BLUE SLIPS

[Maui & China]

Clifford,

 

Once again I agree with what you are saying for suggestions to overhauling the process. I have another one. If the Second Name Check is standard in all cases, as was stated on the e-mail to my Congressman from GZ, then why don't they start the name check earlier. In fact why don't they start it when you file the I-129F? Shouldn't we find out if your fiance(e) is a terrorist in the beginning of your application instaed of near the end?

 

Also, if the VO does not have the time to look over all the material you bring to the interview, then why do they even ask for you to bring it to the interview?

[frank1538]

If the Second Name Check is standard in all cases, as was stated on the e-mail to my Congressman from GZ, then why don't they start the name check earlier.  In fact why don't they start it when you file the I-129F?  Shouldn't we find out if your fiance(e) is a terrorist in the beginning of your application instaed of near the end?

What makes sense in a perverse kind of way is that the I-129F petition is aimed solely at determining whether the USC meets the requirements for granting the K visa. Consequently, USCIS probably cares less about the the fiance(e) or spouse. If the USC passes muster, then the files are sent to DOS where the focus shifts to the alien, and the USC is relegated to interested bystander. It is at the DOS stage where the name checks on the alien are performed. USCIS is not involved.

 

I agree that the system is flawed in many respects, but we're stuck with it for the near term.

[keelec]

The bigger question is:

 

If there is a FIRST Namecheck.

 

Then what is the necessity of a SECOND Namecheck?

 

I guess if the immigration process has already stressed the FBI's ability to do Namechecks to the limit... then why not double the workload and see if one can bury them :D

[Guest DragonFlower]

The FBI is definitely a major problem.The VO said there system is very ancient.Also,most of the other agencies have gone to a system,where if they do not contact the consulate in 10 days,they are supposed to assume the namecheck is OK.The FBI refuses to follow this scheme of things,the consulate must hear from them,before they move ahead.SO,I think basically all we are ever waiting on ,is the FBI approval.

 

long

[Guest DragonFlower]

Some people need to read this.

So I kicked it back to the top.

 

long

[Guest DragonFlower]

I mentioned this thread in another recently,so I dragged it out of the closet.It is kinda dusty.But I think it is still valid.The VO in question has changed his song and dance a little bit.Perhaps shifted his focus.I think he was fairly new when I went to this first session.

 

long

[david_dawei]

I agree this is a good thread.. I have parts of it in my FAQ...

[Mengxin]

You know the frauds will make themselves appear to be more legit than the honest people. That's how frauds make their $$$. Did they even think about that? When the frauds do get through, what are the consequences and damages vs. frauds from other countries that are "Real" threats to our safety and society? Let's see here... Mexico and ALL Middle Eastern countries. If they make it past the border or "fraud" their way past customs, they are rewarded with drivers and pilots licenses??? Be real.

 

...or take a look at the consequences of missing a fraud from China vs. missing a fraud from an Arab nation??? Time to shift focus maybe? How about even taking a closer look in our own back yard with the street gangs, internet hackers, ID thieves? "They are already here, not our problem, we don't care???" Is the safety and security we gain by making American and Chinese families wait for over 1 year for there visa, out weight the more imminent real life threat. Maybe it's too easy to pick on the Chinese. After all, look at how huge the mail order bride business has become? If they don't do something to stop these Chinese women from coming to America in droves like they have been for years, who knows where our country could end up? That's great logic fellas... thanks a lot, I feel safer after that reminder.

 

Even on the website for VO applicants they mention something about the failure rate of applicants to make it past the drug screening. Can we piss test our VO's before we allow them to interview our wives?

 

I'm getting silly now, but I'm mad. Grrrr.... Peace and love. http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons6/67.gif

[nooneufo]

I get so angry ever time this comes up.

The only thing I see is another pile of BS from a government worker. I dare them to give us any kind of real statistics concerning fraud and K1/K3 visa's. I dare anyone to give me this information. It is a joke to think that all the fraud is committed through less than 10 percent of the total visa's, which is what we are. All those tourist, business and school visa's must have no fraud, which is why they process them in less than thirty days.

