2.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-10 08:58:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresWaiting for K-1 review in California Service Center?
Hi.

It makes me kind of sad to have to do this, because I am a fan of USCIS. I practiced before district offices and in
service centers all over the United States. I still have a soft place in my heart for the lovely people at the New Orleans
District Office. They taught me everything I know.

I have great respect for the professionalism and training USCIS officers receive. But I think it's necessary to
seek an extraordinary remedy now with California Service Center. I think it is time to file requests for expedited
reviews of expired K-1 petitions that have been returned by consulates. They delays at CSC have become intolerable.

I don't hold the Service Center at fault. The problem is that consulates send back to many meritorious cases.
They often do not adjudicate visa applications under the correct "reasonable person" standard. And that is partly
because DHS has not trained them in what the "reasonable person" standard is.

(Yes - DHS - not DOS is responsible for administering the visa process and for training consular officers
in immigration law. See Sections 402 & 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002).

So if your K-1 has been refused by a consulate and you have beeen waiting for it to be reviewed by California Service Center,
for more than six months, you may want to contact me. marcellislaw@gmail.com . I can't say too much more. But I think expedited review based on two grounds, USCIS Error and it is in the Compelling Interest of USCIS to decide to formulate a clear policy on whether it is going to review
expired K-1's or it is not.

There has been a lot of confusion on the issue.

Back in 2007, the Congressional liaison of CSC was stating for the record that
the Center will not review expired K-1's and that the Petitioners are free to file again.
I have client emails to that effect.

On May 23rd, 2008, in the USCIS Response to the Ombudsman's Recommendation 33, the Acting Director of USCIS, Jonathan Scharfen echoed CSC policy when he wrote:

QUOTE
There are several situations where USCIS may not act on a specific returned petition.
For instance, K-1 petitions are temporally limited and may expire due to the passage of time.
According to 8CFR 214.2(k)(5), an approved K-1 petition is only valid for four months. Consequently, in a number of cases, the K-1 petition will have already expired by the time DOS returns it to USCIS. Once a petition has expired, it may not be reviewed by USCIS. Furthermore, Petitions for Alien Fiance(e) (Form I-129 F) returned from a Consulate, Embassy, or NVC after approval may not be revoked, as there are no provisions in the law or regulation for revoking the approval of an I-129F."
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-10 07:21:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresQuestions on form I129-F / K1
QUOTE (TBoneTX @ Apr 27 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (ellis-island @ Apr 27 2009, 11:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Sections 402 & 428) put DHS --- not DOS in charge of thee visa process. And lawyers have had success reaching DOS through suing DHS.
Fascinating... and without being branded as subversives?
QUOTE
DHS/USCIS is suable. They are essentially DOS's boss as far as supervising the visa process.
Mr. Ellis, this is the first that I had heard of this, despite months of deep Internet-searching last year as a result of having been hosed in Guayaquil. Can you please approach Captain Ewok with the idea of creating a pinned thread, in which you present some of this enlightenment and provide links or references?
QUOTE
Brar vs. DHS is a fun read.
Probably one of the few in this dreary process... how strongly does it serve as precedent? Is it under challenge for potential reversal?


Consular immunity is known as CNR to lawyers. Consular non-reviewability of visa decisions.
That's still in the law. I think it was mainly put there though to prevent foreign visa applicants
from having access to US courts. But now it means that not even US Citizen petitioners can sue
DOS over a visa refusal.

But in fact, now there is reviewability now, by DHS under the Homeland Security Act.
DHS can order a consulate to refuse a visa. It is required to train consular officers in
proper standards of adjudication. And as you see in the Brar case, it can probably do a lot more.

I'm not sure how much value it has as a precedent. But it's out there. Lawyers have been winning Mandamus
actions against consulates while suing DHS at the same time. But a Mandamus only gets you a decision.
It may not get you the decision you want.

