Immigration lawyer Chris Gafner recently reviewed a May 27, 2009 K-1 Visa decision that demonstrates just how long a couple might be forced to wait if their K-1 visa is not properly handled. Not involved in the couple’s representation, Gafner Law Firm learned that the couple’s first consulate interview (where the mistake occurred) was in July 2007, and their situation wasn’t favorably resolved until May 2009. After reviewing the facts, it is clear that the delay of nearly two years could have been avoided.
by Jeff Belmonte from Cuiabá, Brazil
An Indian fiancee, the beneficiary of the K-1 visa went to the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi for her consulate interview in July 2007. At the interview the consular official questioned whether or not the couple had a bona fide fiance/fiancee relationship. Based upon those worries, the USCIS denied the K-1 visa filing and subsequently denied a second K-1 visa filed by the couple.
The couple appealed the K-1 visa decision to the AAO. Luckily, the AAO realized the mistake that was made during the July 2007 consular interview, and reversed the decision. The mistake that was made was that the consular official had no legal basis upon which to judge whether or not the couple had a “bona fide fiancee relationship.” Unfortunately for the couple, nearly two years of their lifes had passed without them being able to marry.
The couple is to be commended for having the initiative to appeal to the AAO. However, it is worth wondering if the two year delay could have been avoided if the couple had retained a K-1 visa lawyer to assist with their application. Perhaps, the K-1 visa lawyer would have been able to clarify the K-1 visa’s requirements and this misunderstanding would not have occurred.
If you are planning to file a K-1 visa for a fiance or fiancee of a U.S. citizen, don’t risk the possibility of unnecessary separation, please contact Chris Gafner or another K-1 visa attorney.
The case is available on the USCIS website, however the identifying information about the couple is blacked out to protect the couple’s privacy.