 

We put up with a huge amount of BS from bureaucrats, and every time I hear this one it makes my blood boil. They are just making excuses to cover up their incompetance and discrimination, plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason to give a blue slip to our class of visa without looking at the the evidence that is brought to the interview, including the petitioner who is standing outside. In fact, if the petitioner is there, and it is thought of as maybe fraud, then why are they letting all these fraud commiting petitioners get away? Failing to look at that evidence at the time of the interview is a violation of their own rules. Am I too harsh? No, because if they had a real job, they would be fired. We already have anecdotal evidence that our class of visa's are being discriminated against as a matter of consulate policy.

Sorry about the vent.

 

The consular officer should provide the visa applicant with adequate opportunity to present evidence establishing the bona-fide nature of his or her application.

9 FAM 41.102 N5 Conduct of Visa Interviews (TL:VISA-556; 07-17-2003)

[bubbafred10]

They are only allotted a certain amount of time to reveiw the material before the interveiw.Then they only have a limited amount of time at the interveiw.

 

What this means,is that if their gut reaction throws any kind of red flag up.

 

They may not look at anything at the interveiw,they have already decided that your case needs further reveiw.

In the VO's own words

 

Thanks for posting and relaying the message.

 

But I find the explanation to be supreme Baloneys!, if you ask me. As if they (the VO and Consulate) only had one hour or one week to review. Heck, NO!!!!, they already took their old sweet time and 4 to 6 months to do background checks and quadruple checks and verifications and investigations and other what nots - that's three times as long as the US embassies and consulates in other countries. Typical incompetent bureaucrats, that's all. But they are good at making excuses, though.

[rogerluli]

I get so angry ever time this comes up.

The only thing I see is another pile of BS from a government worker.  I dare them to give us any kind of real statistics concerning fraud and K1/K3 visa's. I dare anyone to give me this information. It is a joke to think that all the fraud is committed through less than 10 percent of the total visa's, which is what we are. All those tourist, business and school visa's must have no fraud, which is why they process them in less than thirty days.

 

We put up with a huge amount of BS from bureaucrats, and every time I hear this one it makes my blood boil. They are just making excuses to cover up their incompetance and discrimination, plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason to give a blue slip to our class of visa without looking at the the evidence that is brought to the interview, including the petitioner who is standing outside. In fact, if the petitioner is there, and it is thought of as maybe fraud, then why are they letting all these fraud commiting petitioners get away? Failing to look at that evidence at the time of the interview is a violation of their own rules. Am I too harsh? No, because if they had a real job, they would be fired. We already have anecdotal evidence that our class of visa's are being discriminated against as a matter of consulate policy.

Sorry about the vent.

 

The consular officer should provide the visa applicant with adequate opportunity to present evidence establishing the bona-fide nature of his or her application.

9 FAM 41.102 N5 Conduct of Visa Interviews (TL:VISA-556; 07-17-2003)

We all hate when this happens to one of our own but I think in many cases the answer of why they give out denials is too simple. They have to. I am also a gummint worker and a great deal of my time is spent on quality control for my lab results. You are expected to have about 10% errors. If I never had any errors my lab auditor would be down here asking me when I became perfect. I am sure that VOs are in the same boat. If they would never give out any denials they would be in trouble...

[david_dawei]

They are only allotted a certain amount of time to reveiw the material before the interveiw.Then they only have a limited amount of time at the interveiw.

 

What this means,is that if their gut reaction throws any kind of red flag up.

 

They may not look at anything at the interveiw,they have already decided that your case needs further reveiw.

In the VO's own words

 

Thanks for posting and relaying the message.

 

But I find the explanation to be supreme Baloneys!, if you ask me. As if they (the VO and Consulate) only had one hour or one week to review. Heck, NO!!!!, they already took their old sweet time and 4 to 6 months to do background checks and quadruple checks and verifications and investigations and other what nots - that's three times as long as the US embassies and consulates in other countries. Typical incompetent bureaucrats, that's all. But they are good at making excuses, though.

Are you suggesting that the VO sees the packet for 4 months? I'd be surprised if they look at it much prior to the interview at all.. how do they know if someone's going to show up and have all the required info just to do the interview.. they don't have time to waste. I'm guessing the VO sees it that morning/afternoon of the interview..

