when do you think the VOs make the decision

[Randy W]

GUZ does not claim the files are not reviewed before the interview.  They claim "the VO" does not see the file until moments before the interview.  I envision...

 

1. Interview completed

2. Go pick up another file

3. Call the applicant to the window.

 

Like David says, the files are reviewed and notes made as needed, at many stages of the process.  One of the last times is when the P3 is returned.  Somebody looks at the documents and decides if everything is complete and the applicant is eligible for an interview.  Then somebody else at a later date looks again, schedules the interview and sends out the P4.  There may be at least one other time the case is reviewed between sending the P4 and the actual interview.  This is evidenced by Rick and Yanlan getting a phone call between P4 and interview about a birth date discrepancy for Yanlan's daughter.

 

I don't pretend to know all the answers but I'm quite certain our cases are reviewed at least a dozen times by at least a dozen people before the VO conducts an interview.

224919[/snapback]

You are apparently confusing the ENTIRE process with the Interview day and the prearations for it. Sure, the application goes from the regional service center to the NVC and then to GUZ< by way of DHL and customs.

 

Our file was reviewed by someone who noticed my citizenship information was missing, and RFE'd. The P3 was reviewed by someone at GUZ who noticed that she did not answer "None" when asked who would accompany her to the US. These are NOT concerns for the interviewing VO, and were NOT brought up at the interview.

 

What we are suggesting is that someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly berfore), and flags any potential problem areas for the interviewing VO to either investigate or blue slip for at the interview. This may or may not happen for every case, it may or may not happen at all, but hopefully, someone has more than a 5 minute familiarity with the final file.

[GaryandSherry]

I have watched this post since its inception. I think there have been some very good answers given by the members. What I haven't seen is some of the major issues that would be addressed at the interview. One being "How many times has your fiancee been to China?" Another is confirming this love relationship continues and is in fact real. I think only the VO can determine this and are two of the most relative issues when granting a visa. The first issue can be resolved with a letter from the petitioner if only one trip was made, but the second issue is something that can only be proved by phone records and email which GUZ won't have until the SO is interviewed.

[Guest pushbrk]

GUZ does not claim the files are not reviewed before the interview.?They claim "the VO" does not see the file until moments before the interview.?I envision...

 

1. Interview completed

2. Go pick up another file

3. Call the applicant to the window.

 

Like David says, the files are reviewed and notes made as needed, at many stages of the process.?One of the last times is when the P3 is returned.?Somebody looks at the documents and decides if everything is complete and the applicant is eligible for an interview.?Then somebody else at a later date looks again, schedules the interview and sends out the P4.?There may be at least one other time the case is reviewed between sending the P4 and the actual interview.?This is evidenced by Rick and Yanlan getting a phone call between P4 and interview about a birth date discrepancy for Yanlan's daughter.

 

I don't pretend to know all the answers but I'm quite certain our cases are reviewed at least a dozen times by at least a dozen people before the VO conducts an interview.

224919[/snapback]

You are apparently confusing the ENTIRE process with the Interview day and the prearations for it. Sure, the application goes from the regional service center to the NVC and then to GUZ< by way of DHL and customs.

 

Our file was reviewed by someone who noticed my citizenship information was missing, and RFE'd. The P3 was reviewed by someone at GUZ who noticed that she did not answer "None" when asked who would accompany her to the US. These are NOT concerns for the interviewing VO, and were NOT brought up at the interview.

 

What we are suggesting is that someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly berfore), and flags any potential problem areas for the interviewing VO to either investigate or blue slip for at the interview. This may or may not happen for every case, it may or may not happen at all, but hopefully, someone has more than a 5 minute familiarity with the final file.

224926[/snapback]

Who is "we"?

 

You list two among MANY things people might notice as they review a case. You know about these things because they required communication with you. You do not know what other things may have been noted on your case or other cases.

 

On what basis do you conclude that "someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly before)? You MIGHT be correct but I don't recall you offering any basis for your conclusion.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the VO's themselves could complete a cursory review of a case in less than a minute. They do it all the time. In my job, I analyze specific financial documents that all follow a similar format. I see less than one of these a day, on average and while similar in format they are not as similar or limited in options as K and IV petitions are. I can usually know how my final analysis is going to come out, within a minute of first seeing the documents and I always have my plan mapped out in that quickly.

 

A VO who sees many every day can surely size up a case and come up with a plan for approaching the interview in a minute or two, particularly if somebody has already flagged any specific points of interest.

 

There will always be some cases where TPC or other fraud issues would be flagged in advance as they came to attention of whomever first sees them.

Edited June 17, 2006 by pushbrk (see edit history)

[Randy W]

You are apparently confusing the ENTIRE process with the Interview day and the prearations for it. Sure, the application goes from the regional service center to the NVC and then to GUZ< by way of DHL and customs.