Homeland Security Act of 2002

The term, "The Secretary" means Under Secretary for Border
Transportation Security

SEC. 402. RESPONSIBILITIES. (Note - check out (4)).
The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Border
and Transportation Security, shall be responsible for the following:

(1) Preventing the entry of terrorists and the instruments
of terrorism into the United States.
(2) Securing the borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals,
waterways, and air, land, and sea transportation systems
of the United States, including managing and coordinating
those functions transferred to the Department at ports of entry.
(3) Carrying out the immigration enforcement functions
vested by statute in, or performed by, the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization (or any officer, employee, or
component of the Immigration and Naturalization Service)
immediately before the date on which the transfer of functions
specified under section 441 takes effect.
(4) Establishing and administering rules, in accordance
with section 428, governing the granting of visas or other
forms of permission, including parole, to enter the United States
to individuals who are not a citizen or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
(5) Establishing national immigration enforcement policies
and priorities.
(6) Except as provided in subtitle C, administering the
customs laws of the United States.
(7) Conducting the inspection and related administrative
functions of the Department of Agriculture transferred to the
Secretary of Homeland Security under section 421.
(8) In carrying out the foregoing responsibilities, ensuring
the speedy, orderly, and efficient flow of lawful traffic and
commerce.
---
SEC. 428. VISA ISSUANCE.
(a) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘consular office’’
has the meaning given that term under section 101(a)(9) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(9)).
(b) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 104(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)) or any other
provision of law, and except as provided in subsection © of this
section, the Secretary—
(1) shall be vested exclusively with all authorities to issue
regulations with respect to, administer, and enforce the provisions
of such Act, and of all other immigration and nationality
laws, relating to the functions of consular officers of the United
States in connection with the granting or refusal of visas,
and shall have the authority to refuse visas in accordance
with law and to develop programs of homeland security training
for consular officers (in addition to consular training provided
by the Secretary of State), which authorities shall be exercised
through the Secretary of State, except that the Secretary shall
not have authority to alter or reverse the decision of a consular
officer to refuse a visa to an alien; and
(2) shall have authority to confer or impose upon any
officer or employee of the United States, with the consent
of the head of the executive agency under whose jurisdiction
such officer or employee is serving, any of the functions specified
in paragraph (1).
© AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Secretary
of State may direct a consular officer to refuse a visa
to an alien if the Secretary of State deems such refusal necessary
or advisable in the foreign policy or security interests
of the United States.
(2) CONSTRUCTION REGARDING AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this
section, consistent with the Secretary of Homeland Security’s
authority to refuse visas in accordance with law, shall be construed
as affecting the authorities of the Secretary of State
under the following provisions of law:
(A) Section 101(a)(15)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(A)).
(B) Section 204(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) (as it will take effect upon the
entry into force of the Convention on Protection of Children
and Cooperation in Respect to Inter-Country adoption).
© Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb)).
(D) Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VI) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VI)).
(E) Section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II)).
(F) Section 212(a)(3)© of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)©).
(G) Section 212(a)(10)© of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)©).
(H) Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)).
(I) Section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)).
(J) Section 237(a)(4)© of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)©).
(K) Section 401 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6034; Public
Law 104–114).
(L) Section 613 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division
A of Public Law 105–277) (Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999); 112
Stat. 2681; H.R. 4328 (originally H.R. 4276) as amended
by section 617 of Public Law 106–553.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-28 09:08:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresQuestions on form I129-F / K1
QUOTE
"Oaths at USC Services offices " - What is this? I have not read anything regarding to this? Mr. Ellis, can you please explain in details? Thanks


US Citizen Services Offices in Consulates. You can swear affidavits there for a fee.

Concerning consulates being untouchable, the doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability is limited to
visa decisions. However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Sections 402 & 428)
put DHS --- not DOS in charge of thee visa process. And lawyers have had success
reaching DOS through suing DHS.

DHS/USCIS is suable. They are essentially DOS's boss as far as supervising the
visa process. There have been a few district court cases where a Federal Judge
orders DHS to order a consulate to do something.

