VOs/COs focus: Petitioner or Beneficiary of K1/K3

[SirLancelot]

From everything I've read on here, it seems that the general concensus on here is that the Visa Officer/Consular Officer is looking at both the USC petitioner and the Chinese beneficiary. A lot of the time when a beneficiary is denied, the USC focuses on what the USC could have done more. I'm not so sure about this outlook.

 

My own belief is that GUZ is primarily concerned with the Chinese beneficiary. GUZ may very well believe that the USC petitioner is quite sincere in his application for the Chinese beneficiary but at the same time may also feel that the Chinese beneficiary is not sincere or may be scamming, so GUZ denies. That doesn't mean GUZ is denying the USC or thinks the USC is up to no good. GUZ's interview is with the Chinese beneficiary.

 

Given that GUZ sees many, many applications for K1/K3 visas, would it not be wise to embrace their considerations? They certainly see and adjudicate a lot more cases than any of us on here. Wouldn't they be better able to smell a con than the USC petitioner?

 

Not looking for any fights here. Everyone is welcome to give their input/comments, Lee included. I just want to hear what others have to say on this topic.

 

Perhaps David can even ask GUZ about this, but I'm not sure they would even respond.

Edited November 5, 2006 by SirLancelot (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

I cannot remember someone putting quite this way.. so a good thread for thought.

 

I did try to ask some questions to GUZSpeaks about timing of namechecks and they declined to answer due to possibility revealing their method of fraud fishing...

 

If I had to choose one main heading, the VO is concerned about this being a bona-fide relationship with legit immigration intent. Of course the other two big areas are documentation and financials are in order but they are more black & white than the relationship issue.

 

To say they are focused mostly on the chinese beneficiary is correct for at least one obvious reason; One should remember that the DS-230 is an application for a visa and therefore the beneficiary [who filled it out] should be the focus of GUZ (DOS has authority to issue visas--USCIS just to adjudicate petitions).

 

There are two ways (probably more) in which the USC could come under scrutiny:

- They are a part of the scam (called two-way fraud)... they are being paid by the benficiary

- USCIS simply doesn't believe the USC should qualify (IMBRAs limit on petitions may be along this line and criminal background issues).

 

But the problems of judging the relationship and intent are probably difficult at best to determine (ie: fraud), but the VO is certainly the person, over the emotional fraught petitioner, to evalute it objectively. Of course there can be concern over the lack of evidence they'll look at and the shortness of the interview.. but all this aside, if the beneficiary has scammed their way to the interview, I'm not sure that getting it out of them at the interview is going to happen... I tend to think that there are a few items that have to fall together and part of it is documentation problems them see.

 

I respect the VOs and their jobs.. have always done so.. I think they get an unfair shake for simply being the last step and the 'face' that said, "no visa"...

[Randy W]

I think it's a non-starter for 2 reasons:

• You never get enough feedback to know what their concern is
  
• The last thing a denied couple need to do is to look at each other in that light
  

In just about all the cases we've seen, the Chinese beneficiary is responsible for filling in blanks on the P3 and P4 forms and looking perky for the interview, while the US citizen is responsible for providing the proof of relationship. You'll never know which was the weak point.

 

If you are questioning your relationship after a denial, then, yes, it probably is over with.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Randy W (see edit history)

[SirLancelot]

I think it's a non-starter for 2 reasons:

• You never get enough feedback to know what their concern is
  
• The last thing a denied couple need to do is to look at each other in that light
  

In just about all the cases we've seen, the Chinese beneficiary is responsible for filling in blanks on the P3 and P4 forms and looking perky for the interview, while the US citizen is responsible for providing the proof of relationship. You'll never know which was the weak point.

 

If you are questioning your relationship after a denial, then, yes, it probably is over with.

 

Randy, perhaps I didn't intimate my thoughts clearly in my original post. I wasn't trying to suggest that the USC place blame on the Chinese beneficiary for denials. I'm trying to ascertain whether GUZ is focusing on the beneficiary only (or mostly) or whether they're looking at both persons.

 

My belief--and it's only opinion--is that USCIS looks closely at the US petitioner and GUZ looks closely at the Chinese beneficiary. They each have their own focus. Of course both have authority to deny for either the USC or the CC but I believe they focus on their respective territories--if you will.

 

I'm open to input but I just want you to understand my original call for input. I'm not trying to second guess whose fault it was after the denial. Just trying to figure out what GUZ is focusing on.

 

You may be right about it being difficult to gauge what GUZ is up to as they give so little feedback about the cause of denials.

[SmilingAsia]

If I had to choose one main heading, the VO is concerned about this being a bona-fide relationship with legit immigration intent. Of course the other two big areas are documentation and financials are in order but they are more black & white than the relationship issue.

 

To say they are focused mostly on the chinese beneficiary is correct for at least one obvious reason; One should remember that the DS-230 is an application for a visa and therefore the beneficiary [who filled it out] should be the focus of GUZ (DOS has authority to issue visas--USCIS just to adjudicate petitions).

 

There are two ways (probably more) in which the USC could come under scrutiny:

- They are a part of the scam (called two-way fraud)... they are being paid by the benficiary

- USCIS simply doesn't believe the USC should qualify (IMBRAs limit on petitions may be along this line and criminal background issues).

 

But the problems of judging the relationship and intent are probably difficult at best to determine (ie: fraud), but the VO is certainly the person, over the emotional fraught petitioner, to evalute it objectively. Of course there can be concern over the lack of evidence they'll look at and the shortness of the interview.. but all this aside, if the beneficiary has scammed their way to the interview, I'm not sure that getting it out of them at the interview is going to happen... I tend to think that there are a few items that have to fall together and part of it is documentation problems them see.

 

I respect the VOs and their jobs.. have always done so.. I think they get an unfair shake for simply being the last step and the 'face' that said, "no visa"...

Agree.

Still remember their red flag: A middle-aged woman with two kids, recently divorced, married someone from New York who doesn't have a good job.

 

I have observed some US attorneys prepare very good paperwork but the applicant just doesn't know what's Income Tax Return cuz our social systems are so different so she got denied. Some applicants cannot speak clear Chinese(never mention English) or the slangs they use VO don't understand. Applicants speak the way as they usually do - they just don't know VO's Chinese is hard-learnt.