Number of visits versus being at interview

[david_dawei]

The rules say only 1 time is manditory. If K1's from VSC are getting visa's in only 9 months, how many times would you expect an person to visit their wife/fiancee, especially from the Eastern US. 12 hours time difference. Can't have much more of a "long distance relationship" than that. In my wifes interview they asked if lao Po had ever talked with my mom. answer: yes, on web cam too. and he also asked to see our pics. Never questioned how many times I visited or if I was there for her interview. Imagine the VO thinking that you are a fraud because you only vistied 1 time or weren't present for her interview. What kind of supporting evidence could you submit to change the past, related to either question? I think, none. That's why I say irrelivent.

 

 

Paranoia rules!! - Paranoia will destroy ya... Rock on http://photobucket.com/albums/y107/BuffaloBillsRock/th_headbang.gif

 

Who said "Lao Poo"? too funny...  http://photobucket.com/albums/y107/BuffaloBillsRock/th_biglaugha.gif

172414[/snapback]

I'd beg to differ...

 

One time is mandatory to submit the petition; I personally would not extend this logic to approval and issuance of a visa...

 

reading 9FAM states that the longer the time to issue a visa the VO should be concerned as to the original intent of the USC...

 

And it is unfortunately apparent that VOs differ on their emphasis... if someone has a rejection that can clearly be linked to few number of visits (ie: ONE), then I would suggest that this can happen again... and it has.. and it will... JUST MY OPINION...

 

What evidence do you submit to make up for the past [lack of] visits ? A quick trip to GUZ for overcome... this has been repeatedly shown to take care of the issue...

[Mengxin]

I have been 6 times in the last 2 years. Probably not an issue if they ran a check on my passport.

 

Opinoins are like a@@hles, they stink and everybody has one. hehe...kidding.

[sailorboy]

I would like to offer my recent experience on this very subject. We were given a blue slip on the basis of the "Spousal Visits" question. Anticipating this, I wrote the following letter:

 

October 18, 2005

 

United States Consulate Guangzhou

1 Shamian South Street

Guangzhou, 510133 PRC

 

Ref:  GUZ2005xxxxxx

 

Subject:  Affidavit concerning spousal visitations to China ICO (SO's name)

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

In petitioning the United States of America for an immigration visa (Type CR1) for my wife, (SO's name), I have discovered that a burden of proof rests heavily on my shoulders and that of my wife’s in providing evidence of an established and bona fide relationship.  Specifically, it would appear that the number of visits to my wife in China bare a significant weight in this process.

 

After meeting my wife in early March 2004 and having spent on average 2 to 3 hours daily in conversations via the Internet and with web cam, it became increasingly apparent to me that (SO's name) and I were destined to become husband and wife.  I proposed in May 2004 and we planned our marriage for August 2004.  I arrived in China on August 1, 2004 and we were married in Shanghai on August 5, 2004.

 

Upon researching the requirements for obtaining a spousal visa for my wife to join me in the United States, we were told the process would take approximately 6 to 9 months.  That information coupled with the fact that my present employment as a contractor working for the United States Navy in the Information Technology (IT) field without a compensation package that included paid vacations precluded my ability to return to China for regular follow-on visits.

 

Further, securing the necessary time off would have required one or more of my co-workers to fill in for me that would have caused a significant disruption in the amount and type of support we could give to the current contract.  This would have been totally unacceptable to my employer (employer's name).  Since I was not entitled to paid vacations at that time, I would have also had to bear a financial burden the equivalent of one month’s pay in addition to the actual costs of the trip.  In summary, I would have most likely been terminated from my present employment had I persisted in making follow-on trips to China to be with my wife.  We felt that since the apparent wait time for a non-immigrant (K3) visa was so short, that we would wait until an interview appointment was arranged before returning to China. 

 

I love my wife dearly and I understand the requirements placed on the Consular Officer in determining the nature of my relationship with my wife.  I would offer as an alternative form of evidence numerous letters from family and friends all testimonies to the validity of my marriage to my wife.  I am certain that after reading these letters a determination can be made that there does exist a very strong and valid matrimonial relationship between my wife and myself.  It is my humble request that appropriate consideration be given to my explanation regarding the follow-on visits subject and the testimonies of my family and friends.

