Vietnam: I think all the paperwork should be free

[ScottThuy 140]

I just wished they record the interview, taped or video.

This way they can't denied and blame it on the interview if they suspect

that the petitioner didn't meet all the requirements or for any other reason besides the interview.

Also, they will have some accountablitiy for their actions.

great idea, but it would probably add an additional 100 bucks to the cost of the interview at the very least..nthey dont want a record of the interview to bite them in the butt if called on thier decision...

[michael7oanh 1]

That would take away the only effective tool that they have for weeding out the scammers. Nobody knows where the finish line is except for the CO's, and they keep moving it. Every time the scammers think they've got the system figured out, the CO's come up with another hurdle for them to cross.

But I don't feel like they actually weed out the sham couples. Unfortunately, they’re only weeding out what I’d call the “rush” couples… People like myself that thought with their heart and jumped into petitioning too quickly instead of taking time to collect more convincing evidence. The sham couples won’t be emotionally invested so they’ll take the time to either get a crafty lawyer or collect the same convincing proof that a patient legit couple would have. And the CO’s are themselves rushing to a conclusion by skimming through evidence and doing a short interview/quiz, thus any well-prepared couple has the best chance of beating the system, legit or not.

Regardless, a pre-interview relationship counseling/evaluation system would be ideal for both weeding out the fraud while also helping legit couples to address their trouble issues. My wife and I are growing through the process and becoming closer as a result so it hasn’t broken us like I imagine it’s done to many others. I still feel the best way to deal with the overall problem is through a thorough, personal and insightful evaluation rather than what we have now which amounts to simply carpet-bombing an entire village to kill a few bad guys.

If they published a bullet list of the requirements that have to be met, they would be telling the scammers exactly what they need to do in order to succeed. They also wouldn't be able to make any changes to the list without someone suing them claiming they met the requirements when the petition was submitted, but then the requirements changed.

This would also remove the discretion that the law specifically gives to the CO to determine if the relationship is or is not primarily for the purpose of evading immigration law.

I’d imagine the scammers already know much of the list as they’d network with each other to learn from failures, consult with their shady lawyers, research on the internet and effectively cover up any red flags in order to blend in with the innocent people. This is what scammers, terrorists, criminals, etc. do for their living and the speed at which they do this makes it difficult for our government to keep up (rather than the other way around).

Oanh and I had met with a lawyer last year in HCMC before submitting the petition and I remember he seemed really shady at the time, but in retrospect his logic made perfect sense for dealing with the system. He was thinking much like a scammer in how to present a generic, cookie-cutter timeline to the CO in order to get the visa. I felt like honesty was the better approach and that our story would be given a chance to be explained clearly in the evidence pack and at the interview. I ended up being wrong and he was right.

My actual point is that the CO can’t effectively find the real scammers without a thorough personal review of the case. They need to get to know the couple, take time to interview each separately and/or together. They don’t have that luxury of time because of the heavy load of cases on their hands, which would be greatly reduced with my suggestion.

This reminds me of when my boss put in a generic job ad that invited every Joe off the street to apply for the position. Stacks of resumes came in and it was chaos as a result. Currently all the consulate says is that one visit is required for the visa, so that ultimately opens up a floodgate of petitions from people (both rush couples and sham couples) thinking that this is the easiest way to achieve their goals.

So the initial problem is with that vague ‘job ad’. Simply inform everyone of the high standard of proof that they need to produce, which then reduces the case load as fewer people submit petitions, which then allows more time to focus on each case, and which then gives the CO a better situation for using his discretion. As for lawsuits, that can be avoided with the typical disclaimer saying this checklist only represents the basic recommendations to proving one's relationship (just like with emails, letters, and phone records) and that the CO still reserves the right to use further discretion to deny a visa based on perceived fraud.

This obviously wouldn't work as the petitioner is trying to get the beneficiary to the US, so there is no guarantee that the petitioner would faithfully translate what the beneficiary said. The petitioner could also just answer the questions themselves, which isn't fair. They could also talk to each other to try to cheat the system and lie to the CO. The point of having locals is that they are objective and not biased toward getting the beneficiary to the US. If anything, they may be biased against the beneficiary, but for the CO's that is preferable to someone who is able to help the beneficiary lie to get the visa.

