Inappropriate Interview

[Rufus2012 175]

Sex is not mandatory, however, you're missing the point. The CO was no more interested in that couples sex life as he is your sex life.

You have no idea what the CO was thinking. What a great career option for some pervert who loves to delve into peoples' private lives.

[Rufus2012 175]

Securing a visa to the U.S. or any country is a privilege and not a right. [/i]

It is a privilege, but that doesn't give some paper pusher whose salary I pay the right to ask questions that no decent person would. I understand it's a useful means to spot fraud, but there a lot of ways to spot fraud without getting into questions about sex; the COs just have to work harder. The day we, either as Americans or intending Americans, start just bending over and letting the government treat us anyway they see fit in order to get some "privilege" from them is the day we cease being a free people. And sadly, it's happening already.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Rufus2012

[Yau & Yadi 2]

It all depends to what extend are you willing to have an intimate relationship with your government (U.S). It has been documented that the CIA have asked these types of questions to new applicants, and even current employees (every 3 year or so). Except these are on the polygraph. They are called "life-style" screening test questions.

If you're applying for certain immigration benefits, I personally believe they should have the right to ask you any type of question - be it personal or not. After all, it is up to them to decide if you qualify for the applied benefit according to the type of answers and evidence you have provided them with.

It's all about that bona fide relationship, and an authentic and honest future marriage.

If you're not willing to answer any questions Immigration Officials ask of you because you think they are invading your privacy, don't expose yourself and save the paperwork. Same as in the airport, don't want to risk getting frisked by CBP out of your concern for your privacy? Don't travel.

And btw, is not like those officials at the embassy are going to care in the long run about your sexual behaviour. I am pretty sure you won't be the only person that has been asked these controversial questions, nor the last.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Yau & Yadi

[Leatherneck 693]

You have no idea what the CO was thinking. What a great career option for some pervert who loves to delve into peoples' private lives.

Ok, and neither do you! The purpose of the questions pertaining to sex was not done to be lewd, lascivious or prurient. To equate a consular officer career as being suitable for a pervert is a bit of a stretch, even for the wildest imaginations.

Since you arrived late, surely you read the OP's post carefully. The questioning was done during a Stokes Interview, not during the initial interview.

[Laure&Colin 557]

What some of you fail to realize here is that the embassy in Ecuador puts couples through Stokes interviews routinely, even when there is no particular concern on the bona fide of the relationship. THAT is out of line.

Moreover questions about sexual activity are no help to uncover "grey" marriages: when the USC is convinced it's a true marriage, but the foreigner is just pretending in order to gain immigration benefits. These couples do have a sex life, it's part of the con. So the foreign spouse will be able to answer any question about their sex life, although they're planning to run as soon as they get their green card...

[Leatherneck 693]

It is a privilege, but that doesn't give some paper pusher whose salary I pay the right to ask questions that no decent person would. I understand it's a useful means to spot fraud, but there a lot of ways to spot fraud without getting into questions about sex; the COs just have to work harder. The day we, either as Americans or intending Americans, start just bending over and letting the government treat us anyway they see fit in order to get some "privilege" from them is the day we cease being a free people. And sadly, it's happening already.

Before you blow an artery or have an aneurysm, "...paper pusher," really? Do yourself a favor and research Stokes Interview and the legal case. You may not like the invasive, personal nature of the questions, however, questions of that nature are accepted and used by USCIC and consulates.

[Laure&Colin 557]

Before you blow an artery or have an aneurysm, "...paper pusher," really? Do yourself a favor and research Stokes Interview and the legal case. You may not like the invasive, personal nature of the questions, however, questions of that nature are accepted and used by USCIC and consulates.

From what I just read about Stokes interview guidelines, the couple is allowed to bring a lawyer to it. I don't think the OP here was made aware of that...

[evoria 19]

I can not believe the US Government feels these are appropriate questions. Come on what do these questions prove. Like she said who knows the exact date they started dating? If they had answered with synchronized answers that would have been more of a red flag to me. It would have been rehearsed, and who knows the answers to these questions. When you meet someone, do you think I better write down this date, because one day we will want to be married, apply for a fiancé visa, sit in an interview and they will ask me, so I better write this day down. No you don't.

[Hank_ 9,174]

I can not believe the US Government feels these are appropriate questions. Come on what do these questions prove. Like she said who knows the exact date they started dating? If they had answered with synchronized answers that would have been more of a red flag to me. It would have been rehearsed, and who knows the answers to these questions. When you meet someone, do you think I better write down this date, because one day we will want to be married, apply for a fiancé visa, sit in an interview and they will ask me, so I better write this day down. No you don't.

<a href="http://www.weddingcountdown.com">

<img border="0" src="http://img.weddingcountdown.com/ticker/t2j3816.png" alt="save the date" />

</a>

I think when they go the STOKES route in trying to weed out the "Sam's" not only are all questions fair game but maybe the beneficiary should be strapped to a lie detector. "Sam" is also the reason that certain countries end up being on the "list" as high fraud and the stokes interview becomes more common. The stokes failed mostly because "Sam" was the only one deceiving EVERYONE, the petitioner was just being played.

BTW you link does not work because HTML isn't the right code use BBC " [ ] "

[NoneYa 73]

I disagree. There is a limit to how far one must go, and such questions are pushing it. They are demeaning and they should not be asked.

