meauxna

Bear in mind that the moral of the story may be that those self-same pomposities have the power to act humanely, as they did in Cyprus, and essentially write a Green Card for someone who didn't even live there.

That wasn't a half-bad deal.

I've only skimmed the posts in this thread today due to time, but I do want to throw this in for those of you considering a 3rd country DCF: it is VERY unusual for a Consulate to do this when neither party is resident or connected to the country. Also, policies WRT DCF change very quickly and with little or no notice. Important to note that jg1012002 married in Cyprus, this often makes a difference about them accepting the case or not. If all this is something you are serious about pursuing, the USC should contact the target Consulate and be crystal clear about what they are requesting.
This outline of DCF may be useful: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?pg=dcf

tomasbo

Perhaps, however I have a different view of the actions taken by the Cyprus consulate.

They simply recognized, and subsequently rectified an outrageous action taken by Abu Dhabi consular. An action that simply should not have happened, period! The fact that no evidence of a relationship was allowed to be presented shows a disturbing disrespect for both the USC and the beneficiary.

This problem seems to be rooted in the belief by Consular personnel that they have more intuitive knowledge of a beneficiaries motives (to commit fraud) than *you* do. They apparently come to this false notion by reviewing some paper documents? No questions asked? Curious to say the least, and yes pompous is the correct term to apply in this circumstance.

Is this what we employ these people to do on our behalf? ... Where and when did we relegate the role of surrogate Mommy to these people?

As for me, the only option I would consider would be to return her to her native country and deal with the Consulate there. Cyprus doesn't seem to be a viable alternative for me.

ian-mstm

Yeah... but your view is incorrect.


Please... don't ever forget that their job is to not allow an alien into the US and, to that end, every beneficiary is attempting fraud until it's proven otherwise.

Ian

jg1012002

Ian,

I agree that it is their job to filter for fraud, however, in my case, they did not even allow us to present any evidence to prove otherwise. As I told the consular office in Cyprus, give me a chance to present the evidence, if you agree with Abu Dhabi, then fine but at least hear the case. They did and gave the visa. Abu Dhabi looks over the paperwork that gets sent from BCIS and immediately decides if they will approve or not. If they decide not to approve it based on that paperwork then they do not allow you to submit anything else that validates the relationship.

Rete

Which in actuality they do. As you imtimated in your postings (sorry if it were someone else), love is blind. If you think that someone intent on obtaining a green card is not Oscar material, then you are the one that is very much mistaken.

And yes, we do employ them to be Mommy for our country's security. Not to each and every individual but to the US as a whole. We gave them this power through Congressional means.

ian-mstm

While it may sound odd, this makes sense to me... at least, from their POV. Is it possible for someone to show overwhelming evidence after the fact, of a desire to *not* commit fraud? If so, why wasn't that evidence submitted originally? Of course, this gets me off on a tangent... I mean, from a philosophical POV, is it very difficult to prove a negative. Anyway, I'm not condoning what they do, but if you think about it long enough their position is just as valid and, unfortunately, theirs is what counts to USCIS.

It's equally frustrating when you consider that there are several countries where the incidence of fraud-based applications is higher than the norm. The UAE may be one of them, I don't know for sure, but it would mean that an extra measure of diligence is required from all parties involved... from them in reviewing the applications, and from the applicant to ensure a complete package that leaves no room for doubt.

Getting into the US is probably the most difficult part of the process... certainly the most frustrating. Comments that I've heard from others include, "But we're so much in love, how can they not notice or approve us?", "Our love is so strong, we will endure." and similar stuff. Alas, as has been demonstrated time and again, USCIS doesn't care about love... it only cares about proper and sufficient documentation.

I truly wish that people did more research before starting the process. While it may not save them any frustration, they would be more prepared for the various twists and turns.

Ian

scrubbedexpat099

and whose love does not seem to extend to the point of going the other way.

jg1012002

[QUOTE=ian-mstm]Is it possible for someone to show overwhelming evidence after the fact, of a desire to *not* commit fraud? If so, why wasn't that evidence submitted originally? [/Quote>

I did submit proof with the original application. However, it took 9 months from the date of filing to the date of interview. During the course of that 9 months, quite naturally there was even more proof.

I tried to do the extra measure of due diligence. However, there was nothing on any of the boards about Abu Dhabi having a high incidence of fraud. However, two of the terrorists received their visas in Abu Dhabi and I believe that changed the visa procedures quite a bit. How much did that affect my husband is unknown. He is not muslim nor from the UAE (he is from India and Hindu).

The only red flag was our age difference, which I believed naively would not be an issue -- after all here in the states it is quite common to see older women with younger men. This was my mistake for assuming the American CO would intrepret the age difference as an American. Instead, they look at the immigrant's culture. Looking back on it I can understand that but still believe there should be a way to "protect our borders" without being extreme as they were with me.

jeffreyhy

Ian,

Nor should the USCIS care about love - love is not a requirement for a marriage-based visa. Not to mention the number of posts we read where the love sublimed like dry-ice soon after the couple began living together....

