LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR RED FLAGS

[Aymerlu 3]

I swear my first marriage to an american should've had a CO review. There were red flags all over that marriage!

Really, sometimes I think that all of us with SO from other countries, mainly middle eastern countries....... that automatically seems to be a red flag regardless of how legit the relationship is. It's just the way things are these days.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Aymerlu

[Caladan 19]

I think the takeaway from this is to send as much as you can in the original petition if you're going through a high-fraud consulate, since that seems to be how the COs arrive at their decision or at least their mindset going into the interview. People here have posted about cafés bragging about their American wife success rates, and their fiancés knowing men who call their wives paperwork. This is known to *legitimate* guys trying to come here. The COs know this, too.

When you get a tough interview, that's a technique. (I have a friend who works for, as he used to like to say... the Treasury Department, and he's explained this. ) People don't lie well when they're unsettled, and if the CO thinks that your spouse is using you for immigration benefits, the CO is going to do his or her best to throw him off his game. It works even if you know that's what they're doing. It sucks, but being mean isn't just arbitrary.

Petitions getting sent back to DHS doesn't make a lot of sense, as there are supposed to be two distinct functions (DHS doesn't evaluate the legitimacy of the relationship, so...) in the two stages of the process, but it wouldn't surprise me if the tacit instructions to the CO were to send it back to get it out of State's hair, on the grounds that a legit couple would make it through the delay.

[mybackpages 0]

I think the takeaway from this is to send as much as you can in the original petition if you're going through a high-fraud consulate, since that seems to be how the COs arrive at their decision or at least their mindset going into the interview. People here have posted about cafés bragging about their American wife success rates, and their fiancés knowing men who call their wives paperwork. This is known to *legitimate* guys trying to come here. The COs know this, too.

When you get a tough interview, that's a technique. (I have a friend who works for, as he used to like to say... the Treasury Department, and he's explained this. ) People don't lie well when they're unsettled, and if the CO thinks that your spouse is using you for immigration benefits, the CO is going to do his or her best to throw him off his game. It works even if you know that's what they're doing. It sucks, but being mean isn't just arbitrary.

Petitions getting sent back to DHS doesn't make a lot of sense, as there are supposed to be two distinct functions (DHS doesn't evaluate the legitimacy of the relationship, so...) in the two stages of the process, but it wouldn't surprise me if the tacit instructions to the CO were to send it back to get it out of State's hair, on the grounds that a legit couple would make it through the delay.

Brilliant reply. Thanks Caladan. I think what adds credibility to this line of thinking is that we see this interview technique in many consulates not just Casablanca. It still does suck, however, for the legit couple.

[Caladan 19]

When my friend interviewed for this job, I was a character witness, and was interviewed in an unsettlingly way. The guy says 'I'll be there at 4'; I was in college at the time, at my parents' house, working some lame summer job that ended at 3, so I figured I'd have time to get home and relax, freshen up.

When I got home, this jolly old officer had already talked to my neighbors, my dad, my mom, and pretty much had a complete background on me --- I can only presume just by having a good memory and my parents' chattering -- by the time I walked in the door. So we talked, all friendly and mostly nice, except occasionally he'd insinuate that my friend chased women, or that his dad was a junkie, or that his mother was a #######, or that all the neighbors knew about bad thing X they did. The sort of thing you wouldn't normally say in polite conversation.

I don't think he was even listening to my answers, just watching my body language. Of course M.'s mom's not a prostitute! &c. No, he'd never chase girls!

And I wasn't even the one up for the position!

[patiently_waiting 0]

Working in law enforcement and having to do interviews on a regular basis, there are so many ways to tell when someone is lying. Body language is a dead give away. There are also certain things people always say when they are lying, regardless if they realize it or not. So with all that and putting that person in a unsettled atmosphere, thereby increasing the pressure, the truth comes out. It is rather easy to find when someone is lying.

You also have to take into account the SO's level of fluency in English if they are doing the interview in English. A simple misunderstanding could throw the entire interview. Sometimes it is just better for the SO to ask the CO to ask the question in a different way or for the SO to restate the question before answering. Just an idea to make sure they are answering the corret question and it clarifies to the CO what the SO is talking about.

I know I have read on here to practice for the interview. And we have pracitced, but I finally quit because he started sounding like he has just memorized fact after fact and was able to just spit it out at a moments notice. Had I been the one interviewing him, I would have to wonder. So in addition, if there is too much "practicing" their answers seem to just be regurgated.

