VZCZCXRO3712
RR RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHNEH
DE RUEHNE #2409/01 3350900
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 010900Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8754
INFO RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 5349
RUEHNEH/AMCONSUL HYDERABAD 1154
RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA 4559
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 4376

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