Based on the interview for my wife (fiancée at the time), the translator was mainly there to hurry the procedure along by strictly urging her to answer in short 1-2 word responses. To me, that is not an interview but rather a rushed quiz. This is a horrible way to weed out scammers since reducing this crucial conversation to a quick fire Q&A would simply favor those who prepare well for verbal exams or are good liars.

This is why I’d favor the CO meeting the couple together as that will give a clearer picture of their relationship in terms of how they interact (subtle gestures, body language, etc.). If the couple seems shady or strange in their communication, then that gives a more accurate clue to them being scammers. All that my wife’s interview proved was that I didn’t prepare her well enough for standing up to this type of hasty interrogation as I didn’t expect the translator to be so aggressive. Again, the shady lawyer had the right idea in simply telling them what they want to hear.

And I’m with the OP in that if this were a free procedure, then this stuff might be acceptable. But since this is paid for by the couple then we should at least be given a fair chance to explain ourselves, either in a proper interview or through an efficient rebuttal process. And we certainly don’t need a translator to rush us through what currently is the most crucial part of the CO evaluating the case.

Edited October 12, 2010 by michael7oanh

[BinhJerome 14]

I just wished they record the interview, taped or video.

This way they can't denied and blame it on the interview if they suspect

that the petitioner didn't meet all the requirements or for any other reason besides the interview.

Also, they will have some accountablitiy for their actions.

That would be great because in our case the CO lied, the sad thing is that he contradicted his own lies with his notes from the interview and when he was actually reviewing our case, and even with this evidence presented, we were simply told, sorry for your luck, your petition has already expired, feel free to file again, but with the trouble you have stirred up it might be best to wait for a while incase other CO's were to retaliate! No SH#T that is what was told by the higher ups to my lawyer! To wait because they might retaliate and I MIGHT NOT get a fair interview! I think that our CO never thought in a million years that we would call him out on it, which makes me think that he might have lied on purpose, but that he truly did feel our relationship was fraud so if he lied and he was right we would just give up and move on, it is just in our case it wasnt fraud, and now I am living in Vietnam happily married, and finding the AMERICAN dream in a foreign country. A great wife, nice house, and great job where I am able to save money and get the finer things in life. Kinda funny how it all worked out.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

But I don't feel like they actually weed out the sham couples. Unfortunately, they’re only weeding out what I’d call the “rush” couples… People like myself that thought with their heart and jumped into petitioning too quickly instead of taking time to collect more convincing evidence. The sham couples won’t be emotionally invested so they’ll take the time to either get a crafty lawyer or collect the same convincing proof that a patient legit couple would have. And the CO’s are themselves rushing to a conclusion by skimming through evidence and doing a short interview/quiz, thus any well-prepared couple has the best chance of beating the system, legit or not.

Even the crafty lawyers don't know for sure what the criteria is to successfully getting a visa, and the average scammer is probably even more clueless. You'd be amazed how many girls in Vietnam are convinced that if they get pregnant then the CO can't deny the visa.

Regardless, a pre-interview relationship counseling/evaluation system would be ideal for both weeding out the fraud while also helping legit couples to address their trouble issues. My wife and I are growing through the process and becoming closer as a result so it hasn’t broken us like I imagine it’s done to many others. I still feel the best way to deal with the overall problem is through a thorough, personal and insightful evaluation rather than what we have now which amounts to simply carpet-bombing an entire village to kill a few bad guys.

That would be great, but it's not practical. They process far too many visa applications to ever be able to dedicate more than 10 minutes or so to each visa application. Heck, the consulate in HCMC issued almost 20,000 immigrant visas last year. Imagine how many more they denied, and that doesn't include non-immigrant visas like K1's. That accounts for about 20% of ALL the visas issued in the entire East Asia and Pacific region! Considering that region includes the Philippines, China, Japan, and Australia, that's a HUGE chunk of the regional total!

If they farmed out the task of pre-screening applicants, and giving the amount of time you suggest to each case, it would require a huge organization. In the end, instead of it coming down to the decision of a single CO, it would come down the recommendation of a single case worker, and instead of setting aside a day for a 15 minute interview, you'd be setting aside many days for many extensive interviews. The VN government would insist that an organization of that size be staffed with locals, and many of them would probably be party members planted by the government.

