questions on fraud

[Trigg]

Yup. But there is something I wonder about. There are some CFL members that post often. These are the ones that come here and read every day, ask questions, and contribute to threads. Then, there are a few that join here and rarely post. You will see some that go through the entire visa process while being a member here and have fewer than 50 posts. Okay, while some of these folks might just be very busy in their lives, I do wonder about if some of them are part of the skamming network......

167159[/snapback]

Maybe our obvious intellectual prowess frightens them off. yup, that's what it is alrighty--we are so far advanced intellectually that they just don't get it. Yuppers, thats it alrighty for sure dude

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I think the vast majority of members come here to research visa info.  Only a few are big mouths such as myself

http://missmessy.crmi.net/messystench/images/illustrate/cartoon/big/mouth.gif

167208[/snapback]

Been out shoe shopping eh....

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Maybe our obvious intellectual prowess frightens them off.  yup, that's what it is alrighty--we are so far advanced intellectually that they just don't get it.  Yuppers, thats it alrighty for sure dude

167222[/snapback]

I've never been accused of having a fully functional elevator....

[Yuanyang]

...It's not so much helping those fly below the radar, but help those that fly above the radar to know if the runway is clear for takeoff and landing and what altitude to fly at so that we are clearly visible to the [GUZ] tower...

167157[/snapback]

The way I read the request was for information on the people that claim they can help via 'inside' information and the likes of that. Not having been approached I have no information to give to them. Nor am I aware of anyone who claims they are profiting by way of a sham marriage or engagement. If I did I'd love to nail them to the wall as these are the people who are making our lives miserable.

 

Furthermore, I don't believe that the VOs are petty with this process, but I do believe that the consulate is woefully understaffed and that the strain comes through the VOs in spite of their best efforts to remain professional.

 

Now, having said that and based on stories from many people, it does baffle me as to why the wife/fiance can be 'ambushed' in the interview and not allowed to present overcome evidence on the spot as some have claimed to have at the time. That behavior alone suggests that GUZ is not being totally forthcoming when it is said that the application is reviewed for the first time on the spot and the determination is made during that 2 - 5 minute time period. It simply does not hold up. It 'feels' like that a review process has already taken place and the VO is simply deliverying the information because the overcome evidence has to take place at another time and in many cases at great expense to the couple.

 

Please correct me here, but I'm not aware of any CFL applicants being denied a visa once they have gone to the overcome interview. This seems to me to be yet another 'test' to see if the couple will expend their hard earned capital to complete the process. If that is the 'test' then I find it shameful.

 

But of course, I could be wrong.

[notrevorich]

Don't shoot the messenger...

167083[/snapback]

I was kidding David

167137[/snapback]

Just keep those guns in their holster ...

167154[/snapback]

Did I ever tell you that I have a collection of over 50 guns

I do likke the revolvers best

They don't jam and if you have speed loaders you can still shoot off alot of rounds

[jim_julian]

Well said Bob ... I agree.

[david_dawei]

Please correct me here, but I'm not aware of any CFL applicants being denied a visa once they have gone to the overcome interview.  This seems to me to be yet another 'test' to see if the couple will expend their hard earned capital to complete the process.  If that is the 'test' then I find it shameful.

 

But of course, I could be wrong.

167318[/snapback]

There are cases of people being denied on their first overcome... and then prevailing on the second...

[warpedbored]

it depends on what you call a denial. Alex and Christer both were told they overcame the denial at the interview only to be denied when they went to pick up the visa. Mooncarolcafe has a story similar to Alex's. His case is the second worse over the coals raking I know of. Alex has the number one spot there. Most people do prevail at the overcome interview but not all.

[tywy_99]

There was a member here one time that was denied a visa because of the age difference between the couple.

I tried to find that thread one time awhile ago but couldn't. I can't remember the username but I do remember the thread.

They posted for awhile about the denial. I don't think they ever overcame it because they haven't posted since.

[david_dawei]

This was an odd one.. the third time was the charm:

 

Q.2.17 Has anyone turned in a video and had the video rejected ?

 

A.2.17.1

Interview #1..(boyfriend not in Guangzhou for interview) . VO says he is not convinced fiancee can speak enough English, so he requests a cassette audiotape of her having a conversation with fiancee... VISA DENIED

 

Interview #2 fiancee returns with cassette and is told by VO that audiotape recording is not enough, then requests a video of a conversation between her and her fiancee... VISA DENIED

 

Interview #3 fiancee returns, but this time her boyfriend is waiting outside the consulate...She has carried his passport, credit cards, social security card, drivers license, and blank check into the interview......VISA ISSUED!

Edited November 9, 2005 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[jim_julian]

There was a member here one time that was denied a visa because of the age difference between the couple.

I tried to find that thread one time awhile ago but couldn't. I can't remember the username but I do remember the thread.

They posted for awhile about the denial. I don't think they ever overcame it because they haven't posted since.

