A Former Consular Officer Speaks Out

[splinterman]

www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0218-seminara.shtm

 

I came across this article in the 2/17/09 of Immigration Daily. It's written by a former consular officer and gives some insight into what they look for when conducting interviews and investigations.

 

Interestingly enough, this guy recommends eliminating K-1 visas. It's a long article, but makes some good points.

[Dave&Hong]

Good article. I liked these points:

 

Adjudicate marriage-based immigrant visa petitions in the foreign spouse¡¯s country of residence, with the American sponsor present. Authorize consular officers (or overseas USCIS officers) to rule on the validity of the relationships and deny fraudulent petitions. Appeals could be heard by an officer¡¯s supervisor ¡ª with both petitioner and applicant present.

 

It would be great to be able to be there and to be allowed to state your case as a couple.

 

 

Deny all applications filed by couples that cannot hold a basic conversation with each other in a common language. Legitimate couples will learn to communicate with each other and can reapply at that time.

 

I think this is a good point although there is a lot of room here for interpretation on the CO's part. All in all an informative article.

[C4Racer]

Great article with some good points.

I like the idea that a VO is interested in seeing the couple together.

The best way to determine a true relationship is watching the couple interact.

Another thing I noticed, it re-enforces my idea that when in doubt deny and a legitimate couple will overcome. I am very sure they already use this approach, but apply it to other situations.

Deny all applications filed by couples that cannot hold a basic conversation with each other in a common language. Legitimate couples will learn to communicate with each other and can reapply at that time.

[splinterman]

www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0218-seminara.shtm

 

I came across this article in the 2/17/09 of Immigration Daily. It's written by a former consular officer and gives some insight into what they look for when conducting interviews and investigations.

 

Interestingly enough, this guy recommends eliminating K-1 visas. It's a long article, but makes some good points.

 

 

Some of the things this guy talks about incorporating into the interview and application process has already been in place in Guangzhou and also in other consulates. Hong Kong allows both the petitioner AND the beneficiary to attend the interview. Guangzhou also seems to have unilaterally done away with K-1 petitions, judging by their pink slip success rate.

 

One thing this IS helpful with, is it directly shows how a particular piece of evidence or a situation can be viewed by petitioner and beneficiary in a positive light, yet the consular officers see it in a much different light, and usually one that casts a shadow.

 

Maybe this will give rise to forethought about over front-loading of petitions that then give the VOs something to notice, challenge and investigate.

[credzba]

Something I thought interesting, was the acknowledgment that the US citizens income plays a role. It is assumed that if you make a good amount of money you are not likely to voluntarily participate in visa fraud.

 

Another interesting thing was the length of time you have had a passport is a factor. I would never have thought of this, and I don't think anyone else has ever mentioned it, but it makes sense.

 

I think there are MANY flags implied or specifically stated in this long article, that may be of interest.

 

Finally, my favorite part of this article was the fact that it is NOT the VO trying to cause the USC pain. He acknowledges that it sometimes happens, but his focus is to stop the obvious fraud cases.

In some cases he even took the USC aside to explain. This has never happened (to my knowledge) in GUZ, but wouldn't that be awesome !

[Randy W]

Something I thought interesting, was the acknowledgment that the US citizens income plays a role. It is assumed that if you make a good amount of money you are not likely to voluntarily participate in visa fraud.

 

 

Well, exactly! I'm always amazed when people here tell someone that you only need to make the minimum required (125% over the poverty line) - that above that amount makes no difference, when it's been obvious in more than a few cases that money made a difference

 

 

Another interesting thing was the length of time you have had a passport is a factor. I would never have thought of this, and I don't think anyone else has ever mentioned it, but it makes sense.

 

I think there are MANY flags implied or specifically stated in this long article, that may be of interest.

 

Finally, my favorite part of this article was the fact that it is NOT the VO trying to cause the USC pain. He acknowledges that it sometimes happens, but his focus is to stop the obvious fraud cases.

In some cases he even took the USC aside to explain. This has never happened (to my knowledge) in GUZ, but wouldn't that be awesome !

 

In fact, there is a memo from a GUZ officer that "You can't tell that to the petitioner" (that his case may be fraudulent)

[splinterman]

www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0218-seminara.shtm

 

I came across this article in the 2/17/09 of Immigration Daily. It's written by a former consular officer and gives some insight into what they look for when conducting interviews and investigations.

 

Interestingly enough, this guy recommends eliminating K-1 visas. It's a long article, but makes some good points.

