Inappropriate Interview

[Brian121957 43]

The beneficiary has to go to these K-1 interviews but the partitioner (USC) does not, or is different in Ecuador. Is Ecuador known for fraud?

I see posts about how it helps for the USC to be at the interview. At least with our experience in the Philippines it went so smooth without me (the USC) attending. I don't see how it could have been any better if I had attended.

If she, the USC, had not attended her fiancé's interview the entire line of questions would have been pointless. True if you don't go there may be some unanswered questions and you get AP. But if you do go and give the wrong answer you face out right denial.

Story's like this one just confirm to me it is best to NOT go to the interview.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Brian121957

[Hank_ 9,174]

The beneficiary has to go to these K-1 interviews but the partitioner (USC) does not, or is different in Ecuador. Is Ecuador known for fraud?

I see posts about how it helps for the USC to be at the interview. At least with our experience in the Philippines it went so smooth without me (the USC) attending. I don't see how it could have been any better if I had attended.

If she, the USC, had not attended her fiancé's interview the entire line of questions would have been pointless. True if you don't go there may be some unanswered questions and you get AP. But if you do go and give the wrong answer you face out right denial.

Story's like this one just confirm to me it is best to NOT go to the interview.

Rules are different at each embassy in each country, for some if the petitioner doesn't show up odds are slim of getting approved, some embassies even if the petitioner shows up isn't allowed in the embassy. And Manila.... well they seem to be very nice about allowing the petitioner in.... news at 11..... errrr...after the 21st of March.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Hank_Amy

[StraightShooter 62]

...Here is an article on Stokes interviews you might find interesting. It's about these interviews in the US, but they are based on the same principle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/nyregion/13fraud.html?pagewanted=all

Good article! Some funny stuff in there too.

[Shoot Em Straight 385]

The beneficiary has to go to these K-1 interviews but the partitioner (USC) does not, or is different in Ecuador. Is Ecuador known for fraud?

I see posts about how it helps for the USC to be at the interview. At least with our experience in the Philippines it went so smooth without me (the USC) attending. I don't see how it could have been any better if I had attended.

If she, the USC, had not attended her fiancé's interview the entire line of questions would have been pointless. True if you don't go there may be some unanswered questions and you get AP. But if you do go and give the wrong answer you face out right denial.

Story's like this one just confirm to me it is best to NOT go to the interview.

Stories like this post are a shocker...but you mention about not going to the interview...in Casablanca I would have LOVED to have been there with my big mouth to speak up for our rights. They tore my respectful fiance apart...We were simply blindsided...by the past fraud in Casablanca and paid hard. So this to is another variable from embassy to embassy.

I wish I could be in attendance. But dont ask me about condoms and if I use them...

[Vince and Cheryl 1]

Wait a minute...this is an interview for people who are ENGAGED, not married. These questions may be appropriate for a MARRIED couple to ensure the marriage was consummated, but not for an engaged couple.

Sorry I don't have any advice as to your recourse, but I find these questions to be inappropriate (unless you are pregnant = obviously having sex). I hope someone can direct you to the proper channels to report this.

I agree on this!

[Julie y Pat 67]

My wife and I were Stoked at the consulate in Bogota, but none of the questions were sexual in nature. I told my wife the night before our interview when we were preparing that they could ask questions about our sex life. But I just got a letter from USCIS Panama telling me that my wife's I-601 waiver was approved, so the tough interview we had is a distant memory now.

[Julie y Pat 67]

The beneficiary has to go to these K-1 interviews but the partitioner (USC) does not, or is different in Ecuador. Is Ecuador known for fraud?

I see posts about how it helps for the USC to be at the interview. At least with our experience in the Philippines it went so smooth without me (the USC) attending. I don't see how it could have been any better if I had attended.

If she, the USC, had not attended her fiancé's interview the entire line of questions would have been pointless. True if you don't go there may be some unanswered questions and you get AP. But if you do go and give the wrong answer you face out right denial.