Personally, I don't relish the idea of having to dedicate a substantial chunk of my vacation time to convincing some stranger that my wife and I are in love, especially if that stranger is a VN girl or guy who might be working for the VN government.

You also run into the problem that this approach is contrary to the law, which gives the authority to approve or deny a visa to the consular officer. There are countless places in the INA that say "in the opinion of the Consular Officer". Pretty much everyone who got denied because of a bad recommendation from a counselor would be lining up to sue the Department of State.

I think it would be great if the consular officers could spend more time on each case. I think it would also be great if they could allow the petitioner to attend the interview, as some consulates do. I would also like to see an appeals process in place at the consulate so that a consular officers decision could be reviewed by a higher authority. But, I want to see the discretion remain with Field Service Officers, and not farmed out to sub-contractors.

I’d imagine the scammers already know much of the list as they’d network with each other to learn from failures, consult with their shady lawyers, research on the internet and effectively cover up any red flags in order to blend in with the innocent people. This is what scammers, terrorists, criminals, etc. do for their living and the speed at which they do this makes it difficult for our government to keep up (rather than the other way around).

Oanh and I had met with a lawyer last year in HCMC before submitting the petition and I remember he seemed really shady at the time, but in retrospect his logic made perfect sense for dealing with the system. He was thinking much like a scammer in how to present a generic, cookie-cutter timeline to the CO in order to get the visa. I felt like honesty was the better approach and that our story would be given a chance to be explained clearly in the evidence pack and at the interview. I ended up being wrong and he was right.

My actual point is that the CO can’t effectively find the real scammers without a thorough personal review of the case. They need to get to know the couple, take time to interview each separately and/or together. They don’t have that luxury of time because of the heavy load of cases on their hands, which would be greatly reduced with my suggestion.

This reminds me of when my boss put in a generic job ad that invited every Joe off the street to apply for the position. Stacks of resumes came in and it was chaos as a result. Currently all the consulate says is that one visit is required for the visa, so that ultimately opens up a floodgate of petitions from people (both rush couples and sham couples) thinking that this is the easiest way to achieve their goals.

So the initial problem is with that vague ‘job ad’. Simply inform everyone of the high standard of proof that they need to produce, which then reduces the case load as fewer people submit petitions, which then allows more time to focus on each case, and which then gives the CO a better situation for using his discretion. As for lawsuits, that can be avoided with the typical disclaimer saying this checklist only represents the basic recommendations to proving one's relationship (just like with emails, letters, and phone records) and that the CO still reserves the right to use further discretion to deny a visa based on perceived fraud.

As I said before, you'd be surprised how misinformed many of the scammers are. If the same falsehood is repeated often enough then everyone begins to presume it's a fact. About two months before my wife's interview, a girl in her village was denied a spousal visa. Everyone told her she should have gotten pregnant. Nobody questioned whether this was really true. Everyone just presumes that it is. It took a long time to convince my wife that if she was denied it would not be because she wasn't pregnant.

I would agree with your 'floodgate' analogy if it were possible for any VN citizen to waltz in off the street and apply for a visa. It's not. There must first be a US citizen or LPR to petition for them. What you're suggesting is to give them the blueprint for a successful visa application. That might scare away some legitimate couples if they think they couldn't meet the requirements, but a scammer is determined. If their USC pigeon can't help them qualify, they'll dump him/her and find one that can. It will be easier for them because they know the battle plan.

[michael7oanh 1]

Hey Jim, thanks for the in-depth response. I had to go back and look at my initial post again to figure out where the misunderstanding is coming from and I can see now that I was not very clear in explaining my idea. So I’ll quote myself and then clarify what I was trying to get at below:

I'd suggest a pre-review process for all cases from high-fraud countries and have this be outsourced to a nonprofit agency that would specialize in immigrant relationship counseling. This way the couple can be evaluated more fairly over the course of months through one-on-one and shared online video-conferences conducted by a certified counselor.

Here I was envisioning this pre-counseling process to rely on online video chat technology to have the counselor interview the couple remotely through sessions spread out over many months. This would be conducted by trusted organizations in the US and not under any foreign government influence. It would function like a voluntary background check service that would have the petitioner sign off on allowing them to pass information on to the CO who will then have greater insight into the case while still making the final decision. I imagined this being similar to what job applicants go through when undergoing background checks so that the employer can have sharper tools in evaluating candidates. The main difference is that the applicant in my case would need to interact directly with the background-check agency and then he also carries the burden of cost instead of the hiring company (consulate).