 

 

Some of the things this guy talks about incorporating into the interview and application process has already been in place in Guangzhou and also in other consulates. Hong Kong allows both the petitioner AND the beneficiary to attend the interview. Guangzhou also seems to have unilaterally done away with K-1 petitions, judging by their pink slip success rate.

 

One thing this IS helpful with, is it directly shows how a particular piece of evidence or a situation can be viewed by petitioner and beneficiary in a positive light, yet the consular officers see it in a much different light, and usually one that casts a shadow.

 

Maybe this will give rise to forethought about over front-loading of petitions that then give the VOs something to notice, challenge and investigate.

 

Even with the length of this article as long as it is, I think it is a great source of information in getting to know how the VOs think when evaluating cases. It certainly sheds a lot of light on things that before have gone unnoticed or at least unverified.

 

Maybe this should be pinned as 'required reading' for those who want to help themselves before their interviews? What does everyone think?

[weiaijiayou]

"Patrijot was, to perhaps put it too bluntly, a corpulent 21-year-old heart-attack waiting to happen"

 

this had me going for quite a while -- then i realized how bad of a person i must be!

 

"Tony already had his green card and was about to divorce Angela and file a petition for his Macedonian sweetheart, Sonja. Angela¡¯s mission in life became to stop Sonja from getting the visa. Unfortunately it is very hard, if not impossible, to revoke someone¡¯s green card or citizenship, nor is it possible to deny the petition that they file for their new spouses, given that the new relationship is usually genuine."

 

this part really erked me. maybe they can't deny the petition but you'd hope the VO could at least drum up some reason to send it back to NVC/USCIS (i.e., drop it into the black hole, in his words). they're always innovative in finding new ways to do so for applications filed by people born in the US!

[weiaijiayou]

i also find his recommendations great (e.g., having petitioners at the interview, requiring the ability to communicate) EXCEPT for his suggestion to eliminate the K-1 visa. call me old-fashioned, but i have enjoyed meeting a girl, getting to know her, deciding to get married, and then being engaged for a while as we prepare to make the leap. without the K-1 visa we would either still be waiting to start the visa process or we wouldn't have been able to enjoy any kind of engagement...

 

the K-1 visa also provides a way for couples to demonstrate their commitment to one another before marriage, which can make things more acceptable for chinese partners with traditional family members (i.e., family members who don't initially trust an American man)

[Randy W]

"Patrijot was, to perhaps put it too bluntly, a corpulent 21-year-old heart-attack waiting to happen"

 

this had me going for quite a while -- then i realized how bad of a person i must be!

 

"Tony already had his green card and was about to divorce Angela and file a petition for his Macedonian sweetheart, Sonja. Angela¡¯s mission in life became to stop Sonja from getting the visa. Unfortunately it is very hard, if not impossible, to revoke someone¡¯s green card or citizenship, nor is it possible to deny the petition that they file for their new spouses, given that the new relationship is usually genuine."

 

this part really erked me. maybe they can't deny the petition but you'd hope the VO could at least drum up some reason to send it back to NVC/USCIS (i.e., drop it into the black hole, in his words). they're always innovative in finding new ways to do so for applications filed by people born in the US!

 

If this is sent to the consulate, it is "third party correspondence" and WILL derail the visa. Visas have been derailed by much less

 

the article doesn't mention this, however, but is talking about revoking Tony's green card, which, as it points out, is much more difficult.

 

"USCIS often disregards an interviewing officer¡¯s recommendations for the revocation of approved petitions" - when this statement comes into play, the visa HAS been denied

Edited February 18, 2009 by Randy W (see edit history)

[weiaijiayou]

"Patrijot was, to perhaps put it too bluntly, a corpulent 21-year-old heart-attack waiting to happen"

 

this had me going for quite a while -- then i realized how bad of a person i must be!

 

"Tony already had his green card and was about to divorce Angela and file a petition for his Macedonian sweetheart, Sonja. Angela¡¯s mission in life became to stop Sonja from getting the visa. Unfortunately it is very hard, if not impossible, to revoke someone¡¯s green card or citizenship, nor is it possible to deny the petition that they file for their new spouses, given that the new relationship is usually genuine."

 

this part really erked me. maybe they can't deny the petition but you'd hope the VO could at least drum up some reason to send it back to NVC/USCIS (i.e., drop it into the black hole, in his words). they're always innovative in finding new ways to do so for applications filed by people born in the US!

