"a consular officers perspective"

[Ta Ta 1]

Nice article but for those stuck as bona fide couples and whom the CO deemed as not bona fide, lets say for lack of sufficient emails etc. and not even looking at the relationship proof brought to the interview, for those couples being returned to USCIS the journey is over. I do not care what this article says, just read the reality in the returned petition forum and see for yourself the extremely low percentage that ever makes it through after their cases have been returned to USCIS.

Most have to start over again. There are countless members here on VJ who had to do just that due to a returned petition. Evidence was never looked at by the CO. Look in mena and asian forums. Morrocco, Pakistan, Vietnam, all high fraud posts but with many bona fides get thrown out into the same abyss by a CO who lacks good judgment. Why ? Because they can !

Rules and articles say one thing but reality says quiet another. Underlined and in red and all, does not matter. Petitions get revoked by recommendation of CO's many times especially and rightfully so with new evidence. The key here is with beneficiaries still in their home countries and NOT here already.

New evidence definitely comes into play while the beneficiary is still oversees. CO's definitely play a large role in recommending revocation

successfully. I fully comprehend what this article is saying but I also comprehend the reality of bona fide couples in the black hole.

For some reason, frauds who made it through still get through AOS and ROC all the way to USC. That needs to change. Once exposed as a fraud with evidence the beneficiary needs to be checked very closely and not be awarded with a 10 year green card. But they go through the system with ease once here.

The author shed perspective about fraud ring petitions who fell through the cracks and made it.

In the end a lot of bona fides never come out of the black hole. That is the reality. But frauds who snug through still are making it in this country right now.

Put this in OT and get more responses and you will see what I mean.

Of course I agree that fraud potential has to be tightened but for Pete's sake implement an avenue to also protect the bona fide couple from being swept up into the black hole along with the frauds and cons.

I hope you will comprehend my point. In a nutshell USCIS needs to go after the frauds and protect the bona fides from the same black hole of returned petitions.

I don't know what your bone of contention is.

My bone of contention is this

"I only posted this article for informations sake."

You believe according to the article CO's carry no weight to successfully recommend to revoke petitions oversees and I beg to differ. Attorneys work feverishly to inform the USCIS about returned petitions and the rights of petitioners. USCIS ignores that fact and petitioners wait years to hear about a final judgment after they get returned. Guess what ?

The USCIS acknowledges the CO's " questionable hunches " and the petition dies. Often unfounded and with bona fide couples and that is what I have a problem with.

I never stated that he was 100% on the mark with his statements/observations, but he does have an insider view on the situation. I just highlighted what was in the article that was contradictory to what you stated. And for the record, whatever is the basis for your hostility, do not take it out on me for I am not the source of your woes. The truth is what the truth is and argue as you may, it don't change the facts; whatever the facts maybe respective to each others own personal situation.

And again, I posted this for informations sake , take from it what you will and leave the rest.

Smooches

UNO

It is clear to me that the hostility was coming from you by your red underlined comment when all I did was disagree with the fact that CO's supposedly are not successful in recommending to revoke a petition with the USCIS upon returning a case.

You do not like it when someone disagrees with you. And yes you did question my comprehension of the article.

Whoever agrees with you gets a standing ovation and whoever has a different perspective gets attacked.

I offered my thoughts on this article. That was all.

Truth is the many complains about CO's we hear on this site.

Truth is the unjustice done to genuine couples who are put through the ringer.

In my opinion the article by the CO was not that truthful when it comes to the issue of having the power to jerk people around.

They can and they do successfully send you into the abyss never to surface again. Go ahead and attack

this fact. You can't argue with personal experience from others here.

{No, I am not putting this in OT, if a MOD wants to move it or deem in necessary to move, then that is their right. And personally, I don't care about the amount of responses I get for this post. I don't do anything to appease anyone, except myself. And no, I don't necessarily SEE what you mean; due to I was blessed enough to be given insight into what could have become a potentially perilous situation and God Blocked It! And again, I posted it for the sake of some people gathering information and understanding about a tedious process. Not to gain brownie points.}

My suggestion was to post this in OT or the AP/returned petition forum to get a more well rounded view of true experiences. But it seems you

are not interested in other posters ordeals and contrary experiences.

By your agressive red and underlined come back I just now realized that you do not welcome different views and experiences in your thread

and that it was all about you and yours.

Oops my bad ! The nerve of me to assume we could have a discussion here and add our perspective.

