Did rule change? Do they ask to see petitioner?

[Yuanyang]

I think the unspoken unwritten deal killer on this is that because the PRC is a high visa fraud area, they catch more of the fraudsters by speaking to the applicants directly.

That seems a bit counterintuitive to me unless you are saying it's better to deny an otherwise valid visa applicant than to let a fraudulent applicant slip through. Anecdotal evidence suggests the likelihood of denying a visa to a valid applicant may actually go up in the absence of joint interviews, but I haven't seen anything that suggests the number of caught fraudulent applicants also goes up in the absence of joint interviews.

 

If the principal criterion for a family based visa is the establishment of a bona fide relationship, having both parties present would seem to be the way to go. I take USCONGUZ at his word when he says resources and volume militate against joint interviews.

 

I will now return to reading my latest book, "Conspiracy Theories" by I.C. Paranoia.

Frank, my theory is that GUZ doesn't have enough holding cells for the USCs that would be arrested for going ballistic on them given the way some folks describe the treatment during the interview.

[david_dawei]

I think the unspoken unwritten deal killer on this is that because the PRC is a high visa fraud area, they catch more of the fraudsters by speaking to the applicants directly.

That seems a bit counterintuitive to me unless you are saying it's better to deny an otherwise valid visa applicant than to let a fraudulent applicant slip through. Anecdotal evidence suggests the likelihood of denying a visa to a valid applicant may actually go up in the absence of joint interviews, but I haven't seen anything that suggests the number of caught fraudulent applicants also goes up in the absence of joint interviews.

 

If the principal criterion for a family based visa is the establishment of a bona fide relationship, having both parties present would seem to be the way to go. I take USCONGUZ at his word when he says resources and volume militate against joint interviews.

 

I will now return to reading my latest book, "Conspiracy Theories" by I.C. Paranoia.

 

 

I've never heard this unspoken, unwritten deal killer.. it's completely counterintuitive to me as well...

 

They are more likely to catch the fraudulent (both one-way and two-way) with both parties in the room... any tenseness, squirming, and the fact that most americans cannot hold a steady emotion to the stoic chinese is the easiest give away...

 

 

The consulate's party line has always been there is not enough room setup for interviews for both... Let's just accept that.

[warpedbored]

In my opinion if at all possible go to the interview. It is an extra piece of evidence and there have been some cases where denials were turned around on the spot by the petitioner being there. Even if you aren't allowed inside, her showing your passport to them at the interview lets them know you are there and cared enough to come. If you just cant come up with the money or get off from work without losing your job then that is a different story. Bottom line is, what could be more important than being there for the woman you are going to spend the rest of your life with when she needs you? If nothing else than for emotional support which in turn will give her confidence which has been shown to help with approvals.

[warpedbored]

Frank, my theory is that GUZ doesn't have enough holding cells for the USCs that would be arrested for going ballistic on them given the way some folks describe the treatment during the interview.

I suspect this is the real reason.

Edited September 10, 2006 by warpedbored (see edit history)

[SmilingAsia]

When VO knows the petitioner is in China and s/he wants to see the petitioner in person to clear up some concerns, s/he'll ask or write it on a slip.

I saw it happened occasionally.

[tywy_99]

Frank, my theory is that GUZ doesn't have enough holding cells for the USCs that would be arrested for going ballistic on them given the way some folks describe the treatment during the interview.

I suspect this is the real reason.

A Case in Point below, maybe???

 

how_to_get_the_job_done

 

-way to go Chicago!...

[Guest pushbrk]

I think the unspoken unwritten deal killer on this is that because the PRC is a high visa fraud area, they catch more of the fraudsters by speaking to the applicants directly.

That seems a bit counterintuitive to me unless you are saying it's better to deny an otherwise valid visa applicant than to let a fraudulent applicant slip through. Anecdotal evidence suggests the likelihood of denying a visa to a valid applicant may actually go up in the absence of joint interviews, but I haven't seen anything that suggests the number of caught fraudulent applicants also goes up in the absence of joint interviews.

 

If the principal criterion for a family based visa is the establishment of a bona fide relationship, having both parties present would seem to be the way to go. I take USCONGUZ at his word when he says resources and volume militate against joint interviews.

 

I will now return to reading my latest book, "Conspiracy Theories" by I.C. Paranoia.

 

 

I've never heard this unspoken, unwritten deal killer.. it's completely counterintuitive to me as well...

 

They are more likely to catch the fraudulent (both one-way and two-way) with both parties in the room... any tenseness, squirming, and the fact that most americans cannot hold a steady emotion to the stoic chinese is the easiest give away...

