Integrity Legal

This posting discusses the issues associated with retaining an American attorney to assist with the K-1 visa process. Those thinking about retaining assistance in the K-1 visa process are well advised to conduct thorough research prior to making any irrevocable decisions.

The K-1 visa is a non-immigrant US fiance visa which was intended to be used solely by the foreign fiances of American Citizens. The K-1 visa allows the foreign fiancee of an American Citizen to enter the United States for a period of 90 days of the purpose of marriage. Those who do not marry their American fiance after 90 days in the USA will be required to depart from the USA. Readers should bear in mind that the entrant to the United States on a K-1 visa who marries their loved one must undergo the adjustment of status process in order to gain lawful permanent residence in the U.S.A.

The purpose of this article is to provide insight to Americans about the perils of dealing with non-licensed individuals who purport to be qualified to practice United States Immigration law (or any American law, for that matter) . Pursuant to 8 CFR 292.1 only a qualified lawyer licensed to practice law in at least one U.S. State or Federal jurisdiction is entitled to engage in the receiving of client fees in connection with the practice of United States immigration law. Therefore, those not so qualified must either fit within a narrow exception to the aforementioned rule lest their behavior be deemed to be illegal. It should be noted that attorney-client confidentiality is a significant issue which should be considered when ascertaining the credentials of those claiming qualification in United States immigration matters abroad as there are many so-called “visa agents” or “immigration consultants” claiming qualification to provide services in connection with U.S. immigration. Attorney-client privilege is not extended to those not qualified as an American attorney and therefore discussions with unqualified individuals are likely not privileged communications. Meanwhile, some individuals brazenly, albeit falsely, portray themselves as American attorneys when, in fact, this is simply not the case.

For all of the reasons outlined above it should be noted that only a competent licensed attorney from the United States should be retained to assist prospective clients. Readers should understand that this message is not conveyed as an advertisement of this particular blogger’s services, as this is not this blogger’s intention in creating this posting. Instead, this post should be viewed as a reminder to readers that this decision should be made by prospective clients after serious contemplation and thorough research of all possible candidates for an attorney position. Attorney-Client relationships are not “one size fits-all” and neither is quality legal service. Therefore, the public should conduct research before coming to an informed decision about hiring an attorney.

For related information please see: K1 Visa Thailand or K1 Visa Cambodia.

Tags: American Attorney, American Fiance Visa, American Immigration Attorney, American Immigration lawyer, American Lawyer, American Visa Attorney, American Visa Lawyer, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Attorney, K-1 Visa Lawyer, K-1 Visa Process, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Attorney, K1 Visa Bangladesh, K1 Visa Burma, K1 Visa Cambodia, K1 Visa China, K1 Visa Hong Kong, K1 visa India, K1 Visa Indonesia, K1 Visa Laos, K1 Visa Lawyer, K1 Visa Macau, K1 Visa Malaysia, K1 Visa Myanmar, K1 Visa Process, K1 Visa Singapore, K1 Visa South Korea, K1 Visa Taiwan, K1 Visa Thailand, Legal, licensed attorney, licensed lawyer, US attorney, US Fiance Visa, US lawyer
Posted in K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand | No Comments »

In a previous posting on this blog the eligibility criteria for the EB-1 visa were briefly discussed. In that same vein, this blogger felt further elaboration on other Employment Based visa categories was warranted to provide insight to readers about issues associated with other employment based preference categories. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service‘s (USCIS) official website posted an enlightening chart to provide an overall glimpse of the eligibility criteria which this blogger felt could be of interest to readers. To quote directly from the official website of the USCIS, USCIS.gov:

Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research into these issues as the chart above is merely presented to provide something of an overview regarding eligibility. The chart above should not be viewed as an exhaustive analysis of the issues at play in a EB-2 petition.

It should be noted that second preference Employment Based petitions are carefully scrutinized as issuance of such visas is intended for those foreign professionals holding an advanced degree or an alien national of “exceptional ability”. Therefore prospective visa seekers are encouraged to note the rather high standards by which those seeking this visa category will be compared during the adjudication process.

