UPDATE on Casa Interview

[sachinky 465]

Given that not all consulate have such 'fraud' warnings posted on their website, it is good reason to believe that Casablanca sees a unusual number of fraud cases.

[Always+Forever 7]

If you don't mind me asking, how long after you started chatting did the "I love you" talk start? Just trying to get an idea what the CO considered to be too soon.

It was about 3 mths, but the problem i just realized (after reviewing the conversations we turned in) they didn't have the first 3 mths of conversations to see how the relationship started, because my computer died.

Monica

[Mithra 1,185]

This may sound strange but has anyone considered that maybe giving the CO's too much access to personal info (chats esp. early chats with talk of love) may hurt their case? I know that most people would think that mushy chat logs would be solid evidence of a real thing but I have to disagree. Coming on too strong in the first few months of chatting may look highly suspect. Personally, I would opt out of adding those types of evidence. I would stick with more concrete evidence. Sometimes less is more.

[Always+Forever 7]

So, that was a red flag for them.

I wonder why he wouldn't have told you that before. It would have saved you a bunch of time guessing!

Did you ask him how he answered the CO saying he could get a visa through other options?

Hicham said: I told him that I know that there are fakers but our case is true so that we will start everything from zero, meant to him that we will move to the second step marriage

[Golden Gate 530]

The COs ARE trained in psychology in order to any detect signs of insincerity during the interview via body language, eye movement, and speech patterns, etc.

Sure. However I am still skeptical of this. I guess it's because my Dad is a psychologist. I tend to want to look more deeply for reasons for things. Here is an interesting article on a related subject: http://www.pnas.org/.../35/12629.long. Certainly, one has to know a person more deeply to be able to tell if they are lying or not, because you don't know their particular socialization. I remember reading a lot about it when Scott Peterson was in the news. There were psychologists profiting off of him by writing about how you could tell he is lying. Also, I get a lot of training on how to be a better teacher, but I would have to say that it is through experience that I gain the most knowledge. Also, I have to deal with a lot of high risk students with very devious behavior, ad nauseum, but I still must handle them with care and treat them respectfully as human beings, even if I am sick of their behavior.

Also, I found the articles in the NYTimes that were posted lately very informational on how some people come across to Stokes people.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Golden Gate

[Always+Forever 7]

Sure. However I am still skeptical of this. I guess it's because my Dad is a psychologist. I tend to want to look more deeply for reasons for things. Here is an interesting article on a related subject: http://www.pnas.org/.../35/12629.long. Certainly, one has to know a person more deeply to be able to tell if they are lying or not, because you don't know their particular socialization. I remember reading a lot about it when Scott Peterson was in the news. There were psychologists profiting off of him by writing about how you could tell he is lying. Also, I get a lot of training on how to be a better teacher, but I would have to say that it is through experience that I gain the most knowledge. Also, I have to deal with a lot of high risk students with very devious behavior, ad nauseum, but I still must handle them with care and treat them respectfully as human beings, even if I am sick of their behavior.

Also, I found the articles in the NYTimes that were posted lately very informational on how some people come across to Stokes people.

LOL...just breathe everybody As far as our case goes...Hicham doesn't know how to lie...lol...if something comes to his mind he says it...there isn't really a filter...can be a very good thing & a very bad thing...lol

Monica

[msheesha 548]

This may sound strange but has anyone considered that maybe giving the CO's too much access to personal info (chats esp. early chats with talk of love) may hurt their case? I know that most people would think that mushy chat logs would be solid evidence of a real thing but I have to disagree. Coming on too strong in the first few months of chatting may look highly suspect. Personally, I would opt out of adding those types of evidence. I would stick with more concrete evidence. Sometimes less is more.

I absolutely agree about the mushy chat logs.

Sure. However I am still skeptical of this. I guess it's because my Dad is a psychologist. I tend to want to look more deeply for reasons for things. Here is an interesting article on a related subject: http://www.pnas.org/.../35/12629.long. Certainly, one has to know a person more deeply to be able to tell if they are lying or not, because you don't know their particular socialization. I remember reading a lot about it when Scott Peterson was in the news. There were psychologists profiting off of him by writing about how you could tell he is lying. Also, I get a lot of training on how to be a better teacher, but I would have to say that it is through experience that I gain the most knowledge. Also, I have to deal with a lot of high risk students with very devious behavior, ad nauseum, but I still must handle them with care and treat them respectfully as human beings, even if I am sick of their behavior.

