Send Flowers to Russia, Ukraine and Worldwide with Cyber-Florist.com Fiance.com: Beautiful Russian brides
Home  |  About  |  Forum  |  User Blogs  |  Login  |  Register

	Create New Topic   My Posts   My forum buddies   Invite friends   Private messages Russian brides > Main Forum > Visas to the US Author Post JamesBlonde Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/21/2007 11:11:34 AM   Hey, Johns are usually public access. nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/21/2007 12:08:23 PM   John Simply put, it is very difficult for women of Ukraine or FSU countries to get a simple tourist visa's. There is the diversity visa lottery they can try. The reason this thread got hijacked was because of the misinformation that is presented as illegal visa denials. When research is done, you will see that in the beginning 42% of k1 visa's are denied with the majority being lacking certain documentation. Others for various reasons as health and criminal background investigations. Most of the visa denials are merely changed by providing the particular documentation along with better proof of relationship. Maybe this is the reason many men use a lawyer for K1's but it's not really needed. This will tie also into another thread you started regarding the socials by russianengagement.com. I would do some research, contact an immigration attorney, because I don't know much on R1, F1 and F2 visa's. This is seems what most of these girls of that site have. You still may have to go through the k1 process, I don't know if she will have to return to her home country etc. since I did my K1 with a woman who lived in Ukraine. So you might check into that. I wouldn't rely on the information gave to you by russianengagment.com as with any dating site, they make it sound too easy because she's already here.They're not there to help you with the immigration process. Hell some people have married here in the states and still fight deportation. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/21/2007 4:07:54 PM   Nafsan has again undermined our intelligence by over estimating his own. No one would complain if a fiancee is denied for legal reasons, such as (to simplify matters, assume she's never been inside the US before): 1. Fiancee doesn't have a passport valid for 6+ months 2. Fiancee doesn't pass a medical/ physical exam 3. Fiancee has a criminal background 4. You lack on your income requirements 5. You aren't able to pay $110 (may have increased) in visa application fee If visa is refused for any reason other than above, then it is an illegal visa denial. It's simple, but high school grads like Nafsan would never get it. AJ Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/21/2007 7:04:11 PM   Bush says American middle class is disappearing not beacuse bottom is falling out, but because millde class is becoming rich !!!!!! nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/21/2007 8:42:31 PM   Again Dr. Koop Cite the case and the Amendment and the guarantee that a visa denial is illegal. You have yet to cite one case, Only Bevins and a couple of others that have very little to do with immigration. I love that you think you are so erudite and others that can control you in any way is just a high school grad. Sorry pal not me, but then you educated three stooges got your visa's denied so who is the real idiot here? I'm sure your pre-med had a lot to do with American constitutional law. Just show me one case where the Supreme court granted certorari or was denied in an immigration suit? I'm all ears. If it was the case, and as suit happy as this country is on denial of rights, i.e Roe v. Wade and Miranda the docket would be flooded with these suits. Cite the case law where it is illegal. Just one Dr. Koop. When you do ask for blue boy I will be the one holding my breath. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 3:28:22 AM   If maximum posted speed limit is 35 mph, then going over would be illegal. You don't need Supreme Court or appalent court rulings to tell you this. Similarly, an unlawful visa denial violates 8 USC 1201(g) (it probably tarnslates to some INA # also), and therefore, it is illegal or against the law. Although no penalty is prescribed for this violation, an illegal visa denial will encompass many illegalities, which the case could be civilly prosecuted against in a federal court for a maximum of $10,000 allowed under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), one of only two exceptions to the federal sovereign immunity. nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 8:27:45 AM   Just to follow up a little. All lower courts pretty much follow the consular nonreviewability line. So where is the constitutional crisis. Check Bruno v. Albright, or my favorite one is Decastro Polo v. Fairman, in which this guy is pretty clever and tries to end run the consulate by filing a mandamus petition. Ooops it didn't work. So until congress changes the law, the courts will uphold consular nonreviewability. So if you have a constitutional crisis with the embassy, you better have a consultation with your congressman. So again you cannot claim that consulates are corrupt and unconstitutional until you find someone willing to change the law. The State department operates under the jurisdition of congress. The same as congress can tell the courts they have no jurisdiction in certain matters. That's where the libs have went crazy. When they get beat at the ballot box and with common sense, they run to some lib judge. So again please cite case law that this is so unconstitutional. Because the result didn't go your way? Nothing in our constitution guarantees you rights to have a foreign bride. Just because you file a petition doesn't mean you are automatically approved. I have to chuckle Dr. Koop you cite Amirs case as being approved, but his wife bolted on him in six months not wanting to wait for him to get the mess cleared up. Sounds like to me the consulate called that one correctly. Lack of relationship. If it was a real relationship she would have hung in there and waited for him to work it out. And then the goofball ,after she marries some other schmuck, heads out to confront her and then acts with indignation when her husband closes the door in his face. What a joke. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 8:56:56 AM   I'm familiar with Bruno v. Albright, but had to look up Polo v. Fairman. Both visas involved consulates in Panama and Columbia during a time when narco traffic to the US was at an all time high, and appear to be denied legally under 8 USC 1182(a)(2)(C) because applicants were suspected of narco traffic. jetmba. Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 9:29:22 AM   I love the way Dr. Koop keeps protesting the way it is SUPPOSED to be. He doesn't seem to get the fact that with no real recourse and no legal precedence, the "wonderful words" he mentions mean nothing. Its no big surprise that he looks for a woman in an area that just a generation ago had meaningless Five Year Plans and "democratic elections" where a single candidate was offered. Dr. Koop thrives on idealistic concepts but fails to see blunt realty. Guarantees without real and concrete recourse are only wonderful words and not really guarantees at all. Drkoop.com is actually a small player website now that was once worth billions in the ridiculously overvalued dot-com days. Its interesting that he names himself after that. But perhaps he should name himself DonQuixote instead as he seems to rather favor tilting at windmills. Sergey Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 11:10:38 AM   jetmba are you saying you prefer anarchy over order? I had this pakistani friend who told me of how cops once barged into the quasi-government electric utility company, roughed up or pissed off mployees there and left and electric company cut off electricity to police station. Move over there man. even your messages turn up here because things go as they are SUPPOSED to. Also, let me tell you more on this Iranian friend whose Iranian wife was denied an immigrant visa 2 times at Istanbul. He went on such rmapage that I would say that he indirectly cost the US taxpayers over a million dollars. Unaware of the million dollar f*ck, at Istanbul a few white folks probably smirk to this day over how they had their way with the guy. Forget the laws, forget the regulations, forget the advisories. Everyone has a common sense, and you know when you are getting a shaft. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 2:12:41 PM   .. and by legally I mean that it is not the consular official who suspected that applicants may be naro traders, but because they were labeled as such in the US government computer. nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 5:14:46 PM   4) Public charge (A) In general Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible. This is also under 8 USC 1182. So if the opinion and I state opinion of the consular officer he feels she or he will become a public charge they will be inadmissable. A lot of caveats to this code. Which gives powers to the attorney general and Consulate officers which by law and congress this power has been given to them. If you also read this code, even if there is a affadavit of support they are not required to process and approve the visa. In the Polo v. Fairman, the issue wasn't about her visa denial, it was about due process, which he felt his due process was violated because his wife's visa was denied. So this goes to the crybabys who said it's just the white guys who get visa's. Well in due process claims, I bet people of color file more writs and win than any whites do. Sorry fella's make your claims to it being unconstitutional all you want. It's simply law. Not necessarily a good law, but it's how it's been written and it has stood the test in the courts so there has been a precedent set. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 6:53:59 PM   Whether an alien would become a public charge or not is not determined by "feel", but by a strict mathematical formula: By income: Annual income x 1.25 x # persons must meet or exceed the minimum federal poverty guidelines for that year. By assets: Assets divided by 5 must meet or exceed the minimum federal poverty guidelines for that year. "Feel" is a chaotic word. The less subjective, the better. Where do you come up with public charge. All requirements are classified under 8 USC 1182, public charge being 8 USC 1182(a)(4). The cases you cited involve 8 USC 1182(a)(2) "Criminal & related grounds". Fiancee and spouse visa denials are no matters of "cry baby". Sex is a strong drive, and ranks just below food. Sergei cites one case of million dollar rampage, but who is to say how many sex crimes such visa denials have led to. jetmba. Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/22/2007 10:04:21 PM   Sergey: Do you have reading comprehension problems? Where did I say that I PREFER it this way at US Embassies? I am simply stating fact. Its the way it is. If you choose to live in denial, its up to you. You can go battle the State Department if you choose to. You can set up picket lines if you want or stage a sit-in. Let me know how you do. Sergey Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 2/23/2007 7:50:28 AM   Jetmba Think I'll go with the Iranian's way. i'm only at $150,000 right now, but give me some time. it takes a lot of power to do exact justice. battling State Dept. and picket lines won't do any good. but I like amir's approach too. hold officails personally responsible. Your Reply: Your name:   New Registration Password:   Forgot password?   refresh Code:   Russian brides > Main Forum > Visas to the US
	Pages: 1 2