 

Our file was reviewed by someone who noticed my citizenship information was missing, and RFE'd. The P3 was reviewed by someone at GUZ who noticed that she did not answer "None" when asked who would accompany her to the US. These are NOT concerns for the interviewing VO, and were NOT brought up at the interview.

 

What we are suggesting is that someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly berfore), and flags any potential problem areas for the interviewing VO to either investigate or blue slip for at the interview. This may or may not happen for every case, it may or may not happen at all, but hopefully, someone has more than a 5 minute familiarity with the final file.

224926[/snapback]

Who is "we"?

 

You list two among MANY things people might notice as they review a case. You know about these things because they required communication with you. You do not know what other things may have been noted on your case or other cases.

 

On what basis do you conclude that "someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly before)? You MIGHT be correct but I don't recall you offering any basis for your conclusion.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the VO's themselves could complete a cursory review of a case in less than a minute. They do it all the time. In my job, I analyze specific financial documents that all follow a similar format. I see less than one of these a day, on average and while similar in format they are not as similar or limited in options as K and IV petitions are. I can usually know how my final analysis is going to come out, within a minute of first seeing the documents and I always have my plan mapped out in that quickly.

 

A VO who sees many every day can surely size up a case and come up with a plan for approaching the interview in a minute or two, particularly if somebody has already flagged any specific points of interest.

 

There will always be some cases where TPC or other fraud issues would be flagged in advance as they came to attention of whomever first sees them.

224932[/snapback]

 

 

"We" is me and anyone who happens to agree. When put in context:

 

What we are suggesting is that someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly berfore), and flags any potential problem areas for the interviewing VO to either investigate or blue slip for at the interview

 

All anyone can do is offer observations.

 

What is scary is what you said:

It wouldn't surprise me if the VO's themselves could complete a cursory review of a case in less than a minute.0„2 They do it all the time.

 

Not that it's correct or incorrect, but that it might actually happen. The VO's are dealing with individual cases that should be treated as such. I don't know what kind of financial documents you deal with - that is not relevant to this discussion. You may be perfectly good at what you do (I have no reason to think otherwise). I like to think that the consulate does their homework before rejecting a case and after the file is complete - and does not simply toss cases aside, like a one-minute file.

 

Many have reported that the VO appeared to have already made a decision before the interview began. Many have reported callous behavior on the part of the VO. CFL has many threads on these topics. I will not spend any time searching for them - some are very current.

 

This is my observation - I don't think there is anything to disagree about here - please don't try.

 

(sp. corrected)

Edited June 17, 2006 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Guest pushbrk]

You are apparently confusing the ENTIRE process with the Interview day and the prearations for it. Sure, the application goes from the regional service center to the NVC and then to GUZ< by way of DHL and customs.

 

Our file was reviewed by someone who noticed my citizenship information was missing, and RFE'd. The P3 was reviewed by someone at GUZ who noticed that she did not answer "None" when asked who would accompany her to the US. These are NOT concerns for the interviewing VO, and were NOT brought up at the interview.

 

What we are suggesting is that someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly berfore), and flags any potential problem areas for the interviewing VO to either investigate or blue slip for at the interview. This may or may not happen for every case, it may or may not happen at all, but hopefully, someone has more than a 5 minute familiarity with the final file.

224926[/snapback]

Who is "we"?

 

You list two among MANY things people might notice as they review a case. You know about these things because they required communication with you. You do not know what other things may have been noted on your case or other cases.

 

On what basis do you conclude that "someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly before)? You MIGHT be correct but I don't recall you offering any basis for your conclusion.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the VO's themselves could complete a cursory review of a case in less than a minute. They do it all the time. In my job, I analyze specific financial documents that all follow a similar format. I see less than one of these a day, on average and while similar in format they are not as similar or limited in options as K and IV petitions are. I can usually know how my final analysis is going to come out, within a minute of first seeing the documents and I always have my plan mapped out in that quickly.

 

A VO who sees many every day can surely size up a case and come up with a plan for approaching the interview in a minute or two, particularly if somebody has already flagged any specific points of interest.

 

There will always be some cases where TPC or other fraud issues would be flagged in advance as they came to attention of whomever first sees them.

224932[/snapback]

 

 

"We" is me and anyone who happens to agree. When put in context:

 

What we are suggesting is that someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly berfore), and flags any potential problem areas for the interviewing VO to either investigate or blue slip for at the interview

 

All anyone can do is offer observations.

 

What is scary is what you said:

It wouldn't surprise me if the VO's themselves could complete a cursory review of a case in less than a minute.  They do it all the time.