 

 

The consulate's party line has always been there is not enough room setup for interviews for both... Let's just accept that.

 

I don't have any problem accepting it. I was responding to a suggestion that it would be easier to confirm valid relationships with both parties there. I'm not suggesting it is the primary reason. Space and efficiency is surely primary.

 

However, I'm not surprised many would find my suggestion counterintuitive. Investigation techniques are not particularly based on the intuition of the innocent layman. Parties are separated for questioning during interrogation, for good reasons, chief among them is to keep one from hearing the answers of the other or answering for the other.

 

While we want them to confirm as many valid relationships as efficiently as possible, one of their primary responsibilities is to expose as many frauds as possible, as efficiently as possible.

Edited September 10, 2006 by pushbrk (see edit history)

[Trigg]

I think the unspoken unwritten deal killer on this is that because the PRC is a high visa fraud area, they catch more of the fraudsters by speaking to the applicants directly.

That seems a bit counterintuitive to me unless you are saying it's better to deny an otherwise valid visa applicant than to let a fraudulent applicant slip through. Anecdotal evidence suggests the likelihood of denying a visa to a valid applicant may actually go up in the absence of joint interviews, but I haven't seen anything that suggests the number of caught fraudulent applicants also goes up in the absence of joint interviews.

 

If the principal criterion for a family based visa is the establishment of a bona fide relationship, having both parties present would seem to be the way to go. I take USCONGUZ at his word when he says resources and volume militate against joint interviews.

 

I will now return to reading my latest book, "Conspiracy Theories" by I.C. Paranoia.

 

 

I've never heard this unspoken, unwritten deal killer.. it's completely counterintuitive to me as well...

 

They are more likely to catch the fraudulent (both one-way and two-way) with both parties in the room... any tenseness, squirming, and the fact that most americans cannot hold a steady emotion to the stoic chinese is the easiest give away...

 

 

The consulate's party line has always been there is not enough room setup for interviews for both... Let's just accept that.

 

I don't have any problem accepting it. I was responding to a suggestion that it would be easier to confirm valid relationships with both parties there. I'm not suggesting it is the primary reason. Space and efficiency is surely primary.

 

However, I'm not surprised many would find my suggestion counterintuitive. Investigation techniques are not particularly based on the intuition of the innocent layman. Parties are separated for questioning during interrogation, for good reasons, chief among them is to keep one from hearing the answers of the other or answering for the other.

 

While we want them to confirm as many valid relationships as efficiently as possible, one of their primary responsibilities is to expose as many frauds as possible, as efficiently as possible.

So then that would lead one to suspect that Guz is more efficient than the majority of the consulates as well as all of the USCIS offices in the US who do AOS interviews with both parties present. Way to go guz for setting the standard!

[LeeFisher3]

I think the unspoken unwritten deal killer on this is that because the PRC is a high visa fraud area, they catch more of the fraudsters by speaking to the applicants directly.

That seems a bit counterintuitive to me unless you are saying it's better to deny an otherwise valid visa applicant than to let a fraudulent applicant slip through. Anecdotal evidence suggests the likelihood of denying a visa to a valid applicant may actually go up in the absence of joint interviews, but I haven't seen anything that suggests the number of caught fraudulent applicants also goes up in the absence of joint interviews.

 

If the principal criterion for a family based visa is the establishment of a bona fide relationship, having both parties present would seem to be the way to go. I take USCONGUZ at his word when he says resources and volume militate against joint interviews.

 

I will now return to reading my latest book, "Conspiracy Theories" by I.C. Paranoia.

 

 

I've never heard this unspoken, unwritten deal killer.. it's completely counterintuitive to me as well...

 

They are more likely to catch the fraudulent (both one-way and two-way) with both parties in the room... any tenseness, squirming, and the fact that most americans cannot hold a steady emotion to the stoic chinese is the easiest give away...

 

 

The consulate's party line has always been there is not enough room setup for interviews for both... Let's just accept that.

 

I don't have any problem accepting it. I was responding to a suggestion that it would be easier to confirm valid relationships with both parties there. I'm not suggesting it is the primary reason. Space and efficiency is surely primary.

 

However, I'm not surprised many would find my suggestion counterintuitive. Investigation techniques are not particularly based on the intuition of the innocent layman. Parties are separated for questioning during interrogation, for good reasons, chief among them is to keep one from hearing the answers of the other or answering for the other.

 

While we want them to confirm as many valid relationships as efficiently as possible, one of their primary responsibilities is to expose as many frauds as possible, as efficiently as possible.

