Guilty until proven innocent...

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Do you perceive the visa interview process to be guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty?

[john_and_marlene 162]

Do you perceive the visa interview process to be guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty?

It is the nature of immigration that you must prove your eligibility.

[vartan 0]

Speak of the devil Uling has surfaced.. been a while since saw your name in a thread.. I personally think its ineligible until proven eligible.. not guilty..

Kinds like a job interview.. you send your resume they may like it but want to meet you in person.

[ceriserose 1]

I don't believe it's a case of guilt or innocence. Submit an application and if you meet the criteria, you "win". Not so much different from a lot of other situations in life.

[Dean iWait 0]

Remember the USCIS has approved you. The CO is insructed NOT to readjudicate the case. They should simply be confirming what USCIS has already confirmed. Unless they find negative information that was not avaiable to USCIS at the time of approval and you have a genuine relationship you should get the visa.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

It's an analogy PEOPLE... I'm well aware that it's not a guilty or innocent process. Work with me... Gssss!!!

[john_and_marlene 162]

I try to never act like a lemming

[Madame-Butterfly 0]

up to their discreptency,...their decision,....you have to prove to them that its a ligit relationship

dont worry, you'll be fine

[john_and_marlene 162]

... and you don't lose points for spelling

[Delete This 0]

In Japan, the embassy went out of their way to make us FEEL like we were innocent until proven guilty During The Interview. So much so that even though the interview ended with us officialy being found ineligible, the embassy assured us we would get the visa as soon as we supplied the missing document......And they kept their word.....Before the interview it was more guilty until proven innocent.

B.T.W. How can I get USA & Phillipine flags to add in my signature ????

[Sheriff Uling 3]

antoniostar - I actually copied someone's hyperlink and changed the naming prefixes until I found the flags I wanted. Usually most links use similar naming conventions.

Example:

Philippines (Phi) - http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/flags2-2/asia/PHI.GIF

United States (US1) - http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/flags2-2/us/US1.GIF

California (CAL) - http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/flags2-2/us/CAL.GIF

Chao...

Edited August 17, 2006 by Uling

[ceriserose 1]

It's an analogy PEOPLE... I'm well aware that it's not a guilty or innocent process. Work with me... Gssss!!!

I'm well aware it's an analogy ULING. I found it lacking, so I didn't rise to it. Gssss!!!!

[lucyrich 20]

Technically, an intending immigrant has the burden of proving eligibility by "a preponderance of the evidence". That's a specific legal term that you can look up, but basically it means that it's up to you to show reasonable evidence that you have overcome each one of the potential grounds of ineligibility. You don't have to remove all reasonable doubt, but you do have to show evidence that would convince the officer that it's more likely you are eligible than not. If there are any facts in your case which would give rise to questions of eligibility, you may be required to submit more evidence that answers those questions and demonstrates you are indeed eligible.

I think, in practice, it usually works out pretty close to the way it's supposed to in theory. You definitely do have the burden of proving eligibility, but you can still leave room for reasonable doubt and gain approval.

[kpathak 0]

Given the inconsistencies, sometimes I feel that it depends on what kind of a day the CO is having (or what kind of a night he/she has had?)

KP

[john_and_marlene 162]

Technically, an intending immigrant has the burden of proving eligibility by "a preponderance of the evidence". That's a specific legal term that you can look up, but basically it means that it's up to you to show reasonable evidence that you have overcome each one of the potential grounds of ineligibility. You don't have to remove all reasonable doubt, but you do have to show evidence that would convince the officer that it's more likely you are eligible than not. If there are any facts in your case which would give rise to questions of eligibility, you may be required to submit more evidence that answers those questions and demonstrates you are indeed eligible.

I think, in practice, it usually works out pretty close to the way it's supposed to in theory. You definitely do have the burden of proving eligibility, but you can still leave room for reasonable doubt and gain approval.

Can you direct me to where you found the preponderance information as being the measure for immigration matters? Do you have a cite that I could look at?

I haven't seen it in the FAM