Inappropriate Interview

[Leatherneck 693]

The big picture is that the guy was a damn pervert who chose from 100 possible topics, the 1 one got his jollies. I come from a totalitarian background, I know what abuse is, and no, I don't think what he did wasn't offensive.

You seem to be the one stuck on and obsessed with the sex aspect of the questions. Educate yourself and get over it, 'Stokes' is used by USCIS and has survived challenges.

[alizon 77]

Consular "...officers are not trained to avoid questions about sex." Asking questions about sex during a 'Stokes Interview' is accepted by USCIS and all the way down to the Office of Visa Services.

This is what I was referring to:

"Stokes supervisors said that officers were trained to avoid questions about sex, but they cannot stop X-rated answers, like one from the citizen wife who was asked what she did for her spouse’s birthday and began recounting their night together in explicit detail. " (emphasis added)

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

And again, having these questions be part of USCIS policy doesn't mean that policy can't/shouldn't be challenged. Citations for the failed challenges would be useful for the discussion.

Edited February 26, 2012 by alizon

[Leatherneck 693]

Yeah, incredible as it may seem, we are loyal to the countries we were born into and lived into for so long. Shocking, I know.

As for the whole "I wore the uniform", gimmie a break, both of my grandmothers were caught in a serious war, lived in cities that were bombarded for years and didn't make a fuss about it.

Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand this, you're still having difficulty the 'Stokes' concept. It really doesn't take much effort to focus on sex and perverts, however, it does take a bit of reasoning to see the big picture.

[Peter_Pan 661]

You seem to be the one stuck on and obsessed with the sex aspect of the questions. Educate yourself and get over it, 'Stokes' is used by USCIS and has survived challenges.

Perhaps because the sex aspect is the inappropriate one?

[Rufus2012 175]

You seem to be the one stuck on and obsessed with the sex aspect of the questions. Educate yourself and get over it, 'Stokes' is used by USCIS and has survived challenges.

No one is arguing that this process hasn't survived legal challenges. My point is, it's wrong. It's disgusting, it's embarrassing to me as an American that my government hires people who stoop to this level; and at the same time that same government doesn't address the real immigration problems on the Mexican border. There were 35,000 K1s last years, even if all were fraudulent, that still pales in comparison to the number of illegals already in this country.

I don't think a CO or USCIS offical as part of AOS should be allowed to ask questions about activities which would be illegal to perform in public. The CO who interviewed my fiance was courteous and professional. He asked some detailed yet entirely reasonable questions about our timeline and history together, which to me indicated he had done his homework, and he would have easily tripped her up if we had been faking it - they can catch the frauds if they're willing to work at it without resorting to demeaning questions, and I applaud those who do.

[Peter_Pan 661]

Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand this, you're still having difficulty the 'Stokes' concept. It really doesn't take much effort to focus on sex and perverts, however, it does take a bit of reasoning to see the big picture.

A central aspect of Roman law, and indeed law in all the Western cilivization, lays in the fact that is the better to leave 10 guilty persons walk than to condamn 1 innocent. The big picture doesn't mean ####### when it is created on injustice. Just like going back in time to kill Hitler as a baby - you may have saved some million lives, but that doesn't make you less of a baby killer.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Peter_Pan

[Leatherneck 693]

This is what I was referring to:

"Stokes supervisors said that officers were trained to avoid questions about sex, but they cannot stop X-rated answers, like one from the citizen wife who was asked what she did for her spouse's birthday and began recounting their night together in explicit detail. " (emphasis added)

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

And again, having these questions be part of USCIS policy doesn't mean that policy can't/shouldn't be challenged. Citations for the failed challenges would be useful for the discussion.

It's been challenged and 'Stokes' is still standing. Now, I did the heavy lifting for you, below is from the Adjudicator's Field Manual:

15.3 Officer Conduct and Appearance.

(a) Appearance.

(a) Appearance

It is imperative that the officer conducting the interview dress in a professional manner. Both males and females should wear appropriate business attire, although some offices may permit "business casual" attire on certain days.

(b) Conduct and Attitude

All interviews should be conducted in a courteous and businesslike manner. The following guidelines will ensure that the interview is conducted professionally:

• Maintain control of the interview at all times. "Maintaining control" does not mean being overbearing or abusive; on the contrary, it requires that the officer maintain a professional demeanor at all times. The exact nature of that professional demeanor will sometimes vary, according to the interview techniques being employed (see below). The ability of the officer to maintain control of him/herself is instrumental in maintaining control of the interview.
• Speak clearly, distinctly and not too rapidly, using plain and simple language when questioning an applicant, petitioner or witness. Avoid complex and lengthy questions, and always obtain a responsive answer before proceeding to the next questions. Avoid USCIS jargon.
• At all times maintain due regard for the rights of the person being questioned.
• Avoid arguments with the person being interviewed, as well a remarks of a personal nature that may be taken as a reflection of a judgment of a personal lifestyle.
• Refrain from making any extraneous comments or asking extraneous questions, as they are irrelevant to the purpose of the interview and detract from the professional demeanor that the officer should maintain. Avoid questions about a person's religious beliefs or practices unless they are relevant to determine the individual's eligibility for a benefit. Do not make any comments that might be taken as a negative reflection upon any other person, race, religion, or country.
• Maintain professional conduct even if the interviewee becomes abusive or if derogatory information is developed. If necessary, contact a supervisor.
• Be fair, courteous, and patient without diminishing in any degree full and complete development of the material facts, whether they be favorable or adverse to the person being interviewed or any other person.
• When questioning persons concerning sexual relations, always avoid questions which can be construed solely as prurient or prying.
• Ensure that your demeanor is unprejudiced, impartial, and creates no foundation for complaints that you have been unfair or have used any mistreatment or duress.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Leatherneck

[alizon 77]

No one is arguing that this process hasn't survived legal challenges.

