Department Of State

[ChrisA]

The very first thing I would like to see changed is that if the VO requires something, they must ask for it at the interview. We all read over and over again how many time the beneficiary has gone to the interview loaded for bear and then gotten a blue slip for something they had right then and there but the VO didn't ask for it or wouldn't take it. If you are given a blue slip due of a communications errors (ie: the beneficiary didn't understand what the VO was asking for, you ought to be able to get right back in line and show it to them that day. (Example: Do you have the petitioners last three years of tax transcripts? No! Blue slip! Oh, he meant tax returns!!!! I have them right here! Take a number, get back in line.

 

The letter confirming the interview appointment should have a list of everything needed at the interview. If it isn't listed on that letter, then it is no longer applicable to the case. Then the Vo should either ask for the entire pile of requested info or refer to the number on the letter for each item. Do you have item #1..Yes, here! Do you have item #2?, Yes, here you go!

 

The second thing is the question of bona fides. If the petitioner says the relationship is bone fide, then it is. Period! The government needs to stop being our babysitter. We can decide who should have their finger on the launch codes, but we can't decide for ourselves who our wife should be? Perhaps interviewing the petitioner at the same interview process would be acceptable.

 

White slips should not be the end of the road ( or a detour that takes you out of your way for the next four years). They should state exactly what the problem is and what resolution is needed and allow the petitioner/beneficiary 60 days to correct the problem and submit that to the same VO (meaning we have to know his/her name) before the case is send into the Martian gravitation field. Once the problem is corrected, visa should be issued within 30 days.

 

There should be a telephone/email hotline to discuss specific about your case manned by actual knowledgeable people that can pull up your case on the computer and discuss it and answer questions that may fall into the gray area of what is needed. Example: I have my last three years tax returns, but year #2 the income fell below 125% of poverty level because I broke my leg and couldn't work for two months. Please tell me what is needed to make this anomaly insignificant to my case?

 

I know that part of the mystique is to prevent fraud. But, come on! Once the petitioner puts his signature on the I-134, the fraud is no longer the governments problem. IMHO, the government can not use "crime" as a reason for their erratic and confusing processing. Crime statistics of legal immigrants is way, way, way, way, way below the crime statistics of US born citizens.

 

We don't need a babysitter/Mama/caretaker. We need efficient administrative processing!

 

 

Rigth to the point.

 

When I was still in the Military in Germany, I had to submit a request for permission to my Company Commander to marry my Ex-wife.

[tkgert]

I posted this information on Visa Journey, as to the State Department Open for ideas and to vote. As of this morning seems very few are interested.

Because they havent been there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MeiBob]

The very first thing I would like to see changed is that if the VO requires something, they must ask for it at the interview. We all read over and over again how many time the beneficiary has gone to the interview loaded for bear and then gotten a blue slip for something they had right then and there but the VO didn't ask for it or wouldn't take it. If you are given a blue slip due of a communications errors (ie: the beneficiary didn't understand what the VO was asking for, you ought to be able to get right back in line and show it to them that day. (Example: Do you have the petitioners last three years of tax transcripts? No! Blue slip! Oh, he meant tax returns!!!! I have them right here! Take a number, get back in line.

 

The letter confirming the interview appointment should have a list of everything needed at the interview. If it isn't listed on that letter, then it is no longer applicable to the case. Then the Vo should either ask for the entire pile of requested info or refer to the number on the letter for each item. Do you have item #1..Yes, here! Do you have item #2?, Yes, here you go!

 

The second thing is the question of bona fides. If the petitioner says the relationship is bone fide, then it is. Period! The government needs to stop being our babysitter. We can decide who should have their finger on the launch codes, but we can't decide for ourselves who our wife should be? Perhaps interviewing the petitioner at the same interview process would be acceptable.

 

White slips should not be the end of the road ( or a detour that takes you out of your way for the next four years). They should state exactly what the problem is and what resolution is needed and allow the petitioner/beneficiary 60 days to correct the problem and submit that to the same VO (meaning we have to know his/her name) before the case is send into the Martian gravitation field. Once the problem is corrected, visa should be issued within 30 days.

 

There should be a telephone/email hotline to discuss specific about your case manned by actual knowledgeable people that can pull up your case on the computer and discuss it and answer questions that may fall into the gray area of what is needed. Example: I have my last three years tax returns, but year #2 the income fell below 125% of poverty level because I broke my leg and couldn't work for two months. Please tell me what is needed to make this anomaly insignificant to my case?