Those seeking the visa categorized as an EB-2 are well advised to remember that adjudication of a visa petition at the Department of Homeland Security‘s USCIS may be only one phase of the overall visa process as those residing outside of the United States may be required to undergo Consular Processing at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For readers who have happened upon this blog in the past, the mention of the “national interest waiver” may bring to mind the I-601 waiver or the I-212 waiver which could be argued to be somewhat similar. Another type of waiver that could be construed as similar to the “national interest waiver” is the waiver sometimes granted by USCIS to permit the filing of multiple petitions for a K1 visa within a relatively short period of time notwithstanding the provisions of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA).

Frequent readers may recall that the EB-5 visa is also classified as an Employment Based Visa although the criteria for EB-5 visa issuance is different from those of the EB-2 most notably as the EB-5 visa petitioner must demonstrate that a substantial investment has been made in the United States in order to hope to attain eligibility for EB-5 visa status.

The United States visa process can be overwhelming at times and for this reason many opt to retain the assistance of counsel. That stated, when retaining the services of anyone purporting to be qualified to provide advice and/or assistance regarding immigration matters it may be prudent to ascertain credentials as, pursuant to relevant US law, only a licensed American attorney is permitted to take in client fees while engaged in the practice of United States immigration law.

For related information please see: Legal.

Tags: American Consulate, American Embassy, Consular Processing, Department of Homeland Security, EB-2 Visa, EB-5 Visa, EB2 Visa, EB5 Visa, Employment Based, Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2, employment-based second preference visa, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, I601 Waiver, IMBRA, IMBRA Waiver, International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Process, K1 Visa, national interest waiver, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Embassy, USCIS
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, EB-2 Visa, EB5 Visa, I-601 Waiver, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS | No Comments »

Those conducting research with regard to United States Family Immigration often look at either the K-1 visa or a CR-1 visa for a recent or prospective spouse. That stated, an acute concern for many American Citizens is the speedy admission of the foreign fiance or spouse to the United States of America. Under many circumstances in places such as the Kingdom of Thailand or the Kingdom of Cambodia, virtually the only means to lawfully bring a Thai or Khmer fiance or spouse to the USA involves a US Marriage Visa (such as the CR-1 visa or the IR-1 visa) or a US fiance visa (officially categorized as a K-1 visa). The question then becomes: which visa can be obtained in a more timely manner?

Currently, it usually takes less time to obtain a K-1 visa compared to a CR-1 visa. That stated, it is this blogger’s opinion that the once large gap separating the processing times of these respective visa categories has closed somewhat, from a practical perspective; and, as a result, it may be best for those researching these issues to ponder the notion of applying for a CR-1 visa or an IR-1 visa from the outset rather than undergoing the K1 visa process. Bearing this in mind, the reader should note that the process is unique to every couple as circumstances tend to dictate the timing of various stages of the process.

Although the K-1 visa does usually result in a foreign fiancee arriving in the United States more quickly than a foreign spouse under the CR-1 visa category, readers should be aware of the fact that CR-1 visa holders are admitted into the United States in Lawful Permanent Resident status. Conversely, those admitted into the United States of America in K-1 visa status must undergo the adjustment of status process in order to obtain their Green Card.

Regardless of the fact that the current USCIS Processing Times note little change in the time it takes to receive adjudication of a K-1 visa petition compared to years past, the plain truth of the matter is that the overall K-1 visa process has lengthened for many in recent months. This increased wait time may be attributable to the fact that the National Visa Center and each and every US Embassy or US Consulate has its own backlog of cases to either process or adjudicate. As the ebb and flow of American immigration continues the consular processing times are likely to increase and/or decrease depending upon the circumstances at the various US Posts abroad. At present, it is difficult to calculate with any specificity what the time frame is for Consular Processing in Asia as many factors must be taken into consideration. It is this blogger’s current opinion that under the totality of the circumstances it may be prudent for prospective family visa petitioners to conduct thorough research into the immigration process before making an irrevocable immigration decision as a visa category that looks more efficient at first glance may, in fact, turn out to be an inefficient travel document if one takes into consideration all of the factors which must be addressed in order to ultimately receive lawful permanent resident status in the U.S.A.

For related information please see: Legal.

