How to stop fraud in Fiance/Spouse Visas

[pushbrk 12,879]

I was making reference to the use of lie detectors or internet background checks, which was discussed earlier on in this topic.

As to needing a fiance(e) visa for beneficiary to come live here, it is the discussing here not for us the petitioners to go live there permanently. I am well aware of the fact, we don't need a visa to marry anyone. Thanks,

Actually, a US Citizen (or any non-UK citizen) DOES need a special visa just to marry a UK citizen in the UK but that's beside the point. So, you think lie detectors and background checks will provide a more reliable way to separate the fraud from the genuine relationships than how it works now? Really? Why?

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

Actually, a US Citizen (or any non-UK citizen) DOES need a special visa just to marry a UK citizen in the UK but that's beside the point. So, you think lie detectors and background checks will provide a more reliable way to separate the fraud from the genuine relationships than how it works now? Really? Why?

As suggested in earlier posts, and per our discussions here on this subject matter, the lie detectors were mentioned, which seemed like a great idea to include in the process of interviewing the beneficiaries. Also, internet background checks were suggested, which could be very useful. The objective is, to get a clearer look into the intentions of the beneficiary, and try to stop fraud, if it exists, prior to them coming to the USA, and then leaving their US spouses upon arrival, or thereafter.

In most cases, where the relationships are genuine, a lie detector would be helpful in assisting those couples convince the CO of that, regardless of having "red flags" in the relationship. A genuine relationship then would have an easier time to prove its case. The use of the suggested, are to be included with the existing process of interview, not to substitute them as requirements. Also, the lie detector, or background checks can scare away some people with ill intentions from proceeding with their scam, out of fear of being caught.

To live in any country, other then one's own, a visa is required. Yet other countries, specially such as third world countries, in general, are not so hard to get into, or as hard to obtain a visa from, once married to a citizen of its country.

Edited August 7, 2011 by LoveNigarmostyle

[pushbrk 12,879]

As suggested in earlier posts, and per our discussions here on this subject matter, the lie detectors were mentioned, which seemed like a great idea to include in the process of interviewing the beneficiaries. Also, internet background checks were suggested, which could be very useful. The objective is, to get a clearer look into the intentions of the beneficiary, and try to stop fraud, if it exists, prior to them coming to the USA, and then leaving their US spouses upon arrival, or thereafter.

In most cases, where the relationships are genuine, a lie detector would be helpful in assisting those couples convince the CO of that, regardless of having "red flags" in the relationship. A genuine relationship then would have an easier time to prove its case. The use of the suggested, are to be included with the existing process of interview, not to substitute them as requirements. Also, the lie detector, or background checks can scare away some people with ill intentions from proceeding with their scam, out of fear of being caught.

To live in any country, other then one's own, a visa is required. Yet other countries, specially such as third world countries, in general, are not so hard to get into, or as hard to obtain a visa from, once married to a citizen of its country.

OK. So have you thought this through and examined the unintended consequences? Have you though through whether to use lie detectors in the cases in all the countries? We pat down children to see if they are carrying bombs. Would you like the two snowbirds, one from Nova Scotia and the other from Philadelphia who meet and fall in love when they are at their Florida winter homes to have the foreigner take a lie detector test? If not all, how do you decide which couples and/or which countries? If only a few countries, should petition and application fees go up for only those countries or do you want all the fee payers to subsidize the few who cause this extra expense?

Actually we are all now subsidizing the cost of the extensive background checks for those from the countries where AP is common. I don't like it but I'm OK with it because the purpose is National Security. Actually, I'm not sure it's the fee payers that are subsidizing the AP costs. It may well be coming from a separate budget out of general treasury or Homeland Security funding.

[Caladan 19]

A better analogy would be if you went to McDonalds one time and got a moldy hamburger and cold french fries. Would you need to know exactly how many moldy hamburgers they sold in order to recommend how they might improve their quality?

Yes, actually. I'd need to know whether it was a systemic problem, whether the problem was at the meat supplier, or at this particular franchise, or a general problem across the company, or just a problem with this shift and this shift manager, or whether there was a mold cartel that amounted for most of the mold. Just going in and saying "my solution is that we should dip all food in bleach before serving it because that kills mold! let's petition for some bleach! who cares if the food tastes bad! it will kill the mold!" would not be wise. It's really easy to figure out that cold french fries are a problem, but there are a lot of factors that make some solutions better than others, and make other solutions non-starters. Are they getting cold because they're made ahead of time? Because they are bad at estimating demand and they make too many fries that sit out? Because they are lacking warming lights and trays? &c.