Story's like this one just confirm to me it is best to NOT go to the interview.

Guayaquil is known for wanting the petitioner at the interview.

[Leatherneck 693]

Yes. And at the root of such an effort are individuals who have been subjected to humiliating and inapropriate treatment by the government and decide to speak out. Isn't that what the OP is trying to do? Being treated with disrespect is not a privilege.

Did you miss this little nugget the OP revealed in her post? "When they asked us when we started dating we said the general "oh in January of 2010" and we looked at each other searching for an approximate date. Think maybe that is why the first CO was not convinced of a valid relationship?"

The Stokes Interview or being 'Stoked' is a tool, an exploratory tool, yes, a fishing expedition, nothing more.

A Stokes is not a come on in, let me take your jacket, sit here in this Samtanbrogio Italian leather recliner, put your head back, here-take off those shoes, put your feet in these rabbit lined slippers, prop your feet up on this leather ottoman, oh...can I get you a chilled bottle of Perrier, some champagne or how about some warm milk? And while you're getting comfortable, my assistant will blow up some pretty metallic balloons, then serve you some freshly baked chocolate chip cookies, compliments of the consulate culinary staff.

It is a tool used to discover discrepancies, inconsistencies, little lies, big outright lies and to determine if a relationship is valid or of convenience. A Stokes can and sometimes reaches a level of invasiveness that is embarrassing and humiliating to the point of injuring one's dignity.

Sure the CO could've asked what they ate for breakfast or if the fiance combs his hair to the right or left, that would've been too easy, then why even have a second interview?

I wish I could tell you differently, it is what it is.

[Leatherneck 693]

I agree on this!

You agree on what?

[thelastpetitioner 218]

Point is, it should not be within their discretion to resort to these kinds of questions. In my world, the end does not justify the means. The means, though, do reveal character.

You must be living in a fantasy world then.

To them everyone is committing fraud until proven otherwise and if someone has short comings then they have every right to conduct a stokes .

I'm not sure if in YOUR WORLD people preper for interviews, but in my world, the real world and any other third world or terrorist country or simply any country with any language but English they do. There for OPs pause and search for answer in her fiancé's face was a red flag

This process isn't for theweak, dont get your panties in a bunc

Edited February 26, 2012 by thelastpetitioner

[Hank_ 9,174]

Why the stokes?

This one slipped in ... and broke a heart in the process (he should have had his AXX stoked!!):

Well, for those who saw my post earlier this week and all of the drama.....he decided last night that he wasn't in love with me anymore and didn't want to be with me. He left my house and returned today with police to get his things. There's a ton of ugliness in between last nght and now that happened but emotionally, I can't relive that right now so I'll omit that. But I will say that it was discovered he was in fact using me for the visa and this entire marriage was a lie, for him. My heart is broken but I know this is for the better. I called ICE and filed my fraud complaint and will follow through with the remaining steps.

I guess that the breaking point was when he had his friend confront me and tell me that I'm a crazy ###### if I thought any Dominican man would love an ugly gringa like me. And that he got what he wanted, the visa, so it was best to leave him alone now.

The rest of my day consisted of an overwhelming amount of messages and emails from his family offering money not to report him. Smh.

I know I'm crazy but I still love him. It absolutely kills me that he's done this and that I have to second guess all of the beautiful moments we had together. I may never get the answers I want but I'll have peace and that's most important.

I want to thank everyone so much for all of their advice while I've been on here. This is an amazing site.

My journey ends here ......

Edited February 26, 2012 by Hank_Amy

[jaycali 415]

This is what a stokes interview is, and they really have the right to ask any question they deem necessary to make sure it's not a sham marriage.

In their defense, thousands of immigrants enter the United States every year based on fraudulent marriages.

http://cis.org/marriagefraud <- Read this entire article and you'll get what I mean.

