- Jan 3, 2014
- 108
- 7
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Beijing
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 17 Oct 2014
- AOR Received.
- 1 Jan 2015
- File Transfer...
- 6 Jan 2015<br>IP 3 June 2015
- Med's Done....
- 9 Jan 2015
- Passport Req..
- 17 June 2015
- VISA ISSUED...
- 1 Aug 2015 (delivered)
- LANDED..........
- 11 Aug 2015 in Edmonton
US overseas visa offices appear to be considerably more open about their work than their Canadian counterparts, and I’ve accordingly been looking at the what US visa officers have been saying for some insight into their thinking. There is, however, a key distinction in the US approach, and that is that the US places much more weight on the interview than on the documentation relative to Canada (I talked to a China-based US visa officer and he fully agrees with his country's approach, noting that, in China at least, Canada rejects a lot more visit visas, like 20%+ versus 9%, yet has higher overstay rates). So keep that in mind with respect to the following, which I found in a nairaland (Nigeria) "I Am A U.S. Consular Officer: Ask Me Your Visa Questions" thread:
Q: ... would like you to address a rumor that based on the petition package that you have already made your decision prior to the interview. Thus many people "front load" with a lrge amount of relationship evidence with the petition. Petitioners [sponsors] dealing with posts in Visa Waiver Program countries do not do this.
A: ... I can only give my personal opinion on this one, I can't really speak for my colleagues. Personally, I hate it when people frontload their petitions. Once I got, literally, 800 pages of e-mails that all said "Love you!" on different dates. All I can think about when people give me hundreds of pages of e-mails is how many trees died just so I'll have to flip through four inches of paper. And there's no way to tell, from a frontloaded petition, if it's frontloaded because the relationship is real, or if it's frontloaded because the relationship's a total sham and the people involved just want to overwhelm us with paper.
That said, we don't make decisions prior to the interview except in the most extreme cases. I once got a petition that had a note on it to alert me that the petitioner had three active K petitions for three different women at the same time. In that case, I had a pretty strong opinion before the interview began. Even in that case, though, I double-checked to be sure it was true and asked the beneficiary the same questions I'd ask anyone else. Other cases look great on paper and I think, "This should be pretty straightforward." And usually those cases are fine. But we still ask questions because sometimes we're surprised when a case that looks good turns out to be awful. So, while we do form strong impressions, we know better than to think we can make a decision without talking to the beneficiary.
A note about evidence: It's totally unreliable. You wouldn't believe the awesome photo evidence we've seen for cases that turned out to be fraudulent. And I'm not sure I have any photo evidence of *my* last relationship, which was bona fide, although ultimately doomed. That's why we rely on interviews, not on documents.
(Also, a personal plea: If any of you know anyone who wants to submit really graphic photos or letters as relationship evidence, please tell them to think about it. I personally just find those annoying. We see those in bona fide cases and in fraudulent cases, so they neither help nor hurt, but they do make me irritable through their total inappropriateness.)
In spouse cases, we've started asking beneficiaries if the petitioners would be available to come to follow-up interviews, if the cases are so ambiguous that we can't make a decision without asking for additional evidence. We're not making it mandatory -- it's just a suggestion. I've occasionally done the same in fiance cases, if the beneficiary tells me that the petitioner is visiting or about to visit. ...
Q: ... would like you to address a rumor that based on the petition package that you have already made your decision prior to the interview. Thus many people "front load" with a lrge amount of relationship evidence with the petition. Petitioners [sponsors] dealing with posts in Visa Waiver Program countries do not do this.
A: ... I can only give my personal opinion on this one, I can't really speak for my colleagues. Personally, I hate it when people frontload their petitions. Once I got, literally, 800 pages of e-mails that all said "Love you!" on different dates. All I can think about when people give me hundreds of pages of e-mails is how many trees died just so I'll have to flip through four inches of paper. And there's no way to tell, from a frontloaded petition, if it's frontloaded because the relationship is real, or if it's frontloaded because the relationship's a total sham and the people involved just want to overwhelm us with paper.
That said, we don't make decisions prior to the interview except in the most extreme cases. I once got a petition that had a note on it to alert me that the petitioner had three active K petitions for three different women at the same time. In that case, I had a pretty strong opinion before the interview began. Even in that case, though, I double-checked to be sure it was true and asked the beneficiary the same questions I'd ask anyone else. Other cases look great on paper and I think, "This should be pretty straightforward." And usually those cases are fine. But we still ask questions because sometimes we're surprised when a case that looks good turns out to be awful. So, while we do form strong impressions, we know better than to think we can make a decision without talking to the beneficiary.
A note about evidence: It's totally unreliable. You wouldn't believe the awesome photo evidence we've seen for cases that turned out to be fraudulent. And I'm not sure I have any photo evidence of *my* last relationship, which was bona fide, although ultimately doomed. That's why we rely on interviews, not on documents.
(Also, a personal plea: If any of you know anyone who wants to submit really graphic photos or letters as relationship evidence, please tell them to think about it. I personally just find those annoying. We see those in bona fide cases and in fraudulent cases, so they neither help nor hurt, but they do make me irritable through their total inappropriateness.)
In spouse cases, we've started asking beneficiaries if the petitioners would be available to come to follow-up interviews, if the cases are so ambiguous that we can't make a decision without asking for additional evidence. We're not making it mandatory -- it's just a suggestion. I've occasionally done the same in fiance cases, if the beneficiary tells me that the petitioner is visiting or about to visit. ...
