Only 10% get visas?

[lostinblue]

Recent divorce.....For the new members here is what has happened in the past. Chinese wife will divorce chinese husband. She finds an american to marry her. She comes to the states with child and gets her green card. Divorces the american husband and in time petitions the exhusband . GUZ gets feedback about this type of scam and it now is a big red flag. Everyone in the future suffers. A short time period between divorce and relationship with someone has been suspect for years. This includes the american also along with being in a relationship while waiting for the divorce to go through the courts. Years ago 60 minutes did a story on refugee's. The immigration officer said these words. We are not looking at ways to allow these people to stay . We are looking for reasons to send them back. A bit chilling for us bringing someone here.

[rogerinca]

Roger did you front load AOS too ?

 

 

 

Yes, it is my intent to approach this AOS process fully front-loaded, the same as I did with our I-130 and i-129F filings. I am even going to include copies of my daughter's middle school grade reports, along with the positive comments from her teachers.

[rogerinca]

I get the impression that proximity of divorce and age differences are two of the bigger reasons for denial. If it's true that the interviewer has often made their mind up before the interview, then those issues should be addressesed beforehand if possible.

 

Tom B

 

 

I would have to disagree with that assessment.

 

My wife and I are 20 years apart in age.

 

I married her one month after my divorce was finalized.

 

My wife, with daughter in tow, had only two softball questions at interview time¡­which lasted about three minutes.

 

Others here have similar stories.

 

It is the total picture they are looking at¡­..background of the petitioner and beneficiary, as well as financial ability of the petitioner, to name a few aspects....IMO.

[Guest Dylan W]

I get the impression that proximity of divorce and age differences are two of the bigger reasons for denial. If it's true that the interviewer has often made their mind up before the interview, then those issues should be addressesed beforehand if possible.

 

Tom B

 

 

I would have to disagree with that assessment.

 

My wife and I are 20 years apart in age.

 

I married her one month after my divorce was finalized.

 

My wife, with daughter in tow, had only two softball questions at interview time¡­which lasted about three minutes.

 

Others here have similar stories.

 

It is the total picture they are looking at¡­..background of the petitioner and beneficiary, as well as financial ability of the petitioner, to name a few aspects....IMO.

I think the length of time you know each other can can back it up is a big part of the case too. Not just when you get married, but how long you knew each other before committing to one another.

[Randy W]

 

I think the length of time you know each other can can back it up is a big part of the case too. Not just when you get married, but how long you knew each other before committing to one another.

 

In our case, it was 21 days from first contact to filing the I-129F.

[Guest Dylan W]

 

I think the length of time you know each other can can back it up is a big part of the case too. Not just when you get married, but how long you knew each other before committing to one another.

 

In our case, it was 21 days from first contact to filing the I-129F.

Maybe things and circumstances change over time, I don't know. Just my opinion.

[rogerinca]

 

I think the length of time you know each other can can back it up is a big part of the case too. Not just when you get married, but how long you knew each other before committing to one another.

 

In our case, it was 21 days from first contact to filing the I-129F.

Maybe things and circumstances change over time, I don't know. Just my opinion.

 

 

Our interview was only about six months ago.

[Randy W]

 

Maybe things and circumstances change over time, I don't know. Just my opinion.

 

Things change with every case

[jhammer]

I get the impression that proximity of divorce and age differences are two of the bigger reasons for denial. If it's true that the interviewer has often made their mind up before the interview, then those issues should be addressesed beforehand if possible.

 

Tom B

 

 

I would have to disagree with that assessment.

 

My wife and I are 20 years apart in age.

 

I married her one month after my divorce was finalized.

 

My wife, with daughter in tow, had only two softball questions at interview time¡­which lasted about three minutes.

 

Others here have similar stories.

 

It is the total picture they are looking at¡­..background of the petitioner and beneficiary, as well as financial ability of the petitioner, to name a few aspects....IMO.

 

 

And I am betting on that, Roger.

 

Maybe this thread is mixing Red Flag items and Reasons for Denial. I'm believing in the whole picture story - I've heard it here from many. I also believe these would be some top Red Flags, and could be present in so many denial cases, which would probably be why they were useful as Flags - final decisions and Red Flags, not being the same animal.

 

What if you were asked this: Are these two of the top-most elements common to denials ?

[georgeandli]

You mean the most common elements listed among CFL posters who got more information then not bona fide? IMHO the sampling at CFL is to small as compared to the ammount of petitions raining down on GUZ to get valid results.

[Randy W]

We hear many reasons for denial - most are from the USC or a third party who simply looked at the case, found what to him/her would be a red flag, and said, "Ah, HAH! THIS is why you were denied!"

 

"Proximity of divorce and age differences" may be two red flags, but they are NOT in themselves legal reasons for denial. Many people have gotten visas even with these red flags (jim_julian was one who had both, and sailed right through, with a high degree of cooperation from GUZ regarding their K2 follow-to-join situation).

 

The given reason for denial (if one is given) is framed to fit into what the INA (Immigration and Nationalization Act) provides. The actual black flag or even the factors that triggered the denial are VERY rarely disclosed.

 

Trying to categorize denial factors is impossible, and at best misleading.

 

Again, reasons for denial and red flag seem to be more in the eye of the beholder, rather than from the VO.