Let’s say this process would occur over 6 months with the petitioner and beneficiary each doing 20 half-hour sessions, including a few random phone call check-ups and then at least 2 one-hour couple sessions occurring during a petitioner's trip to Vietnam. This wouldn't be too inconvenient in my opinion. And even with the total cost of the counselor/background service, buying a simple computer/webcam and (if necessary) hiring a translator for the beneficiary’s 1-on-1 sessions, this could all be made cheaper than having to take many trips overseas and hire a lawyer to prove our case under the present system. I'm always for technology and innovation making our lives easier.

If they don't want to use a pre-review system, then at least specify what constitutes a reasonable person standard for Vietnam and other high-fraud countries.

This kind of statement below is what I’m hinting at for the consulate to inform people on their website:

**********************************

“Due to a considerable amount of fraudulent applications, this consulate must hold a higher-than-average standard for reasonable doubt in relation to visa cases. Therefore we recommend all petitioners to complete the following as a basic guideline:"

- 3 separate visits to Vietnam with a minimum 2-year provable duration in the relationship.

- 30 days of shared time together along with photo evidence to prove each day.

- An engagement ceremony and if applicable, a wedding ceremony with guests from both sides of the family.

- etc. etc. etc.

**********************************

Basically this is the kind of checklist that one can gather from looking at a denial letter, researching on a forum like this one or get from a competent lawyer. It doesn’t equate to having a blueprint for getting an easy visa because the CO can still find problems in a case by actually investing time to learn more abut the couple <or> using the pre-review counseling option mentioned earlier. The goal is to eliminate the unnecessary confusion/chaos resulting from a flawed system, and at the same time focus resources towards having a more in-depth review process.

I’ll refine my job application analogy to consider only applicants with a high school diploma (ie having a US citizen sponsor). That approach still leaves the employer flooded with too many resumes to review. My suggestion amounts to simply stating that a “Bachelors or Masters degree is preferred” in the job ad, which then greatly reduces the stack to qualified applicants. This gives the employer more time to carefully review each resume, perhaps to also conduct phone interviews or call up references and other forms of background checks (hint: outsourced agency) to gather more insight. Then also by cutting down the initial case load, a more thorough face-to-face interview can take place rather than a quick fire Q&A session. This ultimately provides a much more efficient and effective process for singling out the successful applicants.

Edited October 13, 2010 by michael7oanh

[luckytxn 2,264]

How about they have to approve any visa that a U.S. citizen applies for a non citizen unless there is proof that is easily found that it is fraudulent. If no proof can be found on databases or any records found that a fraud is being committed than grant the visa. No gut feelings or hearsay is admissible. Not liking that an old fart is marrying a hot Asian babe is not grounds for denial. If a U.S. citizen has met the minimum requirements then that is enough.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Hey Jim, thanks for the in-depth response. I had to go back and look at my initial post again to figure out where the misunderstanding is coming from and I can see now that I was not very clear in explaining my idea. So I’ll quote myself and then clarify what I was trying to get at below:

Here I was envisioning this pre-counseling process to rely on online video chat technology to have the counselor interview the couple remotely through sessions spread out over many months. This would be conducted by trusted organizations in the US and not under any foreign government influence. It would function like a voluntary background check service that would have the petitioner sign off on allowing them to pass information on to the CO who will then have greater insight into the case while still making the final decision. I imagined this being similar to what job applicants go through when undergoing background checks so that the employer can have sharper tools in evaluating candidates. The main difference is that the applicant in my case would need to interact directly with the background-check agency and then he also carries the burden of cost instead of the hiring company (consulate).

Let’s say this process would occur over 6 months with the petitioner and beneficiary each doing 20 half-hour sessions, including a few random phone call check-ups and then at least 2 one-hour couple sessions occurring during a petitioner's trip to Vietnam. This wouldn't be too inconvenient in my opinion. And even with the total cost of the counselor/background service, buying a simple computer/webcam and (if necessary) hiring a translator for the beneficiary’s 1-on-1 sessions, this could all be made cheaper than having to take many trips overseas and hire a lawyer to prove our case under the present system. I'm always for technology and innovation making our lives easier.

