K-1 FIANCE(E)VISAS: TILL DEATH DO US PART?

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 002409

SIPDIS

CA/FPP FOR JILL NYSTROM, PLEASE PASS TO DHS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KFRD CVIS CMGT ASEC IN
SUBJECT: K-1 FIANCE(E)VISAS: TILL DEATH DO US PART?

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------

1. New Delhi has completed its first-ever K-1 Fianc(e) Visa
validation study. During FY2008, New Delhi's Immigrant Visa (IV)
Unit issued 184 fianc(e) visas. In almost 50 percent of the cases,
we were able to contact neither the beneficiary nor the petitioner
due to disconnected, non-existent, or unavailable telephone numbers
or unanswered calls. In only 41 percent of the cases were we able
to confirm that beneficiaries were still living with their
petitioner. The difficulty in reaching these visa recipients and
the significant number no longer with their fiancs will leave
adjudicators with many doubts in future interviews.

--------------
METHODOLOGY
--------------

2. FPU personnel ran the list of 184 K-1 visas issued by the IV Unit
during FY2008 through the CCD and forwarded this list to CA/FPP to
be checked against the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) ADIS
and CLAIMS systems. Upon receipt of the ADIS and CLAIMS
information, FPU undertook multiple steps to organize and interpret
the data. First, post reviewed and scrubbed the data to identify
the status of each applicant: I485 approved, I485 pending, LPR
status, etc. FPU staff then looked up each case in the IVO system
and used the address provided at the time of interview and/or the
petitioner's Social Security number to supplement the incomplete
data provided on the CLAIMS report. Using that information,
American FPU staff members checked Lexis Nexis to determine whether
or not the beneficiary and petitioner appeared to be living
together. For the couples who did not appear to be living together,
post made phone calls to the U.S. residence at which one or the
other subject seemed to reside.

--------------
FINDINGS
--------------


3. Out of the batch of 184 cases, a total of 76 beneficiaries--only
41 percent--were confirmed to be still living with their
petitioners. In 8 cases (4 percent of the total),the beneficiary
and the petitioner were confirmed to no longer live together, and in
two cases, the beneficiaries had returned to India, presumably not
having completed the intended marriage.


4. In 59 cases (32 percent),the beneficiaries were unreachable at
the telephone numbers listed in IVO and PIERS. In each of these
cases, the telephone numbers were found to be either disconnected,
non-existent, or incorrect. In another 32 instances (17 percent)
there was no answer at the number provided. In short, we were
unable to contact either the beneficiary or the petitioner in almost
50 percent of the cases.


5. Seven additional cases were deemed inconclusive because no
verifiable information on whether beneficiaries were still living
with their petitioner could be determined through phone calls.
During the calls, those reached by telephone seemed to be altering
their stories as to their relationship to the beneficiary and/or
petitioner and/or whether the beneficiary and petitioner continued
to live together. These cases, thus, may also be fraudulent.

--------------
LESSONS LEARNED
--------------


6. There was significant difficulty in completing the survey as
secondary searches were necessary to locate contact details. In
other validation studies completed at post, a straightforward ADIS
check revealed whether an applicant had returned to their home
country. In this case we were looking at the reverse and trying to
locate those who had not returned. The inability to track down
petitioners or beneficiaries via the numbers submitted in their
official documents raises questions of veracity in the original
applications.


7. A shocking 57 (31 percent) of the visa recipients had not
adjusted status with DHS although they are residing in the United
States. Given the parameters of the K-1 visa (applicants must marry
within 90 days) and the stated intent of all applicants to go and
marry and stay (i.e., in CR-1 status),adjudicators are left with
difficult decisions in the future. Did these beneficiaries and
petitioners enter a bona fide relationship for legitimate purposes,
or did they use the K-1 visa to circumvent U.S. immigration laws?
The evidence, while indirect, points to the latter. Given the
significant number who went to the United States on the K-1 visa and
never adjusted to CR-1 status, post also has concerns that some of
the K-1 recipients may have been victims of human trafficking. An
analysis of these cases was unable to detect any common patterns,

NEW DELHI 00002409 002 OF 002


however. Our current high refusal rate for K-1 visas (over 50
percent of cases are refused 221g for additional information or
because the petition has expired) seems justified. Future
applicants' interviews will face higher hurdles to issuance.

ROEMER