Pink Slip then Blue question

[woainilin]

As we know poor Philb today got a blue slip after being approved at his interview. Does anyone know what the GUZ process is after the interview? I would have assumed logically it would just be preparing the paperwork for the VISA. Do they after the interview review all the documents you give them at your interview? Is it that someone calls and gives them information about a petitioner or beneficiary? I would guess it isn't that the VO suddenly changes their mind.

[SmilingAsia]

I heard about it several times. Visa approved then when the applicant was to pick up her/his visa, s/he got a blue slip. I guess when they are packing cut-corner docs, they may notice some questionable docs.

 

If you have no enemy like ex, it's not likely that anyone calls them or send a letter to them.

 

What does the blue slip say? They want more docs or they need additional time to process the case???

[david_dawei]

What does the blue slip say? They want more docs or they need additional time to process the case???

235768[/snapback]

This is a good distinction; They either want something more from you or they simply need more time to do something (usually called administrative review).

 

In the former, you typically submit overcome evidence by setting an appointment; in the latter, they do some more checking or validating of something in the case.

[Guest pushbrk]

What does the blue slip say? They want more docs or they need additional time to process the case???

235768[/snapback]

This is a good distinction; They either want something more from you or they simply need more time to do something (usually called administrative review).

 

In the former, you typically submit overcome evidence by setting an appointment; in the latter, they do some more checking or validating of something in the case.

235789[/snapback]

Phil indicated this from the blue slip

 

"At (:00am Yun & I picked up her Passports with an attached sheet - Yes, BLUE in color. It checked off that additional security background check is required and should be resolved within 2 months."

 

I take it there is no current input required from either the petitioner or the applicant. It's anybody's guess what may have prompted this.

[Randy W]

I hate to mention these so soon before your interview, but there was even a recent case of third party correspondence causing the visa to be denied at the post office. The case went under administrative review, and sent back to the US. Nobody knew what to do with it, so they just let it expire, and told him to submit a new application.

 

In another case, the VO (or others) DID change their mind(s). After denying the visa, it was awarded to them a few days later.

[SmilingAsia]

One observation:

If SO's given name has only one Chinese character like Jie, Hong, Qin, great possibility someone esle has the same name and GUZ needs additional time to check either after or before visa interview.

[david_dawei]

"additional security checks" implies something with the name...

 

I think that what happens is that when they go to generate the visa, they get maybe two different versions of the name showing up in the more critical forms or between the paperwork for USCIS and GUZ.

 

GUZ has told us typos on the petitions may not create an issue, but one on the G-325 could initiate another name check. I'm sure that there are other forms (from P3 and P4) which if they differ will generate a name check too...

 

Moral of the story is: Be as consistent as possible throughout the entire process with the name, even on the passport.

 

(I'm not saying for sure that is the issue here, but this is one issue we can control or oversee and which appears to cause problems due to inconsistency)

[LeeFisher3]

I hate to mention these so soon before your interview, but there was even a recent case of third party correspondence causing the visa to be denied at the post office. The case went under administrative review, and sent back to the US. Nobody knew what to do with it, so they just let it expire, and told him to submit a new application.

 

In another case, the VO (or others) DID change their mind(s). After denying the visa, it was awarded to them a few days later.

235799[/snapback]

One thing every needs to be cautious about is that if a case is returned to the US with and the USCIS notifies the UCS of a "Recommendation of intent to Deny" it is critical to respond and get this overturned. If you just allow it to expire and refile the denial can prevent a refiling from being successful.

[Luo_Bin_&_Jialu]

As I stated in my reply to Phil on his other thread, I have been through a blue slip after the statement of "congratulations"--the same as Phi. Our blue slip stated "security check", "two months, blah, blah"--same as Phil. It was actually a simple oversight. The IV unit did me a favor and scheduled the interview without the security check being complete--I am not sure if they knew it or not--but it saved me at least a month. So, they scheduled interveiw and then when they did the "final review" they noticed the security check was not complete, so had to go "against their word" and deny us temporarily.

I was upset and sent mad emails, phone calls, visits, etc..all alluding a conspiracy, to lack of transparancy, etc..and it turned out to be a simple ordeal taking only an extra week. Boy did I feel like a "schmuck"!

 

I would like to say that I was "pre-disposed" to thinking that the big, bad GUZ IV unit was out to get me by reading threads like these two relating to this.

 

I never did get to apologize to the IV unit for my actions "attacking" them and questioning their integrity, but I would like to let you all know that they deserved one from me.

 

My wife, myself and our two month old daughter are sure glad that the IV unit does indeed practice integrity and transparancy. We are also glad that they scheduled our interview sooner than later--even with the snafu of the additional security check.