167414[/snapback]

Wow ... I don't like to hear that! Mentally Lao Po and I are quite similar in "age" and outlook. However, chronologically we are 22 years apart.

 

I guess it just puts more emphasis on documentining the committed relationship.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

This was an odd one..  the third time was the charm:

 

Q.2.17 Has anyone turned in a video and had the video rejected ?

 

A.2.17.1

Interview #1..(boyfriend not in Guangzhou for interview) . VO says he is not convinced fiancee can speak enough English, so he requests a cassette audiotape of her having a conversation with fiancee... VISA DENIED

 

Interview #2 fiancee returns with cassette and is told by VO that audiotape recording is not enough, then requests a video of a conversation between her and her fiancee... VISA DENIED

 

Interview #3 fiancee returns, but this time her boyfriend is waiting outside the consulate...She has carried his passport, credit cards, social security card, drivers license, and blank check into the interview......VISA ISSUED!

167426[/snapback]

While extremely unfortunate, I'm guessing the reason they supplied the audio tape instead of a video tape is due to logistics. For this reason it would be quite prudent for those whose SO either does not speak English, or has poor English speaking skills to make a Video together at the earliest possible time while visiting in China. Most of us just can't up and leave our jobs and fly to China to fix this sort of problem at a late date....

[david_dawei]

I recall one interview where the VO told the beneficiary she was 'smart' to have a video with her; although I think she offered it, she didn't need it... maybe that was proof enough...

[ameriken]

...It's not so much helping those fly below the radar, but help those that fly above the radar to know if the runway is clear for takeoff and landing and what altitude to fly at so that we are clearly visible to the [GUZ] tower...

167157[/snapback]

This seems to me to be yet another 'test' to see if the couple will expend their hard earned capital to complete the process. If that is the 'test' then I find it shameful.

 

But of course, I could be wrong.

167318[/snapback]

I agree, yet it is not really a test of capital expenditure, but emotional expenditure............getting as far as the interview......knowing you are a real couple.........and in two minutes someone has decided to keep two of you apart for another 1, 2, 3 months.

[david_dawei]

...It's not so much helping those fly below the radar, but help those that fly above the radar to know if the runway is clear for takeoff and landing and what altitude to fly at so that we are clearly visible to the [GUZ] tower...

167157[/snapback]

This seems to me to be yet another 'test' to see if the couple will expend their hard earned capital to complete the process. If that is the 'test' then I find it shameful.

 

But of course, I could be wrong.

167318[/snapback]

I agree, yet it is not really a test of capital expenditure, but emotional expenditure............getting as far as the interview......knowing you are a real couple.........and in two minutes someone has decided to keep two of you apart for another 1, 2, 3 months.

167439[/snapback]

I have seen in various places the idea pitched that part of the lengthy process is to test the resolve of the couple... There may be some truth to that, I don't know for sure... but I would state that given the fact that it is lengthy, one needs to put their energy to good use:

 

Q.2.8 How can I guard against the perception of fraud?

 

A.2.8.1

If you can teach your Chinese fianc~{(&~}e or spouse good enough English that she can confidently answer ANY question, then sure, you don't need as much proof. If your SO knows everything about you and is fluent in English, I suppose that is another way of getting a "Slam Dunk" on proof of relationship.

HOWEVER, if your fianc~{(&~}e or spouse is not completely confident with her English, you'd better make sure she doesn't accidentally fall into a fraud profile. If she does, the VO may grill her and she may get very nervous and forget all of her English! Her nervousness may just make the VO think he or she is on to something. And sometimes the questions that get thrown out can be pretty unreasonable. For instance, one of the lists of questions asked in interviews had this question: "what is the first name of your fianc~{(&~}e mother?"

 

A.2.8.2

The one formula that the fraudulent people will never be able to duplicate is EFFORT. Someone who is committing fraud is not going to put in the countless hours of communication those of us with valid relationships put in. So my suspicion is that this is one of the first things COs look for. If you can show "countless hours of communication" then I think the CO will just ask a couple of simple questions and not even think about contesting relationship. Sure they may find something else to complain about if you have a problem on some form. But they won't give you a yellow slip for "insufficient proof of relationship" when you actually have a valid relationship.

 

Some people have been very naive about the evidence they have submitted. For example, I've seen lots of posts saying "bring copies of love letters," but I would guess that love letters are almost meaningless as evidence because they are so easily copied and faked.

Making multiple trips is strong evidence against two-party fraud because if the American is being paid, making multiple trips cuts into profits. Plus the Chinese beneficiary probably doesn't want to see him more than necessary. So it's also evidence against one-party fraud.

 

A.2.8.3

Taking tons of pictures, particularly with family and friends, is evidence against both kinds of fraud, because if it were fraud, the family and friends probably would be nervous about being in the picture. And if you have pictures from many different locations, it demonstrates an amount of "work" that would probably be unusual in most fraud cases.

 

Logs of regular phone calls that show both calling and callee phone number helps dispute "one-party" fraud because again, it shows a lot of work on the part of the beneficiary.