• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

Help a friend out

A

alickic

Registered Users (C)
My uncle and his new wife won a dv lottery 2014. My uncle is the beneficiary. Her ex-wife won d dvlottery 2012,which they processed together but the wife failed the interview,and she was giving a white paper and in this paper a section was quoted section 212(a)5(a).
He divorced the wife last year april and he married another lady last year october. They entered the lottery together and they won(the new wife is the principal applicant).
My uncle is worrying seriously. He's thinking the dv2012 failure may jeopardise his and his new wife chance of securing visas. My question is,can the dv 2012 failure has an effect on this one?
 
Others may have a better idea whether this denial represents an issue as previously having a visa denied. However, if he was the subject of the concern in the 2012 interview then he may well be the subject of concern again this time.
 
His ex wife was given 212 a S (a), not him, right? So why does he worry? His application was never an issue. He made it all the way through up to the interview point (in DV 2012), without any problems, right (?)
That means that he was by all means a rather serious candidate.
DV is all about trying and trying, until you make it !
 
Yes. It was the ex wife alone the CO gave the paper that contained the section. The denial paper was only adressed to the ex-wife alone. Thanks,i really appreciate ur efforts in reply me immediately.
 
IMO, your uncle has cause to be worried. When a visa petition is denied based on INA 212(a)5(a), it means they believe there is no petitionable relationship between the applicant and the beneficiary. They suspect his previous marriage was simply for visa purpose. Now he's married to someone else who also happens to be a winner. Your uncle and his new wife will need a lot of evidence to convince the CO this marriage is real.

But the good thing is he got married to his new wife in October last year and the new wife mentioned him in her entry, that should prove the marriage was entered in good faith. They might be grilled a bit about their marriage because he's already been flagged in the past. Yes, the denial paper was addressed to he ex-wife, but that's because she's the principal applicant, the denial reason is applicable to both of them and not just because the ex-wife failed the interview.

alickic said:
My uncle and his new wife won a dv lottery 2014. My uncle is the beneficiary. Her ex-wife won d dvlottery 2012,which they processed together but the wife failed the interview,and she was giving a white paper and in this paper a section was quoted section 212(a)5(a).
He divorced the wife last year april and he married another lady last year october. They entered the lottery together and they won(the new wife is the principal applicant).
My uncle is worrying seriously. He's thinking the dv2012 failure may jeopardise his and his new wife chance of securing visas. My question is,can the dv 2012 failure has an effect on this one?
Click to expand...

THIS RESPONSE IS INACCURATE. PLEASE DISREGARD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But there is no sing of disqualification yet, so let the man carry on.
I still believe he could make it, provided that he let himself go off frustrations due to 212 a 5(a). By this I mean:
1. at the future interview he needs to be totally honest about his second relationship - if they are together, they need to be really together, no fake relationship
2. if he somehow makes it to the interview, he should be prepared for double more questioning during the next interview to remove doubts about the nature of their relationship, maybe even show pictures,...
 
I think that section is for labor qulifications section. This is hw it is written in the paper.
This office regrets to inform u that it is unable to issue a visa to u bcos u have been found ineligible under the labor qualifications section 212(a)(5)(a) of the law. After careful review of ur application'it has been determined that u do nt meet either tthe minimum education or the minimum job-skill requirements necessary for the dvottery. You are therefore nt eligible to participate in the DV program.
I dnt think it has anything to do with the marriage. He told me,the CO didn't interview him. She only took his finger print and asked him to sit down while she interviewed her ex wife.
 
alickic said:
I think that section is for labor qulifications section. This is hw it is written in the paper.
This office regrets to inform u that it is unable to issue a visa to u bcos u have been found ineligible under the labor qualifications section 212(a)(5)(a) of the law. After careful review of ur application'it has been determined that u do nt meet either tthe minimum education or the minimum job-skill requirements necessary for the dvottery. You are therefore nt eligible to participate in the DV program.
I dnt think it has anything to do with the marriage. He told me,the CO didn't interview him. She only took his finger print and asked him to sit down while she interviewed her ex wife.
Click to expand...
If the ex wife was rejected due to lack of education and work experience, then he should have no problem now. The CO would likely ask him about his previous marriage just to be sure, but the fact that he's listed on the current winning entry should be proof enough that he's not marrying her solely for immigration benefit.
 
Actually, you're absolutely right. A DV-based petition denial citing 212a(5)a has to do with the educational or job skill requirment. The material misrepresentation has nothing to do with the validity of your uncle's 1st marriage. I apologise for my initial inaccurate posting. Your uncle shouldn't have anything to worry about (assuming the new wife meets the requirments this time around).

alickic said:
I think that section is for labor qulifications section. This is hw it is written in the paper.
This office regrets to inform u that it is unable to issue a visa to u bcos u have been found ineligible under the labor qualifications section 212(a)(5)(a) of the law. After careful review of ur application'it has been determined that u do nt meet either tthe minimum education or the minimum job-skill requirements necessary for the dvottery. You are therefore nt eligible to participate in the DV program.
I dnt think it has anything to do with the marriage. He told me,the CO didn't interview him. She only took his finger print and asked him to sit down while she interviewed her ex wife.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, sounds like a case where some people apply for the DV without understanding the two very basic requirements. No 12 years of High School or appropriate work experience in a qualified job? Forget applying and wasting a perfectly good selection spot that others could have used. Hopefully your uncle's new wife had better understanding of the rules, otherwise tell them to not waste their time or money pursuing the visa.
 