 

Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter.

 

Very respectfully,

 

 

 

John Doe

Petitioner

 

 

 

State of California

County of ______________

 

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____ day of _____________________, 20_____, by __________________________, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.

 

 

(seal) Signature______________________

 

My wife had the Black Widow and she blue-slipped us with a request for a letter from my employer stating I was not entitled to vacation during the period from our marriage until the Friday before our interview. We overcame the blue slip.

 

So I guess I would suggest that, if you go my route, also get a letter from your employer stating the facts. I thought notarized letters were legally binding but apparently not. Some of the responses I have read here seem to point to no vacation balance on the books, so just state that. We are riding a thin line because if you take a leave of absence and end up losing your job, you no longer make the salary requirements (125% of Poverty Level) which is a basis for denial. Also, I'm of the belief that being there for the interview is most important. We were able to overcome in a very short period of time because I could expedite the necessary paperwork immediately after reading the blue slip.

 

Just my 2 cents....good luck to all!!

 

Dave

[Mengxin]

"Black Widow" - nuff said. In her case, Rules don't matter, she has her own set she goes by, that aren't document. Not your fault, sorry to hear that.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

The rules say only 1 time is manditory. If K1's from VSC are getting visa's in only 9 months, how many times would you expect an person to visit their wife/fiancee, especially from the Eastern US.

Paranoia rules!! - Paranoia will destroy ya...

172414[/snapback]

I'd beg to differ...

 

One time is mandatory to submit the petition; I personally would not extend this logic to approval and issuance of a visa...

 

reading 9FAM states that the longer the time to issue a visa the VO should be concerned as to the original intent of the USC...

 

And it is unfortunately apparent that VOs differ on their emphasis... if someone has a rejection that can clearly be linked to few number of visits (ie: ONE), then I would suggest that this can happen again... and it has.. and it will... JUST MY OPINION...

172418[/snapback]

Yes David, it is JUST you're opinion. If someone goes to China a thousand times does it mean they have a bonafide relationship with someone? Well, perhaps with their banker, but it certainly is only ONE cog on the wheel with which the Visa Official uses to make a determination.

 

Those of you that have been through the process know full well that many times those that make these determinations do so without looking at a shred of evidence; as if someone farted and they think you did it.

 

Hell, if you can go 500 times to China, by all means go 500 times. If you can go but once there is no need to be overly concerned. This process takes good and careful planning front to back. But, you've got to play with the hand you're dealt. If you're fortunate enough to have both the time and financial resources to make several trips to China, without placing a burden on your SO after she gets here then do it. If however you have the time but use a credit card then think twice about how you're spending your money.

 

Don't EVER put all your eggs in one basket. Document everything. Keep good records. Journal, keep a logbook. Names, dates, events, telephone numbers, and even recorded conversations.

 

Use and learn people and communications skills. If you're partner has communication problems use your time carefully to help them improve. Know the objections and make sure your partner has the face to face part of this process down. Know your strengths, and know your weaknesses.

 

I don't think it wise to assume that making several visits to China will ever be an ace in the hole. Nothing is an ace in the hole in this process, there is no sure thing. Count on nothing and prepare for everything.

Edited November 29, 2005 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

I don't feel this issue is the 'one cog' nor an ace in the hole nor proof of a bona-fide relationship...

 

but this post is about number of visits and the original poster asked about the issue of having only one more possible visit... not 500 B)

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Okay, let's say one as opposed to two.

 

If one has the means to go more than once, great. By all means do it. If one only has the means to make one visit then it would be prudent to strengthen oneself in other areas, like English and communication skills. Everyone must play the hand their dealt. Plan ahead, know your options, but having fear of visa denial because one can visit China only once is subjectively unlikely.

 

I have serious doubt as to whether there is a pattern of VOs rejecting petitions because the petitioner visited only once. It will likely sound an alert so it would be incumbant upon the petitioner to realize that they must bone up in other areas to compensate.

 

This process is NOT rocket science. We know that VOs often use inconsistent decision making processes. Some simply impart the law more fairly than others. What matters to one VO will likely matter little to another.

Edited November 29, 2005 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)