E.g.,

Lie detectors for all beneficiaries? At all consulates? At what cost? Even given the well-known problems with lie detector tests, especially across cultures and language barriers? Okay.

I guess what I'm seeing with some of these proposals is a lot of stuff that will increase the burden on legitimate couples without giving more resources to the consulates that need it. You could make it so that I had to fly to Vancouver to go through an interview and a lie detector that was almost as exceedingly pointless as the one C. had to do, but I don't see how a broad regulation like that would reduce fraud if the problem is (e.g.) well-coached gold diggers from high-risk countries with corrupt bureaucracies.

So yes, I do think it matters not just that there is a problem, but what the source of the problem is.

[pushbrk 12,879]

I once read a powerful suggestion from a wise person who said essentially, "Look to people accustomed to and capable of solving complicated problems, for complicated solutions, to complicated problems." Those are the kind of people who think things through, examine the angles and research details, including unintended consequences.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Everyone that hasn't been involved in waiting an extra year worries that their process would be delayed if more advanced detection techniques were imposed. Actually their process would become more equal. So that the standarad from Nigeria and other high fraud or high mulsim populated places wouldn't average over 2 years while other fly though in under a year. So everyone might take `8 months. At least it would truely be an equal process.

[pushbrk 12,879]

Everyone that hasn't been involved in waiting an extra year worries that their process would be delayed if more advanced detection techniques were imposed. Actually their process would become more equal. So that the standarad from Nigeria and other high fraud or high mulsim populated places wouldn't average over 2 years while other fly though in under a year. So everyone might take `8 months. At least it would truely be an equal process.

If the processes become equal for all, they would become extremely unfair. Again, please don't confuse equality result or process with fairness.

My daughters are about two years apart in age. One got her own car when she got a job that required it. The other got a car when she went away to a college where she would need a car to function. The older complained that the younger got a car one year earlier in life. Their ages were not equal when they got their cars but the decision was made based on NEED, not on achieving an equal result in terms of age of acquisition. In "fairness" both daughter, now with equal numbers of children of their own, three, have had ample opportunity as parents to discern between fair and equal.

The goal is to root out fraud, not to subject all applicants to an equal process. Fair and equal are not synonyms.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Everyone that hasn't been involved in waiting an extra year worries that their process would be delayed if more advanced detection techniques were imposed. Actually their process would become more equal. So that the standarad from Nigeria and other high fraud or high mulsim populated places wouldn't average over 2 years while other fly though in under a year. So everyone might take `8 months. At least it would truely be an equal process.

How does that help anyone? The fact that non-fraudulent couples in high-fraud countries have extra scrutiny and may take extra time is a bad thing. Taking that model and expanding for everyone will not fix the high fraud countries and create problems for even more people... So nobody is through sooner, many more will take longer, the fraud percentage will remain the same, costs will go up.. it is more fair.

..and the deal with the lie detectors... We all know what would happen if they started using these things: Everyone that failed would have the USC screaming unfair and every fraudster that beat the test and still was denied would also have the USC screaming that the system was unfair. This would just be an extra cost that accomplishes nothing in the end but adding one more indignity to the process. Bad idea in my opinion.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

quote>If the CO has to follow strict guidelines and has no leeway then fraudsters have a blueprint to beat the system and if you tighten those guidelines up enough to deny most fraudsters then a good percentage of genuine people would be denied... and since the CO is following strict guidelines he/she can't simply intervene for those that do not follow the standard path. A knowledgeable CO is probably the single best asset we have against fraudsters.<quote

A knowledgeable CO who does not deny due to a "gut feeling" but adheres to his departments regulations and abides by reasonable doubt and factual evidence, is in fact a good asset. But if a CO ASSumes without factual evidence then we have a broken system. If the "leeway" you speak of is factual evidence and not imaginary stereotypical ASSumptions, then that is good...otherwise not so much. Obviously a genuine couple would not produce hard factual fraud evidence and therefore easily pass through in the tightened up guidelines. I don't understand what you mean by " he can't intervene for those that do not follow the standard path" what standard path do they not follow ?

>quote >Relying on the USC to catch fraud usually only works after the fact. First some of them are part of the the fraud so if the USCIS and CO can do nothing but follow a set of strict of requirements then the fraudsters can simply read those requirements. Second the USC is in the role of advocate for his/her spouse. People in love do crazy things and are probably the worst source for detecting fraud - until it is too late. People are fooled all the time - all the time - relying on their judgment in the process is not reliable.

The system as you describe it would either let in many more fraudsters or lead to denials of many more genuine people.. There is no middle ground possible.