 

Please note that the people who work in GUZ's three departments are headed by US Citizens that would rather help you than hurt you--especially if you give them the chance. I know this as I went all out during my process and got many, many chances to speak to GUZ OS people. I also have spent many years overseas and dealt with these people in other countries--GUZ is not as bad as these threads make them out to be.

 

One day, I would like to tell you all about our story, but today will simply wish Phil the best of luck and the fastest resolution to his ordeal.

 

Rob

[IluvmyLi]

As I stated in my reply to Phil on his other thread, I have been through a blue slip after the statement of "congratulations"--the same as Phi. Our blue slip stated "security check", "two months, blah, blah"--same as Phil. It was actually a simple oversight. The IV unit did me a favor and scheduled the interview without the security check being complete--I am not sure if they knew it or not--but it saved me at least a month. So, they scheduled interveiw and then when they did the "final review" they noticed the security check was not complete, so had to go "against their word" and deny us temporarily.

I was upset and sent mad emails, phone calls, visits, etc..all alluding a conspiracy, to lack of transparancy, etc..and it turned out to be a simple ordeal taking only an extra week. Boy did I feel like a "schmuck"!

 

I would like to say that I was "pre-disposed" to thinking that the big, bad GUZ IV unit was out to get me by reading threads like these two relating to this.

 

I never did get to apologize to the IV unit for my actions "attacking" them and questioning their integrity, but I would like to let you all know that they deserved one from me.

 

My wife, myself and our two month old daughter are sure glad that the IV unit does indeed practice integrity and transparancy. We are also glad that they scheduled our interview sooner than later--even with the snafu of the additional security check.

 

Please note that the people who work in GUZ's three departments are headed by US Citizens that would rather help you than hurt you--especially if you give them the chance. I know this as I went all out during my process and got many, many chances to speak to GUZ OS people. I also have spent many years overseas and dealt with these people in other countries--GUZ is not as bad as these threads make them out to be.

 

One day, I would like to tell you all about our story, but today will simply wish Phil the best of luck and the fastest resolution to his ordeal.

 

Rob

235856[/snapback]

Wow! At least someone on here has something good to say about GUZ.

Edited August 6, 2006 by IluvmyLi (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

Sorry I aint buying it. If it were an isolated incident I would say OK but this seems to be all to common. The interview should not be scheduled until they are sure all neccesary name checks are completed. It is total bullshit to approve someone a visa then take it away. Final review should take place before the interview not after.

[Luo_Bin_&_Jialu]

Warpedbored:

 

Okay, think about this: GUZ processes god only knows how many cases. All of us here at CFL work overtime to make sure all boxes are checked, t's are crossed and i's are dotted. Do you know how many other app's aren't? Do you know how many thousands of apps these guys look at? The people who do most of the processing simply look for paper titled "x", then check the appropriate box and pass the pile on to the next person. I can only guess at how many people touch each of our app's, then pass it on. Each person has no idea who we are and very, very, very seldom look at corroborating documentation.

The actual VO with authority to pass or fail very likely gets about 5 minutes of time with your case AFTER many, many others have simply checked boxes and passed it on. The likelihood of clerical error OR other is exponentially increased through all this.

As I have said a few times, unless someone has lied, or contadicted themselves, or someone else has sent in "hate mail" about you, your case--if properly filed, checked and marked--will eventually be passed. This can be referred to these matters as containing "transparency" in the process. If I were to tell you at great length of my experiences you would understand I have been victim to the error of others and after much consideration I firmly and strongly believe the few actually containing authority in GUZ will come to your defense. I will quote someone of authority in GUZ whom I thanked after he helped me resolve an issue I had. He could have easily not returned my phone call, but he did and he helped me. He said: "Don't thank me, I am simply doing my job. A U.S. Citizen asked me for my help. I would not be here if it was not for this reason."

When I was frantic and running around the consulate emailing people and calling Maura Harty's office and having meetings with various people in GUZ, the GUZ GSO Staff all had one common thread--they took time to listen to me and do what they had authority to do. Every single person at GUZ treated me with compassion. The chinese national who did the actual interview with my wife was not cordial and could have cared less about us, but the GSO people all were very kind and compassionate.

I firmly believe that if Phil is true and his SO is true, then this is a small deal and he will soon get his visa--probably quicker than if GUZ had waited for the security clearance to clear THEN scheduled the interview.

[Yuanyang]

It's cruel, psychological torture.

 

You know I heard stories of how some overseas prisoners were tortured in a similar way. Someone of rank would come in, tell them they are being freed or perhaps had a family visit, the prisoner would be allowed to shower, shave and put on new clothes. Then wait. After awhile a guard would come in with their filty prison clothes. Of course, that was the KGB.