I wouldn't have any problems with a process like this. I guess we can presume that the USC is going to be billed for these services. It would help if the INA were revised to accommodate this or there will still be lawsuits. The law doesn't give the consulate the authority to farm out the screening process. Lawyers go nuts now when they think the CO has made an arbitrary decision. I think they'll react the same way when they think some contract screener has done the same.

This kind of statement below is what I’m hinting at for the consulate to inform people on their website:

**********************************

“Due to a considerable amount of fraudulent applications, this consulate must hold a higher-than-average standard for reasonable doubt in relation to visa cases. Therefore we recommend all petitioners to complete the following as a basic guideline:"

- 3 separate visits to Vietnam with a minimum 2-year provable duration in the relationship.

- 30 days of shared time together along with photo evidence to prove each day.

- An engagement ceremony and if applicable, a wedding ceremony with guests from both sides of the family.

- etc. etc. etc.

**********************************

Basically this is the kind of checklist that one can gather from looking at a denial letter, researching on a forum like this one or get from a competent lawyer. It doesn’t equate to having a blueprint for getting an easy visa because the CO can still find problems in a case by actually investing time to learn more abut the couple <or> using the pre-review counseling option mentioned earlier. The goal is to eliminate the unnecessary confusion/chaos resulting from a flawed system, and at the same time focus resources towards having a more in-depth review process.

I’ll refine my job application analogy to consider only applicants with a high school diploma (ie having a US citizen sponsor). That approach still leaves the employer flooded with too many resumes to review. My suggestion amounts to simply stating that a “Bachelors or Masters degree is preferred” in the job ad, which then greatly reduces the stack to qualified applicants. This gives the employer more time to carefully review each resume, perhaps to also conduct phone interviews or call up references and other forms of background checks (hint: outsourced agency) to gather more insight. Then also by cutting down the initial case load, a more thorough face-to-face interview can take place rather than a quick fire Q&A session. This ultimately provides a much more efficient and effective process for singling out the successful applicants.

I don't have any reason to believe that a scammer wouldn't jump through every hoop the consulate laid out. Like I said, if their USC pigeon couldn't help them meet the requirements then they'd find one who could. You'd also get lawsuits from US citizens because there's nothing in the INA that states any of these things are required in order to get a K1 or spousal visa. The INA says the consular officer has discretion. The FAM gives the CO guidance on how to apply their discretion. If you break it down into a checklist then it takes away the only real tool they've got, which is that the applicant doesn't know what standards they'll apply - they only know that the CO has to be convinced that the relationship isn't a sham.

Personally, if they're going to change the system then I would prefer to see them use the money that the USC would have to pay for the prescreening process to pay for more CO's, and then the CO would have a few sessions with both the petitioner and the beneficiary. I'd rather any prescreening were done by the same person who is ultimately going to make the decision on whether to issue a visa.

[utst10 0]

If they are going to change the system, I would like to see them change the requirements to discourage the scammers.

1. Any visa found to be fraudulent should have a hefty money penalty, $100,000 that the petitioner has to pay...and they should be able to take things like the IRS does to achieve this payment.

2. Once a visa is approved, the petitioner and visa holder has to be married (if K-1) within 30 days and any pre-nup's should be voided. This means the "wife" will be entitle to half the "estate".

[michael7oanh 1]

I wouldn't have any problems with a process like this. I guess we can presume that the USC is going to be billed for these services. It would help if the INA were revised to accommodate this or there will still be lawsuits. The law doesn't give the consulate the authority to farm out the screening process. Lawyers go nuts now when they think the CO has made an arbitrary decision. I think they'll react the same way when they think some contract screener has done the same.

I see where I was confusing on this point so I should be clearer in explaining that this wouldn't be a contract pre-screening initiated by the consulate. It's a relationship counseling service that dually functions as a voluntary background check since the USC must pay for it and initially sign off on the evaluation notes being made accessible to the CO. This would be like the USC voluntarily sending his Lexis Nexis report to the consulate. And ultimately this would help out legit couples by giving them a good, certified reference that vouches for their relationship.