Brar vs. DHS is a fun read. It's a 2004 case from Seattle.
A US District Judge orders USCIS to instruct a consulate to take
certain actions and to follow certain guidelines.

There are others out there, mostly Mandamus actions.

QUOTE
The Judge wrote:

'The court orders CIS to reinstate approval of Plaintiffs’ I-600 visa
petition and grant Plaintiffs all relief they would have been entitled to had their petition
not been revoked. See Paunescu v. I.N.S., 76 F. Supp. 2d 896, 903 (N.D. Ill. 1999). CIS
shall return Plaintiffs’ approved visa petition to the Embassy for a new determination
which must be completed within 60 days of this order. CIS must instruct the consular
officials reviewing Plaintiffs’ approved visa petition to follow the guidelines established
by the State Department in the Foreign Affairs Manual. Finally, CIS must instruct the
consular officials that denying Ms. Kaur’s visa based on her residence with her surviving
mother, or her lack of a court order when she has an adoption deed, is an abuse of
discretion and contrary to law.
Dated this 22nd day of December, 2004


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
AMARJIT S. BRAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOM RIDGE, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. C04-1401JLR
ORDER

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-27 11:26:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresQuestions on form I129-F / K1
QUOTE
Thank you for reaffirming this wisdom, Mr. Ellis. And, please: someone needs to shine a floodlight on the rogue U.S. consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador for its consistent, willful disregard of 9 FAM 42.43. What will it take for you to do this?


Is it a K-1? Or a CR/IR-1/K-3?

Usually, lawyers can't change the minds of Chiefs of Visa Sections. Sometimes we can.
Most of the time, we have to beat them at the Service Centers.
When the case comes back, the 42.43 issues that caused the return
have been decided and to refuse again, the consulate has to dig up something new.

Consulates use databases and do basic internet searches on petitioners and sometimes Beneficiaries.
Quite often the database information is out of date. It is not double checked by anyone. The Chief signs off on the
officer's refusal, based on obsolete information. It happens hundreds of times at consulates all over the world.

I had an interesting case this week. We pointed out the consulate's conclusions were based on badly out of date
information it had dug up in a database. I was able to point out the errors in the consular information. That along with
an extremely irate letter from Senator Mary Landrieu...very...very...irate. I've never seen a Senator's letter like it,
allowed us to turn the case around at the consulate. Beneficiary got her visa.

I've seen good letters from Senator Landrieu and from Senator Kent Conrad's offices. I wish more congressional
liaisons would get on board. They have power. DHS has power. Neither congressional liaisons nor DHS seem to be
aware of the power they have to change procedures at consulates.

And Senator Landrieu's liaison was kind enough to forward my information about visa refusals based on out-of-date
information to Washington. It may be a black hole. Or maybe one of these days, we may hear something about it.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-25 09:44:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresQuestions on form I129-F / K1
Hi. Conserning front-loading the petition, I mean informing USCIS in advance of conceivable problems about a case.

Why? (emphais added)

9 FAM 42.43 (n2.1)
QUOTE
In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon evidence
that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication and that such
evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition being denied. This
evidence often arises as a result of or during the interview of the beneficiary.
Reason to believe must be more than mere conjecture or speculation—there
must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien is not
entitled to status.
9 FAM.


OK. So if USCIS has information at the time of approval, a consulate is not supposed to deny,
based on that information. LINK

That's why advise clients to front-load petitions to USCIS with any potential problem issues that may
arise at the consulate.

#2. Concerning making an oath at USC Services at a consulate, I recommend it.

I hae a client recently, not HCMC, who spoke to a USC Services officer for awhile and
the officer told him, I think your relationship is real. I'm going to put a note in the database
about that for you."

So that note in the data base may be quite helpful down the road when beneficiary has another interview.

Oaths at USC Services offices - I recommend them.

Front-loading petitions to USCIS Service Centers - I recommend it.

