Partner wins Lottery - Advice needed for KCC Douments and Process Starting

[EmilyW]

I understand that the 'advice' you received was from a forum? If so, the 'consular officer' providing it specifically stated the following:

Please note that we cannot answer questions about specific cases, except as based on the information provided here in this discussion thread. Any responses in this forum are not to be taken as legally binding, as they will be based only on what you tell us in your questions, not on the information in any actual case. While we will attempt to explain U.S. immigration policies, any opinions expressed are the personal views of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government.

Bolding is mine. Note that it's a personal opinion, not the opinion of the US government. That's important. I'm not surprised if Warsaw wasn't interested in contacting them given their opinion was a personal one, not one representative of the US government.

Regardless of Mamacyta's case (which may be true or not), it seems that you consider yourself as married even though you are not legally married. However you want to view your status and whatever is in your heart when you applied, you weren't married and that is a problem and it seems to have been picked up by Warsaw. The advice of an internet consular officer aside, Warsaw were clear on their interpretation of the regulations. As far as I can see, Warsaw are applying the regulations correctly.

Further, you not attending the interview didn't give you the opportunity to plead your case. So you may have missed your chance, IMO.

No-one is escalating anything. It's just that you have an opinion and you don't want to hear anything contrary to your opinion. Which is fine. That's your prerogative. But, if you are going to ask a question, always be prepared for answers (even ones you don't like).

 

[lukasz]

I understand that the 'advice' you received was from a forum? If so, the 'consular officer' providing it specifically stated the following:



Bolding is mine. Note that it's a personal opinion, not the opinion of the US government. That's important. I'm not surprised if Warsaw wasn't interested in contacting them given their opinion was a personal one, not one representative of the US government.

Regardless of Mamacyta's case (which may be true or not), it seems that you consider yourself as married even though you are not legally married. However you want to view your status and whatever is in your heart when you applied, you weren't married and that is a problem and it seems to have been picked up by Warsaw. The advice of an internet consular officer aside, Warsaw were clear on their interpretation of the regulations. As far as I can see, Warsaw are applying the regulations correctly.

Further, you not attending the interview didn't give you the opportunity to plead your case. So you may have missed your chance, IMO.

No-one is escalating anything. It's just that you have an opinion and you don't want to hear anything contrary to your opinion. Which is fine. That's your prerogative. But, if you are going to ask a question, always be prepared for answers (even ones you don't like).

1-You said, if you are going to ask a question, always be prepared for answers (even ones you don't like), so how come when I give mine which is obviously contrary to Britsimons, not even him but you have picked this up and chosen to escalate this by calling my response to Brit "rude"?
2-What is the difference in a personal opinion coming from an official working from a US post in Nigeria, also working for the same country USA as officials from the US post in Warsaw? I believe these consular officers received the same training in US laws. So how come the interpretations (be they in the form of opinions or actual adjudications) are different? If this had been your case, whose advise would you have taken? Britsimon's or that from an actual officer working in the immigrant section of the US embassy who adjudicates these kinds of applications/which tallies with the experience and advise which a consular in another US post where Mamacyta's case was decided or even the lad who made this post in 2010?

Please don't make me sound like this about Britsimon. The lad is doing a marvelous job on this site and I hate to even imply that he is wrong on this particular one and the experience of those who went through the same proves it.

Please if you are going to argue further, argue as Emily not as Britsimon's counsel so I don't have to keep mentioning his handle cos I actually appreciate what he is doing here and still refer his website to a few whose issues are better explained in his blog. But facts are facts. This is a matter of interpretation of the law and better advise should come from those who went through the same or from those that do the adjudication of US immigrant Visas themselves.....What the comment "any opinions expressed are the personal views of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government." means is that I cannot take this to court as evidence but can use it as advise and what better advise to get than from someone who adjudicates the same immigrant cases?

I only wish that the correspondent from the US post in Warsaw had been a bit more helpful and just advised ..."Okay if that is the case, then you would need to bring this or that to prove this." simple as opposed to purposely seeking to lure us to an interview totally blind and at their mercy .

 

[EmilyW]

Yes, facts are facts. You choose to believe one set of facts over another set of facts but - coincidentally of course - the version of facts you believe is the one that suits your case. And that set of facts was provided by a 'consular officer' on an internet forum who specifically states that their opinion is their own and not representative of the government, whereas the other set of facts were a formal representation from a US consulate.

