Thuy's Interview @ HCMC

[luckytxn 2,264]

Technically, they can't deny the visa for a reason which was known to USCIS at the time the petition was approved. This is the theory and purpose of frontloading - to make USCIS aware of the red flags so the consulate can't use them as an excuse to deny.

In Scott's case, they haven't denied the visa yet. They can ask for practically anything they want on the blue slip, even if it's something that's already been submitted. Many people have gotten blue slips for timelines, even though a timeline was already submitted.

If they do ultimately decide to deny the visa and send the petition back to USCIS, and if they cite reasons which were sufficiently covered in the frontloaded evidence, then USCIS will probably just reaffirm the petition. The consulate can play this game as long as they want, unfortunately.

Total bunk. They can deny for anything even if it has been front loaded.This is trying to play a game with the consulate that is ultimately futile. Now it is good to anticipate the red flags and try to confront them to achieve a positive conclusion but a red flag is just that, a red flag. If they have suspicions of fraud then they will go hard to find out if there is fraud and no amount of front loading is gonna stop that.

Now a long time ago Scott came in and told us they were both married when they met and divorced their spouses and hooked up. This is a huge red flag. In fact much fraud has gone through this consulate by people that have divorced their spouses and married to get the visa only to conveniently divorce when the initial green card comes and get together with their former spouses. The front loading that is trying to overcome this huge red flag is gonna be seen to the CO's as just that, an attempt to overcome a suspicious visa application.

There is a minimum amount of things that are asked of us to get a visa that we have to send in. So when the CO's get this unasked for additional items coming in they will wonder why maybe but in the long run they will look at the items that are supposed to sent and the additional things last if at all. There has never been a directive ever that I have seen that said that if anything that is submitted that makes a red flag now not having to be addressed. This a red herring that has been thrown out here for everyone. If this was true then any and all red flags can be ERASED and everyone can get a pink and a visa at will.

Now look at it as a CO will as we are fond to quote here so often. A huge red flag is developed because two married people meet and divorce and now apply for a visa. The CO sees this and then sees front loaded items trying to address the issue. They do not know the two at all and now they are going to have to say, "drats they have addressed the issue by front loading so my suspicions have to be put on the back burner." Afraid not.

These are bureaucratic types that have to go through a certain process to do their jobs. They have no choice in doing so as iy is their job and what they are expected to do. Trust me no one has found the magical loophole here that ensures we all get a visa easily.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Total bunk. They can deny for anything even if it has been front loaded.This is trying to play a game with the consulate that is ultimately futile. Now it is good to anticipate the red flags and try to confront them to achieve a positive conclusion but a red flag is just that, a red flag. If they have suspicions of fraud then they will go hard to find out if there is fraud and no amount of front loading is gonna stop that.

Now a long time ago Scott came in and told us they were both married when they met and divorced their spouses and hooked up. This is a huge red flag. In fact much fraud has gone through this consulate by people that have divorced their spouses and married to get the visa only to conveniently divorce when the initial green card comes and get together with their former spouses. The front loading that is trying to overcome this huge red flag is gonna be seen to the CO's as just that, an attempt to overcome a suspicious visa application.

There is a minimum amount of things that are asked of us to get a visa that we have to send in. So when the CO's get this unasked for additional items coming in they will wonder why maybe but in the long run they will look at the items that are supposed to sent and the additional things last if at all. There has never been a directive ever that I have seen that said that if anything that is submitted that makes a red flag now not having to be addressed. This a red herring that has been thrown out here for everyone. If this was true then any and all red flags can be ERASED and everyone can get a pink and a visa at will.

Now look at it as a CO will as we are fond to quote here so often. A huge red flag is developed because two married people meet and divorce and now apply for a visa. The CO sees this and then sees front loaded items trying to address the issue. They do not know the two at all and now they are going to have to say, "drats they have addressed the issue by front loading so my suspicions have to be put on the back burner." Afraid not.

These are bureaucratic types that have to go through a certain process to do their jobs. They have no choice in doing so as iy is their job and what they are expected to do. Trust me no one has found the magical loophole here that ensures we all get a visa easily.