Tags: Adjustment of Status, American Embassy Cambodia, American Embassy Thailand, American Fiance Visa, American Fiancee Visa, American Marriage Visa, American Visa Cambodia, American Visa Thailand, Consular Processing, CR-1 Visa, Green Card, IR-1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Cambodia, K-1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Cambodia, K1 Visa Thailand, National Visa Center, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Phnom Penh, us embassy thailand, US Fiance Visa, US Fiancee Visa, US Marriage Visa, US Visa Cambodia, US Visa Thailand, USCIS Processing Time
Posted in CR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

Those who read this blog with any frequency may have taken note of the fact that the administration routinely posts the estimated processing times of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for the various relevant visa categories. To quote directly from the official website of USCIS:

Those researching American family based visas such as the K-1 visa and the IR-1 visa are asked to note that the estimated processing times noted above do not include the processing time for the National Visa Center (NVC) and the consular processing times for each US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: advance parole, CR-1 Visa, CR-1 Visa Process, EB-5 Visa, Employment Authorization Document, IR-1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Process, K-3 Visa, K-3 visa process, L-1 visa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS, USCIS Processing Time, USCIS Processing Times
Posted in USCIS | No Comments »

This blogger recently came across a great deal of interesting information pertaining to issues surrounding the consular processing of United States visas and visa applications.

The first item of note involves a recent United States Federal Court decision which spoke to the issue of the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability (sometimes referred to by the somewhat draconian sounding: Doctrine of “Consular Absolutism”). It would appear that one issue in that case revolved around the procedural usage of administrative designations made by interviewing Consular Officers at the US Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) which were then utilized as a basis for administratively establishing findings of misrepresentation by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) thereby creating a grounds for revoking the underlying petition. It seems that the Judge in this case did not agree with the plaintiff that usage of so-called “P6C1” tags caused any “actual injury” as “natural expiration” of immigration petitions apparently does not rise to the level of “revocation” under the circumstances in that case. To quote directly from the PDF version of the official order dated March 29, 2011 as found on the Entry Law website at EntryLaw.com:

The F&R concludes that plaintiffs have stated a claim under the APA challenging 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 as unlawful and in excess of the agency’s statutory authority. F&R 25. That provision states that where a consular officer finds what she believes to be misrepresentation with regard to a family-based immigrant visa petition, the consular officer “must return the petition to the appropriate USCIS office. If the petition is revoked, the materiality of the misrepresentation is established.” 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1. Plaintiffs allege that by placing a “P6C1” marker in a visa beneficiary’s record—indicating a perceived misrepresentation—the State Department saddled plaintiffs with a “permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility” if USCIS revokes the petition. First Am. Compl. ¶ 158.4

I reject plaintiffs’ argument, and decline to follow the F&R, because plaintiffs have not properly alleged that a P6C1 marker has any effect on them. Importantly, 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 states that the materiality of a misrepresentation is only established “[i]f the petition is revoked,” and plaintiffs have not alleged that USCIS revoked the petitions. Therefore, plaintiffs have not stated a plausible claim that any future bar to immigration possibility would attach to plaintiffs as a result of the P6C1 marker. The F&R concludes that because USCIS does not act on petitions, and allows them to expire after denials, that inaction is equivalent to a revocation, and therefore would trigger the permanent misrepresentation bar. F&R 26. However, plaintiffs do not cite any authority for the proposition that the word “revoked” in 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 includes inaction that allows a petition to expire naturally. Nor have plaintiffs offered any support for the allegation that they are in fact barred from any future action. Thus, plaintiffs have not yet alleged any actual injury with respect to the P6C1 marker. Plaintiffs argue that they should not be required to show actual injury because they are entitled to assume the defendants will “enforce the law as written,” and any future action by plaintiffs would therefore be futile. F&R 27. Because I conclude that the law as written only bars petitioners whose petitions were “revoked,” and not those whose petitions expired naturally, I find no basis upon which to exempt plaintiffs from showing injury. Plaintiffs therefore do not have standing, and have not stated a claim, regarding the Department of State’s use of the P6C1 marker.

Those interested in learning more about the detailed facts of this case as well as issues pertaining to Consular Processing in general are well advised to click on the hyperlinks above to learn more about the seemingly ever evolving issues associated with the US Immigration process and the process of obtaining so-called “hybrid” family-based visas such as the K-1 visa or the K-3 visa as well as classic immigrant visas such as the CR-1 visa and the IR-1 visa from the various US Embassies, Consulates and Missions abroad.

