Failure to prove sufficient ties

[Sherlock 0]

My mother in law has been denied a tourist visa for failure to prove sufficient ties to her home country three times now. I have met with my senator's staff, and have proposed legislation allowing a USC to sponsor a person in such a situation, effectively the USC takes all responsibility if the person overstays.

I'm sure I'm not the only person in this situation, just thought I'd see how many others there were. Please answer yes ONLY if failure to prove sufficient ties was the ONLY reason your friend/relative was denied a non-immigrant visa.

[Luz & Mark 0]

brother-in-law from Colombia denied tourist visa for insufficient ties to home country.

[iceyspots 0]

I guess Id have to answer no because ive never tried but its likely i will try later

[Boiler 45,519]

My mother in law has been denied a tourist visa for failure to prove sufficient ties to her home country three times now. I have met with my senator's staff, and have proposed legislation allowing a USC to sponsor a person in such a situation, effectively the USC takes all responsibility if the person overstays.

I'm sure I'm not the only person in this situation, just thought I'd see how many others there were. Please answer yes ONLY if failure to prove sufficient ties was the ONLY reason your friend/relative was denied a non-immigrant visa.

Just wondering how any individual can take full responsibility.

If they for example commited a crime, you would go to jail on their behalf?

Pay a fine of say $1,000 for every week they overstay?

There is no such requirement for somebody sponsoring an immigrant, it seems crazy to put much stronger obligations on someone inviting a visitor.

[Sherlock 0]

Just wondering how any individual can take full responsibility.

If they for example commited a crime, you would go to jail on their behalf?

Pay a fine of say $1,000 for every week they overstay?

There is no such requirement for somebody sponsoring an immigrant, it seems crazy to put much stronger obligations on someone inviting a visitor.

This would not apply to all applicants for tourist visas, only those who cannot meet the requirements of Immigration and Nationality Act paragraph 214(b) on their own, and it is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

The USC takes responsibility for ensuring that the visitor returns to country of origin before the expiration of their visa. And yes, I do mean that if the sponsored visitor overstays their visa, that the sponsor would also be subject to jail or fine. I think that clause would discourage abuse of the system. If you don't know the person well enough to vouch for them, then don't sponsor them.

It is a strong requirement, but it has to be to overcome the "presumption of intending immigration" that 214(b) requires.

[Yodrak 7]

Sherlock,

And how does your proposed legislation hold the USC responsible? Fine? Jail time? Exile?

[EDIT] Sorry, Boiler, I see that you've already asked the same question.

Yodrak

My mother in law has been denied a tourist visa for failure to prove sufficient ties to her home country three times now. I have met with my senator's staff, and have proposed legislation allowing a USC to sponsor a person in such a situation, effectively the USC takes all responsibility if the person overstays.

....

Sherlock,

And how is the USC supposed to meet their responsibility if the alien decides that they do not want to leave the USA? Can't tie them up, drag them to an airport, and force them onto a plane.

Does your proposed legislation authorize a private citizen to bodily force a person out of the country?

Yodrak

Just wondering how any individual can take full responsibility.

If they for example commited a crime, you would go to jail on their behalf?

Pay a fine of say $1,000 for every week they overstay?

There is no such requirement for somebody sponsoring an immigrant, it seems crazy to put much stronger obligations on someone inviting a visitor.

This would not apply to all applicants for tourist visas, only those who cannot meet the requirements of Immigration and Nationality Act paragraph 214(B) on their own, and it is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

The USC takes responsibility for ensuring that the visitor returns to country of origin before the expiration of their visa. And yes, I do mean that if the sponsored visitor overstays their visa, that the sponsor would also be subject to jail or fine. I think that clause would discourage abuse of the system. If you don't know the person well enough to vouch for them, then don't sponsor them.

It is a strong requirement, but it has to be to overcome the "presumption of intending immigration" that 214(B) requires.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Yodrak

[Boiler 45,519]

The more I think about it the more ludicrouse the concept becomes, for example:

1. Say it was $1,000 per week, say $50,000 for each year of overstay. So logically you would need to show that you have the funds to pay any such fine - so $50,000 (or whatever) x their life expectancy. So unless they were terminally ill, most people will not be able to afford to do so.