Also, I found the articles in the NYTimes that were posted lately very informational on how some people come across to Stokes people.

The link didn't work for me.

[Golden Gate 530]

The link didn't work for me.

Let me try again:

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/35/12629.long

[Carrie1978 2]

This warning about romance fraud is posted on their website. people going thru casa should be aware of it and be able to address it convincingly in the interview. i dont think it means an automatic denial, but the consulate considers it, otherwise they wouldn't put it as a warning on their website.

http://casablanca.usconsulate.gov/marriage_requirements.html

Thanks for the link- this wasn't there when I got married in 2007

[msheesha 548]

Thanks for the link- this wasn't there when I got married in 2007

i think they posted it sometime in the past year.

[msheesha 548]

Thanks. The link worked this time. Not really sure how it correlates to the discussion; it's interesting though.

[Golden Gate 530]

Thanks. The link worked this time. Not really sure how it correlates to the discussion; it's interesting though.

It talks about perception and visualization. When someone talks about how to determine if someone is lying based on where they turn their eyes, that is a form of visualization. The theory is that if you look to the left when you say something, you are possibly lying because looking left is using the right side of your brain and accessing certain mental capacities, supposedly. They are saying you are accessing the part of your brain that creates images, rather than accessing true images - the right side, which is your visual brain. But, they are doing research all of the time on the brain and finding out that things aren't so cut and dry. What this article says is that there are many factors that determine a person's perception of things. The fact is that people are socialized in many different ways and so how they look at things and even their mannerisms are not going to be standardized like some training on lying leads you to think. Even what some cultures think is a lie, is not considered a lie in another culture. Just imagine how you think differently than your SO. How they interpret what you say is probably totally different than how you would interpret what you say. Everyone has a slightly different bent on reality. This mental variation is going to express itself in your physical being. So how can someone who barely knows you, determine the genuineness of your relationship with someone else through observing you in such a bureaucratic manner? What they end up doing is profiling you based on certain factors. Look at the article in the NYTimes about the couple who have been married for 17 years and still the government hasn't approved his visa and he might be deported. It is ridiculous. They are basing their decision on all these supposed factors they consider from a check list. They are checking boxes, but they aren't looking at the real relationship of the couple. To me, that is a robot doing the job. I just want these CO's scrutinized the way they are scrutinizing us. After all, we pay them to do their jobs. I think they are capable of handling people more delicately and still be professional. In fact, it would make them more professional.

[Crossed_fingers 128]

This may sound strange but has anyone considered that maybe giving the CO's too much access to personal info (chats esp. early chats with talk of love) may hurt their case? I know that most people would think that mushy chat logs would be solid evidence of a real thing but I have to disagree. Coming on too strong in the first few months of chatting may look highly suspect. Personally, I would opt out of adding those types of evidence. I would stick with more concrete evidence. Sometimes less is more.

I completely agree. I plan on providing to the consulate: 1. screenshots of my inbox to show the quantity, dates, and subject lines of emails from my fiance, 2. a log of all of our calls, chats, etc. to show the duration and date, 3. maybe 3 or 4 sample emails just to show that we keep each other up-to-date on our lives, and 4. maybe 15 pages of IM's scattered throughout the last year, samples to show that we actually talk, but nothing too racy or mushy. I was planning on mostly providing small talk or day-to-day chatter, and if there's anything I think the consulate might interpret out of context I was going to redact it. Case in point, my fiance and I started JOKINGLY giving each other love-talk when we were flirting but definitely not actually involved or a real couple or actually meaning it. It was flirty but not serious, and I don't want the consulate to see it in print and conclude that he was making life-long promises to me at a stage when we actually still considered each other friends. Is there any reason why this would be a bad idea? Also, doesn't Casablanca sometimes send men home after the interview and request more information, namely email and chat records? If that happens to us, then I guess it's out of our hands...although unless someone tells me otherwise, I'd still probably redact with a black marker, even if they request that I provide more pages. But my plan is to go heavy on pictures, perhaps get letters from family on both sides attesting to and approving of the relationship, and to go fairly light on emails and especially IM print-outs. I think it's great if a couple can prove that they talk for hours at a time everyday, but handing over the full print-outs leaves a lot of room for misunderstandings.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I haven't even filed the I-129F yet. I can't say which way is better. I can certainly see the other side, the argument that giving everything over shows you have nothing to hide. It's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't, either way.