These so-called “P6C1″ markers are not necessarily disagreeable to this blogger per se, but their usage can be troubling to those who study how the visa process works in a real-world environment. This blogger fully believes that Consular Officers are entitled to make factually based decisions which may have legal ramifications either in the form of a finding of a legal grounds of inadmissibility which may or may not be waivable through application for an I-601 waiver and/or an I-212 waiver (depending upon the situation). That said, why all of the redundancy? Where applicable, why not simply make the material misrepresentation finding of inadmissibility at the American Consulate or American Embassy abroad thereby providing a more streamlined opportunity for applicants to seek a remedy in the form of a waiver from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), if applicable? Why would the application package be sent back to USCIS with a so-called marker? The Consular Officers at US Missions abroad are adjudicators of visa applications and both the wide latitude of their discretion as well as the virtually non-reviewable nature of their factual findings are legal creations designed to lend efficiency to visa processing because the Consular Officers are in the best position to make factual determinations. Why send the petition back to USCIS with the “misrepresentation marker” at all? The USCIS is not in any discernably better position to make a determination regarding the veracity of the application. Therefore, DOS is failing to make an actual decision while simultaneously placing USCIS in a position where they cannot really claim to be able to better review the facts of the case as it was the Consular Officer who actually interviewed the applicant and adjudicated the posture of the overall application. It has been this blogger’s experience that visa applicants and petitioners are looking for some degree of certainty in the visa process. If an applicant is possibly legally inadmissible to the USA do not the notions of efficiency and equity seem to dictate quick adjudication of a finding of inadmissibility, if applicable, and visa denial, if appropriate? From the point of view of the inadmissible applicant the argument in favor of quick visa denial may possibly stem from the desire to seek a waiver in a timely manner thereafter.

Many of the Founding Fathers who drafted the United States Constitution were involved in the creation of legislation which would lead to the establishment of the Department of State. It would seem to this blogger as though these gentlemen did so because they recognized that America would need a governmental entity to deal with affairs of State, international trade matters, and Consular affairs so that average Americans could get on with their personal business and so that those of foreign origin would have an organ by which to entreat with the government of the United States of America. In an effort at providing more clarity on this topic it may be best to quote directly from Wikipedia:

The U.S. Constitution, drafted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 and ratified by the states the following year, gave the President the responsibility for the conduct of the nation’s foreign relations. It soon became clear, however, that an executive department was necessary to support the President in the conduct of the affairs of the new federal government.

The House of Representatives and Senate approved legislation to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs on July 21, 1789, and President Washington signed it into law on July 27, making the Department of Foreign Affairs the first Federal agency to be created under the new Constitution.^[2] This legislation remains the basic law of the Department of State. In September 1789, additional legislation changed the name of the agency to the Department of State and assigned to it a variety of domestic duties.

These responsibilities grew to include management of the United States Mint, keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, and the taking of the census. President George Washington signed the new legislation on September 15. Most of these domestic duties of the Department of State were eventually turned over to various new Federal departments and agencies that were established during the 19th century. However, the Secretary of State still retains a few domestic responsibilities, such as being the keeper of the Great Seal and being the officer to whom a President or Vice-President of the United States wishing to resign must deliver an instrument in writing declaring the decision to resign.

Those wishing to better understand the history of the American State Department are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read more on this engrossing topic.

Bearing the above legal opinion from the Federal Court for the District of Oregon’s Portland Division in mind, the reader may be interested to take note of the fact that some students of issues associated with Consular Processing of American visas are taking exception with some of the Department of State’s practices and proposing measures in an attempt to provide some sort of notification mechanism for complaints regarding Consular Officers at US Missions abroad seemingly aimed at curtailing what some feel are negative aspects of Consular discretion. To quote directly from Kenneth White in an article posted on ILW.com:

In contrast to other immigration-related agencies such as USCIS and CBP, the Department of State (“Department”) has no formal complaint system. The Department has a Customer Service Statement to Visa Applicants on its website,¹ yet does not indicate how to pursue a complaint for a violation of the rights specified. The “How to Contact Us” page of the Department’s website mentions “inquiries” but not complaints. The Glossary page of the Travel.State.gov/visa section of the Department’s website indicates how to file a complaint with CBP, but not the State Department. Consular websites are silent on the issue of filing complaints.