I don't think the CO's have an easy job, and of course those of us who sit on the other side waiting for their approval don't always agree with them. Makes me think of the old addage, "The truth will set you free."

[Nasturtium 500]

I know I have read on here to practice for the interview. And we have pracitced, but I finally quit because he started sounding like he has just memorized fact after fact and was able to just spit it out at a moments notice. Had I been the one interviewing him, I would have to wonder. So in addition, if there is too much "practicing" their answers seem to just be regurgated.

Exactly.. you don't want to be too practiced. yesterday, I typed up all the answers to the Casa interview thread questions for my husband. I told him to look over them and be sure he knew the right stuff, but not do much more than that.

English is his obvious second language. he has experience in working with Americans, but mainly he hears MY English. I know, as someone who has learned 4 other languages than my own, the person you hear the most often becomes the standard of your understanding. i just wanted him to have an expectation for questions being asked, so in case he did not fully understand the accent, he would have more confidence in himself-- enough confidence to ask for clarification or to actually understand the question. it can make a huge difference. but! like you said, you don't want to sound like a fact-memorizing robot.

I seriously doubt his interviewer will have the West-Coast accent I have, or sound like he/she is 12 like I do But I know he will do fine.

[moroccogirlny 100]

apparently one reason i learned can be as simple as saying BECAUSE SHE IS AMERICAN

This is a known fact, someone got this on their NOIR!! Mind you that their case was closed without sending a notice and their Congressman had contacted the service center to open the case.

[moroccogirlny 100]

i am happy Sarah you had a good experience with casa. that doesnt mean that other's have had the same positive experience though (through no fault of their's).

why is there such a differnce??? someone please explain why the CO's attitudes are negative right from the beginning with those who have red flags or as we call them 'issues'?

who can explain this? why does a red flag negate politeness and a fair interview? if theses so called red flags are supposed to be such a big issue, why then for goodness sake(being nice ) are they not considered during the time of application with USCIS???

i ADDRESSED every single "issue/red flag" at the time i filed my petitions. USCIS approved everything, YET the consulte still decided that we had an "invalid relationship for immigration purposes". seems even if you do ADDRESS the issues and red flags with filing the petition the consulates still return the case. WWWHHHYYYYY????

i can pretty much guess, but i am sure many will disagree. here is what i have learned (mostly from reading congressional hearings and such) is the couples who are filing petitions on the behalf of a foreign fiance or spouse become the pawns between USCIS (homeland security) and the consulates (dept of state) for fiancial reasons.

there is one wonderful woman who found this info. it took her a long time to find it. in this meeting, mr mckeever was asking who was going to do the investigating that was being required for non-immigrant and immigrant visas. he said more money would be needed as he didnt have enough staff to do this. he also told one of the ladies here when she spoke to him on the phone that 'he doesnt get paid to talk on the phone'. putting 2+2=more money is wanted/needed to do what is required.

but which dept is the one required to do the investigation in the first place. hmmmm....seems that if your case is cut and dryed so to speak, you will be treated quite nicely by the consulates. on the other hand if you have some 'issues' oh lets say age or how you met then the consulates will just 'kick back' your case to USCIS to review further. this is what the letter says that is given to denied applicants.

if i am off base them someone add it up better for me.

i experienced first hand the rudeness and verbal abuse myself from a CO.

Sarah all this is not amaimed at you. please dont take it like that. i am just replying and adding my own comments and experiences.

i like many other couples who have been denied are just so frustrated with a system that does not work and yet there is no one who can help. thats all. we too want to be treated with respect and fairness. that is not the case for those of us who are denied, plain and simple. i think i echo the sentiment of those couples.

chi

Well said Chi!! I will never forget that call with Matthew McKeever either. There are no intentions to scare people here but these officers do lie. I have seen one NOIR recently that had these reasons for denial:

The petitioner is American

The beneficiary does not speak English well (he took English classes and also teaches in a high school)

The petitioner is older(she is 2 years older)

Meeting on the internet (she met when studying in France)

Did not know about her biological father

This couple has known each other for 5 years.

Many couples have been approved though who have known each other less then a year and the petitioner only visited once. The petitioner in general much older and heavy.

I have also heard of one couple through the grapevine that had a short brief encounter, got engaged and was given a visa in 6 months. This couple only did this as a business deal for a large amount of money.

Go figure !!