[Always+Forever 7]

I completely agree. I plan on providing to the consulate: 1. screenshots of my inbox to show the quantity, dates, and subject lines of emails from my fiance, 2. a log of all of our calls, chats, etc. to show the duration and date, 3. maybe 3 or 4 sample emails just to show that we keep each other up-to-date on our lives, and 4. maybe 15 pages of IM's scattered throughout the last year, samples to show that we actually talk, but nothing too racy or mushy. I was planning on mostly providing small talk or day-to-day chatter, and if there's anything I think the consulate might interpret out of context I was going to redact it. Case in point, my fiance and I started JOKINGLY giving each other love-talk when we were flirting but definitely not actually involved or a real couple or actually meaning it. It was flirty but not serious, and I don't want the consulate to see it in print and conclude that he was making life-long promises to me at a stage when we actually still considered each other friends. Is there any reason why this would be a bad idea? Also, doesn't Casablanca sometimes send men home after the interview and request more information, namely email and chat records? If that happens to us, then I guess it's out of our hands...although unless someone tells me otherwise, I'd still probably redact with a black marker, even if they request that I provide more pages. But my plan is to go heavy on pictures, perhaps get letters from family on both sides attesting to and approving of the relationship, and to go fairly light on emails and especially IM print-outs. I think it's great if a couple can prove that they talk for hours at a time everyday, but handing over the full print-outs leaves a lot of room for misunderstandings.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I haven't even filed the I-129F yet. I can't say which way is better. I can certainly see the other side, the argument that giving everything over shows you have nothing to hide. It's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't, either way.

Yeah...i know what u mean...kind of regreting sending him with the nearly 300 pgs of conversations for the interview...but at the same time it sounds like their reason for the denial is that we loved eachother too much too soon...who can decide what is too soon??? Our first email was in January....the first conversations i had to give them weren't until beginning of May, so of course by then we were getting more serious about eachother...why else would we still be talking to eachother. I keep reading about havingto prove what they give as a reason for the denial as not being a good enough reason, but how do u do that when the proof is gone with a dead computer??? I really don't know...i'm just praying that the Senator's office can get it stopped & turned around.

Monica

[Crossed_fingers 128]

Yeah...i know what u mean...kind of regreting sending him with the nearly 300 pgs of conversations for the interview...but at the same time it sounds like their reason for the denial is that we loved eachother too much too soon...who can decide what is too soon??? Our first email was in January....the first conversations i had to give them weren't until beginning of May, so of course by then we were getting more serious about eachother...why else would we still be talking to eachother. I keep reading about havingto prove what they give as a reason for the denial as not being a good enough reason, but how do u do that when the proof is gone with a dead computer??? I really don't know...i'm just praying that the Senator's office can get it stopped & turned around.

Monica

I'm so sorry, Monica, that just sucks. The CO's seem so unpredictable, I hope this doesn't happen but I could imagine coming back on here in 6 months or so reporting that my plan of giving just a few innocuous samples backfired and they rejected us for not having enough evidence. Who knows! I also had a computer die early on in our chats, though I didn't lose as many as you did, less than a full month.

I understand that there is a lot of fraud and a lot of broken hearts coming out of Casa, but I really wonder if that percentage of relationships is "worth" all of the denials. I don't know how many of the fraudulent men who get entrance in the country otherwise behave as contributing, law-abiding members of society, versus how many end up getting government benefits that are never reimbursed, or commit crimes. But unless there's some greater societal impact of a few bad apples getting through, I personally would prefer that the government let women make their own mistakes and not be in the business of judging the validity of the relationship. Maybe if there's some grossly obvious "there is no way any person in the world except her thinks this is real" case, maybe. But if it's two people who have been living together for months and talking for a year, who share a common language????