In October 2009, the Department announced to the American Immigration Lawyers Association an address² within the Visa Office to send complaints. However, the Visa Office does not investigate the complaints: it merely recites the consular officer’s version of events. Further, the mandate of the Department’s Office of Inspector General is limited to instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. It is abundantly clear that a genuine Complaint Procedure must be implemented.

The administration of this web log highly encourages readers to click on the above cited hyperlinks for further detailed information about consular processing and Mr. White’s opinions thereon. This blogger agreed with a great deal of the analysis presented in this article such as the author’s somewhat economic rationale in favor of at least the argument that some sort of complaint system may be beneficial to Consular processing, to quote further from the aforementioned posting:

dollars and sense – International visitors and students spend billions of dollars every year in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs are dependent on this spending by foreigners. Competition for the travel dollar is intense, with other countries not requiring visa interviews and utilizing visa procedures that are faster and cheaper than the US. Thus, it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that consular officers treat applicants respectfully and professionally;

The American People in general, the States as well as all sectors of the Federal government should always be aware of the tremendous amount of economic activity that occurs as a result of foreign direct investment in the United States as well as tourist dollars spent in the United States of America. Streamlined visa processing and professional Consular staff are always a good idea, but this blogger did take some exception with at least one passage in the aforementioned article:

doctrine of consular nonreviewability – There is no formal administrative or judicial review of the overwhelming majority of visa decisions, meaning that consular officers are not accountable to applicants for the decisions they make. In the view of many, this non-accountability consciously or subconsciously emboldens consular officers, leading to a fiefdom mentality;

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click upon the above hyperlinks to read further from this detailed and well researched article so that all quotes cited above can be understood in context. This blogger would not say that he is unequivocally in favor of the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability (also colloquially referred to as the Doctrine of “Consular Absolutism“) per se, as any time a significant amount of discretion is vested in a non-elected officer of the American government one should ponder the implications of such a state of affairs, but the argument for such a doctrine within the factual context of consular processing has to take into consideration the notion of “efficiency” which would seem to presuppose that there are some decisions which given the totality of the circumstances can only be efficiently made by an adjudicator on the ground in the applicant’s home country or country with appropriate consular jurisdiction. Presumably, there are unlikely to be a great many such adjudicators and those who do exist are likely to have a great many cases and/or applications to adjudicate. Therefore, there are reasonable arguments in favor of granting wide discretion to Consular officers in matters pertaining to factual adjudication of applications, but readers should not mistake this blogger to mean that he is in favor of unlimited discretion on the part of Consular Officers. The Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability provides that a great deal of deference will be paid to Consular Officers’ factual decisions by the US Courts, but that is not to say that the Courts do not have jurisdiction over visa denials especially when such denials are “facially illegitimate“. Bearing this in mind, as can be seen from the case above, American Courts are generally loathe to review visa denials as doing so could be viewed by some as a waste of Court resources and because it currently appears somewhat difficult for most Courts to sufficiently review a Consular Officer’s decision in a given case from a position that is qualitatively better than the unique perspective of the Officer on the ground in the country where the application is taking place. Proving that a Consular Officer’s decision is “facially illegitimate” could seem like a virtually insurmountable standard of proof, but fortunately it is not wholly impossible to receive judicial review of visa decisions as doing so would be a truly frightening concept from a due process perspective. That stated, having all Consular Officers’ decisions reviewed by the Court system seems equally as frightening if one considers how much time, energy, and resources would need to be expended in order to maintain such a docket.

To be clear, this blogger agrees with a great deal of Mr. Kenneth White’s analysis on many of the issues associated with Consular Processing, but where this blogger takes some degree of exception relates to the notion that officers have a “fiefdom” mentality. Although this blogger certainly cannot speak for everyone who has undergone Consular Processing, it has never been this blogger’s personal opinion that Consular Officers have a “fiefdom-mentality”. That stated, as an American Resident Abroad, this blogger must say that it does not seem like such a bad thing for American civil servants abroad, Consular Officers included, to take some pride in their position as a representative of America and the American people. As such, an Officer taking an interest in the efficiency and business of their US Embassy or US Consulate may also be prudent to take a personal interest in the overall impact of Post policies and procedures upon applicants, petitioners, and their families.