[chiquita 0]

, on the grounds that a legit couple would make it through the delay.

i agree with you there. a real couple will endure the long delay albeit an uncertain one. i just still dont like the tactics.

this only applies to married couples though. K 1 petitions are just left to sit or the petitioner is finally told after a lengthy time that the petition has expired and they can refile if they want to. this is wrong wrong wrong. this happens with the CSC. VSC seems to be better in this regard.

the problem this tactic creates is there is a marker left in the case and then of course the consulate refuses to deal with a new petition until they hear back from USCIS about the first petition. does USCIS ever notify the consulate that the petition has expired? of course not. these couples are kept in limbo for a long time through no fault of their own.

there needs to be a consistant manner in which to process petition returns through out DHS and DOS. Yet there in none. this leaves the couple stuck in immigration h#ll unless they have reps who are willing to help.

chi

Edited April 15, 2007 by chiquita

[chiquita 0]

I know I have read on here to practice for the interview. And we have pracitced, but I finally quit because he started sounding like he has just memorized fact after fact and was able to just spit it out at a moments notice. Had I been the one interviewing him, I would have to wonder. So in addition, if there is too much "practicing" their answers seem to just be regurgated.

IMHO the best 'practice' is to know one another very well. this cannot be faked. if one doesnt the other well enough to answer the simplest questions then the CO will likely consider the relationship fake. the only practice for this is to know each other.

chi

[chiquita 0]

Well said Chi!! I will never forget that call with Matthew McKeever either. There are no intentions to scare people here but these officers do lie. I have seen one NOIR recently that had these reasons for denial:

The petitioner is American

The beneficiary does not speak English well (he took English classes and also teaches in a high school)

The petitioner is older(she is 2 years older)

Meeting on the internet (she met when studying in France)

Did not know about her biological father

This couple has known each other for 5 years.

Many couples have been approved though who have known each other less then a year and the petitioner only visited once. The petitioner in general much older and heavy.

I have also heard of one couple through the grapevine that had a short brief encounter, got engaged and was given a visa in 6 months. This couple only did this as a business deal for a large amount of money.

Go figure !!

so sad, so sad indeed.

where is the consistency?

chi

[tnh9479 1]

Chi,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Part of the consulate's duty is to identify and investigate potential fraud cases. Presumably they are more qulaified to do this then USCIS due to the cultural differences among individual consulates, i.e. a "red flag" in Morocco might not be the same as one in the Philippines. BUT, McKeever et al. are claiming that they only have the capability to do the identification, but not the investigation. Therefore, in lieu of doing the investigation, they are returning the petitions, the mentality being that if DHS is not going to provide the resources for the investigation, they have no other choice but to send the case back to USCIS.

The way I understand that it works at some other consulates is that couples with some suspicion of fraud are placed on AR while the fraud investigation takes place. This is what is missing at Casa. Instead, they are misusing the 221g avenue to return a petition, simply because they lack resources to do their own fraud investigation.

Am I understanding this right???

I wonder whether other "high fraud" consulates receive more funds to do these investigations. If DHS agrees that Morocco is a high fraud consulate, why are they not giving them the necessary funds to carry them out? Seems then that the problem, is NOT with Casa, but rather with fund appropriation by DHS. Why is USCIS not pushing DHS to allocate more funds to Casa?

Interesting info, thanks.

Jenn --

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Twila

[chiquita 0]

Well in my case we didn't have that problem. The CO was very nice with Hicham and looked at all of the proofs he showed her. I understand that your situation is different but I don't think you can apply your situation to everyone else and scare them by saying the CO's are liars and want to ruin everyone's lives. Did you have red flags in your case? I think it should be advocated that those with red flags such as age differences be prepared and help them in any way possible and prepare them in a positive way instead of scaring everying by saying the CO's are unfair and liars and that they want to ruin our lives. I hope that makes sense. People going through Casa are already nervous enough... let's not apply one situation to everyone else who might not have the same red flags you did or any at all. I know that I was so so so scared before our interview but after I realized that we didn't have any of the red flags that everyone made me so nervous about.

I think for those of you with age differences or other red flags should do all you can now to prepare for the interview and in case of a denial prepare yourselves for after. Contact your congressmen and senators prior to the interview and give them a background of your case so that if you need them right away they will be able to help.

Those of you without red flags should obviously be as prepared as possible and I don't think it's a bad idea to get to know your congressmen as well just in case there is a mishap during your interview. It's not worth it for everyone to develope negative attitude towards Casa and the CO's just because some have gone through negative experiences there. Stay positive!!!

