Beware of False Questions at Interview

[baron555 934]

I am disturbed by the report from this thread about a recent interview conducted at the Moscow Embassy:

Moscow Embassy False Questions

As you all may remember recently my SO was also asked some purposefully false questions (albeit hers were not a big problem or issue) in an obvious attempt to startle her and gauge her reactions.

From this thread it seems now they are reaching deeper into the absurd to purposefully throw off the interviewee to see their reactions.

While I can understand this tactic, it is a bit underhanded, assuming that they were given solid evidence of a solid relationship. In this particular case, their questioning and accusations of the petitioner may have ended their relationship by causing doubts in the interviewee's mind.

So please to all your SOs out there who have an interview coming up please alert them to this type of false questioning. Make sure they know they may be asked absurd or purposefully false questions. Make sure they know that just because a US government representative is making things up, that it may not be true. Make sure they know that proper answers to questions are:

"What?"

"What are you talking about, he's/she's not like that."

"You are wrong."

"That is wrong, he only had 10 wives before."

[Chris_Жанна 11]

"That is wrong, he only had 10 wives before."

[slim 1,530]

While I can understand this tactic, it is a bit underhanded, assuming that they were given solid evidence of a solid relationship. In this particular case, their questioning and accusations of the petitioner may have ended their relationship by causing doubts in the interviewee's mind.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree here. If your fiancee is rattled by this sort of thing, it's quite possible you haven't convinced her that you're good enough yet.

Not saying anyone who is caught in this tactic doesn't have a real relationship, just saying that (and seeing it from the C/O's point of view) if you had the type of relationship where you knew each other well it would be obvious that the monster they were making you out to be was simply not you. But, it's not the C/O's job to determine what type of relationship you have, only that you have a relationship. If they're not convinced it's anything more than "we met on a website, had sex a couple times when he visited and now I'm going to go get the green card" then they don't have to issue a visa. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

If a interviewee is rattled by this tactic, it's obviously not a "solid" relationship and/or the "proof" of the solid relationship isn't being backed-up by the interview. So, get to know your fiancees better!

[baron555 934]

While I can understand this tactic, it is a bit underhanded, assuming that they were given solid evidence of a solid relationship. In this particular case, their questioning and accusations of the petitioner may have ended their relationship by causing doubts in the interviewee's mind.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree here. If your fiancee is rattled by this sort of thing, it's quite possible you haven't convinced her that you're good enough yet.

Not saying anyone who is caught in this tactic doesn't have a real relationship, just saying that (and seeing it from the C/O's point of view) if you had the type of relationship where you knew each other well it would be obvious that the monster they were making you out to be was simply not you. But, it's not the C/O's job to determine what type of relationship you have, only that you have a relationship. If they're not convinced it's anything more than "we met on a website, had sex a couple times when he visited and now I'm going to go get the green card" then they don't have to issue a visa. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

If a interviewee is rattled by this tactic, it's obviously not a "solid" relationship and/or the "proof" of the solid relationship isn't being backed-up by the interview. So, get to know your fiancees better!

You are absolutely correct but never do any of the guides mention that the CO might make up blatently false accusations.

I am sure your SO was not asked, "Did you know that he killed children in the past?"

[Jeff and Tatiana 0]

Well I can see both sides of this and they are there to investigate. However, let me put some more perspective on things a bit.

Here is some legal talk I have uncovered on the Consular Officers Mission or Policy:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In every visa issuance case that requires an approval of a petition, that petition has to be initially sent to the USCIS. The USCIS has the primary responsibility to make decisions in such cases, under law.

DOS / Consular Authority to Revoke or Re-Adjudicate must be Used "Sparingly"

The Department of State (DOS) issued guidance to its consular officers abroad in 2001 to clarify their role in connection with the adjudication of petition-based visas. This memorandum reminds consular officers that the revocation process should only be used "sparingly," and that consular officers should not attempt to re-adjudicate (i.e., reevaluate) petitions.