The notion of a Consular Complaint Box is something that should be pondered by interested parties long and hard especially in light of the fact that the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability appears to still be as virtually unshakable as it ever has been. Therefore, the main question regarding a Consular Complaint Box that this blogger feels should be posed is: what benefit will the public receive from such an undertaking? If the Consular Officers continue to be endowed with virtually non-reviewable authority what good is it to be able to complain about it? What good would this do? This does not provide a tangible remedy to the applicant in the event of an adverse decision. Furthermore, would not the implementation of such a policy result in simply further paperwork for Department of State employees, but under such circumstances to no particularized end? In this blogger’s opinion, it is probably better that DOS use what resources it has with regard to Consular Processing to one end alone: efficiently adjudicating visa applications as that is clearly within their mandate. That stated, a complaint system to deter truly rude behavior as noted in Kenneth White’s article above may ultimately prove appropriate, but this blogger might make further suggestions. For example, how about something akin to an “Alien Miranda Warning”. Where American peace officers are required to Mirandize suspects so as to put them on constructive notice of rights like the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney it could prove beneficial for all concerned in the immigration process if Consular Officers made it clear that foreign applicants could seek the advice and counsel of licensed American attorneys regarding pending or prospective immigration matters pursuant to section 8 CFR 292.1, as amended. Such a suggestion should not be construed to be advocating attorney consultation regarding submission of complaints. Instead, attorneys may be best equipped to apprise prospective visa seekers of relevant immigration law as well as the regulations pertaining to application for various United States visa categories. One aspect of the issues surrounding Consular Processing that seems to be of little concern to the public-at-large involves doomed applications made by those who truly cannot overcome statutory presumptions such as that enshrined in section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. The time and resources expended by Posts to adjudicate and deny visa applicants pursuant to section 214(b) of the INA and the time and resources needlessly expended by the applicants who are denied under this section of the INA could often be saved through effective assistance of counsel in providing advice and information regarding the likelihood of visa application approval based upon the unique facts of a given case. In short, perhaps informing applicants and petitioners of the issues associated with US Immigration rather than creating a mechanism to complain to what appears to be rather overworked Consular Officers is the appropriate course of action at this juncture. Hopefully, by thus informing concerned parties regarding US Immigration matters the negative overall impact from so-called “visa companies”, notarios, visa agents, and fake lawyers can be diminished to the benefit of the prospective immigrant community and the American People.

Tags: Consular Absolutism, Consular Complaint Box, Consular Non-Reviewability, Consular Processing, CR-1 Visa Process, Department of State, DOS, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, IR-1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa Process, K-3 visa process, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Consulate HCMC, US Embassy, US Visa Process, USCIS
Posted in US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hong Kong, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Macau, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Vladivostok, US Consulate Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Brunei Darussalam, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Iraq, US Embassy Islamabad, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan), US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Mauritius, US Embassy Mongolia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy New Zealand, US Embassy Pakistan, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Russia, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Turkmenistan, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Uzbekistan, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department | No Comments »

Frequent readers of this blog may have taken notice of the fact that the administration routinely posts the current estimated processing times for the domestic Service Centers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The following was quoted directly from the official website of USCIS:

It should be noted that the above processing estimates do not take into consideration that once cases are processed out of USCIS they must be sent to the United States National Visa Center and then on to a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad for further adjudication (this analysis assumes that the foreign beneficiary is residing outside of the USA). The processing times noted above pertain to USCIS exclusively. Therefore, the overall process of obtaining a K-1 visa or a K-3 visa for an alien fiance or spouse could take more time that that noted above. for fin

For related information please see: K-1 Visa Thailand, K-1 Visa Indonesia, or K-1 Visa Vietnam.

Tags: CR-1 Visa Process, CR-1 Visa Processing Time, E-2 Visa Processing Time, EB-5 visa process, EB-5 Visa Processing Time, IR-1 Visa Process, IR-1 Visa Processing Time, K-1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa Processing Time, K-3 visa process, K-3 Visa Processing Time, L-1 Visa Process, L-1 Visa Processing Time, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Visa Process, USCIS
Posted in USCIS | No Comments »

For those interested in finding out detailed information regarding fiance visas from Thailand please see our main page at: K1 visa Thailand. For more details about United States Visas generally please see: US Visa Thailand.