It's not a loophole. It's the law. The consulate has very little leeway in denying a visa. They can't just pull a reason out of a hat. The authority to approve a visa petition lies with USCIS. The presumption in the law is that a beneficiary is eligible for a visa if USCIS approves the petition. This puts the burden on the consulate to find a reason under 8 CFR to classify the beneficiary as inadmissible.

The consulate certainly could deny a visa, citing a reason which was revealed in the initial petition. If USCIS is willing to admit that they screwed up, and never should have approved the petition with the cited reason having been revealed, then USCIS will issue a notice of intent to revoke. Otherwise, USCIS is simply going to reaffirm the petition.

Petitioner and beneficiary being married at the time they met each other is not cited anywhere in the INA, 8 CFR, or FAM as a class of inadmissibility. This very well might send up flares at the consulate, but they can't cite it as a reason to deny. If they could, then Scott's fiancee would have gotten a white sheet at the interview. Instead, they're digging for something they CAN use as a reason to deny, and which they believe will result in the petition approval being revoked. Since USCIS is not likely to admit that they were wrong, the consulate is hard pressed to come up with new evidence.

I wasn't implying that simply listing your red flags in the petition will guarantee an approval. If you did this without also providing a sufficient explanation for each red flag then you'd only be telling the consulate where to focus their investigation.

[luckytxn 2,264]

No the USCIS is there to ok that the American citizen is eligible to petition for a visa for a non citizen. The USCIS has only to see that the citizen is eligible such as they have met in the last two years. The citizen is eligible to marry. Can financially support the non citizen. Writes a check for the fee. It is all pretty much the job of the USCIS to check out the citizen. If the citizen meets the very basic requirements and pays the fee then it gets sents on to the country where the non citizen abodes for further processing. The USCIS's job is done up to that point until the embassy or consulate approves or denies the application. The front loading you are doing is for the benefit of the consulate in our case and hope it gets forwarded and they take the time to peruse the material and take it into account. The additional items means nothing to the USCIS at all as the extra material is not even needed by them to approve the forwarding of the application.

Now we have all had to apply for visa's now. We looked at the guides and downloaded the forms and got the material they wanted just to approve the visa application. We know that there are a few things only really they need to ok the forwarding of the application. The only frontloading that the USCIS may need to approve the forwarding is something that may make them deny to forward the application and that is the couple have not met within the past two years or the citizen can't support the non citizen and so on. USCIS has nothing to do with the red flags that crop up in potential fraud that is usual in the country where the non citizen resides. Their only job is that the citizen can apply for a visa in the first case and pays a fee.

[luckytxn 2,264]

It's not a loophole. It's the law. The consulate has very little leeway in denying a visa. They can't just pull a reason out of a hat. The authority to approve a visa petition lies with USCIS. The presumption in the law is that a beneficiary is eligible for a visa if USCIS approves the petition. This puts the burden on the consulate to find a reason under 8 CFR to classify the beneficiary as inadmissible.

The consulate certainly could deny a visa, citing a reason which was revealed in the initial petition. If USCIS is willing to admit that they screwed up, and never should have approved the petition with the cited reason having been revealed, then USCIS will issue a notice of intent to revoke. Otherwise, USCIS is simply going to reaffirm the petition.

Petitioner and beneficiary being married at the time they met each other is not cited anywhere in the INA, 8 CFR, or FAM as a class of inadmissibility. This very well might send up flares at the consulate, but they can't cite it as a reason to deny. If they could, then Scott's fiancee would have gotten a white sheet at the interview. Instead, they're digging for something they CAN use as a reason to deny, and which they believe will result in the petition approval being revoked. Since USCIS is not likely to admit that they were wrong, the consulate is hard pressed to come up with new evidence.

I wasn't implying that simply listing your red flags in the petition will guarantee an approval. If you did this without also providing a sufficient explanation for each red flag then you'd only be telling the consulate where to focus their investigation.

Now we all know that a lot of fraud goes through this consulate and one of the frauds has been getting divorced and marrying and getting a visa and then after arriving to divorce and remarry the former spouses. This happens a lot at this consulate. It might be a big thing at another country but I am sure each consulate and embassy has unique scams and games they watch out for. No manual can say that one must deny if couples divorce and then together and apply for visa's. No manual will say that denials will happen for each unique countries circumstances as this stuff is fluid and changing always. But I can assure you that the manual tells them they have to investigate any suspicion of fraud and can deny if they feel there is fraud going on. They do need to note the reasons and of course they have their own unique ways of denying a visa. I am sure that a visa denial in another country will be usually denied a different way than any other country.