You have a right to answer the questions or not. The CO could not care any less about your sex life. If you feel so strongly you could tell him you will not answer them and the interview is over. It's that simple. It's your choice. Nobody is twisting your arm. Why do you feel you can impress on the US that we should let you in as a resident without your cooperation? You don't have to move here. You are asking to move here.

What you are not aware of is the amount of people that will pay $ 10,000 to move to the US because they want to live here. There is so much fraud that if the CO is not convinced about your relationship ( and they were not convinced in this case) that it is within their right to determine if they are telling the truth or a "sham".

We were prepared to answer such questions because we knew they were doing their job and we support them in making sure that fraudulent people don't come into this country and suck our resources, health care, food stamp programs and other government benefits dry.

By the way, we were not asked these kinds of questions as I would bet 98% of people are not. The other 2% should do a better job of proving their relationship to the CO and not making him figure it out. Our interview was so simple because we were prepared and presented a strong case.

I am really sick of people who come to this country and complain about it. These are the same people that were complaining when they left their own country. At least here you can get involved in government and you have a chance of changing it. Talk to your congressman about this but don't say they can't ask these questions because they can.

Edited February 26, 2012 by NoneYa

[james&olya 1,121]

It is a privilege, but that doesn't give some paper pusher whose salary I pay the right to ask questions that no decent person would. I understand it's a useful means to spot fraud, but there a lot of ways to spot fraud without getting into questions about sex; the COs just have to work harder. The day we, either as Americans or intending Americans, start just bending over and letting the government treat us anyway they see fit in order to get some "privilege" from them is the day we cease being a free people. And sadly, it's happening already.

It is precisely BECAUSE such questions are so very upsetting that they are useful in helping to spot fraud! It is harder to perpetuate a fraud when you are emotionally upset. Maybe using a polygraph would be more useful, especially at weeding out the fraudsters that are using the USC just to get a green card! But if the option is either to deny based on a 'soft' interview or have a chance at approval with the horrible 'stokes' interview, I would think most people would opt for the latter. Just try to keep in mind that they are only doing their job, they have no personal or prurient interest in the answers. Think of it like going to your gynecologist! Horribly invasive but for a good reason.

[brian_n_phuong 193]

I am really sick of people who come to this country and complain about it. These are the same people that were complaining when they left their own country. At least here you can get involved in government and you have a chance of changing it. Talk to your congressman about this but don't say they can't ask these questions because they can.

Post of the Year !!!

If you dont like the US and the way you are treated, then stay in your OWN country! Its YOUR option.

[mari&Ryan 93]

I wonder why always that someone bring a controversial post the OP never comes back again. It's more like dropping a bomb and running. On the other hand we seem love drama or we just need to drain our frustation. either way I still wonder why some OP doesn't come back to deal with the mess.

Edited February 26, 2012 by mari&Ryan

[Darnell 8,478]

inappropriate? no.

why? 2 reasons:

1. you had a stokes interview. These subjects are common in a Stokes Interview.

2. The IV Unit where the interview took place.

[Darnell 8,478]

Sigh, man. It never fails, no man. Every time that I fail to log on to VJ for more than 24 hours, a crisis or significant situation arises regarding Guayaquil.

First thing is that the OP needs to update her timeline to reflect a second interview (same-day though it was) and that the first was not approved. The reason can be called 221g.

Second thing is that every Ecuador filer needs to read the "US Consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador" thread (in the Embassy/Consulate forum) from beginning to end, before filing initially with USCIS and before interviewing.

Third thing is that every VJ contributor to any thread about the #######, hellhole Guayaquil consulate needs to read that thread from beginning to end before commenting on any thread about Ecuador.

Everyone should also read the Embassy Review of the ####### hellhole by PDXBicycleBoy, who got hosed perhaps the worst of any of us.

I have intentionally not yet written a review of my own experience in the ####### hellhole. I'm waiting until we file the N-400 for Mrs. T-B.'s citizenship and she becomes a USC. Afterwards, I plan to file an "after-visa complaint" with the Department of State (I have the contact information), with copy to the Consul General of the ####### hellhole.

If there's any mercy in your soul as a VJ member, the "campaign" that must begin and be successful is for the "US Consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador" thread to be pinned in the Embassy/Consulate forum. To keep it where people might notice it, it's had to be bumped far too many times. Captain Ewok, our intrepid leader, is the sole approval authority. Thank you in advance, si man.

Yup, oh what a difference 24 hours makes, yes?

See, there were 68 other posts before yers, mostly screaming righteous indignation,

where mostly

THEY NOT KNOW OF THE CR@P in Guayaquil.

THEY COULD LEARN OF IT, choosing to be a reader, always.

The stuff is posted for anyone to read, here at VJ.

For the OP - I pray is some good news later on this week.

I wonder why always that someone bring a controversial post the OP never comes back again. It's more like dropping a bomb and running. On the other hand we seem love drama or we just need to drain our frustation. either way I still wonder why some OP doesn't come back to deal with the mess.

Hey - come on - it was just yesterday when she posted.

Now it's the weekend, they're still there, and together; most likely recovering from the ordeal sans computer access. Which is exactly what YOU WOULD DO, given the exact same parameters.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Darnell