 

Not that it's correct or incorrect, but that it might actually happen. The VO's are dealing with individual cases that should be treated as such. I don't know what king of financial documents you deal with - that is not relevant to this discussion. You may be perfectly good at what you do (I have know reason to think otherwise). I like to think that the consulate does their homework before rejecting a case and after the file is complete - and does not simply toss cases aside, like a one-minute file.

 

Many have reported that the VO appeared to have already made a decision before the interview began. Many have reported callous behavior on the part of the VO. CFL has many threads on these topics. I will not spend any time searching for them - some are very current.

 

This is my observation - I don't think there is anything to disagree about here - please don't try.

224938[/snapback]

Thanks. I got the impression from what you wrote that "we" was a specific group. Perhaps a little wishful thinking on your part.

 

I understand why you might find it scary to think a VO would size up a case in a minute but I don't. I know each case is different but they all have similar criteria to evaluate. They VO is looking at a short list of standardized forms and key criteria on the forms.

 

I'll use a recent unnamed case as an example.

 

How long do you think it would take to determine from the paperwork the following facts.

 

He's nearly 30 years older.

They met while he was still married.

Her work history shows she's owned businesses and could have enough assets to pay somebody to agree to file for a fiance visa.

His income is substantial.

All their paperwork is skillfully organized and professionally presented.

 

I could see this in a minute or two and I don't do it several times every day. It's similar to how many of us can read a detailed timeline in a minute or two and see where there were delays and predict how long until the next milestone. If things aren't completely clear, the answer to a couple questions gets us on the right track.

 

The visa was granted after a 20 minute very detailed interview.

 

Does this sound like a predetermined decision? Not to me.

 

I don't think "time" is a very good measure of "quality". As such, the short time doesn't scare me.

[Randy W]

You and I disagree.

[david_dawei]

Thanks.  I got the impression from what you wrote that "we" was a specific group.  Perhaps a little wishful thinking on your part. 

 

I understand why you might find it scary to think a VO would size up a case in a minute but I don't.  I know each case is different but they all have similar criteria to evaluate.  They VO is looking at a short list of standardized forms and key criteria on the forms.

 

I'll use a recent unnamed case as an example.

 

How long do you think it would take to determine from the paperwork the following facts.

 

He's nearly 30 years older.

They met while he was still married.

Her work history shows she's owned businesses and could have enough assets to pay somebody to agree to file for a fiance visa.

His income is substantial.

All their paperwork is skillfully organized and professionally presented.

 

I could see this in a minute or two and I don't do it several times every day.  It's similar to how many of us can read a detailed timeline in a minute or two and see where there were delays and predict how long until the next milestone.  If things aren't completely clear, the answer to a couple questions gets us on the right track.

 

The visa was granted after a 20 minute very detailed interview.

 

Does this sound like a predetermined decision?  Not to me. 

 

I don't think "time" is a very good measure of "quality".  As such, the short time doesn't scare me.

224949[/snapback]

Maybe you have not been a part of this board enough maybe be a part of any "we".. but Randy has been.

 

And I would say that Randy's position (or general ideas) have been probably more the majority [over my last year and half here]... even among some mods... the idea that some pre-determination (or pre-marking) has occurred. This position is not 'wishful thinking' by many... So no need to suggest it in almost put down fashion... I'm not sure I understand the subtle jabs you are wont to state at people.. The 'push' part of your handle emerges maybe too often.

 

I would say that you (or any VO) cannot rely solely on five 'facts' to determine any case... and one of your facts was twisted to self-interpretation ("could have enough assets to pay..." ). I seriously think that intuition and experience contribute as well, not just the ability to look over a checklist of papers...

 

It's always easy to give a case and analyze it after it's outcome and then use it as your proof ... but I would suggest that those same case items (when taken together with the rest of the case) would be approved by another VO. Your seem to ignore the one item that is supposed to be at the 'heart' of this visa issue: A bona-fide relationship...

 

I'm not sure why this topic causes so much division each time it's discussed... better to just pull the sheets up and say good night...

[georgeandli]

Amen David. The thing that bothers me is inconsistency in the process. The lack of any direction or any firm what you need is xxxx . When you ask and you hear we can't tell you because then the scammers will know what to do is ludacris. What is a poor boy to do?

[Guest pushbrk]

Thanks.  I got the impression from what you wrote that "we" was a specific group.  Perhaps a little wishful thinking on your part. 

 

I understand why you might find it scary to think a VO would size up a case in a minute but I don't.  I know each case is different but they all have similar criteria to evaluate.  They VO is looking at a short list of standardized forms and key criteria on the forms.

 

I'll use a recent unnamed case as an example.

 

How long do you think it would take to determine from the paperwork the following facts.

 

He's nearly 30 years older.

They met while he was still married.

Her work history shows she's owned businesses and could have enough assets to pay somebody to agree to file for a fiance visa.

His income is substantial.