The USCIS's job is done for now until the consulate has done their job. The front loading that is being done to make a more positive case for the consulate means nothing to the USCIS.

[luckytxn 2,264]

It's not a loophole. It's the law. The consulate has very little leeway in denying a visa. They can't just pull a reason out of a hat. The authority to approve a visa petition lies with USCIS. The presumption in the law is that a beneficiary is eligible for a visa if USCIS approves the petition. This puts the burden on the consulate to find a reason under 8 CFR to classify the beneficiary as inadmissible.

The consulate certainly could deny a visa, citing a reason which was revealed in the initial petition. If USCIS is willing to admit that they screwed up, and never should have approved the petition with the cited reason having been revealed, then USCIS will issue a notice of intent to revoke. Otherwise, USCIS is simply going to reaffirm the petition.

Petitioner and beneficiary being married at the time they met each other is not cited anywhere in the INA, 8 CFR, or FAM as a class of inadmissibility. This very well might send up flares at the consulate, but they can't cite it as a reason to deny. If they could, then Scott's fiancee would have gotten a white sheet at the interview. Instead, they're digging for something they CAN use as a reason to deny, and which they believe will result in the petition approval being revoked. Since USCIS is not likely to admit that they were wrong, the consulate is hard pressed to come up with new evidence.

I wasn't implying that simply listing your red flags in the petition will guarantee an approval. If you did this without also providing a sufficient explanation for each red flag then you'd only be telling the consulate where to focus their investigation.

I am curious how you come by the there is a presumption that a beneficiary is eligible just because citizen has put in a application? The USCIS is a United states entity and can't have a data bank of every citizen of each and every country. They only have data on citizens of the United states and maybe if the beneficiary has came here before and been denied or banned or over stayed. In most cases the USCIS has no knowledge of the beneficiary at all to presume they are eligible to receive a visa.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Now we all know that a lot of fraud goes through this consulate and one of the frauds has been getting divorced and marrying and getting a visa and then after arriving to divorce and remarry the former spouses. This happens a lot at this consulate. It might be a big thing at another country but I am sure each consulate and embassy has unique scams and games they watch out for. No manual can say that one must deny if couples divorce and then together and apply for visa's. No manual will say that denials will happen for each unique countries circumstances as this stuff is fluid and changing always. But I can assure you that the manual tells them they have to investigate any suspicion of fraud and can deny if they feel there is fraud going on. They do need to note the reasons and of course they have their own unique ways of denying a visa. I am sure that a visa denial in another country will be usually denied a different way than any other country.

The USCIS's job is done for now until the consulate has done their job. The front loading that is being done to make a more positive case for the consulate means nothing to the USCIS.

Note: I saw your other post while I was writing this. The first paragraph should answer your question.

Immigration is the job of USCIS, start to end. The consulate's job is to issue visas. An approved petition is not proof that the beneficiary is eligible for that visa, but the law presumes that the beneficiary is eligible if the petition is approved. It's up to the consulate to prove otherwise. If the consulate cannot prove that the beneficiary is ineligible, then they MUST issue the visa. They have only these two options - issue the visa, or send the petition back to USCIS with evidence that the beneficiary is inadmissible.

Consulate's don't decide immigration cases. Again, that's the job of USCIS. If the consulates could decide the case, then the case would be dead as soon as the CO handed out the white slip. But that's not what happens. If the consulate believes they have evidence of visa fraud that would make the beneficiary inadmissible, the consulate will send the petition and new evidence back to the USCIS with the recommendation that the petition approval be revoked. The ultimate decision about the outcome of the case belongs to USCIS. If USCIS keeps reaffirming the petition, then it's going to keep going back to the consulate until they approve the visa.

The State Department gives clear guidelines to consular officers. As you say, they are compelled to investigate fraud if they suspect it, but they cannot use the suspicion alone as a reason to deny a visa. They need to prove it with evidence.