Vichel said:
Yes, sounds like a case where some people apply for the DV without understanding the two very basic requirements. No 12 years of High School or appropriate work experience in a qualified job? Forget applying and wasting a perfectly good selection spot that others could have used. Hopefully your uncle's new wife had better understanding of the rules, otherwise tell them to not waste their time or money pursuing the visa.
Click to expand...

she had the 12yrs high school requirement. She is a hair stylist. After reviewed their ds 230 and dsp 122 forms,i found out that she ticked yes in section 7(work experience) of the dsp 122 form of the principal applicant. She had 8 credits in her WAEC. in my own view,hair stylist does not fall into the required job in the o'net job zone. I think the CO interviewed her on her work experience instead of her education qualification. she should have ticked NO.
 
alickic said:
she had the 12yrs high school requirement. She is a hair stylist. After reviewed their ds 230 and dsp 122 forms,i found out that she ticked yes in section 7(work experience) of the dsp 122 form of the principal applicant. She had 8 credits in her WAEC. in my own view,hair stylist does not fall into the required job in the o'net job zone. I think the CO interviewed her on her work experience instead of her education qualification. she should have ticked NO.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, bad mistake on her part. She must have felt devastated, poor thing. Yes, claiming work experience as a hair stylist wouldn't have cut it, but the simple high school diploma would have.

That's why these sorts of forums are helpful.
 
I don't think that is the reason. I've checked that too although I satisfy the education requirements. I mean if she had satisfied education requirements, the experience should not have been a problem.

alickic said:
she had the 12yrs high school requirement. She is a hair stylist. After reviewed their ds 230 and dsp 122 forms,i found out that she ticked yes in section 7(work experience) of the dsp 122 form of the principal applicant. She had 8 credits in her WAEC. in my own view,hair stylist does not fall into the required job in the o'net job zone. I think the CO interviewed her on her work experience instead of her education qualification. she should have ticked NO.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
212(a)(5)(A) could mean a lot of different things:
- Duplicate entry without intent to defraud
- Wrong photo specifications
- Educational or work requirement not fulfilled
- Dependent was not listed on original electronic form

Basically, any reason of denial specific for DV lottery is 212(a)(5)(A) if it is not related to fraud.
This type of disqualification disqualifies the entry from this particular DV lottery program only (this year), and does not disqualify the applicant other than with the connection to this particular entry.
 
I now remember at my interview that the CO asked me what am I using for qualifications for the visa: education or work experience. Even though I had both, I said education because it was simpler and easier to provide the proof. So she must have said she was using her work experience, not knowing a hairdresser was not a qualified job for the visa. But I didn't know that was carved in stone and you would not be given the option to change to education qualifications if the work experience didn't cut it. Seems rather harsh.
 
Having in mind that the ex wife of you uncle had sufficient educational background for qualification, it seems little bit too much to not to give her a chance and I do not think this was the case.
One should have in mind that for each interview there is a visa adjudication process going on in the embassy. It happens, not all the time, but it does happen that the adjudicator makes a mistake in using the wrong subsection, but providing an arguably correct decision due to the lack of proper evidence. This is complicated material. For instance, 212 a 5(A) was used when the main applicant did not put his wife on the list in DSP, DS forms! His reason not to put her in the form was because she did not have a valid passport ! This automatically leads to increased suspicion.
It happens very often that people think they know how to do the DSP-122 and DS-230 forms but they do not.
I am asking you here to help your uncle, review his and her forms, try to scrutinize what is he doing (and his wife), help him discover mistakes before it is too late.
 
ZukotheCat said:
Having in mind that the ex wife of you uncle had sufficient educational background for qualification, it seems little bit too much to not to give her a chance and I do not think this was the case.
One should have in mind that for each interview there is a visa adjudication process going on in the embassy. It happens, not all the time, but it does happen that the adjudicator makes a mistake in using the wrong subsection, but providing an arguably correct decision due to the lack of proper evidence. This is complicated material. For instance, 212 a 5(A) was used when the main applicant did not put his wife on the list in DSP, DS forms! His reason not to put her in the form was because she did not have a valid passport ! This automatically leads to increased suspicion.
It happens very often that people think they know how to do the DSP-122 and DS-230 forms but they do not.
I am asking you here to help your uncle, review his and her forms, try to scrutinize what is he doing (and his wife), help him discover mistakes before it is too late.
Click to expand...

I really appreciate all ur efforts,contributions,time and constructive advice. You all have opened my eyes more concerning dvlottery. @Zukothecat,i shall do as u said. Thank u all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top