I don't have any reason to believe that a scammer wouldn't jump through every hoop the consulate laid out. Like I said, if their USC pigeon couldn't help them meet the requirements then they'd find one who could. You'd also get lawsuits from US citizens because there's nothing in the INA that states any of these things are required in order to get a K1 or spousal visa. The INA says the consular officer has discretion. The FAM gives the CO guidance on how to apply their discretion. If you break it down into a checklist then it takes away the only real tool they've got, which is that the applicant doesn't know what standards they'll apply - they only know that the CO has to be convinced that the relationship isn't a sham.

We’re still misunderstanding each other here. I should clarify again that this is not a change to the *requirements* for a visa. This is merely a **recommended** checklist so as to inform applicants of the higher standards of proof for this consulate. The CO still holds the final decision and discretion on being convinced of the case.

Similarly the consulate's website already lists suitable evidence examples as being photos, correspondence, and phone records. All I'm saying is that there likewise should be a list of a *recommended* number of trips, days shared together, ceremonies, etc. to clear up confusion over this and thus minimize the mess that comes from having a lot of legit couples getting denied due to hoops they were never told to jump at all.

Now if you're saying that the existence of scammers is reason enough to justify this level of confusion/chaos in the system along with the frustration it inflicts on legit couples and families, then we'll simply have to disagree on that point. As for lawsuits, I submitted photos which the CO concluded weren’t good enough but that doesn’t mean I'd sue the government for informing me about suitable types of evidence. The list I mentioned would simply be a clearer description of reasonable types of evidence.

Personally, if they're going to change the system then I would prefer to see them use the money that the USC would have to pay for the prescreening process to pay for more CO's, and then the CO would have a few sessions with both the petitioner and the beneficiary. I'd rather any prescreening were done by the same person who is ultimately going to make the decision on whether to issue a visa.

But that’s basically like having a troop surge controlled by a bloated, inefficient government with a flawed system and strategy, while then passing the hefty bill for it all onto the USC. And it still doesn’t address the consulate's confusing standards which contribute to much of the chaos in the first place. I’m much more in favor of optimizing the system while cutting down on government size and waste.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I see where I was confusing on this point so I should be clearer in explaining that this wouldn't be a contract pre-screening initiated by the consulate. It's a relationship counseling service that dually functions as a voluntary background check since the USC must pay for it and initially sign off on the evaluation notes being made accessible to the CO. This would be like the USC voluntarily sending his Lexis Nexis report to the consulate. And ultimately this would help out legit couples by giving them a good, certified reference that vouches for their relationship.

They'd have to be approved and licensed (or otherwise qualified) by the consulate or they'd never trust them. Unless the consulate could pull their license or other qualification, it would be too easy for someone to set up a service like this and prepare falsified reports for anyone who is willing to pay a little more.

We’re still misunderstanding each other here. I should clarify again that this is not a change to the *requirements* for a visa. This is merely a **recommended** checklist so as to inform applicants of the higher standards of proof for this consulate. The CO still holds the final decision and discretion on being convinced of the case.

Similarly the consulate's website already lists suitable evidence examples as being photos, correspondence, and phone records. All I'm saying is that there likewise should be a list of a *recommended* number of trips, days shared together, ceremonies, etc. to clear up confusion over this and thus minimize the mess that comes from having a lot of legit couples getting denied due to hoops they were never told to jump at all.

Now if you're saying that the existence of scammers is reason enough to justify this level of confusion/chaos in the system along with the frustration it inflicts on legit couples and families, then we'll simply have to disagree on that point. As for lawsuits, I submitted photos which the CO concluded weren’t good enough but that doesn’t mean I'd sue the government for informing me about suitable types of evidence. The list I mentioned would simply be a clearer description of reasonable types of evidence.

I think I understand what you're saying. There is no reason the consulate has to tell an applicant that they have a higher standard of proof than other consulates. That alone would be enough to justify a lawsuit. There is nothing in the INA or federal regulations that indicates a girl or guy from Vietnam should have to meet a higher standard of proof than one from Canada, for example. The law only says they have 'discretion', and this is all they need to say is being used. If they gave a bullet list of minimum requirements then they'd face lawsuits for establishing requirements that have no basis in the law.

They can't say you must have a Dam Hoi. They have no legal authority to require that. What they CAN say is that they are using their discretion to deny your visa because your relationship does not conform to local social customs, and use the lack of a Dam Hoi as evidence of this.