[jhammer]

We hear many reasons for denial - most are from the USC or a third party who simply looked at the case, found what to him/her would be a red flag, and said, "Ah, HAH! THIS is why you were denied!"

 

"Proximity of divorce and age differences" may be two red flags, but they are NOT in themselves legal reasons for denial. Many people have gotten visas even with these red flags (jim_julian was one who had both, and sailed right through, with a high degree of cooperation from GUZ regarding their K2 follow-to-join situation).

 

The given reason for denial (if one is given) is framed to fit into what the INA (Immigration and Nationalization Act) provides. The actual black flag or even the factors that triggered the denial are VERY rarely disclosed.

 

Trying to categorize denial factors is impossible, and at best misleading.

 

Again, reasons for denial and red flag seem to be more in the eye of the beholder, rather than from the VO.

It would be statistically valid to analyze elements present in denied applications, without using any information from the denial itself beyond the fact it was denied -what Guz has said about the denial itself notwithstanding. One could form a predictive equation on that. The degree of certainty would depend on the bell curve.

 

Think medical risk factors. It's not hard to do this; getting a good sampling would be the toughest part. I don't recall how many samples would be needed to represent the population, but I think somewhere between 1 and 5 percent is typical. The less samples, the greater uncertainty in the number is all, but you still get a number out of it fwiw.

Edited January 5, 2009 by jhammer (see edit history)

[Randy W]

We hear many reasons for denial - most are from the USC or a third party who simply looked at the case, found what to him/her would be a red flag, and said, "Ah, HAH! THIS is why you were denied!"

 

"Proximity of divorce and age differences" may be two red flags, but they are NOT in themselves legal reasons for denial. Many people have gotten visas even with these red flags (jim_julian was one who had both, and sailed right through, with a high degree of cooperation from GUZ regarding their K2 follow-to-join situation).

 

The given reason for denial (if one is given) is framed to fit into what the INA (Immigration and Nationalization Act) provides. The actual black flag or even the factors that triggered the denial are VERY rarely disclosed.

 

Trying to categorize denial factors is impossible, and at best misleading.

 

Again, reasons for denial and red flag seem to be more in the eye of the beholder, rather than from the VO.

It would be statistically valid to analyze elements present in denied applications, without using any information from the denial itself beyond the fact it was denied -what Guz has said about the denial itself notwithstanding. One could form a predictive equation on that. The degree of certainty would depend on the bell curve.

 

Think medical risk factors. It's not hard to do this; getting a good sampling would be the toughest part. I don't recall how many samples would be needed to represent the population, but I think somewhere between 1 and 5 percent is typical. The less samples, the greater uncertainty in the number is all, but you still get a number out of it fwiw.

 

 

. . . and then you'll be able to run the perfect scam.

 

Getting a clear picture of even one particular case would be a major problem - it doesn't happen. Then isolating factors - they look at the overall picture - we will never get to look over their shoulders, or see what truly goes into an approval or a denial.

[jhammer]

We hear many reasons for denial - most are from the USC or a third party who simply looked at the case, found what to him/her would be a red flag, and said, "Ah, HAH! THIS is why you were denied!"

 

"Proximity of divorce and age differences" may be two red flags, but they are NOT in themselves legal reasons for denial. Many people have gotten visas even with these red flags (jim_julian was one who had both, and sailed right through, with a high degree of cooperation from GUZ regarding their K2 follow-to-join situation).

 

The given reason for denial (if one is given) is framed to fit into what the INA (Immigration and Nationalization Act) provides. The actual black flag or even the factors that triggered the denial are VERY rarely disclosed.

 

Trying to categorize denial factors is impossible, and at best misleading.

 

Again, reasons for denial and red flag seem to be more in the eye of the beholder, rather than from the VO.

It would be statistically valid to analyze elements present in denied applications, without using any information from the denial itself beyond the fact it was denied -what Guz has said about the denial itself notwithstanding. One could form a predictive equation on that. The degree of certainty would depend on the bell curve.

 

Think medical risk factors. It's not hard to do this; getting a good sampling would be the toughest part. I don't recall how many samples would be needed to represent the population, but I think somewhere between 1 and 5 percent is typical. The less samples, the greater uncertainty in the number is all, but you still get a number out of it fwiw.

 

 

 

. . . and then you'll be able to run the perfect scam.

 

Getting a clear picture of even one particular case would be a major problem - it doesn't happen. Then isolating factors - they look at the overall picture - we will never get to look over their shoulders, or see what truly goes into an approval or a denial.

which is why you would use statistical analysis because you don't need to know what went into any one case, you don't even need to know why a case was denied. That is why I mentioned it. Take smoking and heart disease for example. the statistics for risk factor of heart disease is not composed of actual reasons for the disease whatsoever. It is composed only of objective information about the population that gets heart disease vs the population as a whole, why they got it ? not relevant or considered in the computation. See what I am saying ?

[hopelives]

I get the impression that proximity of divorce and age differences are two of the bigger reasons for denial. If it's true that the interviewer has often made their mind up before the interview, then those issues should be addressesed beforehand if possible.

 

Tom B

 

Strictly on anecdotal evidence, financial reasons seem to be an overwhelming factor in denials. Jim mentions it later in the thread and I think it cannot be overemphasized how important to have your financial ducks in a row especially if you require a sponsor.

 

jim