Agree completely about doing the research to get prepared.

Regards, JEff

tomasbo

You never heard me say directly, or indirectly, anything about "love is blind", here or on any board.

And no, we the people never gave these people the means by which to act as surrogate parents. You are incorrect in your belief that that is their mission. Please don't "muddy the water" here by bringing up "security". The conversation has nothing to do with national security.

They have an obligation to evaluate each case on all evidence put forth for a given case, and at the very minimum prudently interview the beneficiary.

To ask one question and walk away from a USC and her fiance demonstrates an arrogant attitude that clearly is over the line and outside the boundaries of his/her job description.

There's no credible U.S. Government agency that would field a representative to behave in such a manner and I can only come to the conclusion that this is one of a few in government that abuse their power(s) and hopefully can be considered a rogue consular requiring an ego tune up.

scrubbedexpat099

She did say sorry if it was not you, but essentially the same arguement has been made many times before.

I really do not think they care about you as an individual, their concern is to apply their rules and regulations Marriage to acquire an immigrant benefit is not recognised, if they perceive that, then you will have issues.

If there was no fraud then their lives would be a lot easier, you can find many examples unfortunately where such fraud occurs.

tomasbo

Firstly, although not important, she did not say she wasn't sure if it was me or not she said she could not remember where I said it.

I never did say anything here, or anywhere else intimating that "love is blind"...

Ok, I'm easy. I keep hearing of "high fraud" Embassy's, etc.

Where can one view this info?

I have a another question as well. Who, how, when, and where is this inormation compiled about supposed "fraud" following the K1/K3 Visa issuance?

What is the criteria to declare a failed/incomplete marriage a "fraud"? Where is this documented?

By who/whom?

scrubbedexpat099

I doubt if they keep it as such, there are many reasons for AOS to be denied.

I was going from posts I have seen from people whose spouses have disappeared once they have GC in hand and only then realised they have been had. I would surmise that there are also those who live up to their vows but shall we say migration was a prime motivating factor.

I remember Mr F posted a comment that divided the world into 4 categories, with the 4th been Nigeria, he started imposing a surcharge on any case that went through Nigeria!.

I asume that the CO's do not specialise in one type of Visa, I would expect that they receive training on the local scams as well as the more general indicators. With the volume how else could you do it?

There is not a lot new in this process, I just wonder how many marriage's of Jane Austin's period would have qualified for a US Marriage Visa.

In many culture's marrying for immigration benefit is a quite acceptable motive, as I am sure it would have been in Jane Austin's day.

US law does not see it that way.

ian-mstm

Geez... you're good. How did you manage to get a copy of their operating manual? Admit it... all you're really doing is guessing at what you think their obligations are and hoping that you've nailed it on the head. You're assuming that a foreign-based officer thinks like an American!


How do you know? Did you find that on page 23 of the manual... in the section entitled "How to Really Piss Someone Off"?

Ian

tomasbo

No, I'm just applying common sense....
Common sense says to me that these people do not have the unilateral power that you and you ilk here purport they have. They're just civil service workers.

And by the way. I have been through this process once before. I was married to a foreign national who recently went to heaven (5 years ago) and when we went through this process (20 + years ago) it took no more than 4 weeks.

Given 9-11, and considering security, I'm willing to concede that some additional checks need to be made, just to be prudent. Having saidf that, I have to ask what the heck happened to this process?

We now have 4, FOUR service (an oxymoron) centers and a foreign service that, given some of the circumstances I've read about in these forums, is running amok.......We have a huge bueracracy that "service's" us.

Now I see a convoluted non-sensical process whereby we have bureacrats into our "skivies" and "evaluating" our relationships.

I'm 54 tears old, an engineer, a veteran of two wars and a person that deals with government on a daily basis and so I apply what I know. Civil service workers oftentimes inflate their imporatnce and act outside the limits of their authority. Is this news to you?

I don't have to read their "manuals", nor do I care to.

The situation outlined previousley whereby a single question was asked and a rejection summarily passed on to this couple was/is absurd and so I offer up this analogy:

An elderly woman (82) waits in line at the DMV having passed her vision test and her mandated once a year drivers test. She has in her possesion all the documents that demonstrate and prove so.

She approaches the clerk and places her documentation on the counter only to watch the Clerk push it back at her and say "you're too old and I'm not going to issue you a drivers licence". "BBuutt, I have passed all my tests and have my documents here for you to see" the old woman stammers......

"I don't care", the clerk says. "I read someplace that old people are involved in more aurto accidents than any other group. I am therefore denying you drivers licence. Have a nice day"...

Absurd, right? Just as absurd as having some foreign service civil servant on a whim declaring your relationship "invalid" without so much as reviewing a single document.

So sorry if that upsets you.