I'll leave it there. You believe what you like, mate. Hope you get your visa by 30 September 2015. You won't get it by not showing up for the interview though - that's a fact no-one can argue with. Although I'm sure you will give it a good try!

 

[guestgulkan]

Britsimon,... this(related to USCIS /US immigration Law) is obviously not one of your strong areas..
...
I mean this with no disrespect intended.

Firstly, I believe I ended my last comment with (I mean this with no disrespect intended.).

When Americans begin a statement with "with all due respect" it means they are about to say something disrespectful. Putting a disclaimer on the end doesn't change what you said. If you don't like Britsimon's advice and know DV better than he does then maybe you shouldn't ask questions.

btw your writing style is rambling and convoluted and I'm already scared of the three page reply you're going to send. Methinks you're a good talker but a poor listener.

I mean this with no disrespect intended.

 

[lukasz]

Yes, facts are facts. You choose to believe one set of facts over another set of facts but - coincidentally of course - the version of facts you believe is the one that suits your case. And that set of facts was provided by a 'consular officer' on an internet forum who specifically states that their opinion is their own and not representative of the government, whereas the other set of facts were a formal representation from a US consulate.

I'll leave it there. You believe what you like, mate. Hope you get your visa by 30 September 2015. You won't get it by not showing up for the interview though - that's a fact no-one can argue with. Although I'm sure you will give it a good try!

Yes, I choose to believe the set of facts that directly relates(or suits) to my case not the inexperienced opinion of someone speaking from a general point of view on a general statement which is on the Polish embassy's website.

It is simple logic. If someone tells you all fruits are poisonous because apples were poisoned. I believe it is left to you to ask if this generality applies to oranges or mangoes. What more if this statement comes from a science student when a renowned professor in Fruit sciences(whether retired or active) whose research expertise is based on fruit tells you that the conclusion based on the generalization is incorrect. Then to go one level of abstraction deeper, when the argument is between two Harvard trained science professors one based in Europe and another in Africa where they are expanding on their research.

I reckon you would take the opinion of the professors as opposed to the student's. And on the difference in views from the Harvard trained professor based in Europe(who might be implying the same but just didn't elaborate well enough) and the Harvard trained professor based in Africa...when they both got their training from Harvard?
Who would you look to settle the fruit conflict other than Harvard itself.

It is as simple as this.

But I am just curious about this case still even though we refused to attend the interview because questions asked to the correspondent from the US post in Warsaw to shed more light on this were not specifically answered... and to show them I was interested in getting these answers, I sent them a PDF composition of my correspondence with the US Consul from the website which they could have easily verified by sending a wire to the post in Nigeria and confirming if it was indeed a Consular officer giving out this advise.

 

[lukasz]

When Americans begin a statement with "with all due respect" it means they are about to say something disrespectful. Putting a disclaimer on the end doesn't change what you said. If you don't like Britsimon's advice and know DV better than he does then maybe you shouldn't ask questions.

btw your writing style is rambling and convoluted and I'm already scared of the three page reply you're going to send. Methinks you're a good talker but a poor listener.

I mean this with no disrespect intended.

1- I am not American so your assumption doesn't apply to me at all.

2 i-I ended (not began) with :"I mean this with no disrespect intended"
ii-The fact that you ended with"I mean this with no disrespect intended" makes me go straight to the points you raised (of which there are none) and approach your comment as something written out of concern, without any disrespect intended.

3-This is not a Britsimon post, this was a post by someone else with a valid input from Mamacyta and I sought their take/opinion because this case applied to them...I didn't come to this thread to seek Britsimon's advise. If I wanted that, he has a blog where I have indeed gone to ask him questions related to sponsorship.

4- I am not sure Britsimon would approve of you acting like his counsel because he seems like someone who would understand what I am actually saying and people like you only want to cook up a fight when there is none.

5- My writing style is my writing style.Yours is yours. Keep your opinion to yourself. People come here to seek advise not to score writing styles. It may be "rambling and convoluted" to you, and I may look at yours as silly and unimportant because you have not said anything to contribute to what this thread is about. Who cares.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Who comes on to the net with a hugely complicated story and then dimsisses the first response with "you obviously don't know anything about immigration law". Hm, perhaps such a person should hire and pay for an immigration lawyer then. Just my 2c.