Furthermore, the guidance states that consular officers should only seek revocation of a petition if they know, or have reason to believe, that the petition approval was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other unlawful means; or that the beneficiary is not entitled to the status conferred by the petition. The guidance also cautions that a petition should not be returned unless the officer uncovers new information that was not available to the USCIS at the time of that petition's approval. Thus, the consular officers abroad are not supposed to second guess the USCIS's assessment of the sufficiency or content of evidence provided.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This being the case, then they need to be doubly sure that they have "NEW" evidence. Not a hunch, not a investigation to "rattle" the fiance'. Granted to uncover new information maybe you do need to shake things up. However, is this practice of lying something that is going to garner them real evidence that the USCIS has not seen? No, I don't think so, all you will do is potentialy lay some doubt on the relationship that is already under a great deal of stress and long distance in most cases. Will you gain real documented evidence of your lie? No, the fiance' will be stunned shocked and confused, but that does not gain the consulate any real proof or documented evidence of fraud. I am not sure the ends justify the means is all I am saying. Further, if a memorandum and policy statement was issued, it is not their job to question the USCIS recomendation, not their job to duplicate efforts and not their job to READJUDICATE the petition. Rather, they are to interview and review the case for NEW evidence and only then make a recomendation to overturn the Primary authority of the USCIS.

Just my two cents. For me, well I am frustrated that Tanya and I are in administrative review. The reason they give is more documentation, then in the next immediate sentence they say the evidence they were needed has been provided. heh, so the documents she took to the interview were sufficient, but now I have to wait some more weeks for them to "review" the case for approval. So I doubt they will recomend to overturn the USCIS decision for approval, but that does not change the fact that there was no new evidence for them to even consider a refusal at the time of the interview as each applicatiant is told to bring the documents Tanya brought with her.

Anyway, I am rambeling now. Happy Holidays to everyone!

-Jeff

[baron555 934]

Well I can see both sides of this and they are there to investigate. However, let me put some more perspective on things a bit.

I understand what you all are saying but did you read the thread that I had linked? In this interview the CO asked about aliases/names that were purposefully and knowingly false to the interviewee. They also made a statement about the petitioner being a monster. ####### is with that?

This is not reviewing the case again and this is not trying to uncover any falsehoods of the relationship. This is more Stokes than anything else.

For my SO they asked her how much money it cost her for the dating website through which we first met. Everyone knows that it is free for the ladies or men; only the men pay (or only those on the petitioner's side).

Then to also ask her how many men did she meet with. What does that have to do about the relationship?

OK OK, so we met on a dating website and met once and this was an attempt to uncover if we had a true relationship; that I can accept and therefore at least the last question makes sense. But to call the Petitioner names?

Never did any of you in the past mention any of these types of questions could be thrown at the interviewee, especially from the Moscow Embassy.

This is why I am making this warning now; things have changed there.

[Chris_Жанна 11]

The hits keep on coming!!! "Did you know that he killed children in the past?" Dude, I seriously lol'ed.

Jeff, No progress yet on your case?

Looks like me and Johnathan and I are next on deck. Hopefully we will have good new to report to the others behind us.

We (Zhanna & I) prepared for any/all line of questioning this week. She knows me and I don't think she will scare easy if the CO tells her I sacrifice baby's to the dark lord satan.

[clueless_in_usa 8]

This is why I am making this warning now; things have changed there.

Everywhere there is always someone who takes his or her job too seriously, and they often want to change things their way.

[Oksana81 0]

Guys, just to let you know the question "how many men you met online? and many men are you "holding" in the US?" are quite old. My friend applied for K-1 visa long time ago, late 90s, and she was asked those questions. I am surprised to hear that they still do.

[1HappyGuy 45]

Good advice for all to be aware of. The question of why the change might be just as simple as to look who is Secretary of State now. I wonder if this woman is out to protect the women of this country from the evils of foreign women. But then, her husband has been known for looking to other women to satisfy his needs.

It seems that some CO's are taking things a little too seriously. They should just confirm the relationship, ask important and significant questions if the conditions warrant. But to purposely ask false or misleading questions is just wrong.

Let's make sure more people are aware of this tactic and maybe start a letter writing campaign if it continues.

This kind of reminds me of the joke question, "Do you beat your wife daily or only occasionally?" There is no right answer for that.

[slim 1,530]

I am sure your SO was not asked, "Did you know that he killed children in the past?"

I don't think she was either, but if they would've made ridiculous suggestions like that, she could've set them straight. The very fact that they were able to convince the fiancee to second-guess the status of her fiance and their relationship is probably viewed as a "success" from an IMBRA standpoint, especially when the petitioner had a prior legal protection order against him. Plain and simply put, it appears she didn't know her fiance well enough to know that he'd never killed children before.