 

I know that part of the mystique is to prevent fraud. But, come on! Once the petitioner puts his signature on the I-134, the fraud is no longer the governments problem. IMHO, the government can not use "crime" as a reason for their erratic and confusing processing. Crime statistics of legal immigrants is way, way, way, way, way below the crime statistics of US born citizens.

 

We don't need a babysitter/Mama/caretaker. We need efficient administrative processing!

 

I could not agree more chengdu4me!! When my wife interviewed on 2/4/2010 and was told all the paperwork looked good, he handed her a blue slip!! No other documents were asked for, just marked "Your case requires additional processing." I am going to meet my wife in GUZ, March 19 and have requested an appointment to meet with a unit supervisor at the Embassy. Don't know if it will do any good, or if they will even allow me to meet with someone with authority, but I need to make my presence known. I will document this trip as further evidence of a bona fide relationship. It seems VO's have a decision made prior to the interview and no reasons are given as to why additional information is necessary. Talk about a let-down! It leaves one feeling like an errant child....what have I done wrong?....I am responsible for this person, I am an adult, not a criminal! Anyway, these are very good points you have made chengdu4me, I know DOS has a responsibility for fraud oversight but when all documents are in order, US citizens should be given full disclosure of the process and allowed input. MeiBob

[Highlander 08 09 10 11]

"I know DOS has a responsibility for fraud oversight". It seems DOS does not have much control over the actions of Interview Visa Officers. Our petitions are discarded with just a simple mark of the pen on a white slip form letter. Good luck in GUZ Bob. I am heading to Chongqing 2 March, and starting over with a new 130 in April.......Bob.......

[Stepbrow]

"I know DOS has a responsibility for fraud oversight". It seems DOS does not have much control over the actions of Interview Visa Officers. Our petitions are discarded with just a simple mark of the pen on a white slip form letter. Good luck in GUZ Bob. I am heading to Chongqing 2 March, and starting over with a new 130 in April.......Bob.......

 

 

Actually the DOS has complete control of the Con Offs. The Chief of Immigrant Visas at each station can override any Con Offs decision. Con Offs are like any other employee. They are subject to supervision and oversight just all the rest of us.

 

Thanks for the votes far. I want to encourage the rest of you to get over their and vote too. Remember, your vote is your voice.

 

There is another good post over there by "Ash." She/he covered the lack of Con Offs application of the famous 04 Cable Gram. So, I recommend that you take a look at her post and vote their too.

[Highlander 08 09 10 11]

"I know DOS has a responsibility for fraud oversight". It seems DOS does not have much control over the actions of Interview Visa Officers. Our petitions are discarded with just a simple mark of the pen on a white slip form letter. Good luck in GUZ Bob. I am heading to Chongqing 2 March, and starting over with a new 130 in April.......Bob.......

 

 

Actually the DOS has complete control of the Con Offs. The Chief of Immigrant Visas at each station can override any Con Offs decision. Con Offs are like any other employee. They are subject to supervision and oversight just all the rest of us.

 

Thanks for the votes far. I want to encourage the rest of you to get over their and vote too. Remember, your vote is your voice.

 

There is another good post over there by "Ash." She/he covered the lack of Con Offs application of the famous 04 Cable Gram. So, I recommend that you take a look at her post and vote their too.

If the Department of State had any control over Visa Officers, many of the Petitions would not be denied for Bullshit reasons, or for no real reasons at all. We would not have to rely on "Luck of the Draw" to get a Visa. Department of State has sent statements to Embassys about this, but it seems the same old policies are still happening everyday. We follow every requirement, every piece of information on a possible requirement, or document they may ask for, and still boom, "non bonefide". Petitions that go through the Process the second time seem to have little problem.

[Stepbrow]

"I know DOS has a responsibility for fraud oversight". It seems DOS does not have much control over the actions of Interview Visa Officers. Our petitions are discarded with just a simple mark of the pen on a white slip form letter. Good luck in GUZ Bob. I am heading to Chongqing 2 March, and starting over with a new 130 in April.......Bob.......

 

 

Actually the DOS has complete control of the Con Offs. The Chief of Immigrant Visas at each station can override any Con Offs decision. Con Offs are like any other employee. They are subject to supervision and oversight just all the rest of us.

 

Thanks for the votes far. I want to encourage the rest of you to get over their and vote too. Remember, your vote is your voice.

 

There is another good post over there by "Ash." She/he covered the lack of Con Offs application of the famous 04 Cable Gram. So, I recommend that you take a look at her post and vote their too.