2. You are responsible for all their civil infractions, there is a sort of current precedence here, but yet again you need the assets, or insurance, to substantiate this. After all repsonsibility is one thing, you have to be able to follow through.

3. I can think of no current criminal situation where somebody can be held responsible for an others criminal actions. They speed, the points go on your license, they comit a crime, you go to gaol, they comit a capital offence, you go to the gallows?

4. As Yodrak pointed out the quid pro quo is that you can relieve yourself of these liabilities by some way of controllintg the sponsored individual, which sound like it would bypass most if not all individual rights. Effectively they would become your slave if they breach their visa.

So I guess it should fit in quite comfortably with the current Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.

PS This is not a comprehensive list. I am sure there are many many more scenarios.

[Sherlock 0]

Boiler and Yodrak,

I think you're overanalyzing. The details are for congress to decide. I wasn't required to flesh out all the details and set the penalties. I merely pointed out a problem in the process based on a specific set of circumstances and they'll see what they can do to help. One of my suggestions was to let a USC sponsor them in a similar manner of sponsoring an immigrant. Just like if you enter into a fraudulent marriage to bypass immigration laws and are caught, both parties are accountable.

I state again, that possible punishment discourages abuse of the program. If you don't know the person you're sponsoring well enough to know that they won't "just decide to not go home", then don't sponsor them. This is a last resort after all else fails for extreme cases. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

1. Say it was $1,000 per week, say $50,000 for each year of overstay. So logically you would need to show that you have the funds to pay any such fine - so $50,000 (or whatever) x their life expectancy. So unless they were terminally ill, most people will not be able to afford to do so.

No, you would only have to show that you could support them for the time they were planning to be in the US, normally 6 months max. They are the aliens, they are the ones who the consul is supposed to assume are lying. As a USC, the government is willing to assume you are telling the truth.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Sherlock

[Boiler 45,519]

Boiler and Yodrak,

I think you're overanalyzing. The details are for congress to decide. I wasn't required to flesh out all the details and set the penalties. I merely pointed out a problem in the process based on a specific set of circumstances and they'll see what they can do to help. One of my suggestions was to let a USC sponsor them in a similar manner of sponsoring an immigrant. Just like if you enter into a fraudulent marriage to bypass immigration laws and are caught, both parties are accountable.

I state again, that possible punishment discourages abuse of the program. If you don't know the person you're sponsoring well enough to know that they won't "just decide to not go home", then don't sponsor them. This is a last resort after all else fails for extreme cases. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Sponsoring an Immigrant basically covers 2 issues:

1. Refunding state benefits.

2. Guaranteeing them an income level to keep them above the poverty line.

Neither is really applicable for a Visitor, they are not entitled to State benefits and they do not by definition require an income.

So your proposal is a sponsor signing something that is meaningless? Where is the risk to the sponsor?

I know Politicians can appear stupid, but surely not that stupid?

Just thinking, for a small consideration I would be more than happy to sponsor as many of your friends who could pay for my services, cash in advance.

Boiler and Yodrak,

1. Say it was $1,000 per week, say $50,000 for each year of overstay. So logically you would need to show that you have the funds to pay any such fine - so $50,000 (or whatever) x their life expectancy. So unless they were terminally ill, most people will not be able to afford to do so.

No, you would only have to show that you could support them for the time they were planning to be in the US, normally 6 months max. They are the aliens, they are the ones who the consul is supposed to assume are lying. As a USC, the government is willing to assume you are telling the truth.

I do not understand this, the POE usually ask to make sure you have enough resources to support yourself during your visit, whilst 6 months may be the max, most people visit for much shorter periods. I have heard of people supplying an I-134 for relatives where they will be paying for their expenses. Or just a letter. I doubt if this is applicable for friends.

I thought the idea behind your proposal was to penalise the Sponsor if there was an overstay, logic would be to fine so much per day/week/year.

I am actually an Alien, so best to assume that I am lying in all my comments.