Edited by ellis-island, 24 April 2009 - 11:03 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2009-04-24 10:58:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresAge Difference Red Flags?

Technically, they can't deny us on the basis of age, as USCIS knew the age difference. But that doesn't mean they can't
and won't use that as a kick off point if there is anything else "off" that makes them think that it's just being used for a green card.
Just be aware that it's a red flag, and make sure your interview prep is good, and your evidence is solid.


That is good advice. I would only add that the beneficiary should make careful mental notes.
He or she should leave the interview and immediately write down what questions were asked
and what answers were given.

It's shocking, but consulates when they return petitions, do not provide USCIS with transcripts of interviews.
They don't provide recordings to justify their decision. And in the vast majority of cases, consular section chiefs
do not have the training in immigration law that is routinely provided to USCIS rookie adjudicators.

Basically, you're dealing with amateurs here. And these amateurs are telling you, "Trust us,.
Even if we're not adequately trained, "trust us. Even if we're slandering US Citizen petitioners,
you have to "trust us".

The advantage knowledgeable petitioners have in this match, is that "trust us" is not good enough.
Consulates have to put their conclusions in writing. And once they do, their reasoning, their investigative process
and even their careers are put on the line. And that is how it should be.

In most refusals, a section chief will write a summary of what the interviewing conoff has jotted down in his or her handwritten notes.
At times, the interview isn't even conducted in a language the conoff understands. In these cases, it goes from the conoff to a
foreign national translator, to the beneficiary, back to the translator and into the handwritten notes the conoff jots down in the file.

Think about that. Think about the potential for misunderstandings. Then think about what incentives
there may be for a foreign national translator to lie about what your beneficiary actually said.

After you think about that, ask yourself whether "trust us" can ever be good enough in the context of
a consular interview.

***

Concerning the age difference between beneficiary or petitioner, here are the DOS guidlines:

9 FAM 42.43 n 2.1 "Reason to believe"


"In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon evidence
that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication and that such
evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition being denied. This
evidence often arises as a result of or during the interview of the beneficiary.
Reason to believe must be more than mere conjecture or speculation—there
must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien is not
entitled to status."
***

QUOTE (pushbrk @ Mar 2 2010, 11:49 PM)
The risk categories are low, medium, high and Lagos.


I've actually had two immigration lawyers whom I respect a lot tell me the same thing.
That's why they will no longer take cases from Lagos.

That is overly fatalistic in my view. The ways of DOS may be myriad
and mysterious, but remember, at some point, consular section chiefs
have to put their reasons for refusing a visa in writing.

And when that happens, their reasoning, their administrative procedures,
their investigation and even their careers, are put on the line.

9 FAM 42.43 n. 4.1, When Consul Disagrees with
Reaffirmation But Has No Evidence

In the rare case where you may irreconcilably disagree with the USCIS
decision to uphold the validity of the petition, if you have no new
evidence to present which was not previously considered by USCIS, you
will send the entire case to the Department (CA/VO/L/A) for review and
discussion with USCIS/HQ. Such referrals should be rare, however, since
the burden of proof still rests with USCIS and protracted delay without
sufficient reason is unfair to the visa applicant.

b. It should be remembered that USCIS bears a high burden of proof (good
and sufficient cause) in revocation proceedings. Although you may
believe that the evidence leads a reasonable person to believe that the
alien is not entitled to status, the evidence of record may not be sufficient
to meet the higher standard of proof required in these proceedings


The most important thing to remember in all this, is that consulates must eventually
justify their decisions in writing. And when that happens, it is a brand new ball game for
US Citizen petitioners. They will then have a chance to tear those conclusions to shreds.
And if they are careful, and logical, in the vast majority of cases, they will win and their
loved ones will eventually get a visa to come to America.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2010-03-04 12:32:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresSHAM!! Help
I got an email from psr by way of VJ. But it's confusing.
It's from VJ. But it says it's from psr. But it's VJ's email address.
And there is no message from psr in my email.

I'll be in PP this week-end.