I kind of am...can someone point me to records of these legal challenges specifically for asking questions about the petitioner's sex life?

It's been challenged and 'Stokes' is still standing. Now, I did the heavy lifting for you, below is from the Adjudicator's Field Manual:

.[*]When questioning persons concerning sexual relations, always avoid questions which can be construed solely as prurient or prying.[*]Ensure that your demeanor is unprejudiced, impartial, and creates no foundation for complaints that you have been unfair or have used any mistreatment or duress.

Right, so it's a subjective standard. Someone could certainly argue that questions about condom usage are prying.

EDIT: Also, that doesn't instruct officers to ask sexual questions, and certainly doesn't seem to indicate that they should be central to the interview. It just seems to indicate that if you have to ask those questions, here's how to do it. There's a difference between, "Did you have sex before you were married?" or "Did you have sex when you first met?" and "Who puts the condom on you? You or your wife?"

Edited February 26, 2012 by alizon

[Leatherneck 693]

Perhaps because the sex aspect is the inappropriate one?

To you, perhaps.

[Shoot Em Straight 385]

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 " [ ] "

Hi If I am assuming you are still speaking of the "He is gone" post still on VJ...just to be respectful to the other OP you are quoting from...."SAM" in not a man...

"SAM" IS the PETITIONER and the woman that was jilted.

[southcalhog 43]

It's been challenged and 'Stokes' is still standing. Now, I did the heavy lifting for you, below is from the Adjudicator's Field Manual:

15.3 Officer Conduct and Appearance.

(a) Appearance.

(a) Appearance

It is imperative that the officer conducting the interview dress in a professional manner. Both males and females should wear appropriate business attire, although some offices may permit "business casual" attire on certain days.

(b) Conduct and Attitude

All interviews should be conducted in a courteous and businesslike manner. The following guidelines will ensure that the interview is conducted professionally:

• Maintain control of the interview at all times. "Maintaining control" does not mean being overbearing or abusive; on the contrary, it requires that the officer maintain a professional demeanor at all times. The exact nature of that professional demeanor will sometimes vary, according to the interview techniques being employed (see below). The ability of the officer to maintain control of him/herself is instrumental in maintaining control of the interview.
• Speak clearly, distinctly and not too rapidly, using plain and simple language when questioning an applicant, petitioner or witness. Avoid complex and lengthy questions, and always obtain a responsive answer before proceeding to the next questions. Avoid USCIS jargon.
• At all times maintain due regard for the rights of the person being questioned.
• Avoid arguments with the person being interviewed, as well a remarks of a personal nature that may be taken as a reflection of a judgment of a personal lifestyle.
• Refrain from making any extraneous comments or asking extraneous questions, as they are irrelevant to the purpose of the interview and detract from the professional demeanor that the officer should maintain. Avoid questions about a person's religious beliefs or practices unless they are relevant to determine the individual's eligibility for a benefit. Do not make any comments that might be taken as a negative reflection upon any other person, race, religion, or country.
• Maintain professional conduct even if the interviewee becomes abusive or if derogatory information is developed. If necessary, contact a supervisor.
• Be fair, courteous, and patient without diminishing in any degree full and complete development of the material facts, whether they be favorable or adverse to the person being interviewed or any other person.
• When questioning persons concerning sexual relations, always avoid questions which can be construed solely as prurient or prying.
• Ensure that your demeanor is unprejudiced, impartial, and creates no foundation for complaints that you have been unfair or have used any mistreatment or duress.

:thumbs:

[Rufus2012 175]

When questioning persons concerning sexual relations, always avoid questions which can be construed solely as prurient or prying.

Ah, so the manual says it's okay and puts in some vague CYA language. That makes it okay to you, doesn't it?

If your attitude is representative of most members of the military (and luckily it isn't based on the veterans I know and work with), all I can say is thank God for the Posse Comitatus Act.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Rufus2012

[Leatherneck 693]

I kind of am...can someone point me to records of these legal challenges specifically for asking questions about the petitioner's sex life?

Right, so it's a subjective standard. Someone could certainly argue that questions about condom usage are prying.

You can anything you want, yet, Yet, nowhere does it explicitly recommend a CO/IO to avoid questions about sex. It just does not exist.

Now if you and the others don't like it, you have the right to "redress of grievances" as guaranteed by the Constitution. Trying to make a case here about not liking it is futile.

[alizon 77]

You can anything you want, yet, Yet, nowhere does it explicitly recommend a CO/IO to avoid questions about sex. It just does not exist.

Now if you and the others don't like it, you have the right to "redress of grievances" as guaranteed by the Constitution. Trying to make a case here about not liking it is futile.

True, I was making that judgment based on what Stokes officers told the NYTimes, not the manual. And also true, it's not going to change USCIS policy to discuss it here. But as an American, I'm free to discuss the issue, particularly as I'm just trying to learn more about it. You're free to be annoyed by my asking questions, but I'm free to be annoyed by people making claims with no evidence to back it up. For example: I searched my university's legal database for "stokes" and "stokes interview" and came up with nothing related to immigration. So I'm still not convinced that Stokes has "survived legal challenges."

Edited February 26, 2012 by alizon

[Leatherneck 693]

Ah, so the manual says it's okay and puts in some vague CYA language. That makes it okay to you, doesn't it?

If your attitude is representative of most members of the military (and luckily it isn't based on the veterans I know and work with), all I can say is thank God for the Posse Comitatus Act.

You have no idea what my attitude is about much of anything, besides the 'Stokes Interview' issue. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, which 'Stokes' has ZERO connection.

If you don't like it, then you have a right to "redress of grievances"