Ok, back to the real world - the consulate in HCM denies visas all the time, citing the flimsiest of evidence. In many cases, they even refuse to accept evidence that would contradict their conclusions, or ignore evidence that's been submitted. This is, unfortunately, the reality of dealing with a consulate in a high fraud country like Vietnam. In order for these tactics to succeed, they have to make it look like their evidence of fraud is compelling. If they can't, then USCIS will reaffirm the petition, and they'll end up having to deal with it again when the petition comes back to the consulate. Frontloading the petition with evidence that adequately explains the red flags will make it more difficult for the consulate to make a compelling case that the red flag is sufficient evidence to deny the visa. It is an opportunity to make a preemptive argument against the consulate before they've even seen the case. When the petition goes back to USCIS, the consulate can't magically make that frontloaded evidence disappear. This leaves them with no option except to find something which wasn't addressed in the petition.

It should be obvious from the above paragraph that simply listing the red flags with the petition isn't going to stop the consulate in any way. In fact, it gives them a bullet list of things to focus on. In order to be of any value, the frontloaded evidence has to explain each red flag sufficiently to overcome the "reasonable person" standard that the consulate claims to apply. If the consulate is going to say that a "reasonable person" would conclude that the relationship was a sham based on a particular red flag, then the frontloaded evidence has to explain why a "reasonable person" would not come to that conclusion if they knew the mitigating circumstances.

Now, that doesn't mean that frontloading evidence is going to stop a consulate like HCM from digging deeply for evidence they can use to deny. The consulate isn't necessarily going to believe all of that frontloaded evidence, and they may try very hard to prove it's false. Scott already said they did this in his case when they called his house and asked to speak with his ex-wife. They also did this when they grilled Thuy for an hour. However, they can't claim that frontloaded evidence is false unless they have some evidence to prove that claim.

[feelinglucky 1]

No worries.. all of the documents are going to be ready for them next week... exactly what they are asking for in the blue slip and very detailed in addressing each of the 4 items...A government certified copy of a Ho Khau should be sufficient proof of someones address right? and for my ex we have the quit claim of our old house from the clerk, along with a recent credit card bill, her property tax bill and an affidavit from me and two other people saying we dont live together and how long.

Timeline is a done deal and the police cert is no worries.. it was missing some info and just needs to be fixed and stamped..

There is no mention of lack of proof of bonafide...

Scott, In an ideal world everyone would play the game straight up. However, many members cases were screwed by the CO. Of course they didnt mention any lack of proof of bonafide, the CO refused to review evidence that Thuy brought . So later they can legally state what they saw at that time of the interveiw. They will save that statement if they decide to refuse the visa in the white slip. By not mentioning it in the Blue slip, and if the USC is not aware that they have the option to submit additional proof, and did not. The CO will use her TRUMP card and deny on that reason and any other reason she can fabricate legally. Try to read between the lines of the blue slip. If you think just by submitting the 4 items,and everything will all be al right, Then I wish I had your confidence. I had mentioned early to submit a cover letter/rebuttal. I know that your dont have a right to submit a rebuttal. But i suggested that your cover letter is written in the form of a rebuttal. In HCMC USC have to be creative in how we get stuff into our file. HCM play by their own set of rules, so we must adjust accordingly. Good Luck

[luckytxn 2,264]

Scott, In an ideal world everyone would play the game straight up. However, many members cases were screwed by the CO. Of course they didnt mention any lack of proof of bonafide, the CO refused to review evidence that Thuy brought . So later they can legally state what they saw at that time of the interveiw. They will save that statement if they decide to refuse the visa in the white slip. By not mentioning it in the Blue slip, and if the USC is not aware that they have the option to submit additional proof, and did not. The CO will use her TRUMP card and deny on that reason and any other reason she can fabricate legally. Try to read between the lines of the blue slip. If you think just by submitting the 4 items,and everything will all be al right, Then I wish I had your confidence. I had mentioned early to submit a cover letter/rebuttal. I know that your dont have a right to submit a rebuttal. But i suggested that your cover letter is written in the form of a rebuttal. In HCMC USC have to be creative in how we get stuff into our file. HCM play by their own set of rules, so we must adjust accordingly. Good Luck

I wouldn't assume that a white card is coming. I think a pink will come but they will have to jump through a lot of hoops. From the very beginning it was going to be tough and not just because of the both being married and then divorcing the spouses to be together. I actually think they will get a pink eventually but need perseverence and patience. I know that Scott has been very proactive and hit this at all angles and tried to overcome the flags and doing that is what will get the pink at sometime. Not doing all he has done would have probably gotten a green or a white.