All their paperwork is skillfully organized and professionally presented.

 

I could see this in a minute or two and I don't do it several times every day.  It's similar to how many of us can read a detailed timeline in a minute or two and see where there were delays and predict how long until the next milestone.  If things aren't completely clear, the answer to a couple questions gets us on the right track.

 

The visa was granted after a 20 minute very detailed interview.

 

Does this sound like a predetermined decision?  Not to me. 

 

I don't think "time" is a very good measure of "quality".  As such, the short time doesn't scare me.

224949[/snapback]

Maybe you have not been a part of this board enough maybe be a part of any "we".. but Randy has been.

 

And I would say that Randy's position (or general ideas) have been probably more the majority [over my last year and half here]... even among some mods... the idea that some pre-determination (or pre-marking) has occurred. This position is not 'wishful thinking' by many... So no need to suggest it in almost put down fashion... I'm not sure I understand the subtle jabs you are wont to state at people.. The 'push' part of your handle emerges maybe too often.

 

I would say that you (or any VO) cannot rely solely on five 'facts' to determine any case... and one of your facts was twisted to self-interpretation ("could have enough assets to pay..." ). I seriously think that intuition and experience contribute as well, not just the ability to look over a checklist of papers...

 

It's always easy to give a case and analyze it after it's outcome and then use it as your proof ... but I would suggest that those same case items (when taken together with the rest of the case) would be approved by another VO. Your seem to ignore the one item that is supposed to be at the 'heart' of this visa issue: A bona-fide relationship...

 

I'm not sure why this topic causes so much division each time it's discussed... better to just pull the sheets up and say good night...

224966[/snapback]

The "we" question was in reference to the following statement.

 

"What we are suggesting is that someone at GUZ reviews the COMPLETE file BEFORE the interview (VERY shortly berfore), and flags any potential problem areas for the interviewing VO to either investigate or blue slip for at the interview. This may or may not happen for every case, it may or may not happen at all, but hopefully, someone has more than a 5 minute familiarity with the final file."

 

The first sentence is something I've never seen anybody directly suggest before. I doubt it happens quite that way.

 

Otherwise I agree the cases are reviewed many times and presume notes are made when they are deemed appropriate. As such, I find it more than plausible that the VO can size up the case and decide on a course of questioning in short order.

 

I wasn't attempting to paint the whole picture of the example case. I mentioned a few items as an example of how fast those facts could be seen and noted. Whatever the VO noted in that case, prompted him to go down the path of exploring closely the bona fide nature of the relationship. It was the correct path and the correct result. More importantly, a 22 minute interview would indicate the decision was NOT made in advance of the interview.

[Randy W]

I wasn't attempting to paint the whole picture of the example case.  I mentioned a few items as an example of how fast those facts could be seen and noted.  Whatever the VO noted in that case, prompted him to go down the path of exploring closely the bona fide nature of the relationship.  It was the correct path and the correct result.  More importantly, a 22 minute interview would indicate the decision was NOT made in advance of the interview.

224973[/snapback]

 

 

If you will read some previous posts, you can easily find some where the idea has been suggested that they are "pre-scanned", very soon before the interview, so that the VO doesn't have to read 9 onths or more of notes.

 

The idea of a quick scan and decision is very scary to me, and one I've made my feelings known about.

 

I do not, however, remember anyone other than yourself, suggesting that ALL interviews are pre-determined.

 

And I've only very rarely seen a you-vs-me approach to forum posting.

[Guest pushbrk]

I wasn't attempting to paint the whole picture of the example case.  I mentioned a few items as an example of how fast those facts could be seen and noted.  Whatever the VO noted in that case, prompted him to go down the path of exploring closely the bona fide nature of the relationship.  It was the correct path and the correct result.  More importantly, a 22 minute interview would indicate the decision was NOT made in advance of the interview.

224973[/snapback]

 

 

If you will read some previous posts, you can easily find some where the idea has been suggested that they are "pre-scanned", very soon before the interview, so that the VO doesn't have to read 9 onths or more of notes.

 

The idea of a quick scan and decision is very scary to me, and one I've made my feelings known about.

 

I do not, however, remember anyone other than yourself, suggesting that ALL interviews are pre-determined.

 

And I've only very rarely seen a you-vs-me approach to forum posting.

224977[/snapback]

You are mistaken if you think I've suggested All interviews are pre-determined. If you think that's what I'm suggesting then your are reading a whole lot into what I've written.

 

I think the outcome is rarely if ever pre-determined.

 

We actually agree on all but two small points. I'm sorry we're having such difficulty in communicating.

 

A question is often just a question. There's no need to take a simple question as some sort of challenge to your integrity. It seems you took our minor difference of opinion on an item or two to mean my opinion on all related matters was opposite yours. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion under those conditiions.