I did not say that the USC should be part of the regulations to tighten up the process. It was an after thought of common sense, advice to petitioners

to do some investigating themselves to protect themselves against fraud. I am well aware that petitioners have their heads in the clouds and think it will never happen to them. Of course they do....but should they ? No ! Therefore my advice to investigate. It was also in response to those who were defrauded and now spend a life time to get them deported. As I said be accountable for your own actions, if you don't investigate with some common sense any potential spouse here or there or anywhere,then take the consequences and get over it. This had nothing to do with suggestions for specific changes in regulations.

I fail to understand your reasoning that stricter regulations would let in more fraudsters or lead to denials of genuine couples. As an example why should a beneficiary from a high fraud country be judged on a stereotypical assumption that it is for immigration benefits only, while the one from Europe gets through with both having a same year age difference and all things equal otherwise, all documents verified, even added long AP checks for the high fraud country one and still no hard not even soft factual evidence forthcoming ? Should the high fraud beneficiary then be denied just because the CO has a "gut feeling something may be off " while approving the European due to no "gut feeling " ? What happens then is a double standard of the European age difference is no big deal but hey we got a Nigerian here so lets just deny. Tell me where it says age difference is in the regulations as reason for denial ? It's not so then either put it transparently in the regulations for me to be aware of or approve and stop the unfair double standards of prejudice and wrong assumptions. The post has enough leeway for their power trips and sure doesn't need more.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Ebunoluwa

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Sorry for not doing the quotes correctly, it looks now like I didn't even quote anything and my and the other posters comments are running together. Have to figure that out still. Hope everyone can understand my reply.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

A knowledgeable CO who does not deny due to a "gut feeling" but adheres to his departments regulations and abides by reasonable doubt and factual evidence, is in fact a good asset. But if a CO ASSumes without factual evidence then we have a broken system. If the "leeway" you speak of is factual evidence and not imaginary stereotypical ASSumptions, then that is good...otherwise not so much. Obviously a genuine couple would not produce hard factual fraud evidence and therefore easily pass through in the tightened up guidelines. I don't understand what you mean by " he can't intervene for those that do not follow the standard path" what standard path do they not follow ?

I fail to understand your reasoning that stricter regulations would let in more fraudsters or lead to denials of genuine couples. As an example why should a beneficiary from a high fraud country be judged on a stereotypical assumption that it is for immigration benefits only, while the one from Europe gets through with both having a same year age difference and all things equal otherwise, all documents verified, even added long AP checks for the high fraud country one and still no hard not even soft factual evidence forthcoming ? Should the high fraud beneficiary then be denied just because the CO has a "gut feeling something may be off " while approving the European due to no "gut feeling " ? What happens then is a double standard of the European age difference is no big deal but hey we got a Nigerian here so lets just deny. Tell me where it says age difference is in the regulations as reason for denial ? It's not so then either put it transparently in the regulations for me to be aware of or approve and stop the unfair double standards of prejudice and wrong assumptions. The post has enough leeway for their power trips and sure doesn't need more.

Your original post (and this one too) you prescribe a desired process where if the petitioner and applicant meet the requirements the CO should have no power other than to follow the prescribed process and let them through.. I would say provide me a regulation (or regulations) that we can make iron clad that would stop fraudsters but still let genuine couples pass.. I can't think of a single thing that can't be faked that is not a major burden as well to legitimate couples.. Birth certificates, pictures, affidavits, etc.. The fraudster can duplicate all these things.

The process is not "Hey lets make it really hard for every country where we feel there is a lot of fraud".. The process is to allow each embassy some decision power so that local customs and issues can be taken into account.. Some countries have arranged marriages, some countries the families approval is much more important, some countries have much higher fraud rates and different methods of creating that fraud.. There is not one iron clad do-not-deviate process that will work for every embassy so they give the CO flexibility. The goal for each CO is to stop the fraudsters coming through and not stop the legitimate ones.

Having different requirements for different countries is not a double standard.. Each embassy adjusts over time to meet the mandates it has been given. The embassy in Nigeria has the same basic mandates as the embassy in Canada but they have to implement different plans and processes to achieve those mandates.

Edited August 8, 2011 by OnMyWayID

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

OnmywayID, it sounds all good in theory but just does not work in real life. I agree there are some consular specific / country specific issues.

But where does country specific and stereotyping merge ? Where does one end and the other start ? AP is for verifying documents and home investigations among other things. So when verifying documents and home investigations for high fraud posts it will come out if the fraud unit does their job.