The New Year has dawned and the K1 visa still remains the most popular method employed by American Citizens when they wish to be reunited with their Thai fiance or fiancee in the USA. At the present time, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is estimating that the K1 visa processing time will be approximately 5 months. This estimate measures petition processing time from filing until final USCIS adjudication. For Thai fiancees seeking a K1 visa from the US Embassy in Bangkok this estimate does not take into account the processing time at the National Visa Center (NVC) nor the processing time for a K1 visa application at the US Embassy.

Generally, NVC takes approximately 14 days to process a visa petition, conduct a security clearance, and forward the file to the US Embassy. At present, it has been this author’s opinion, based upon prior experience, that this is usually the amount of time that it takes for the NVC to process the case file.

Once the file arrives at the US Embassy in Bangkok the officers will send a notice to the applicant and/or the attorney of record informing those concerned that they can now begin compiling the visa application. Generally, it takes approximately 2 weeks to compile the necessary documentation to send to the Embassy so that the Embassy staff can schedule the visa interview. In 2009, the Embassy began notifying applicants of appointment scheduling via email. This greatly streamlined the process and cut days, or, in some cases, weeks off of the final phases of the K1 visa process.

In those instances where a K1 visa applicant received a 221g refusal and request for further documentation, the Consular Officers generally processed the application efficiently and diligently once the applicant (or their attorney of record) presented the requested follow up documentation. It seems unlikely that this diligence and efficiency will subside in 2010.

The K1 visa process in 2010

At the time of this writing, it would appear that the K1 visa process will not be significantly changed in the near future and cases will continue to process through the system as before. However, with Comprehensive Immigration Reform on the horizon, there is good reason to believe that eventually the K1 visa process may change as a result of Congressional revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). How these revisions will effect the K1 visa process remains to be seen. With all of this in mind, this author believes that the year 2010 should be a dynamic year for United States Immigration.

Tags: Fiance Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, Fiancee Visa, Fiancee Visa Thailand, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Process, K1 Visa Thailand, us embassy bangkok, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 4 Comments »

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service is preparing the unveiling of a newly designed webpage to replace the one currently found at www.USCIS.gov. United States President Barack Obama was quoted as saying

“In the next 90 days, USCIS will launch a vastly improved Web site that will, for the first time ever, allow applicants to get updates on their status of their applications via e-mail and text message and online.”

Apparently the new site will allow for case status updates to be sent to a person’s cell phone which would truly provide up-to-the-minute information. According to the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association website this revamp of the USCIS website is the result of culling information from in-depth focus groups tasked with reviewing the current USCIS website. Those participating in the focus groups spanned the spectrum from those with national and local cases pending to those visiting the United States.

At present, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service website provides many features for those with cases pending and for those seeking information regarding Immigration to the United States. USCIS also offers e-filing of Immigration petitions for certain categories. At the current time, USCIS does not allow e-filing for most US Family Visa cases. Therefore, one cannot file for a K-1 visa, K-3 Visa, or CR-1 visa through the internet. The reason for the restriction of family visa submissions is likely due to the fact that many United States Family based petitions require proof of an existing bona fide relationship. Therefore, the documentation proving the bona fides of a relationship can be quite extensive and cannot easily be filed online.

It should always be borne in mind that USCIS is generally only phase one of the K1 visa process or the K3 visa process from Thailand. After USCIS adjudicates a petition they will send it on to the National Visa Center (NVC), NVC will determine which diplomatic post has jurisdiction over adjudicating the application (The US Embassy Thailand has jurisdiction over cases involving Thai nationals). The diplomatic post will conduct an visa interview and decide whether to approve the petition.

Of all the phases of the US Immigration process, generally the USCIS adjudication phase takes the longest because there is often a backlog of pending cases built up at the Service Center or lock box. Therefore, any improvements that USCIS can make in order to facilitate faster visa processing is always welcome.

(This is not legal advice. No Client-Lawyer relationship is formed from reading this posting.)

Tags: American Visa Thailand, K-1 Visa Process, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa Thailand, US Immigration Process, US Visa Process, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

What is the Process for Obtaining a K-1 Fiancee Visa?