 

the process is all messed up as nooneufo states... but in such a situation of bad process and people thrusted into the role to decide the outcome of the visa, would we really be doing it any different as the VO? If we had a quota over our head and we refused to meet that quota to 'review all the evidence', do you think that VO would be held in high esteem or fired for not following the consulate directives (however wrong they really are in the bigger picture)...

 

As Frank said, it may be flawed but we are stuck with it...

[david_dawei]

I get so angry ever time this comes up.

The only thing I see is another pile of BS from a government worker.  I dare them to give us any kind of real statistics concerning fraud and K1/K3 visa's. I dare anyone to give me this information. It is a joke to think that all the fraud is committed through less than 10 percent of the total visa's, which is what we are. All those tourist, business and school visa's must have no fraud, which is why they process them in less than thirty days.

 

We put up with a huge amount of BS from bureaucrats, and every time I hear this one it makes my blood boil. They are just making excuses to cover up their incompetance and discrimination, plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason to give a blue slip to our class of visa without looking at the the evidence that is brought to the interview, including the petitioner who is standing outside. In fact, if the petitioner is there, and it is thought of as maybe fraud, then why are they letting all these fraud commiting petitioners get away? Failing to look at that evidence at the time of the interview is a violation of their own rules. Am I too harsh? No, because if they had a real job, they would be fired. We already have anecdotal evidence that our class of visa's are being discriminated against as a matter of consulate policy.

Sorry about the vent.

 

The consular officer should provide the visa applicant with adequate opportunity to present evidence establishing the bona-fide nature of his or her application.

9 FAM 41.102 N5 Conduct of Visa Interviews (TL:VISA-556; 07-17-2003)

We all hate when this happens to one of our own but I think in many cases the answer of why they give out denials is too simple. They have to. I am also a gummint worker and a great deal of my time is spent on quality control for my lab results. You are expected to have about 10% errors. If I never had any errors my lab auditor would be down here asking me when I became perfect. I am sure that VOs are in the same boat. If they would never give out any denials they would be in trouble...

I jokingly referred to this once as the VO's "other quota".. So I agree with it..

 

They probably publish how many denials they hand out.. but also probably don't state how many of them are overcome with evidence...

[Mengxin]

I get so angry ever time this comes up.

The only thing I see is another pile of BS from a government worker.  I dare them to give us any kind of real statistics concerning fraud and K1/K3 visa's. I dare anyone to give me this information. It is a joke to think that all the fraud is committed through less than 10 percent of the total visa's, which is what we are. All those tourist, business and school visa's must have no fraud, which is why they process them in less than thirty days.

 

We put up with a huge amount of BS from bureaucrats, and every time I hear this one it makes my blood boil. They are just making excuses to cover up their incompetance and discrimination, plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason to give a blue slip to our class of visa without looking at the the evidence that is brought to the interview, including the petitioner who is standing outside. In fact, if the petitioner is there, and it is thought of as maybe fraud, then why are they letting all these fraud commiting petitioners get away? Failing to look at that evidence at the time of the interview is a violation of their own rules. Am I too harsh? No, because if they had a real job, they would be fired. We already have anecdotal evidence that our class of visa's are being discriminated against as a matter of consulate policy.

Sorry about the vent.

 

The consular officer should provide the visa applicant with adequate opportunity to present evidence establishing the bona-fide nature of his or her application.

9 FAM 41.102 N5 Conduct of Visa Interviews (TL:VISA-556; 07-17-2003)

We all hate when this happens to one of our own but I think in many cases the answer of why they give out denials is too simple. They have to. I am also a gummint worker and a great deal of my time is spent on quality control for my lab results. You are expected to have about 10% errors. If I never had any errors my lab auditor would be down here asking me when I became perfect. I am sure that VOs are in the same boat. If they would never give out any denials they would be in trouble...

I jokingly referred to this once as the VO's "other quota".. So I agree with it..

 

They probably publish how many denials they hand out.. but also probably don't state how many of them are overcome with evidence...

They probably have a quota to meet to justify empleyment.