Do You Think Petitioners Should Be Interviewed?

[OgaMum 4]

Hey Guys!

I am curious to know how many people on VJ feel about this question...."do you think petitioners should be interviewed"? I have noticed in most cases petitioners are expected to do administrative work but not given an opportunity for interview.

Why do you think embassies are focusing more on the applicants regarding interviewing? I think CO's would have a better idea of what type of couples they are dealing with than make up stuff that is not true.

I can understand if the petitioners aren't able to attend the interview because of costs etc..but what about petitioners that live in the same country as the applicants? I can understand space issues and etc....but they need to follow strict appointment schedule to avoid overcrowding.

Do you support the idea of petitioners being interviewed even at their home office?

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

There isn't a petitioner that isn't abolutely certain of the validity of their relationship and I doubt many CO's would be prepared to deal with the reactions of the petitioner when an interview does badly. There would be little benefit of a separate interview. I think the USC is owed a more complete explanation of denied visas and not just a blanket statement.

[apple21 953]

Maybe for countries with high numbers of beneficiaries undergoing AP.

[Penguin_ie 5,994]

**** Moving from DCF to General Immigration Discussion ****

[himher 634]

I (USC) was interviewed pretty thoroughly in the US Embassy Riyadh. The CO took turns with us. It was DCF.

[feli114 65]

I attended my husband's interview, (k1) and the officer asked me as many questions as he did my husband. I think the petitioner should have the opportunity to be interviewed, especially at the more difficult embassies. I was grateful that we went through Dakar.

[OgaMum 4]

There isn't a petitioner that isn't abolutely certain of the validity of their relationship and I doubt many CO's would be prepared to deal with the reactions of the petitioner when an interview does badly. There would be little benefit of a separate interview. I think the USC is owed a more complete explanation of denied visas and not just a blanket statement.

It is peculiar that CO's have the complete story with JUST ONE SPOUSE. I can see if both parties were interviewed separately to ensure authentication...however people do prepare for interviews so it is not like they will get an honest answer from crooks. It is amazing how CO's will come up with questions without getting the gritty...okay asking an applicant...what is the name of your spouse and he/she mispronounce the name...it is consider a red flag.

I mispronounced many of my friends' names but does that mean I am not their friend?? In my opinion..interviewing both parties is fair. It would make sense if they find red flags relating to answers and documents provided....not base on prejudice and discrimination.

It is like saying we will no longer welcome those with turbans because of 9/11.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

I think they should be interviewed but for different reasons than I think you do. I think for the protection of spouses and fiancées that have spent little time with the USC that serious questions be asked about the petitioner's past and other relationships. I think it is quite upsetting when a man with a history of abuse that might not have resulted in a police report or charge is able to basically import a woman and maltreat her because of the perceived power differences. I'm sure it happens with some men as well. I think we have a duty to protect the foreign (intended) spouse as much as the USC from fraud and abuse.