Smooches back without hostility

out of everything you wrote Omoba, the only thats clear is that you take yourself wayyyy to seriously (trust me, its not always about you) and you think highlighting in red is a personal attack/hostility .

and everyone else can read an article, reflect on it, then move on, but you had to bring your luggage into a situation it wasn't even called for. out of respect for one of Gods creation, I am not going to disrespect you which is something you might want to consider doing in the future.

Peace be unto your heavy load

UNO

You have already disrespected me my sister by attacking me personally by what you call my "luggage", which is in reality

a very hard journey and nothing to laugh at. I offered my perspective to your article about one CO's opinion and disagreed with it. I shared my viewpoint.

Walk in my shoes for a few years and it will not be funny to you either. You say I am taking myself way too serious. A baby that could have been saved here, my grand child, died in Sierra Leone because one CO decided to prolong our journey for a ridiculous reason. Yes, it does affect me more than you will ever know. But go ahead laugh at my hardship, my indeed heavy load and discredit my perspective. After all you don't want to know the reality. It's " just baggage ". You don't even know the half of it.

This is a message board and if you post something expect a difference of opinion.There is a whole other world out there Uno. Why do you expect me to just read and "move on " ? I am not everybody.

It is you that has taken my opposing opinion out of context and called it " luggage " and your first come back was agressive and totally unneccessary. You challenged my comprehension and I answered you. Please be adviced that it is ok to agree to disagree without disrespect and lack of compassion.

Have another flower to make a bouquet

[Simply_Uno 1]

what evahhhh. omoba.

I dont care about opposing opinions, we all have them. you took everything out of context, and personalized it and customized to yourself. I did not do that, you did. I merely posted an article for others to read. I had no investment in this article one way or naught. My journey is over, O-V-E-R!!!!

And again, I just copied and pasted what was contradictory to what you stated. I did not personalize anything. I was just showing the CO's perspective vs. your perspective, not agreeing one way or another. And you brought your situation into this, not me. I dont know nothing about you, and that I'm realizing is a Blessing.

All of your personal hardships, I am sorry you have to suffer. But just as sure as we live and breath, all of us are going through in one way or another. That does not give one person the right to minimize someone elses nor supersize their own. And I did not laugh at you or your hardships {I thought you knew me better than that, guess I was wrong}. I did laugh at your misinterpretation of my actions because you were/are waaaaaaaaaaaay off base. But you cant see that for whatever is blocking your sight. And you know what, its okay. If my using red to highlight offended you and you took that to mean hostility, then baby girl, UNO is sawwwrrry. But just know, your breakthough is coming, just hold on and be strong. And I am still encouraging you to fight the good fight for what you feel is right. Peace for your turmoils and Grace for your struggles

UNO

And I expected you along with everyone else to read it, reflect on it and move on because it was posted for the sake of giving a "CO's" perspective on the immigration process thats why.

I can not dumb it down no more than that.

Edited December 7, 2008 by UNO...

[idocare 3]

Uno,

Thanks for posting that!!! It's truly educational to those that have an open

mind to digust it's content.

[idocare 3]

typo, my post was suspose to read digest it's content, btw, I don't think you

have too defend this post at all, it's the truth from a creditably source and if

anyone feels a need to vent, then that's what they do.

I for one appreciate this post and can vulge for some of the content as written

by the author, because I lived thru some things he posted and he knows me not.

Edited December 8, 2008 by idocare

[Ta Ta 1]

To sum up and clarify what my comments were about :

My comments were not to discredit the entire article but only an important paragraph . In fact I liked most of the things recommended by the author to spot scams more easily or to make it harder for scammers to enter this country.

Especially informing petitioners of questionable things they find about the beneficiary instead of hiding them.

I believe we have the right to be informed what a beneficiary may hide.

The only thing I have issue with is one CO's opinion that contradicts my and everybody else's reality and experience that is in the black hole of AP or Neverland , it being the statement that a CO's recommendation to revoke a petition and sending it back to USCIS will fall on deaf ears and go through regardless.

CO's have a lot more power than that. Though they are by regulation not to deny a visa, they can and do successfully recommend to revoke said petition and the USCIS will listen and deny.

Meanwhile petitioners wonder what happened because most don't even get the courtesy of a letter notifying them that the case has been revoked and the visa denied.

I brought my own experience into this to share my viewpoint and perspective. It was not welcomed by the OP because it made it ' personal' to her for some unknown reason.

There are always two sides to the pancake and I wanted to share mine. One side is not more important than the other or negates the others experience.

Isn't that what we are here for

Idocare you share your story after 3 years over and over again. I have the right to do the same on occassion. This seemed to be the right

thread. Obviously I was mistaken.