If the Department of State had any control over Visa Officers, many of the Petitions would not be denied for Bullshit reasons, or for no real reasons at all. We would not have to rely on "Luck of the Draw" to get a Visa. Department of State has sent statements to Embassys about this, but it seems the same old policies are still happening everyday. We follow every requirement, every piece of information on a possible requirement, or document they may ask for, and still boom, "non bonefide". Petitions that go through the Process the second time seem to have little problem.

 

I understand how you feel, but you are not the only one who has had a visa refused because of Non Bonified Relationship.

 

On my post at the Open State website, I argued that Consular Offices decisions were due to poor training on the part of their supervisors. The reason that I argued that is because, IMHO, ConOffs are implementing an unwritten policy of refusal in the the case of a red flag. The purpose of my post was to bring it to the attention of the higher ups, that the post was not following the regs and laws.

[Highlander 08 09 10 11]

Yes, the ConOffs are implementing an unwritten policy of refusal in the case of a red flag, or what they may condsider a red flag, but at the same time they give refusal when there are no red flags.

[samsong]

I haven't seen the topic, third party correspondence, (TPC), mentioned in this thread. It's a logical assumption to take into consideration.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13283

[a2784]

I haven't seen the topic, third party correspondence, (TPC), mentioned in this thread. It's a logical assumption to take into consideration.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13283

Yet they totally ignored third party information in the case of the "Christmas Day Bomber". TPC should be dealt with openly and fairly. I did not see any response from GUZ that indicated this was the case.

[Highlander 08 09 10 11]

"I know DOS has a responsibility for fraud oversight". It seems DOS does not have much control over the actions of Interview Visa Officers. Our petitions are discarded with just a simple mark of the pen on a white slip form letter. Good luck in GUZ Bob. I am heading to Chongqing 2 March, and starting over with a new 130 in April.......Bob.......

 

 

Actually the DOS has complete control of the Con Offs. The Chief of Immigrant Visas at each station can override any Con Offs decision. Con Offs are like any other employee. They are subject to supervision and oversight just all the rest of us.

 

Thanks for the votes far. I want to encourage the rest of you to get over their and vote too. Remember, your vote is your voice.

 

There is another good post over there by "Ash." She/he covered the lack of Con Offs application of the famous 04 Cable Gram. So, I recommend that you take a look at her post and vote their too.

If the Department of State had any control over Visa Officers, many of the Petitions would not be denied for Bullshit reasons, or for no real reasons at all. We would not have to rely on "Luck of the Draw" to get a Visa. Department of State has sent statements to Embassys about this, but it seems the same old policies are still happening everyday. We follow every requirement, every piece of information on a possible requirement, or document they may ask for, and still boom, "non bonefide". Petitions that go through the Process the second time seem to have little problem.

 

I understand how you feel, but you are not the only one who has had a visa refused because of Non Bonified Relationship.

 

On my post at the Open State website, I argued that Consular Offices decisions were due to poor training on the part of their supervisors. The reason that I argued that is because, IMHO, ConOffs are implementing an unwritten policy of refusal in the the case of a red flag. The purpose of my post was to bring it to the attention of the higher ups, that the post was not following the regs and laws.

Yes, I am not the only one who has had a visa refused because of a white form letter that has Non Bonified Relationship, that can cover anything the Officer dreams of..... Many CFL menbers received this "no" letter in November and December. I have not seen one of the denials that would indicate any fraud, or anyone that did not give their best and all they could do to have a good petition. We at CFL prepare our petitions as well as we can, with truth and honest information, that we have a true relationship with our SO. "ConOffs are impementing an unwritten policy of refusal in the case of a red flag",,,yes and also when there are NO red flags. I believe the DOS knows of this, from the statements or reminders, DOS has sent to Embassy. Since many Visa Officers choose to ignore this reminders, DOS does not have control of the Officers. Untrained Officers seem to be a problem also, in that they are not aware of new policy changes, documents that are no longed needed to be notarized, etc. I hope your post on the Open State website will get the attention of the DOS.

[credzba]

I must be technically challenged, but I could not find the post to vote for it.

 

Can you give me "locate and vote for dummies" lesson?

[tkgert]

Click on share your ideas,,,, post by Stephen

[Stepbrow]

I think that the voting on my last post has been closed. We got the most votes of any of the posts. I am not sure why they closed the voting, on those posts and left some open.

 

I will be making a new post soon. I will look over the suggestions made here and then decide on one. Maybe the issue of documents that Chengdu mentioned in his post. It is another big problem that causes delays.

[Kyle]

Stephen,

 

Will you get any feedback from anyone (DOS folks) concerning your post/idea?

Edited February 22, 2010 by Kyle (see edit history)