The K-1 visa process is a time consuming and complex endeavor. Many arm-chair attorneys believe that they understand the K-1 process based upon second hand or incorrect information. Further complicating the research process are so-called visa agents and Immigration consulting firms providing misleading information. In Thailand, there are some “US Immigration Lawyers” who are not licensed to practice law in any US jurisdiction and therefore cannot practice US Immigration law. Without all of this “background noise” of bad information, what are the facts about the K-1 Visa Process?

The K-1 Visa Process: The Visa Application

The K-1 Visa Application is one of the most critical components of the K-1 visa process. Currently, the I-129f application is used by those who wish to petition for K-1 benefits for a foreign fiancee. The I-129f petition seems uncomplicated at first blush, but legislation passed within the last decade has made K-1 visa application questions more detailed and created restrictions regarding who can submit an application for a K-1 visa.

After the application is completed, it must then be submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) center with proper jurisdiction. USCIS Service Center jurisdiction is based upon the location of the US Citizen’s primary residence in the United States.

K-1 Visa Process: Submission of the K-1 Visa Application to the USCIS Service Center

After the US Citizen sends the K-1 Visa application to the USCIS service center, the wait begins. Due to the heavy caseload of both service centers, it can take some time before the K-1 application is adjudicated. Currently, both USCIS service centers state that it will take approximately 6 months to adjudicate the K-1 visa application. However, is has been the experience of the writer that this is a conservative estimate and the K-1 application is usually adjudicated in a shorter time period. An issue that can arise and slow down a K-1 visa application is a Request For Evidence (RFE). An RFE is sent from USCIS to the US Citizen if there is a deficiency of documentation in the K1 application. This is where retaining the services of a US Visa Lawyer could be a benefit because the lawyer could assist in forestalling an RFE.

K-1 Visa Application Approval at USCIS and Forwarding to the National Visa Center

Once USCIS approves a K-1 visa application, they will send the visa application to an office within the American State Department called the National Visa Center (NVC). The NVC will ascertain where the Fiancee beneficiary of the visa application will be conducting her interview. Once it is determined where the Fiancee will conduct her K-1 visa interview, the NVC will forward the application to that Embassy or Consulate.

K-1 Visa Process: Packet 3 and the K-1 Visa Interview

After the NVC has forwarded the K-1 application to the Embassy the embassy will send out packet 3, which explains the documentation that must be submitted prior to the K-1 visa interview. Having an attorney on the scene to assist with consular processing can be a major advantage to the Non-Citizen fiancee especially where the fiancee’s mother tongue is not English. After Packet 3 is submitted and the Interview is scheduled, the Fiancee will go to the Embassy and have her interview.

K-1 Visa Process: K-1 Visa Interview and 221g Refusals

One common delay in the K-1 visa process is caused by a 221 g denial. A 221 g visa denial occurs when the consular officer conducting the K-1 visa interview determines that the applicant has provided insufficient documentation and will need to retrieve the necessary documentation before a visa will be issued. An American Immigration attorney in the fiancee’s home country can be indispensable at the K-1 interview phase because they can attempt to forestall 221 g denials by using their knowledge of the law and experience in order to prepare all of the necessary documentation in advance. Further, if a 221 g should arise, the attorney is in a position to advise how best to deal with the deficiency.

K-1 Visa Process: K1 Visa Denial based upon a Legal Ground of Inadmissibility

In cases where the K-1 beneficiary is deemed legally inadmissible to the US, the K-1 visa application will be denied. In many cases, the Inadmissibility can be waived by filing an I-601 waiver application. retaining an Immigration attorney at the beginning of the process can enable all parties to form an effective strategy regarding a finding of inadmissibility. If an attorney believes that a ground of inadmissibility exists, then he can prepare the application for a waiver before the visa is ultimately denied and file the waiver application contemporaneously or shortly following denial.  Luckily for those reading this, most foreign beneficiaries are not inadmissible, but it may be wise to contact an attorney in order to understand all facets of the K-1 Visa Process.

(Nothing in this article should be used for purposes other than education and research. Further, no part of this post is a satifactory alternative to competenet personal legal advice from a licensed attorney. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship between author and reader.)

Tags: K-1 Visa Process, K1 Visa Information, K1 Visa Lawyer, K1 Visa Thailand, US Immigration Information, us visa lawyer, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, US Visa Thailand | 1 Comment »