[ScottThuy 140]

Having gone through the blue slip word by word...

The first papragraph notes the 221g .. in that paragraph.. the standard first paragraph for all blue slips.. notes that the reason is either a lack of proof of bonafide or failure to present required documents.

The following paragraphs attached explain the documents needed... others have seen proof of bonafide listed and from what Thuy said.. they saw the proof she had, but only lookedat the photos.. she did look at all of the photos.. and she asked about specific dates and places for the past year... example.. during his third trip what day were you in vung tau? what were the exact dates he arrived and departed for each trip... while the CO looked at my passport pages and visa copies...

Given the previous visa fraud cases that involved a USC divorcing and marrying a VNC for $, they assume that is the case until we thoroughly prove otherwise... guilty until proven innocent when it comes to visas... on my end it is really easy to show that proof.. on her end its not so easy given the VN system... We will have a copy of her ex's family Ho Khau that shows him residing there.. the local government official will take the Ho Khau that is provided by the family and make a copy, and certify it to be true and real.. aside from that, there is not much proof of a VNC's address that can be provided without having that person provide it... that wonthappen given that he has threatened to attack her as recently as 6 months ago.

The blue slip specifically requests proof of his address, not proof that they reside apart... it would be easy to provide affidavits that he does not live with her and never has, but that would be outside of the scope of the paragraph and not directly address the blue slip as written...

I have two choices.. I can address them based on the exact wording of the items listed(proof of ex's address)... or I can read between the lines that they want proof that neither of us are with our ex's...

what do you guys think when it comes to her ex's family's Ho Khau as evidence of current address? any ideas of other ways to show it without requiring contact with him? some here have used affidavits, but that would require someone that knows him to write the affidavit and he does not live in the same area.. they dont share common friends or associates... we'll see if the government office in the province has any additional ideas...

for each of the ex's we will provide a cover sheet from each of us that is notarized stating that we don't reside together, listing and explaining the evidence provided as proof attached. this may be what feeling lucky is talking about...

Edited January 27, 2010 by ScottThuy

[lindal24 1]

No worries.. all of the documents are going to be ready for them next week... exactly what they are asking for in the blue slip and very detailed in addressing each of the 4 items...A government certified copy of a Ho Khau should be sufficient proof of someones address right? and for my ex we have the quit claim of our old house from the clerk, along with a recent credit card bill, her property tax bill and an affidavit from me and two other people saying we dont live together and how long.

Timeline is a done deal and the police cert is no worries.. it was missing some info and just needs to be fixed and stamped..

There is no mention of lack of proof of bonafide...

In my opinion, I don't think that the Ho Khau is going to be enough. You may want to consider affidavits from family members and friends in the neighborhood. A VERY good source would be the neighborhood watch leader....

[lindal24 1]

Having gone through the blue slip word by word...

The first papragraph notes the 221g .. in that paragraph.. the standard first paragraph for all blue slips.. notes that the reason is either a lack of proof of bonafide or failure to present required documents.

The following paragraphs attached explain the documents needed... others have seen proof of bonafide listed and from what Thuy said.. they saw the proof she had, but only lookedat the photos.. she did look at all of the photos.. and she asked about specific dates and places for the past year... example.. during his third trip what day were you in vung tau? what were the exact dates he arrived and departed for each trip... while the CO looked at my passport pages and visa copies...

Given the previous visa fraud cases that involved a USC divorcing and marrying a VNC for $, they assume that is the case until we thoroughly prove otherwise... guilty until proven innocent when it comes to visas... on my end it is really easy to show that proof.. on her end its not so easy given the VN system... We will have a copy of her ex's family Ho Khau that shows him residing there.. the local government official will take the Ho Khau that is provided by the family and make a copy, and certify it to be true and real.. aside from that, there is not much proof of a VNC's address that can be provided without having that person provide it... that wonthappen given that he has threatened to attack her as recently as 6 months ago.

The blue slip specifically requests proof of his address, not proof that they reside apart... it would be easy to provide affidavits that he does not live with her and never has, but that would be outside of the scope of the paragraph and not directly address the blue slip as written...