Let non high fraud countries through without AP, I have no problem with that. I don't see that as a double standard. The double standard I see is when age difference for example is a factor and all the other proverbial red flags are taken into account in one country and not another. IF NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR DENIAL EXISTS THEN APPROVE AND DO NOT RETURN THE CASE BECAUSE OF GUT FEELINGS, that is MY beef with COs. Don't approve age differences in one country and deny in another. Cultural norms are just that, cultural norms. They are not always the

life style for every individual. They serve as a guideline and if everything else is 100% then approve. Here is where black and white merge into grey...literally.

I don't know how else to express myself in words to get my point across.English is my second language so my sentence structure may be off a bit.

Allowing 'decision power' to COs must not interfere with the end result when all else checks out 100% correct and by the book. Everything checking out 100% correct is the platform I base my comment on. If the couple looks good in all aspects then approve and do not return petitions because it is a high fraud country, is my point. UNLESS factual evidence has been found and produced. Do not return the case because it is a CO's assumption something MAY not be alright and use some lame excuse JUST BECAUSE a high fraud country is involved. Find the factual- evidence- reason, transparently state it in writing. I do believe returning petitions have to do with quotas concerning certain countries more than we think. Often a CO has made up his/her mind immediately and this comes from the same countries, case after case. Even with no red flags whatsoever and with AP/review.

Also as example, either the requirement is visit one time in the last 2 years according to current regulations or it isn't. Change the requirements to whatever makes them happy but you can't have regulations say one thing and then return/revoke against your own hand book regulations and use a lame excuse as a CO. That is way too much power to screw with peoples lives.

If Italy gets through with ONE visit according to the requirements then let Nigeria through as well with one visit.We all already have jumped through 100 flaming hoops.Don't say to the beneficiary my gut tells me no even though all is in order. That is BS.

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

OnmywayID, it sounds all good in theory but just does not work in real life. I agree there are some consular specific / country specific issues.

But where does country specific and stereotyping merge ? Where does one end and the other start ? AP is for verifying documents and home investigations among other things. So when verifying documents and home investigations for high fraud posts it will come out if the fraud unit does their job.

Let non high fraud countries through without AP, I have no problem with that. I don't see that as a double standard. The double standard I see is when age difference for example is a factor and all the other proverbial red flags are taken into account in one country and not another. IF NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR DENIAL EXISTS THEN APPROVE AND DO NOT RETURN THE CASE BECAUSE OF GUT FEELINGS, that is MY beef with COs. Don't approve age differences in one country and deny in another. Cultural norms are just that, cultural norms. They are not always the

life style for every individual. They serve as a guideline and if everything else is 100% then approve. Here is where black and white merge into grey...literally.

I don't know how else to express myself in words to get my point across.English is my second language so my sentence structure may be off a bit.

Allowing 'decision power' to COs must not interfere with the end result when all else checks out 100% correct and by the book. Everything checking out 100% correct is the platform I base my comment on. If the couple looks good in all aspects then approve and do not return petitions because it is a high fraud country, is my point. UNLESS factual evidence has been found and produced. Do not return the case because it is a CO's assumption something MAY not be alright and use some lame excuse JUST BECAUSE a high fraud country is involved. Find the factual- evidence- reason, transparently state it in writing. I do believe returning petitions have to do with quotas concerning certain countries more than we think. Often a CO has made up his/her mind immediately and this comes from the same countries, case after case. Even with no red flags whatsoever and with AP/review.

Also as example, either the requirement is visit one time in the last 2 years according to current regulations or it isn't. Change the requirements to whatever makes them happy but you can't have regulations say one thing and then return/revoke against your own hand book regulations and use a lame excuse as a CO. That is way too much power to screw with peoples lives.

If Italy gets through with ONE visit according to the requirements then let Nigeria through as well with one visit.We all already have jumped through 100 flaming hoops.Don't say to the beneficiary my gut tells me no even though all is in order. That is BS.

Ebunoluwa, It seems to me the CO is not the only one, who is relying on assumptions. For most of the posts so far, are saying the same thing. It seems the judgment has been passed on and the verdict is in, REGARDLESS of how many lives continue to be effected, by the ongoing stereotyping.

Even the people of the "third world countries" deserve an equal chance for a visa. Not everyone is a bad seed, not every couple with "red flags" are fraud. The whole system needs a revamping, or it will continue to cause a lot of heartache, and injustice. Lie detectors were a suggestion, if someone has a better idea, then let's hear it, then move on to write a petition, and make the change. Please stop pointing fingers, for it is not solving the existing problems in the system.

So far, what is being said here is: "What is good for the goose, is not good for the gander!" Since, our loved ones are from Nigeria, or Muslim countries, then a CO has every right to judge and prosecute them on 'gut feeling" and the fate of our relationships is best left in the hands of these COS with "God syndrome", who obviously have 100% error free "gut feeling" to rely on. It is okay for the CO to make us miserable, as long as, no fees go up, or changes are made, or others are inconvenienced.

