Laws & Policies Broken

Below are laws and policies I experienced being broken.

"In fulfilling the requirements of this section, no official of the Department of State or the Department of Homeland Security shall disclose to a nonimmigrant visa applicant the name or contact information of any person who was granted a protection order or restraining order against the petitioner or who was a victim of a crime of violence perpetrated by the petitioner, but shall disclose the relationship of the person to the petitioner." 8 U.S. Code § 1375a(c)

This law was broken when the consular officer gave my fiance a copy of the police reports without first redacting the names of the victims, but instead leaving them untouched and fully legible. evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 3

"During an interview with an applicant for a K nonimmigrant visa, a consular officers shall—
(B) provide a copy of the pamphlet developed under subsection (a)(1) in English or another appropriate language and provide an oral summary, in the primary language of the visa applicant, of that pamphlet;" 8 U.S. Code § 1375a(b)(1)

This law was broken when the consular officer did not give said pamphlet to my fiance at either of her interviews.

"(B) Consular access
The pamphlet developed under paragraph (1) shall be made available to the public at all consular posts." 8 U.S. Code § 1375a(a)(5)(B)

This law was broken when I went to the Embassy for a notary appointment on 8/11/2021 and they would not give me a copy of the pamphlet when I requested it.

"(a) All notarizing officers are required, when application is made to them within the geographic limits of their consular district, to administer to and take from any person any oath, affirmation, affidavit, or deposition, and to perform any notarial act which any notary public is required or authorized by law to perform within the United States." 22 CFR § 92.4(a)

This law was broken when I went to the Embassy for a notary appointment on 8/11/2021 and they refused notarial services.

"The intent of the law is to provide available information and resources to immigrating fiancé(e)s and spouses. Ultimately, the applicant is responsible for deciding whether he or she feels safe in the relationship." 9 FAM 504.7-5(B)g

This policy was violated when my fiance was not allowed to decide for herself if she feels safe in the relationship.

"After informing the applicant, give the applicant time to decide whether he or she wishes to proceed with the K visa application, and, in the case of an applicant for a K-1 visa, whether he or she still intends to marry the petitioner within 90 days of entering the United States." 9 FAM 502.7-3(C)(4)b

This policy was violated when my fiance was not asked if she should would still like to proceed with the application and not asked if she still intends to marry me within 90 days of entering the US.

"the applicant is entitled to present evidence to overcome a presumption or finding of ineligibility. It is the policy of the U.S. Government to give the applicant every reasonable opportunity to establish eligibility to receive a visa. This policy is the basis for the review of refusals at consular offices and by the Department. It is in keeping with the spirit of American justice and fairness." 9 FAM 403.10-4

This policy was broken when the officer chose to send the application back to USCIS without requesting or allowing applicant or petitioner to submit additional evidence to overcome the officers presumption of ineligibility.

"7 FAM 834 refusals and waivers of responsibility
... You have a disqualifying interest if you have a financial or other interest in the transaction. If you have a disqualifying interest, someone else must provide the notarial service." 7 FAM 834 e.

This policy was broken when I was refused notarial services on the grouns of disqualifying interest and was not given someone else to perform the notary.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" 14th Amendment to the Constitution

This amendment was violated when we were refused the privilege of a K-1 visa without being asked for additional evidence or a chance to respond negating due process.

I am still researching for a more binding law, but the 5th amendment protects against double jeopardy. I will dig until I find something more clear that demonstrates a violation against my right to not be accused of something I have already been charged with and not convicted of. So far what I have are these:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law." ICCPR Article 14(2)
"Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty." Article XXVI of the 1948 American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man
"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." Article 11 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

When accusations of crimes which went through the judicial process and did not result in a conviction for said accusations were presented to my fiance saying I did the things accused of, as if it were a fact, going against the decision of a US court. This is further illustrated by her statement that she worries about what would happen to my fiance and her daughter if she went to America. A friend can make such a statement, but not an officer working for the government. If I must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, how much worse is it when an officer says I did something that already went through the judicial process.