 

[lukasz]

Who comes on to the net with a hugely complicated story and then dimsisses the first response with "you obviously don't know anything about immigration law". Hm, perhaps such a person should hire and pay for an immigration lawyer then. Just my 2c.

I believe this thread exists for a couple of reasons.
1- For people to get advise on subjects they have no knowledge about.
2- For people to come and make friends all under the DV.
3- For people to come and learn from the experiences of those who had similar cases as applies to them.
4- For people to come here and learn generally.

I made my comment here because I was seeking advise from these two guys (the guy that started the thread and the lady who replied that she had a similar situation-Mamacyta) who had similar experiences. I would have hired a lawyer but why hire a lawyer when there was advise coming from a Consular for free and when some other people went through exactly the same situations which I came here to seek help for and who could advise me?

I believe you Suzie QQQ or sms1mom were part of those trying to help me when I came here newly seeking for help and got the advise from Britsimon which put fear in my heart...I especially loved the fact that either of you(whoever it was) stood up to tell Brit contrary to what he believed and either you or the other lady pointed him to the same advise that came from the immigrant adjudicating consul on the Nigeria thread. That this was referenced as not subject to disqualification. That is what friendship is about sometimes...Calling your friends to order when you see them making a mistake because no one knows it all. Not me, not Simon, not you.

What prompted my pointing to US immigration law was based on Mamacyta's opinion(someone who had undergone an adjudication based on the same "exact" situation) and the one that came from Britsimon in his response and the tone of it which was already talking of disqualification even before asking at the end if we have long since got married. Yes we got married and even had our son even before we sent the DS 260.

Come on guys. Britsimon is a very smart guy and we all respect his input but come on, the advise of a consular and the experience from Mamacyta who actually had a similar situatuion is all I had tried to get here.

If it is about trying to renegotiation a re-interview date, I would have gone to Britsimon's website to ask him cos he would be in a better situation to give more accurate information on what to do because that would be a process he would know more about based on his correspondence with people who have attempted to do such in the past...
So I actually wasn't intending to be disrespectful.

 

[Britsimon]

Britsimon, I do respect and appreciate the kind of work you do here and the advise you give to some but this(related to USCIS /US immigration Law) is obviously not one of your strong areas. I understand your area of expertise is IT not Law..(besides after seeing how accurate your predictions were on the recent issues surrounding the DV 2016, I would support any lobby to have you appointed as IT director for the DV lottery process).
I also know and believe that one of the reasons why this thread runs is to help DV lottery applicants learn especially from the previous experiences of those who have undergone the same.
Now, If you read back to Mamacyta's post(I suggest you go back and read her post), you will see that she had the very same experience "Entered as unmarried, approved a Visa" Especially the part where she said,
"During our interview as I was freaking about some complications that might occur regarding our "false" statement, the consular officer told us that the most important is:
- to have a proof of divorce (judgement) for people previously engaged in a marriage, otherwise the process would be postpone.
- to list all the children even the step-children like Ammeck 09 said before, otherwise the applicant will be disqualified.
- No matter the date of your wedding, from the moment you are married the day of your interview."

I had just said that I was told by a US Consular operating the Ask a US immigrant officer page on Online Nigeria, who handles strictly immigrant related cases in Nigeria told me exactly the same thing the Consular told Mamacyta.

I remember when I was fresh here seeking advise you told me the same thing and pointed me to the website of the Polish embassy in Warsaw which unfortunately is where we were applying from which reinforces your stance on this issue because that is the only embassy in the whole world that made a statement on their website about "Incorrect entries in Marital status" without elaborating on what exactly they mean by incorrect entries. Even in law, when you make such a general pronouncement like that, there is supposed to be a span on subject which this affects. The question any sensible person would ask now is Why are they the only embassy in the world that would say that......You might not understand why I ask that but prior to getting my first Non Immigrant J1 Visa from Krakow, I know what I went through after being denied 4 unbelievable times and the situations that led to the issue of my first Non Immigrant Visa which are bothersome. (That we can talk about another time) It is dangerous when Consulars are half baked or play politics with this duty assigned to them.