For those, who already have their loved ones here with them, our unnecessary suffering seem insignificant or irrelevant and inappropriate to complain about.

Who can say, that each marriage, which has occurred with a Canadian, Australian, Vietnamese or Filipina has been 100% successful? Have they not experienced fraud at all?

REALLY???

The point, which some of us have been attempting to make,regardless of the way it has been presented, it has been overlooked over and over again. Everyone is so quick to state their opinion, but no one has a clear, or constructive solution for the existing problems, which most of us are facing.

It truly saddens me to see, how as human beings, arrogance prevents us from caring for each other equally. I often wonder, how many of the existing "Americans" in America today, would be enjoyed the "American Dream" themselves, if their immigrate ancestors who came here years ago, had been denied themselves by a CO on a "gut feelings" and due to that decision, how many of the members here would of been living, in third world countries themselves right now?

I am sure, I will be crucified for saying this. The responses given so far, seem good, but lacks compassion and solutions for the injustice which some of us are facing. Some get so wrapped up in logic, that the feelings of others are overlooked. Love is felt, compassion is given, and logic is powerful, specially, when it can make a difference. A balance of all human feelings is in need here to make a change, which will work for everyone.

[Andie 147]

If the processes become equal for all, they would become extremely unfair. Again, please don't confuse equality result or process with fairness.

My daughters are about two years apart in age. One got her own car when she got a job that required it. The other got a car when she went away to a college where she would need a car to function. The older complained that the younger got a car one year earlier in life. Their ages were not equal when they got their cars but the decision was made based on NEED, not on achieving an equal result in terms of age of acquisition. In "fairness" both daughter, now with equal numbers of children of their own, three, have had ample opportunity as parents to discern between fair and equal.

The goal is to root out fraud, not to subject all applicants to an equal process. Fair and equal are not synonyms.

So true! Fair and equal are not synonyms. The degree of this misconception has already resulted in the lengthy process experienced by most. In some cases further investigation is necessary but we all sit in the same queue to await an assessment and ultimate conclusion. The timeframe involved is therefore unnecessarily prolonged. Off the top of my head I dont know of a fair solution to this... but the painfully long process is just that - extremely painful.

The concept of a couple spending more time together can be overshadowed by the embassy's visa requirements. I can only go by my own experience in which I had to leave my employment to have any reasonable stay with my USC fiance. I had also a year prior sold my house. While I own a car and have memberships to various organisations, and an adult child and other family in my home country - I had insufficient ties in order to obtain a visa to apply for a further visit at the beginning of this year. In my naivity I had always understood that so long as I was financially independent and not pursuing employment, that I would be able to visit. Wrong!! So my point is that a longer period of time spent with the fiance requirement would need to take into account the financial commitment involved by either the beneficiary or sponsor.

[rin and john 71]

From a post I made in April regarding the same topic:

"I would allow everyone to adjust status from within the USA since the vast majority already do. In 2008, 367,000 aliens were granted LPR status as the spouse or child of a USC. Another 103,000 were granted LPR status as the spouse or child of a LPR for a total of 470,000 spouse/child LPRs. Of these 470k, we can assume that about 70,000 to 80,000 were K visa entries based on 2007 and 2008 K visa entries. For the remaining 400,000 they either received an immigrant visa abroad or filed AOS from within the USA. Given that 60% of all new GC recipients already live in the USA, it is fairly safe to assume that a significant number of the remaining 400,000 adjusted status from within the USA

I would eliminate the USCIS petition process for K-visas. It is essentially a pre-approval process to evaluate a person from a security standpoint as admissible to the USA. The US State Department already does this for a significant majority of visas.

In 2008, there were 175 million non-immigrant admissions into the USA. The vast majority of these were from Canada and Mexico with multiple crossings by the same person. Another 39 million were admitted with an I-94 arrival/departure card. Of these 39 million, only 59,000 were admitted as K1/K2/K3/K4. So the K visa entries represent 0.03% of all non-immigrant entries and 0.15% of all I-94 arrivals. The USCIS' first contact with many of these admissions occurred at the border without three months of petition processing. Many came on the VWP or received visas at an embassy without pre-approval by USCIS. So why not do the same for family members of US citizens? Allow them to initially apply at the embassy, get a visa; come to the USA; and then begin the I-130/I-485 process. The odds of one of them being a terrorist is no better or worse than the millions entering without several months of USCIS review."

http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/public...s/yearbook.shtm

The State Dept approves visas for the vast majority of entrants to the USA. Why not for K visas? The USCIS would still have a chance to get their say during the AOS process.