But that’s basically like having a troop surge controlled by a bloated, inefficient government with a flawed system and strategy, while then passing the hefty bill for it all onto the USC. And it still doesn’t address the consulate's confusing standards which contribute to much of the chaos in the first place. I’m much more in favor of optimizing the system while cutting down on government size and waste.

The point is that, as far as any public policy, the consulate has no standards that they apply. They use their discretion, as the law allows them to do. We see the reasons they give for the decisions they make, and we extrapolate from that what are the standards they are applying. That's fine, and it helps us to be better prepared. Someone who didn't have a resource like VJ would know only that the consulate will evaluate the relationship, and use their discretion to determine whether to issue a visa. They tell you in packets 3 and 4 that evidence of a bona fide relationship should be brought to the interview. There is no confusion or chaos, but there is a risk of them underestimating how serious this "bona fide relationship" stuff is.

The confusion and chaos comes from people like us, who have done a little research, and presumed we know what standards they are using and assume that we've met those standards, only to have the consulate pull a mind scramble by denying for something we never knew they'd consider.

[michael7oanh 1]

There is no reason the consulate has to tell an applicant that they have a higher standard of proof than other consulates. That alone would be enough to justify a lawsuit. There is nothing in the INA or federal regulations that indicates a girl or guy from Vietnam should have to meet a higher standard of proof than one from Canada, for example. The law only says they have 'discretion', and this is all they need to say is being used. If they gave a bullet list of minimum requirements then they'd face lawsuits for establishing requirements that have no basis in the law.

They can't say you must have a Dam Hoi. They have no legal authority to require that. What they CAN say is that they are using their discretion to deny your visa because your relationship does not conform to local social customs, and use the lack of a Dam Hoi as evidence of this.

I don’t see how a list of recommendations would ultimately get interpreted as a list of requirements. But then a solution to address this would be to re-phrase my checklist into a collection of common denial issues and therefore list them on the following page under the common reasons for denial section: HCMC Consulate: Interview Process

This way, they’re giving us that useful heads up by simply stating the things they would commonly put on denial letters anyway. My goal is for the USC to get a clearer picture of the hoops to jump through before putting in a petition and thus avoid wasting their time and money along with the consulate’s time and resources with failed petitions.

The point is that, as far as any public policy, the consulate has no standards that they apply. They use their discretion, as the law allows them to do. We see the reasons they give for the decisions they make, and we extrapolate from that what are the standards they are applying. That's fine, and it helps us to be better prepared. Someone who didn't have a resource like VJ would know only that the consulate will evaluate the relationship, and use their discretion to determine whether to issue a visa. They tell you in packets 3 and 4 that evidence of a bona fide relationship should be brought to the interview. There is no confusion or chaos, but there is a risk of them underestimating how serious this "bona fide relationship" stuff is.

The confusion and chaos comes from people like us, who have done a little research, and presumed we know what standards they are using and assume that we've met those standards, only to have the consulate pull a mind scramble by denying for something we never knew they'd consider.

That confusion/chaos originates from having deceptively simple requirements and I agree that this then misleads legit applicants into thinking they’re qualified for the visa only to get hit with the “mind scramble” from their eventual denial. This follows with anger, lawsuits, rebuttals, re-submitted petitions, and so forth consuming more time, money, government manpower, emotional energy, etc. Of course the crooked lawyers love this type of mess as they profit the most from it. I’m assuming they’re the ones hiring the aggressive gangs across from the consulate to harass any beneficiary coming out with a blue sheet.

This is probably something we’re simply not going to agree on, Jim. I feel the consulate is there to serve the USC, not to play mind games and cause unnecessary stress/frustration when all they need to do is say what they really want from us. I had to waste time on my vacation putting together a notarized list of addresses and another timeline, even though all of that barely related to what the CO eventually put in the denial letter. So now we have to go through a 2nd visa petition to handle a case which would have been wrapped up in one shot under my suggested revisions. And this is all after not receiving that chance at a rebuttal which was promised in the denial letter.

Honestly, whenever I tell people about this process they’re amazed that it can be so frustrating. Granted it’s not a hot topic for the public now, but I’m sure all it would take is some tearjerker documentary/movie to suddenly get people’s attention and then I don’t think this denial system would hold up well under harsh media scrutiny.