So don't make it look like something it was not.

I was not venting. I was stating a fact. I had an opposing though most unwelcomed viewpoint. Period.

[Simply_Uno 1]

To everyone that reads this article for what it is and appreciates it, UNO thanks you.

As far as Omoba is concerned, please disregard her rantings and frivolous accusations towards me for they are unfounded, unsubstantiated, misguided and deflections of her own issues {whatever they may be}. If you have gotten this far and have an ounce of basic comprehension, you have already figured that out so far. So please continue to enjoy the article for what its worth to you and your own personal situation and overlook Omoba's drama.

God Bless

UNO

[himher 634]

This looks like a consular officer's whining over:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1388.html

In spite of the listed examples in the article, there is no way I would want our case and our marriage to reside in the hands of someone who answers to nobody, within a system with no recourse to appeal, and then has the last word on our future. ESPECIALLY the executive branch government drones who occupy the offices in our embassies and are no different from or better than government drones in any governent agency anywhere else.

My personal experience with consular officers are that they are generally rude, arrogant, and love to flaunt the power that they have over the (foreign) applicants that come through the consulates and embassies, basically treating them at a slightly higher level than cattle. All government drones resent oversight of any kind, but in the case of the citizens back home it's too bad when this particular group of morons is reminded that they actually work for us as opposed to doing us favors by their very existance (the way they treat the foreigners that pass through our embassies).

Summary? This is from Texas to consular officers everywhere......Shut up and do your jobs.

aka process the visas for the approved petitions.

aka follow the law as Congress set it up without whining when you lose some of your power. It was abuse of that power that got it stripped from the consulates in the first place.

When the people need new laws, the people will let Congress know and expect Congress to pass them, then the mindless employees of the various civil agencies can follow those laws as well. Are you in an agency and want to make policy? Run for office!

[toma1 10]

My personal experience with consular officers are that they are generally rude, arrogant, and love to flaunt the power that they have over the (foreign) applicants that come through the consulates and embassies, basically treating them at a slightly higher level than cattle. All government drones resent oversight of any kind, but in the case of the citizens back home it's too bad when this particular group of morons is reminded that they actually work for us as opposed to doing us favors by their very existance (the way they treat the foreigners that pass through our embassies).

First, let me say that I am not doubting ANYONE'S experiences. I am very sorry to hear them.

But I must also say in all fairness that my fiancee's experience with the embassy personnel in Bangkok was exactly the opposite of what you describe here. She came out laughing and talking with the interviewer who she described as sweet and funny. She said that everyone she dealt with was VERY nice. The finger print person couldn't get her prints right and she apologized and he said, "Oh, don't worry, some people are good in fingerprints and some people are good in smiles. You are good in smiles." I said, "It sounds like you had fun, honey." and she said. "I did! It wasn't like they interviewed me, it was like we had a conversation." She was done before 10AM. I think the entire experience made her even more excited to come here, even though she is having to give up a great job in Bangkok.

But of course YMMV...

[himher 634]

Which, in my opinion, is exactly the (minimum) level of service that I would expect from a consular officer who is responsible for issuing a visa on an approved petition. From what I have seen in (4) different US consulates in (4) different countries, what you describe should be how the US is represented to citizens of other countries - but unfortunately what you describe appears to be the exception and not the rule. They (the consular staff) make me ashamed in how they treat <most> applicants and that treatment is EXACTLY the reason that the consulates were stripped of their adjudication powers (on K non-immigrant and immigrant petitions) to begin with.

My personal experience with consular officers are that they are generally rude, arrogant, and love to flaunt the power that they have over the (foreign) applicants that come through the consulates and embassies, basically treating them at a slightly higher level than cattle. All government drones resent oversight of any kind, but in the case of the citizens back home it's too bad when this particular group of morons is reminded that they actually work for us as opposed to doing us favors by their very existance (the way they treat the foreigners that pass through our embassies).

First, let me say that I am not doubting ANYONE'S experiences. I am very sorry to hear them.

But I must also say in all fairness that my fiancee's experience with the embassy personnel in Bangkok was exactly the opposite of what you describe here. She came out laughing and talking with the interviewer who she described as sweet and funny. She said that everyone she dealt with was VERY nice. The finger print person couldn't get her prints right and she apologized and he said, "Oh, don't worry, some people are good in fingerprints and some people are good in smiles. You are good in smiles." I said, "It sounds like you had fun, honey." and she said. "I did! It wasn't like they interviewed me, it was like we had a conversation." She was done before 10AM. I think the entire experience made her even more excited to come here, even though she is having to give up a great job in Bangkok.