I have two choices.. I can address them based on the exact wording of the items listed(proof of ex's address)... or I can read between the lines that they want proof that neither of us are with our ex's...

what do you guys think when it comes to her ex's family's Ho Khau as evidence of current address? any ideas of other ways to show it without requiring contact with him? some here have used affidavits, but that would require someone that knows him to write the affidavit and he does not live in the same area.. they dont share common friends or associates... we'll see if the government office in the province has any additional ideas...

for each of the ex's we will provide a cover sheet from each of us that is notarized stating that we don't reside together, listing and explaining the evidence provided as proof attached. this may be what feeling lucky is talking about...

Looking at your blue slip, it seems to an ordinary, reasonable person (me) that the consulate believes your ex-wife is an immigrant?? And on top of that, maybe an immigrant from VN? Odd...

[vietazn 1]

Total bunk. They can deny for anything even if it has been front loaded.

People starting the process should be aware of this.

[ScottThuy 140]

Looking at your blue slip, it seems to an ordinary, reasonable person (me) that the consulate believes your ex-wife is an immigrant?? And on top of that, maybe an immigrant from VN? Odd...

She is far from VN... I wonder if that is a normal inclusion in the request for previous spouse info...

Thuy does not live near her ex's family and does not know anyone in that area... her ex works far from his family home and actually lives on the road for his construction job... hard to believe that POS is in some way keeping us apart... I think we will have to add some affidavits showing they don't live together fromher neighbors and her local watch leader with the Ho Khau from his family

[toddandhien 2]

Having gone through the blue slip word by word...

The first papragraph notes the 221g .. in that paragraph.. the standard first paragraph for all blue slips.. notes that the reason is either a lack of proof of bonafide or failure to present required documents.

The following paragraphs attached explain the documents needed... others have seen proof of bonafide listed and from what Thuy said.. they saw the proof she had, but only lookedat the photos.. she did look at all of the photos.. and she asked about specific dates and places for the past year... example.. during his third trip what day were you in vung tau? what were the exact dates he arrived and departed for each trip... while the CO looked at my passport pages and visa copies...

Given the previous visa fraud cases that involved a USC divorcing and marrying a VNC for $, they assume that is the case until we thoroughly prove otherwise... guilty until proven innocent when it comes to visas... on my end it is really easy to show that proof.. on her end its not so easy given the VN system... We will have a copy of her ex's family Ho Khau that shows him residing there.. the local government official will take the Ho Khau that is provided by the family and make a copy, and certify it to be true and real.. aside from that, there is not much proof of a VNC's address that can be provided without having that person provide it... that wonthappen given that he has threatened to attack her as recently as 6 months ago.

The blue slip specifically requests proof of his address, not proof that they reside apart... it would be easy to provide affidavits that he does not live with her and never has, but that would be outside of the scope of the paragraph and not directly address the blue slip as written...

I have two choices.. I can address them based on the exact wording of the items listed(proof of ex's address)... or I can read between the lines that they want proof that neither of us are with our ex's...

what do you guys think when it comes to her ex's family's Ho Khau as evidence of current address? any ideas of other ways to show it without requiring contact with him? some here have used affidavits, but that would require someone that knows him to write the affidavit and he does not live in the same area.. they dont share common friends or associates... we'll see if the government office in the province has any additional ideas...

for each of the ex's we will provide a cover sheet from each of us that is notarized stating that we don't reside together, listing and explaining the evidence provided as proof attached. this may be what feeling lucky is talking about...

Scott, I am not an expert on Ho Khaus but when flipping through the Ho Khau for my wife's family that she had with her on interview day, I was struck by the fact that things were not dated and the fact that when my wife moved to HCM for 2 years before we met that she was still listed in the family Ho Khau as if she still lived in her home village. She never was listed in the Ho Khau that her sister maintains in the city though she lived there for 2 years. I suspect that the local police station might have records of his residence and dates, but I am particlularly suspicious of using a Ho Khau to prove anything other than the names of family members with whom you (at least at one time) reside.

And, if I can surmise this, the Consulate must be all over it. Might be why they ask for evidence of his current address. How can you prove that in VN? You can't.

[ScottThuy 140]

People starting the process should be aware of this.

they can send the petition back to USCIS for anything, but USCIS will look at the case and if the evidence was frontloaded it would likely be sent back to the consulate reafirmed.