Edited August 6, 2006 by Yuanyang (see edit history)

[philb]

To all at CFL:

 

Thanks for the comments and insights. It'll be OK. Yun took it better than I did...she was actually smiling and saying it is only a short wait. Angela & Mr. Xie took us out to their favorite restaurant for dinner and tried to cheer us up - like BLUTO after the Betas had been expelled after double secret probation by Dean Werner ( that's from Animal House for all you youngsters).

 

Our case has had some strange twists...some self inflicted; however with the time frames extending, maybe something was out of sync or just overlooked.

 

I'm not going to start beating down doors or blasting eMails out to everyone. I have returned to the states and hope and pray that this all works out in a timely fashion. Yun is not a member of the CCP; she knows what side I part my graying hair on...etc. We are two bone fide people, in love, and lacking so much as a parking ticket....there are no skeletons in the closet. ..well I did run an unattended toll booth because I did't have any quarters and paid the $42 fine...LOL

 

It ain't right, but maybe the whole process is a little out of whack. Maybe the poor folks that labor under all the paperwork and long lines of people screaming at them, that they did not create, are trying to do the best that they can with a system that is almost impossible. If things were clicking on all cylinders, there wouldn't be 12 million folks here now without all the right paperwork.

 

I'll keep you all posted. There is no TPC; no boogeymen....maybe a quick "check the box" on Yun or her son ( which is what I suspect) and we are back on track.

 

That which you overcome only makes you stronger...our love for each other is unquestionable...

 

Phil

[david_dawei]

Warpedbored:

 

Okay, think about this: GUZ processes god only knows how many cases. All of us here at CFL work overtime to make sure all boxes are checked, t's are crossed and i's are dotted. Do you know how many other app's aren't? Do you know how many thousands of apps these guys look at? The people who do most of the processing simply look for paper titled "x", then check the appropriate box and pass the pile on to the next person. I can only guess at how many people touch each of our app's, then pass it on. Each person has no idea who we are and very, very, very seldom look at corroborating documentation.

The actual VO with authority to pass or fail very likely gets about 5 minutes of time with your case AFTER many, many others have simply checked boxes and passed it on. The likelihood of clerical error OR other is exponentially increased through all this.

As I have said a few times, unless someone has lied, or contadicted themselves, or someone else has sent in "hate mail" about you, your case--if properly filed, checked and marked--will eventually be passed. This can be referred to these matters as containing "transparency" in the process. If I were to tell you at great length of my experiences you would understand I have been victim to the error of others and after much consideration I firmly and strongly believe the few actually containing authority in GUZ will come to your defense. I will quote someone of authority in GUZ whom I thanked after he helped me resolve an issue I had. He could have easily not returned my phone call, but he did and he helped me. He said: "Don't thank me, I am simply doing my job. A U.S. Citizen asked me for my help. I would not be here if it was not for this reason."

When I was frantic and running around the consulate emailing people and calling Maura Harty's office and having meetings with various people in GUZ, the GUZ GSO Staff all had one common thread--they took time to listen to me and do what they had authority to do. Every single person at GUZ treated me with compassion. The chinese national who did the actual interview with my wife was not cordial and could have cared less about us, but the GSO people all were very kind and compassionate.

I firmly believe that if Phil is true and his SO is true, then this is a small deal and he will soon get his visa--probably quicker than if GUZ had waited for the security clearance to clear THEN scheduled the interview.

235871[/snapback]

Rob,

 

Your introspective evaluation of the process is very good, maybe one of the best I've seen. Frankly, you tell a story that I see from the outside, but you present it after walking across some coals...

 

I've never been one to VO bash and I don't like it when anyone does it. Normally people are emotional and reactive toward the VOs when reason should rule.

 

My perception is as you state; they are doing their job and they do listen. They do make mistakes; and I'm certain we make even more as the petitioner/beneficary.

 

But my overall feeling is that the VO and GUZ, as the final stop of this long and winding road, get's the brunt of it... and just when we feel that the answer should be "yes" it is sometimes "no"; and the "no" is usually not as bad as we make it out to be... it just means not yet.

 

I agree; most everyone should be feeling that they will [eventually] get the visa; don't get caught up with whether it occurs at the interview or not. I think we do a dis-service to not understand the entire process, and that includes overcome and request for more information... it's all a part of the process.

 

I will say that your case is a bit odd... "documentarily qualifed" means you get an interview because the name checks are complete... but you present a great agrument for the volume the consulate sees and the implications toward possible mistakes. Nice post.