 

We'll let's put a bunch of Chinese nationals in a large room that is somewhat intimidating, for a 3-5 minute interview, for those who have waited 6-24 months where the fate of their life is determined by a nameless person on the other side of the glass who they may or may not be able to understand. And the rumors concerning the evil people behind the glass have been heard for many months. I'd say this would make most of them extremely nervous to say the least.

 

Attempting to determine from their behavior, in probably one of the most stressful times in their life, that they are attempting to commit fraud is absurd. I'm just surprised you would take such a strong stand on a situation that behavioral scientist would say invalidates all data collected.

 

Perhaps you should investigate the legal terminology surrounding fraud, it is a legal determination which is beyond the scope of the VO to make as they don't have the time to investigate the reason for possibly inconsistencies so they can try to determine if something said or presented was intentional or not. They can have suspicion of fraud and ask for evidence to help them make their determination, but it's far beyond the scope of their duties to accuse someone of fraud based on a suspicion discovered by someones behavior in this situation.

 

If you don't give legal advice perhaps you should quit making legal determinations, not even CNN makes the legal determinations you make concerning fraud.

[frank1538]

However, I'm not surprised many would find my suggestion counterintuitive. Investigation techniques are not particularly based on the intuition of the innocent layman. Parties are separated for questioning during interrogation, for good reasons, chief among them is to keep one from hearing the answers of the other or answering for the other.

I stand corrected. I was unaware that the consulate separated the USC from the applicant and interviewed each separately in hopes of catching one of them in a lie as is the protocol when investigating. Also, I was unaware that the consulate had switched from interviewing to interrogating. Thanks for passing on this new information.

 

I again return to my innocent layman's reading material: "Follow My Opinions" by I.M. Wright.

[Guest pushbrk]

However, I'm not surprised many would find my suggestion counterintuitive. Investigation techniques are not particularly based on the intuition of the innocent layman. Parties are separated for questioning during interrogation, for good reasons, chief among them is to keep one from hearing the answers of the other or answering for the other.

I stand corrected. I was unaware that the consulate separated the USC from the applicant and interviewed each separately in hopes of catching one of them in a lie as is the protocol when investigating. Also, I was unaware that the consulate had switched from interviewing to interrogating. Thanks for passing on this new information.

 

I again return to my innocent layman's reading material: "Follow My Opinions" by I.M. Wright.

 

I said nothing of the kind. I simply speculated on why things are as they are. We already know that VO's have responsibilities beyond those required to grant visas to those involved in legitimate family relationships. I didn't say the VO's switched from interviewing to interrogating. I used an example to demonstrate a principle. The reader is free to assign their own degree of value to any of my comments.

[Randy W]

However, I'm not surprised many would find my suggestion counterintuitive. Investigation techniques are not particularly based on the intuition of the innocent layman. Parties are separated for questioning during interrogation, for good reasons, chief among them is to keep one from hearing the answers of the other or answering for the other.

I stand corrected. I was unaware that the consulate separated the USC from the applicant and interviewed each separately in hopes of catching one of them in a lie as is the protocol when investigating. Also, I was unaware that the consulate had switched from interviewing to interrogating. Thanks for passing on this new information.

 

I again return to my innocent layman's reading material: "Follow My Opinions" by I.M. Wright.

 

I said nothing of the kind. I simply speculated on why things are as they are. We already know that VO's have responsibilities beyond those required to grant visas to those involved in legitimate family relationships. I didn't say the VO's switched from interviewing to interrogating. I used an example to demonstrate a principle. The reader is free to assign their own degree of value to any of my comments.

 

 

I think that's already been done.

[Guest pushbrk]

However, I'm not surprised many would find my suggestion counterintuitive. Investigation techniques are not particularly based on the intuition of the innocent layman. Parties are separated for questioning during interrogation, for good reasons, chief among them is to keep one from hearing the answers of the other or answering for the other.

I stand corrected. I was unaware that the consulate separated the USC from the applicant and interviewed each separately in hopes of catching one of them in a lie as is the protocol when investigating. Also, I was unaware that the consulate had switched from interviewing to interrogating. Thanks for passing on this new information.

 

I again return to my innocent layman's reading material: "Follow My Opinions" by I.M. Wright.

 

I said nothing of the kind. I simply speculated on why things are as they are. We already know that VO's have responsibilities beyond those required to grant visas to those involved in legitimate family relationships. I didn't say the VO's switched from interviewing to interrogating. I used an example to demonstrate a principle. The reader is free to assign their own degree of value to any of my comments.

 

 

I think that's already been done.

 

And some, by some. :-)