[Sherlock 0]

I am actually an Alien, so best to assume that I am lying in all my comments.

Ok, I will do so for all your future posts.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Sherlock

[javaman 0]

hi

i was denied visa in 2005 ,i applied for short stay visa just to find american lawyer in US for a divorce (i was married to american man and my marriage took place in US in 2002) and i could not divorce in Kazakhstan because of my american marriage and my ex husband did not care about our paperwork for divorce

i found a man who helped me to divorce and now i am happily married and living in Kentucky

[ColombianoGringo 0]

Pretty much everyone in my family in Colombia have tourist visas and have had them as long as I can remember. However, we did have one denial a few years back.

My uncle had gotten married and wanted to bring his wife to the US for a visit. He's had a tourist visa for at least a decade and even completed his masters degree in the US. He has a huge company in Colombia and lots of property, but he was never able to get a tourist visa for his wife. They gave the same old excuse. They ended up divorcing a few years later, but it still seems odd that they would deny the wife of a visa holder with massive amounts of ties to Colombia.

Peace,

CG

[Ta Ta 1]

Bottom line they don't want 3. world visitors here and don't think they will return

no matter how much proof you have as ties to the home country.

The embassies sure do take their 'application fee' knowing they won't stand a chance.

I suggest reorganizing the true 'ties' and if they are met than they are met.

Period. The way it stands now it is a joke !

[Ta Ta 1]

My fiance did not 'fail' to prove ties with bank account, home, child, job, job letter

etc. but the conoff 'failed' to abide by the guidelines set for approval.

A $100 joke !

[Dakine 26]

USCIS makes BIG bucks on denied visa applications.

Average interview takes less than 5 minutes.

So $100 xs 60=s $6,000 an hour that [1] CO pulls in!!!

No you can see why they deny 80% . They want repeats and get them!

MANILA --- The land of milk and honey making the Philippines a land of milking cows? According to Sen. Ralph Recto, the United States Embassy in Manila collects about P2 billion ($36 million) a year from Filipinos applying for visas.

Recto, chairman of the Senate committee on ways and means, said the embassy charges a non-refundable application fee of $100 or P5,500, for a B-1 or B-2 visa.

A B-1 is issued to an individual who wants to go to the U.S. on business while a B-2 is given to one who intends to visit relatives or tourist destinations in the U.S.

All in all, Recto estimates, the embassy rakes in from P630 million ($11.5 million) to P2.06 billion annually, based on a minimum 450 visa applications a day. Recto was quoting figures cited in a resolution filed by 72 congressmen in 2003.

The solons claimed that 80 per cent of the visa fees, or P503 million ($9.2 million), represented denied applications, and asked the U.S. government to donate the amount to the school-building program of the Department of Education.

Immigration specialist Crispin Aranda gave a higher estimate of visa applicants in Manila. Quoting U.S. consular officials, Aranda said 200,000 non-immigrant visas were issued in Manila in 2002. The embassy “interviews anywhere from 1,200 to 1,500 applicants a day six days a week.”

Using the lower estimate of 1,200 U.S. visa applicants a day, Recto said, around 375,000 seek the “much-sought-after gate pass” to the States every year.

If they pay P5,500 each, then the U.S. Embassy collects about P2.064 billion a year. Of this amount, nearly P1 billion came from denied applications,” Recto said. “That building by the boulevard is really a cash register.”

If the embassy collects only half of the estimated annual P2 billion from visa fees, it would have become the fourth-highest in nontax collection if it were a Philippine government agency, the senator observed.

This year, the Department of Finance is expected to collect as much as P48 billion ($873 million) in nontax revenues, followed by Department of Transportation and Communications, P6.5 billion; Department of Justice, P3.7 billion; Department of Agriculture, P379 million; Department of Environment and Natural Resources, P343 million; and Department of Health, P212 million.

Reviewing the data, Recto said there is merit in the lawmakers’ appeal to the US government to use part of the collection to fund social projects here: “This is not to disparage the much-ballyhooed U.S. aid to the Philippines, but it is possible that their visa collection is much bigger than what they give us in return, in the form of aid.” (MNS)