Stopping Visa Fraud

[Dan R]

I wonder if the nerve wrecking process of the visa interview is really of value. Has anyone found any statistics on the number of people world wide that are permanently denied entry no matter how they try? Recently Cuba took away a man's passport whose brother had just used the same documents three days earlier to leave for the U.S.

 

Such money and time is spent by the government on a quick last defense against visa fraud. Is it worth it?

 

1) Is the interview a deterant?

 

2) Does it catch and permanently stop a large percentage of fraud?

 

I seriously doubt from what I hear in the immigrant communities here that it does either. If the goal is to catch spies and terrorists I would guess that it is less effective with those trained to pass. Fraud for a K-1 would be someone not intending to remain long term in a marriage.

 

If the system is effective there should be statistics on a significant percentage of applicants who were stopped and could not resolve their cases. Does anyone know of such statistics?

 

My suspiscion is that we go through this most nerve straining step for political posturing for the public to demonstrate our government is looking out for us. I would like to be proven wrong on this.

[frank1538]

Take a look at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judic...hju63124_0f.htm dealing with nonimmigrant visa fraud.

 

One interesting statment from the somewhat dated testimony: "According to the report, 90 percent of the Chinese L visa petitioners investigated were found to have submitted fraudulent documents to the INS. Department of State reporting from China posts described similar levels of fraud with L visa petitions."

 

Based on the testimony, statistics on visa fraud are not readily available, but in my mind it's an iceberg thing. We may see the tip, but we don't really know what's underneath the surface.

[Trigg]

Actually Dan, the AOS interview we went through was more like a real open ended question type of thing that would stand a better chance of getting to the depth of a relationship. It would possibly help deter more visa fraud if something similar was conducted in GZ instead of the standard five question formality.

[C4Racer]

I wonder if the nerve wrecking process of the visa interview is really of value.

1) Is the interview a deterant?

This is only my opinion mixed with some speculation so take it for what it is worth.

 

The interview has nothing to do with getting to the bottom of visa fraud at the embassy. It appears this is all done behind the scenes. I really believe the decision is made before the interview. The law states all applicants will receive an interview. The interview serves nothing, but to insure the embassy has followed the law when it denys a visa and to inform the applicant of the decision. The only time the interview appears to have any significance is when the embassy is undecided. Then they use answers gathered at the embassy to help solidify their stance or sway them into granting the visa.

[Dan R]

Whew Frank that is a lot of reading. It seems that the biggest problems are poor enforcement and inability to track individuals once they enter the country. It also mentions the lack of processing and using the data that is collected.

 

I didn't see anything yet about the visa interview stopping K visa fraud.

 

It is interesting that the religous visa is the most used for changing illegal status to legal.

 

I have been involved with OIG and know they are a group dedicated to keeping government on the up and up. Unfortunately they are in more limited numbers than VOs, cover more territory and are hampered by a worse burden of proof than we are by the visa process, to bring charges against government workers.

 

Trigg I agree with you that the interview for AOS is much better tax money spent.

[Dan R]

Michael wouldn't issuing a decision by mail with ability to appeal refusal be more practical than an interview for this purpose and save everyone including the tax payer a lot of money?

 

If as you say it is just to fulfill a procedural legality then the public is being bilked by the government attorneys.