And what exactly do they mean when they say "Incorrect entries" You do understand that the incorrect entry they could be referring to is the same point the Nigerian consul and Mamacyta's consul mentioned about(but most likely unprofessionally not specified as what might qualify as an incorrect entry)....related to
i-Married but entered as single or
ii-Married with kid(s) and omiting the name of the kids on the entry.
These are the only two legitimate disqualification criteria listed on the US lottery instructions. The rest is subject to further investigation before determining if it meets critieria that makes such applications related to Sham marriage or if the applicants were lying to receive a GC under false pretenses which is a grave crime and leads some to be disqualified for 10 yrs..
I can send you the same PDF with posts and responses I made on the website which I sent....Even when I asked for advise on opting out from the application(like you advised then) the Consular in Nigeria encouraged me not to do that.

Even Susie QQQ told you about this variation pointing to the Nigerian thread not knowing I was the one asking the question there. Mamacyta just validated what that Consular told her. And since there are one set of immigration laws the US works by which all Consular officers be they in Uganda, Or Lagos/Abuja or Warsaw or London operate by, I think I am allowed to try to understand what is going on.

I mean this with no disrespect intended.

Honestly, I lost the will to read this about a third of the way through....

You obviously know better than I, so good luck with that.

 

[Britsimon]

Oh my lord... there are pages and pages of this...

Hire a lawyer. Then talk his/her ear off while the meter is running.

 

[lukasz]

Oh my lord... there are pages and pages of this...

Hire a lawyer. Then talk his/her ear off while the meter is running.

Thanks. Hiring a lawyer is actually a better advise than the one you offered at first. But in the mean time I'll be waiting for Mamacyta or willisrover to shed more light on the questions I asked earlier before all this because their cases were similar to this. Before I take my next step.

 

[Sm1smom]

Holy Camoli! making a hasty retreat

 

[Woopsie]

Well, that was entertaining few pages. Even if I got a headache reading the long posts.

 

[Sensei-san]

Thanks. Hiring a lawyer is actually a better advise than the one you offered at first. But in the mean time I'll be waiting for Mamacyta or willisrover to shed more light on the questions I asked earlier before all this because their cases were similar to this. Before I take my next step.

Did you talk to the embassy/KCC about rescheduling or transferring your interview?
Cause all other concerns would not matter, unless they give you a new interview opportunity.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Did you talk to the embassy/KCC about rescheduling or transferring your interview?
Cause all other concerns would not matter, unless they give you a new interview opportunity.

You chased all the preselectees away.

 

[Sensei-san]

You chased all the preselectees away.

I know right, but they will definetily be back for the second draw. This is a test of their faith.
The Preselection era was good times though - a lot of positive people full of hope for a brighter future, a sweet escape from reality, mental vacation from daily struggle..
I hope they'll find peace.

 

[lukasz]

Well, that was entertaining few pages. Even if I got a headache reading the long posts.

Yeah, the long posts are meant for other members whose situations might be close to or similar to mine. Not for those that come to laugh at or compound other people's troubles.

 

[lukasz]

Did you talk to the embassy/KCC about rescheduling or transferring your interview?
Cause all other concerns would not matter, unless they give you a new interview opportunity.

I was told that whatever I do, I have till September 2015 to reschedule and it can be done just once. Not that I really care about rescheduling anyway. But I want to get to the root of this matter...this is why I am hoping for one of those who went through the same to tell how it ended for them.

In my case, I tried to get the the US embassy in Poland to elaborate on what might apply as "Incorrect information" to no avail. The DV instructions highlight what might lead to a disqualification on this particular subject of marital status.....
i- Failure to add the name of an already married spouse on the entry.
ii-Failure to add names of any children on the entry.

They kept mentioning at the start of a few correspondences that "You could have filled in the correct information" while balancing it out in the end with "when you attend your interview, a consular will look at the case". I just wonder why they couldn't simply elaborate on what exactly the incorrect information applies to and how come a few unmarried/engaged couples are treated as married couples for tax purposes in the US.
I know of people who get married via social media like skype...Yes skype, and are not given marriage certificates, whose marriages are recognized for Visa purposes.
I know of a few friends while working in the US that legitly got tax benefits as couples while unmarried and mentioned it to whoever was on the other end to which they didn't respond.
I also know of couples that are traditionally co-joined esp in countries in the West Africa subregion, whose unions are blessed and recognized as marriage unions for Visa purposes, and qualify as married couples. Since I am from West Africa married to a woman from Poland, isn't it right that whatever rules apply to people from there should apply to me?