Good luck everyone,

Sarah

i never said CO's want to ruin ppls lives!

i have done my best giving the best possible advice for those who truely seek it. i will not give false info or fasle hope. if it appears the couple will do well at the interview, i gladly tell them that. i am far from a doom and gloom person Sarah! i try to remain positive but at times it is difficult due to the situations i post about

i am not trying to scare anyone! i am trying to help prepare them. there is a lot of mis info given because of lack of knowledge. this is especially true with denied cases.

let me ask everyone>>>

would you rather know if you maybe will have a problem up front in getting a visa or would you rather know after the fact???

how many ppl have said i wish i had known that before the interview???

the negativity comes with the treatment of denied cases. as i have posted before, it may be difficult for one to understand unless it has occured to you.

chi

[sarah and hicham 3]

Well in my case we didn't have that problem. The CO was very nice with Hicham and looked at all of the proofs he showed her. I understand that your situation is different but I don't think you can apply your situation to everyone else and scare them by saying the CO's are liars and want to ruin everyone's lives. Did you have red flags in your case? I think it should be advocated that those with red flags such as age differences be prepared and help them in any way possible and prepare them in a positive way instead of scaring everying by saying the CO's are unfair and liars and that they want to ruin our lives. I hope that makes sense. People going through Casa are already nervous enough... let's not apply one situation to everyone else who might not have the same red flags you did or any at all. I know that I was so so so scared before our interview but after I realized that we didn't have any of the red flags that everyone made me so nervous about.

I think for those of you with age differences or other red flags should do all you can now to prepare for the interview and in case of a denial prepare yourselves for after. Contact your congressmen and senators prior to the interview and give them a background of your case so that if you need them right away they will be able to help.

Those of you without red flags should obviously be as prepared as possible and I don't think it's a bad idea to get to know your congressmen as well just in case there is a mishap during your interview. It's not worth it for everyone to develope negative attitude towards Casa and the CO's just because some have gone through negative experiences there. Stay positive!!!

Good luck everyone,

Sarah

i never said CO's want to ruin ppls lives!

i have done my best giving the best possible advice for those who truely seek it. i will not give false info or fasle hope. if it appears the couple will do well at the interview, i gladly tell them that. i am far from a doom and gloom person Sarah! i try to remain positive but at times it is difficult due to the situations i post about

i am not trying to scare anyone! i am trying to help prepare them. there is a lot of mis info given because of lack of knowledge. this is especially true with denied cases.

let me ask everyone>>>

would you rather know if you maybe will have a problem up front in getting a visa or would you rather know after the fact???

how many ppl have said i wish i had known that before the interview???

the negativity comes with the treatment of denied cases. as i have posted before, it may be difficult for one to understand unless it has occured to you.

chi

I think that you are far far far too angry against Casablanca that you can't realize that maybe the reason for your denial is because of issues in your case and that maybe those issues were large enough in the eyes of the CO to cause a denial. Maybe something went on in the interview that you are not aware of, who knows. I don't think it's fair to place blame on someone for doing their job and saying how terrible they are. You and I both know that Morocco is full of fraud and no one likes to think that it's happening to them but I guess the CO had reason to believe it was?

[chiquita 0]

is that why the CO kept saying how sorry she was at what had happened to us? could it be maybe? why would she feel so sorry for all we had gone through? i made a lot of statements in my response to the NOIR. i included every letter i wrote to ppl who i asked help from. she read it all. i am sure she was surprised by what i wrote and also that i was with my husband.

yes at the time i was angry, not any more since my husband is right here by myside. if you think i am angry...i have been in a group where the beneficiary's are condeming our country and saying all sorts of rubbish against our wonderful country. i am mild compared to them.

just as an FYI...i am so sorry for all the couples who get denied and are at a loss at what to do. that is why i am here...i want to help them. i can help them.

chi

I think that you are far far far too angry against Casablanca that you can't realize that maybe the reason for your denial is because of issues in your case and that maybe those issues were large enough in the eyes of the CO to cause a denial. Maybe something went on in the interview that you are not aware of, who knows. I don't think it's fair to place blame on someone for doing their job and saying how terrible they are. You and I both know that Morocco is full of fraud and no one likes to think that it's happening to them but I guess the CO had reason to believe it was?

issues? what issues did I have??

chi