Never did any of you in the past mention any of these types of questions could be thrown at the interviewee, especially from the Moscow Embassy.

This is why I am making this warning now; things have changed there.

My wife went in pre-IMBRA implementation or right around when they started that #######. Either way, they didn't have their "game plan" yet. Since then, I haven't heard anything about it until this post.

Guys, just to let you know the question "how many men you met online? and many men are you "holding" in the US?" are quite old. My friend applied for K-1 visa long time ago, late 90s, and she was asked those questions. I am surprised to hear that they still do.

Yeah, that's pretty common, especially when the folks met on a website.

The question of why the change might be just as simple as to look who is Secretary of State now. I wonder if this woman is out to protect the women of this country from the evils of foreign women. But then, her husband has been known for looking to other women to satisfy his needs.

Secretary Clinton was post-IMBRA and has little to do with this, if anything. Maybe she sent out a directive to "ramp it up" a little, but she's been pretty busy lately so I doubt she did anything like that. Bigger fish to fry.

It seems that some CO's are taking things a little too seriously. They should just confirm the relationship, ask important and significant questions if the conditions warrant. But to purposely ask false or misleading questions is just wrong.

Since we weren't there, I don't know if we can say for sure this is how it went down. Obviously the OP had an issue in the past (whether warranted or not doesn't matter) and was flagged for the "special treatment" via IMBRA. From where I sit, the CO's actions weren't out of line. The mere fact that the fiancee was rattled tells me she wasn't 100% sure that her fiance wouldn't do that sort of thing. That is the very intent of IMBRA.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that's the way it is.

Let's make sure more people are aware of this tactic and maybe start a letter writing campaign if it continues.

I cannot support this because, the way I see it, it wasn't "wrong." To me, they did their job. Did they insinuate the petitioner was something he's not? Maybe. Is that wrong? Maybe. But, the fact that it threw the fiancee, and it "worked" means maybe there was cause for concern in the first place. Even if it's "wrong" for them to do that, and they were out of line, if there's truly a "real, bona-fide relationship" then the couple will work through it and the visa will be, ultimately, issued.

This kind of reminds me of the joke question, "Do you beat your wife daily or only occasionally?" There is no right answer for that.

The right answer is you say never and your wife also says never. If you say never and she says, "well....." then they know something's up. If you both say "occasionally" then they know that's just how you roll in your family! (In this forum though, I think they'd be more successful asking the wives how often they beat their husbands!)

[Waitinggent 2]

I seriously question this idea that if the relationship were strong, that hearing from someone in authority that your "fiance is a monster and that he has used 20 aliases" would not shake up the fiancee. That is pie in the sky. His fiancee is from a different culture, and is naturally going to be less certain that she absolutely knows this man. She probably has never met his family or friends, has never seen him go off to work everyday and return as would normally be the case in most relationships. Certainly "bad" people are often the most crafty at appearing to be what you want them to be, and anybody hearing such a surprise about their fiance would be less than human not to be shaken by this knowledge.

I am sure your SO was not asked, "Did you know that he killed children in the past?"

I don't think she was either, but if they would've made ridiculous suggestions like that, she could've set them straight. The very fact that they were able to convince the fiancee to second-guess the status of her fiance and their relationship is probably viewed as a "success" from an IMBRA standpoint, especially when the petitioner had a prior legal protection order against him. Plain and simply put, it appears she didn't know her fiance well enough to know that he'd never killed children before.

Never did any of you in the past mention any of these types of questions could be thrown at the interviewee, especially from the Moscow Embassy.

This is why I am making this warning now; things have changed there.

My wife went in pre-IMBRA implementation or right around when they started that #######. Either way, they didn't have their "game plan" yet. Since then, I haven't heard anything about it until this post.

Guys, just to let you know the question "how many men you met online? and many men are you "holding" in the US?" are quite old. My friend applied for K-1 visa long time ago, late 90s, and she was asked those questions. I am surprised to hear that they still do.

Yeah, that's pretty common, especially when the folks met on a website.

The question of why the change might be just as simple as to look who is Secretary of State now. I wonder if this woman is out to protect the women of this country from the evils of foreign women. But then, her husband has been known for looking to other women to satisfy his needs.

Secretary Clinton was post-IMBRA and has little to do with this, if anything. Maybe she sent out a directive to "ramp it up" a little, but she's been pretty busy lately so I doubt she did anything like that. Bigger fish to fry.