Just send a PM to ellis-island at VJ or to my regular email address.
Sorry about that.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2010-06-29 07:38:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresK1 NOID's at California Service Center

Bad news, but thanks for the update. What are the chances on appeal, would you surmise?


Brent said he'd always thought he'd have to win it on appeal.
At least he's in the best possible circuit to hear it.

Right now, the procedure is better than it was two years ago, when people had to wait
up to seven years to have an expired K1 reviewed. Brent is seeking to get 30 day review.

I'd think the p6c1 thing won't stand even rational scrutiny, if the 9th Circuit goes past
the standing issue.

The issue of prompt review & expiration of K1 approvals is something different.
Agencies have a lot of power to write regulations that give effect to statutes.
The expiration is (Brent is correct) purely regulatory, not statutory.

Bottom line: I don't know what the 9th Circuit will do. But I'm happy he's in the 9th Circuit.
And I pray they get past the standing issue on the p6c issue.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2011-04-05 21:35:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresK1 NOID's at California Service Center
Oops. I should say I exchanged emails on this with Brent. I haven't talked with him on the suit recently.

Edited by ellis-island, 05 April 2011 - 05:39 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2011-04-05 05:38:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresK1 NOID's at California Service Center
The bad news is Tran v. Napolitano was dismissed on March 29, 2011.

Good news? I talked to Brent. He said he'd always planned to have to win this on appeal.

What does this mean?

It means the current system will continue for the future. K1's will expire.
Petitioners will have to marry or re-file a K-1 with an IMBRA Multiple Petition Limit waiver.

To me, the worst part of this dismissal is the Judge did not directly address the p6c1 issue.
The court simply ruled that plaintiffs had not shown they were damaged by this weird procedure
of creating misrepresentation findings out of thin air.

I think the p6c issue is still to be resolved. It's a class-action by itself.

As soon as I get a link to the decision that is outside AILA Info-Net, I'll post it.

For those who do not know about p6c's. http://www.ilw.com/a...0713-ellis.shtm

Edited by ellis-island, 05 April 2011 - 05:05 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2011-04-05 05:04:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresK1 NOID's at California Service Center

ok...sorry to sound like the broken record, but i want to be sure. So...if u get a 221(g) refusal & your case is returned to USCIS through CSC...u pretty much have no choice but to refile the K1 or get married & do CR1? From the sounds of this, it looks like there is no way to get a reaffirmation from my 1st K1 petition through CSC. PLEASE correct me if i'm wrong. And is it true that you can't get a NOID from CSC without filing another petition? Is there any way to request the NOID or another way to find out the real reason for denial? And finally, Can u refile a K1 before the 1st expires? If not, what should be done with the 1st petition? Is it better to wait till it expires (what is the max mths of validity?) or withdraw the petition? I have 8 mths before I would be able to go back to get married, so I'm trying to see if I can do anything with a K1 instead. Any thoughts r welcome.

Monica :)


As it stood before Tran versus Napolitano, CSC sends an expiration notice. Consulates administratively close
the file. The Tran class action looks to force CSC to review the cases within thirty days. Essentially,
it's up in the air what will happen now. All bets are off.

It probably won't change until this case is decided. But I could be wrong. Several of us almost sued them last
year in a class action on the same issue. CSC & DOS changed before we could file our complaint.

Note -- I think CSC are the 'good guys' here. Class action lawsuits
should not be necessary. What is happening basically, is DHS is getting
sued for the Department of State's incompetence.

Edited by ellis-island, 30 June 2010 - 06:06 AM.

ellis-islandMaleVietnam2010-06-30 06:04:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresK1 NOID's at California Service Center
This thread probably needs to be referenced to the Tran v. Napolitano class action thread.
Because if Brent Rennison wins that case, California Service Center's policy on reviewing K1's
will change. And consular policies of returning K1 petitions would change as well.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2010-06-25 08:47:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresK1 NOID's at California Service Center

So in a nutshell you address the reason for the initial denial with your response to the NOID. If it is approved at the service center then this will prevent it from being denied for the same reason once it is at the consulate?