But of course YMMV...

[Enlighten one :) 5]

Every case and experience will be different. There are people who abuse their power in every role. Thhis usually has nothing to do with the position, but the person's ego.

The USCIS has to have documented evidence to deny your case. they cannot go on assumptions. They can use their assumptions to make your life hell through the process, but at days, weeks, months and even years end they have to have a documented and verifiable reason to deny your visa.

If they have that documentation, they can use it to deny your case.

On the other note I enjoyed reading that "1" person's perspective from their role in the process. It was enlightening and validating even if it conflicted with some of "MY" perspectives.

WE all have a bona fide relationship with the beneficiary. Unfortunately, our reality of the relationship may differ then the beneficiary and the USCIS.

[Zee Bee 61]

Thank you for posting Uno

I learned a lot from the article

[LovinLiberia 0]

Every case and experience will be different. There are people who abuse their power in every role. Thhis usually has nothing to do with the position, but the person's ego.

The USCIS has to have documented evidence to deny your case. they cannot go on assumptions. They can use their assumptions to make your life hell through the process, but at days, weeks, months and even years end they have to have a documented and verifiable reason to deny your visa.

If they have that documentation, they can use it to deny your case.

On the other note I enjoyed reading that "1" person's perspective from their role in the process. It was enlightening and validating even if it conflicted with some of "MY" perspectives.

WE all have a bona fide relationship with the beneficiary. Unfortunately, our reality of the relationship may differ then the beneficiary and the USCIS.

This post was on point! I also always thought that the CO had to present sufficient documentation to have the case denied.

Uno, the article was an interesting read! Thanks for posting it.

[Perseverance 1]

Every case and experience will be different. There are people who abuse their power in every role. Thhis usually has nothing to do with the position, but the person's ego.

The USCIS has to have documented evidence to deny your case. they cannot go on assumptions. They can use their assumptions to make your life hell through the process, but at days, weeks, months and even years end they have to have a documented and verifiable reason to deny your visa.

If they have that documentation, they can use it to deny your case. On the other note I enjoyed reading that "1" person's perspective from their role in the process. It was enlightening and validating even if it conflicted with some of "MY" perspectives.

WE all have a bona fide relationship with the beneficiary. Unfortunately, our reality of the relationship may differ then the beneficiary and the USCIS

This post was on point! I also always thought that the CO had to present sufficient documentation to have the case denied.Uno, the article was an interesting read! Thanks for posting it.

I also was under the same understanding about producing evidence

After reading ...and reading ....and ....reading .... the stories were really not that shocking after reading personal stories here on VJ. Most of us have encountered someone here on VJ with a similar story. Sad yes, but what stuck out in my mind and what I kept thinking about was this paragraph

"Most relationships between Americans and foreign nationals are legitimate, but because of the prevalence of sham marriages, legitimate international couples can face longer wait times due to the huge number of bogus marriage petitions that bog down an already slow and cumbersome visa bureaucracy. Scam marriages also can cast a shadow of illegitimacy over real marriages, and many legitimate couples may be forced to endure invasive and sometimes harsh interviews with United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and State Department personnel who are trying in good faith to screen out fake couples."

Ultimately what I take from this article is that, we can not rely on USCIS or the CO to protect us, we need to use our own judgement about our personal relationship. We are the only ones who can protect ourselves. Use your intuition

P

[TBoneTX 46,445]

1. Thank you for having posted the article, Uno; I too learned a lot from it. Information like this is valuable for VJers.

2. Bearing in mind that EVERYONE who appears at a certain South American consulate (the rogue, ####### consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador) is considered a fraud/phony/criminal/liar unless the U.S. citizen is present at the FIRST INTERVIEW (without any inkling of this REQUIREMENT appearing on the consulate's website), and that the U.S. citizen is routinely ORDERED to appear for a "joint" "marriage interview" that is really a Stokes interrogation, I have a reaction to the following:

This looks like a consular officer's whining over: http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1388.html

In spite of the listed examples in the article, there is no way I would want our case and our marriage to reside in the hands of someone who answers to nobody, within a system with no recourse to appeal, and then has the last word on our future. [...]

[...] with consular officers [...] it's too bad when this particular group of morons is reminded that they actually work for us as opposed to doing us favors by their very existance (the way they treat the foreigners that pass through our embassies).

Summary? This is from Texas to consular officers everywhere......Shut up and do your jobs. aka process the visas for the approved petitions.

My reaction, also from Texas: BRAVO for telling it like it is! Edited December 10, 2008 by TBoneTX