 

If this is sent to the consulate, it is "third party correspondence" and WILL derail the visa. Visas have been derailed by much less

 

the article doesn't mention this, however, but is talking about revoking Tony's green card, which, as it points out, is much more difficult.

 

"USCIS often disregards an interviewing officer¡¯s recommendations for the revocation of approved petitions" - when this statement comes into play, the visa HAS been denied

 

hmm, interesting. then the author is playing with words on this point. he makes it sound like the VOs are obliged to give visas out to all the Tonys and Sonjas out there...

the entire article is a little alarmist in this way.

[Randy W]

 

hmm, interesting. then the author is playing with words on this point. he makes it sound like the VOs are obliged to give visas out to all the Tonys and Sonjas out there...

the entire article is a little alarmist in this way.

 

 

No - that's not what he's saying. From his point of view, the VO's weed out the Tony's and Sonya's, deny them the visas, and return the petitions to the USCIS. His claim is that the USCIS then drops the ball.

 

It's basically a big turf war between the DOS (consulates) and the USCIS.

 

The consular officers, who actually interview applicants and sometimes American sponsors as well, have no authority to deny or revoke a marriage-based petition that they believe to be fraudulent. Interviewing officers can only document the case and forward it on to USCIS, where the deciding official generally never meets either spouse.

 

The "petition" is the I-129F or I-130 filed by the American citizen or LPR. When (if) the USCIS approves the petition, it is forwarded to the consulate, where the "beneficiary" is allowed to "apply" for a visa

 

So, petition approval (usually) occurs entirely in the United States, and simply allows the foreign beneficiary to apply for a visa. The visa application occurs entirely in the foreign country.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Randy W (see edit history)

[weiaijiayou]

 

hmm, interesting. then the author is playing with words on this point. he makes it sound like the VOs are obliged to give visas out to all the Tonys and Sonjas out there...

the entire article is a little alarmist in this way.

 

 

No - that's not what he's saying. From his point of view, the VO's weed out the Tony's and Sonya's, deny them the visas, and return the petitions to the USCIS. His claim is that the USCIS then drops the ball.

 

It's basically a big turf war between the DOS (consulates) and the USCIS.

 

The consular officers, who actually interview applicants and sometimes American sponsors as well, have no authority to deny or revoke a marriage-based petition that they believe to be fraudulent. Interviewing officers can only document the case and forward it on to USCIS, where the deciding official generally never meets either spouse.

 

The "petition" is the I-129F or I-130 filed by the American citizen or LPR. When (if) the USCIS approves the petition, it is forwarded to the consulate, where the "beneficiary" is allowed to "apply" for a visa

 

So, petition approval (usually) occurs entirely in the United States, and simply allows the foreign beneficiary to apply for a visa. The visa application occurs entirely in the foreign country.

 

yes, his point is that it's the responsibility of VOs to weed out the Tony's and Sonya's and that the DOS needs more power and resources to do so. my point was that his wording (e.g., "nor is it possible to deny the petition") leaves the impression that Sonya is a real contender for a fiancee visa. for instance, he says that Angela's life mission has become to prevent this visa, but "unfortunately..."

 

if such visas are so easily returned to USCIS because of third party interference, who cares who ultimately kills the petition/application. i'm not saying i didn't enjoy the article or get its point, i'm only commenting that -- perhaps in line with its goals -- it's written in an alarming way.

[HKG]

When I applied to USCIS, I had no idea the drama of the Consulates, I thought passing USICS was the Visa, with a complimentary interview of my fiancee. I was under the impression that unless something substantial

showed up at the interview in China, the visa was a done deal. Why doesn't the US Government, tell people up front of this BS from the Consulates. Go look for fraud on Wall Street.

Edited February 18, 2009 by HKG (see edit history)

[Randy W]

 

yes, his point is that it's the responsibility of VOs to weed out the Tony's and Sonya's and that the DOS needs more power and resources to do so. my point was that his wording (e.g., "nor is it possible to deny the petition") leaves the impression that Sonya is a real contender for a fiancee visa. for instance, he says that Angela's life mission has become to prevent this visa, but "unfortunately..."

 

if such visas are so easily returned to USCIS because of third party interference, who cares who ultimately kills the petition/application. i'm not saying i didn't enjoy the article or get its point, i'm only commenting that -- perhaps in line with its goals -- it's written in an alarming way.

 

 

Yes, Sonya is a bona-fide contender for a fiancee visa. The only place this little fraud ring can be de-railed is by third-party correspondence (from Angela) to the consulate, unless the VO independently denies the visa (possible).