Horrible marriage interview.

[A&J1234 0]

Wow, sorry to hear that! I have a interview next month, o don't know what to expect:/

[mymarriagejourney 113]

A sealed envelope from your sponsor...you didn't look inside? She could have put anything in there. I hope you know her REALLY well, so well that you trust her with your life. But she doesn't trust you to know about her job?

I think the sealed envelope from a sponsor is extremely odd. Not saying it is the OP's fault or implying that they are doing anything illegal. Only they know that. But, I most certainly looked over my husband's co-sponsor info and, in fact, he asked me to do so to make sure he had included everything.

[epsonderby 85]

When I read the initial post it just didn't make sense. There is too much contradiction and confusion from the OP so I can only imagine how that might have come across in the interview.

Back when I first spoke to our co-sponsor about the process they said that they wanted to keep their info private, which we respected, but by the time the had completed the paperwork they realized that we should know their job, salary and other details just in case it came up at the interview and so were happy for us to read through their I-864 and the accompanying documentation.

[Moomin 292]

You can't really help people with their interviews or potential red flags when you claim that your relationship is real and there aren't any red flags that you are seeing. Also, your lawyer might be great and working on your case however if he/she hasn't addressed at least one of the points in this topic, I'd re-evaluate what this person is doing for your case, especially if he/she was the one who advised you to get 30 affidavits, 500 pictures, your son's school papers, and so on.

They(USCIS) cannot hold it against you that you're on disability for that reason alone. However, being on disability, in need of a joint sponsor and the IO inquiring about a woman who supposedly trusted you enough to be a joint sponsor when you did not know her last name does - to me - not seem like a person who'd step in and help IF you(your wife) were in need of it. While it's allowed to have just about anyone as a joint sponsor who is eligible, the IO is also allowed to question the likelyhood of the applicant becoming a public charge in the future with all the combined factors.

Nobody on VJ will be doubting you love each other - that's your business. However we are looking at your case, your application. Please don't take that as a negative factor but instead try to look at your case with other eyes.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Myname is black and I’m a white male. A lot of people out there still just don’t like a white man with a black woman. I was surprised to find this happening at the USCIS.

If your intention of starting this thread was truly to help other people, you should retract this statement, race had absolutely nothing to do with this. You're doing a diservice to people giving them the idea that USCIS is racist.

[asdfg 18]

Any US Citizen can apply for any job and, if hired, begin performing it.

Therefore, any entity will have a variety of people hired who will display the range of traits shared by the public in general.

Nobody can deny that racist people exist, or do you deny the fact that racist people exist?

Now what would prevent an overtly racist person from applying for and getting a low level job at any entity, including USCIS?

The answer is: NOTHING.

So, to imply that someone is not racist just because they are hired by one or another entity is like saying Jesus didn't have natural calls or pissed a fresh air.

The difference between the US and other countries is that here in US we CAN say that such and such did wrong (that does not exclude racist behaviors towards us) and our right to say it and seek redress is something codified in Constitution.

Anyone who object to it is a traitor guilty of treason and sell out of True American values.

We do not know whether the OP was mistreated due to racial bias or not, but to exclude such possibility merely because OP is a common Citizen and one who allegedly done wrong is someone in authority says more about corrupted mindset of those who share such position than anything else.

We are all equal under the Law, we are all subject to the same law and no one is excluded from responsibility arising from this indisputable fact.

Edited September 12, 2012 by asdfg

[afoyoswa 178]

We were just trying to inform people and help them prepare for the immigration process as aforementioned.

You're right that many of us haven't yet reached the phase you're in of the immigration process, and are always on the lookout for helpful stories and tips to file away for later reference. Your story, however, doesn't really accomplish much in that regard, because it's so difficult to make out what is going on, because you've been pretty defensive/evasive in responding to questions from people trying to clarify things, and because you seem to be mixing a whole bunch of interpretation in with the concrete details and not clearly differentiating which is which.