It seems that some CO's are taking things a little too seriously. They should just confirm the relationship, ask important and significant questions if the conditions warrant. But to purposely ask false or misleading questions is just wrong.

Since we weren't there, I don't know if we can say for sure this is how it went down. Obviously the OP had an issue in the past (whether warranted or not doesn't matter) and was flagged for the "special treatment" via IMBRA. From where I sit, the CO's actions weren't out of line. The mere fact that the fiancee was rattled tells me she wasn't 100% sure that her fiance wouldn't do that sort of thing. That is the very intent of IMBRA.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that's the way it is.

Let's make sure more people are aware of this tactic and maybe start a letter writing campaign if it continues.

I cannot support this because, the way I see it, it wasn't "wrong." To me, they did their job. Did they insinuate the petitioner was something he's not? Maybe. Is that wrong? Maybe. But, the fact that it threw the fiancee, and it "worked" means maybe there was cause for concern in the first place. Even if it's "wrong" for them to do that, and they were out of line, if there's truly a "real, bona-fide relationship" then the couple will work through it and the visa will be, ultimately, issued.

This kind of reminds me of the joke question, "Do you beat your wife daily or only occasionally?" There is no right answer for that.

The right answer is you say never and your wife also says never. If you say never and she says, "well....." then they know something's up. If you both say "occasionally" then they know that's just how you roll in your family! (In this forum though, I think they'd be more successful asking the wives how often they beat their husbands!)

[baron555 934]

And so therefore again, I am only saying to everyone with interviews coming up, make sure you talk with your SO that the CO may make an outlandish comment or question or determination. And, that just because it comes from a US government official, they have every right to say, "You Are Wrong".

Slim, your comments are very valid, but as I stated, never in the 10 months of being on this forum have I ever heard of such behavior or questioning by the Moscow Embassy.'

So you can not justify that just because they are doing this now, that all is normal. If this kind of questioning was occurring before, then it would have been discussed here.

And I know that our case and our relationship and our evidence was sound and good, based on the 10 months of comments from you all on this forum prior to her interview.

If you folks had mentioned this possibility, I would have talked with her about this before.

None the less, only for our case, this coming Monday she will sit on the plane. Come Monday just after noon my time, I will have her in my arms, and me in hers.

We are finished with the Moscow Embassy for good.

[jpetrocxme 0]

And so therefore again, I am only saying to everyone with interviews coming up, make sure you talk with your SO that the CO may make an outlandish comment or question or determination. And, that just because it comes from a US government official, they have every right to say, "You Are Wrong".

Slim, your comments are very valid, but as I stated, never in the 10 months of being on this forum have I ever heard of such behavior or questioning by the Moscow Embassy.'

So you can not justify that just because they are doing this now, that all is normal. If this kind of questioning was occurring before, then it would have been discussed here.

And I know that our case and our relationship and our evidence was sound and good, based on the 10 months of comments from you all on this forum prior to her interview.

If you folks had mentioned this possibility, I would have talked with her about this before.

None the less, only for our case, this coming Monday she will sit on the plane. Come Monday just after noon my time, I will have her in my arms, and me in hers.

We are finished with the Moscow Embassy for good.

My 2 cents..............

Some have posted that the ability to shock the person being interviewed is indicative of her uncertainty. We are forgetthing that she might have sensitivities - as do all of us. If they (CO) pushes anyone's buttons correctly it is possible to have these sensativities manifest themselves. It does not and should not mrsn thst she does not know him.

It is despicable and intollerable that a CO would try to push her buttons with outright false statements.

Just my 2 cents !!!!!

[Darnell 8,479]

While I can understand this tactic, it is a bit underhanded, assuming that they were given solid evidence of a solid relationship. In this particular case, their questioning and accusations of the petitioner may have ended their relationship by causing doubts in the interviewee's mind.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree here. If your fiancee is rattled by this sort of thing, it's quite possible you haven't convinced her that you're good enough yet.

Sorry, it's an attempt to rattle. A VO will make the attempt, but not always.

Happens in China at GUZ, also...

IMO, a VO will smell something in the case file, switch to rattle mode in an attempt to trip her up.

at GUZ, when she's tripped up, usually results in a white slip, NOID.

Sorry to 'pick apart' your reply, but hei.