Consulates are supposed to follow their own regulations.
Assuming the section chief is actually aware of the reg, he or she
is required to follow it.

9 FAM 42.43 N2.1 "Reason to Believe"
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 - Visas
9 FAM 42.43 Notes Page 2 of 7
(CT:VISA-872; 03-23-2007)
In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon evidence
that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication and that such
evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition being denied. This
evidence often arises as a result of or during the interview of the beneficiary.
Reason to believe must be more than mere conjecture or speculation—there
must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien is not
entitled to status.


ellis-islandMaleVietnam2010-03-04 22:17:00
K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Process & ProceduresK1 NOID's at California Service Center

"VJ forumites" :rofl: Word of the Day Award Nomination and definitely Post of the Day. Thanks.


So when you say "If you're filing a second K1, make sure you respond in advance to the reasons the consulate refused the first visa application." - What's the suggested/best-practice way you'd suggest? (Something like a copy of the NOID/R and supporting evidence to overcome the reason? And would this be sent with the new petition?) ~ It comes up now and then around here.



Why do you suppose they (DOS) would even do this? Inter-agency rivalry?


(1). Conduct a background check on yourself. See who the database shows is living in your home.
See who it shows is sharing assets or debts with you. If the DB is wrong, point that out in your filing.

Ditto for your beneficiary. Make sure you know where he or she is living & where the ex is living, if there is an ex.

Beyond that, peruse the various lists of red flags that are out there. I published one. There are other good ones
around as well. See if there are other red flags you may have missed.

Why do you suppose they (DOS) would even do this? Inter-agency rivalry?


The ways of DOS are myriad and mysterious. It's not for me to speculate as to why the visa gurus in
Foggy Bottom decide to do something one way or another.

It's my job to observe what they do and make careful notes. At some point, a consulate will have to put it's reasons for refusing
a visa in writing. When that happens, the entire reasoning and administrative process that led to that decision opens itself
up to closer examination, by DHS* and if necessary, by the courts.

*There shouldn't be any inter-agency rivalry anymore. DHS is in charge of the consular visa process.
DOS may not know that. DHS may not have noticed. But that's been the law since 2002.

DHS is in charge of visa issuance. I'm not sure why that agency hasn't gotten around to actually taking charge
of the process. Eventually it will. Put it in the bank.

(See sections 402 & 428) http://www.dhs.gov/x...hr_5005_enr.pdf


Very interesting read - thank you. There's a recent thread here (see below) where the K1 was denied at interview for just that reason - invalidation of a labor certification. It didn't make any sense to us. Honestly it still doesn't even after reading your post. I get that they're saying it's essentially a misrep, but why the language about labor certification on a family based visa?

Either way it doesn't sound too great for the couple in the thread.

http://www.visajourn...h...244418&st=0


Concerning the labor-certification rationale for a family visa refusal, a consular officer in Guangzhou wrote:

Visa Officer Marc Cook: 212(a)(5)(A) is a proper ground of refusal for IV applicants who are determined not to be eligible for the IV category under which they have applied. For example, it is used to refuse family-based IV applicants when it is determined that the requisite family relationship does not exist (e.g., a marriage to circumvent immigration law, or DNA tests establish lack of paternity/maternity). A 212(a)(5)(A) refusal is appropriate in these cases because, once the alien no longer falls within a family-based IV category, the alien is no longer exempt from the labor certification requirement that would otherwise normally apply to immigrant applicants.


http://guangzhou-ch....cript081217.doc

So DOS uses 212(a)(5)(A) as a ground to refuse a family or K1 visa. It doesn't seem logical. But make a note
of it and save it for future reference. In my experience, these are not fatal. They are somewhat analogous to 221(g)
refusals and they can eventually be overcome.
ellis-islandMaleVietnam2010-03-04 00:53:00