Plus I was told exactly the same thing like the consular told Mamacyta who had the same case so how come the translation of US immigration laws are applied differently only in Warsaw, Poland. Nowhere else in the world. How come they make their own rules there?

 

[Biggie]

I was told that whatever I do, I have till September 2015 to reschedule and it can be done just once. Not that I really care about rescheduling anyway. But I want to get to the root of this matter...this is why I am hoping for one of those who went through the same to tell how it ended for them.

In my case, I tried to get the the US embassy in Poland to elaborate on what might apply as "Incorrect information" to no avail. The DV instructions highlight what might lead to a disqualification on this particular subject of marital status.....
i- Failure to add the name of an already married spouse on the entry.
ii-Failure to add names of any children on the entry.

They kept mentioning at the start of a few correspondences that "You could have filled in the correct information" while balancing it out in the end with "when you attend your interview, a consular will look at the case". I just wonder why they couldn't simply elaborate on what exactly the incorrect information applies to and how come a few unmarried/engaged couples are treated as married couples for tax purposes. I know of a few friends in the US that this applied to and mentioned it to whoever was on the other end to which they didn't respond.

Plus I was told exactly the same thing like the consular told Mamacyta who had the same case so how come the translation of US immigration laws are applied differently only in Warsaw. Nowhere else in the world.

All you can do is reschedule and see what happens. Go with as much information/docs to back up your case.

We can keep pontificating but it's all up to you. The original posters of this issue seem to have long gone. You go for it and let us know how it goes.

 

[Britsimon]

I was told that whatever I do, I have till September 2015 to reschedule and it can be done just once. Not that I really care about rescheduling anyway. But I want to get to the root of this matter...this is why I am hoping for one of those who went through the same to tell how it ended for them.

In my case, I tried to get the the US embassy in Poland to elaborate on what might apply as "Incorrect information" to no avail. The DV instructions highlight what might lead to a disqualification on this particular subject of marital status.....
i- Failure to add the name of an already married spouse on the entry.
ii-Failure to add names of any children on the entry.

They kept mentioning at the start of a few correspondences that "You could have filled in the correct information" while balancing it out in the end with "when you attend your interview, a consular will look at the case". I just wonder why they couldn't simply elaborate on what exactly the incorrect information applies to and how come a few unmarried/engaged couples are treated as married couples for tax purposes in the US.
I know of people who get married via social media like skype...Yes skype, and are not given marriage certificates, whose marriages are recognized for Visa purposes.
I know of a few friends while working in the US that legitly got tax benefits as couples while unmarried and mentioned it to whoever was on the other end to which they didn't respond.
I also know of couples that are traditionally co-joined esp in countries in the West Africa subregion, whose unions are blessed and recognized as marriage unions for Visa purposes, and qualify as married couples. Since I am from West Africa married to a woman from Poland, isn't it right that whatever rules apply to people from there should apply to me?

Plus I was told exactly the same thing like the consular told Mamacyta who had the same case so how come the translation of US immigration laws are applied differently only in Warsaw, Poland. Nowhere else in the world. How come they make their own rules there?

If only I knew anything about immigration law instead of just IT....

But just to be clear - the rules are applied the same everywhere because the laws are US laws. The LAW recognizes that marriage is different in various countries around the world - you just want to pick and choose to create the scenario most advantageous to your liking. The remote marriage thing you "know" is specifically excluded from acceptable marriages and a lot of other stuff you "know" is complete BS. But you don't want to listen - you just want to go on and on and on....

In all seriousness, if you ever do get an interview you are likely to talk yourself into a denial. I honestly cannot remember if you are the selectee or not, but if you are a derivative they will have no interest in 99.9% of what you want to say. Most interviews last 3 to 5 minutes. No one will have time or patience to listen to your speeches, and quite honestly they are just going to ignore your waffle and make a decision based on the documents your present.