And I agree that using "myname" (in a sentence where you also use "I" and speak in the first person) is impossibly difficult to follow, as is using **** to represent names you don't want to mention (it's more commonly used to represent profanities). Next time, I'd suggest using pseudonyms (friend is Laura "Jones" but CO asked who Laura "Smith" is, or Wife/Husband for the pair of you), if you're actually interested in providing an educational service.

[asdfg 18]

It is pointless to speculate about OP being right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate in describing and interpretation of events, whether they are reflecting the actual events transpired in real life or simply doing a project for a public research institution and posting stories on the public forums to measure the response. The fact is: we do not know any of this.

All we can do is consider possibilities and say "if so then so and if thus then thus". Nothing more or less.

Now to imply that OP is wrong and is giving misinformation , misinterpreting everything is just as biased and false view as claiming the opposite with the certainty. We can't be certain of something we do not know.

Instead of responding in a "matter of fact" way many seem to be eager to engage in speculations , with majority attacking credibility of the OP or consistency of his and her story, as if such speculations weren't destined to be fruitless and moot to begin with.

Edited September 12, 2012 by asdfg

[DandT14 272]

Here's my interpretation and speculation of what the redflags were.

The wife has overstayed her visa. She meets, falls in love with, and gets married to a USC man on disability in a matter of months.

Included with their application is pictures which were, at best, confusing. (Apparently there were pictures of friends in there?) At worst, they looked staged. The first question out of the IO when she saw the wife was "who are you?" That implies to me that she felt she had seen pictures of someone other than the wife in the application.

Also included with the application was a sealed I-864 package, demonstrating that the sponsor didn't really trust them with her information. Somehow the IO knew the maiden name of the sponsor, but the applicants did not. (When did the sponsor/friend change her name? How long have they been friends?) No one will ever know what else the sponsor might have thrown in that envelope.

We don't know what the other evidence included with the application was. But the evidence brought to the interview was, for the most part, weak.

Maybe there are lessons to be learned there for others. In any case, I don't see racism or discrimination. I see an IO doing their job. Maybe not nicely, but they're not required to be nice.

[Darnell 8,479]

[snip] The entire interview was demeaning and no one should be treated like this

Yikes. Either you got a really bad officer or

something was in the casefile that raised one or more red flags and the officer decided to put on the pressure.

Since you had a lawyer - I have to ask - why wasn't the lawyer present during the interview? They are allowed in during an interview.

[Darnell 8,479]

---

just caught up reading all of your prior posts.

WOW. disregard anything I mentioned, your lawyer is on the right track already.

I pray things work out well during the 2nd interview.

Good Luck !

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

several posts derailing the topic removed. please stay on topic - and cease the personal insults.

[Teddy B 17,252]

several posts derailing the topic removed. please stay on topic - and cease the personal insults.

Your on the ball today Chuck.

[rolemodel29 17]

Ok I was reluctant to put in my two cents but I think its my responsibility as a VJ member and also someone from Trinidad and Tobago to say something. I will be honest with you. After reading about your experience I was left totally confused. You entered with B2 visa overstayed by 2 years? You met you husband and after meeting him you were married in 2 months? You live in one of his parents houses although you pay the bills? You had how many affidavits? Why so many? You got 2 kids but only one lives with you? Why not both? You are 35 and he is almost 30? I am sorry but I am seeing red flags based on what you said here. I am very sorry that your experience at that interview was as it is and no one should go through something like that. But one got to ask, what about this relationship is long and binding? Whats is the real purpose of this marriage, is it for a green card or love? Would you have married someone in Trinidad or Tobago with the same attributes such as those of your husband's? You mention that the people who assisted you with all those affidavits knew about your relationship. What relationship, I cannot say marriage after 2 months give me much to go by. I am sorry but I wish you good luck. As I always say to others all you got to do is search deep with in your heart and you will know if your marriage is real or if it is conditional. Sometimes whats in a man's heart surface at the interview without you knowing it did. On a final note, the person conducting the interview know everything they need to know about your case before you appear in front of them, hence the reason that person acted so harsh with you. The things you submitted to them was what your interview was based on. The extras with respect to the attitude was a bonus which you got. I am so sorry you had to endure it. Its all part of the plan I guess.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

thread has been closed at the OP's request.