This article is excellent and addresses some of the things discussed here, and it's written by a former consular officer!

The CR-1 and K-1 visas are extremely important, no one should have to be separated from their families and spouses based on borders. But these visa categories are also some of the most widely fakes ones.

The point is, the consular officers have a tremendously important, yet difficult task in uncovering sham marriages. In the grand scheme of things, a consular officer asking when was the last time you had sex isn't entirely unreasonable. Stokes interviews for married couples when lifting conditions are different - There is a lot more to go off on.. They're able to ask questions like "who took the trash out yesterday?" or "Who usually cooks dinner?"

When you're engaged, it becomes a lot more limited what you can ask in these interviews because the couple hasn't yet lived together as married.

To the posters who say it's inappropriate to expect an engaged couple to have had sex yet.. No one is expecting them to have had sex. If they haven't yet, the interviewing officer is only expecting both of them to say "we haven't had sex yet." That would be fine.. What they're trying to do is check for consistency.

Say they ask both "When was the last time you has sex?" If the woman says "we're waiting til marriage." and the man says "Tuesday." this is one of the easiest ways to uncover a fraudulent K-1 case. Questions like these are also meant to surprise - They're difficult to prepare for. And that's the point of a stokes interview.

Congrats on getting your visa approved, I'm sorry about the questions asked. But they suspected fraud, they did what they had to do. They determined you were in fact a real couple, and they granted your fiance a visa to allow him to come to the US and live with you permanently.

As a last note, no one is forced to answer these questions although indirectly you may be. Anyone can say "I will not answer this" and leave. No one has to live in the US. I understand that in plenty of cases though, moving to the beneficiary's country is not really a viable option.

Edited February 26, 2012 by jhsm85

[Andy_R 12]

So sorry for this. We have a long way to go to as a nation that treats immigrants and foreigners with dignity. Don't get me wrong, I like living in the US and realize there are lots of worse places to be, but there is still lots of progress to be made...

[Leatherneck 693]

Why the stokes?

This one slipped in ... and broke a heart in the process (he should have had his AXX stoked!!):

Well, for those who saw my post earlier this week and all of the drama.....he decided last night that he wasn't in love with me anymore and didn't want to be with me. He left my house and returned today with police to get his things. There's a ton of ugliness in between last nght and now that happened but emotionally, I can't relive that right now so I'll omit that. But I will say that it was discovered he was in fact using me for the visa and this entire marriage was a lie, for him. My heart is broken but I know this is for the better. I called ICE and filed my fraud complaint and will follow through with the remaining steps.

I guess that the breaking point was when he had his friend confront me and tell me that I'm a crazy ###### if I thought any Dominican man would love an ugly gringa like me. And that he got what he wanted, the visa, so it was best to leave him alone now.

The rest of my day consisted of an overwhelming amount of messages and emails from his family offering money not to report him. Smh.

I know I'm crazy but I still love him. It absolutely kills me that he's done this and that I have to second guess all of the beautiful moments we had together. I may never get the answers I want but I'll have peace and that's most important.

I want to thank everyone so much for all of their advice while I've been on here. This is an amazing site.

My journey ends here ......

Yeap, an ideal candidate for a Stokes!

This is also very revealing and incriminating, "The rest of my day consisted of an overwhelming amount of messages and emails from his family offering money not to report him."

Edited February 26, 2012 by Leatherneck

[Xanax 349]

Hi all,

I believe that the IO could ask you things that were not sexual in nature to get the desired result, but I guess sex questions are a very good indicator of the truth. It would be rare that you would forget things like your partners favourite position, or how you had sex last night. Conversely it is easy to forget what colour your partner's tooth brush is or what his first pet's name was.

I do not like being asked about my sex life. I am a prude I guess.

My partner and I have discussed this and if asked we will say that we are waiting to have sex until marriage if asked. Whether or not that is a true statement, the IO will not know and not question, as long as our answers are the same.

Make sense?