B2 Visa Denied - Philippines

[RhettVoe 282]

were you denied each time previously without being asked a single question? (that is, did you step up to the window each time and the CO promptly denied you without saying a word?)

[MacUK 983]

Nearly everyone who has posted the story of a tourist visa denial of a relative or friend tells similar stories...their relatives or friends would make Mother Theresa look like Al Capone....no one on this planet, perhaps even in the galaxy, has as much integrity and honesty as those relatives (or friends) and COs are just a bunch of bureaucrats who haven't a clue.....one cannot just fill out an employment application and become a foreign service officer...it takes far more smarts and savvy than most jobs...and all are screened for flaws before they are offered a job.

I must be weird, I accept that my own refusals were completely down to me.

I actually felt sorry for the CO, having to give bad news to people day in and day out has to get you down sometimes unless you've got some serious personality issues!

[RhettVoe 282]

That's the part many do not understand...a visa denial is not the fault of the CO...the applicant, for whatever reason(s), failed to establish their bona fides for whatever class or category of visa they were seeking...COs have had extensive training before they even do their first interview...and those who have conducted thousands of interviews are not likely in need of free, unsolicited advice on how they might be more 'fair' or whatever ('fair' usually meaning that a particular applicant should have been issued a visa, but wasn't, and thus the process or laws, etc, were deemed 'unfair' either by the applicant or some interested third party, both of whom lack the experience, training and judgment to override that decision.

[alicia98981 128]

9 FAM 41.31 N2.3 Mere Suspicion Not a Reason for Refusal

(CT:VISA-1034; 09-24-2008)

Suspicion that an alien, after admission, may be swayed to remain in the United States because of more favorable living conditions is not a sufficient ground to refuse a visa as long as the alien’s current intent is to return to a foreign residence.

Personally I think this is a form of discrimination on the State Department's part. I understand that it is automatically assumed that every B-2 applicant has immigrant intent. But if that's the case, I don't understand why the US allows certain people to apply to begin with. Sounds like a "we collect a fee to tell you we made a decision of 'No' before we even saw you, this interview is just a formality". Essentially there should be further guidelines as to what the requirements to apply are for certain countries as there are with European nations such as how much minimum finances you have, catergories of jobs and length of time being employed, etc. Each case is unique and individual and shouldn't be compared to every one else's. I read a story of a spouse who was filing for his mother in law to assist him with his first child after the daughter of said MIL end up in critical condition from complications with child birth. And of course, the MIL was denied for not having strong enough ties to home country despite having a job (though low paying), years with that job, a bank account, and home. How do you define someone's intent based on opinion? If having an itinerary, round trip tickets, a home, and a steady job aren't enough to prove intent, what is? If you're almost certain to be denied for not having strong ties as defined by CO who will by the way tell you strong ties vary from country (i.e the opinion of the CO), then essentially the State Department is collecting donations off people's desire to legitimately visit family and friends - of those trying to do things the legal and right way. Of course this is the fault of people who abuse the visa system but then again, how is there anyone to abuse the system in the majority of visas are denied anyway? So the question is, why is there a definitive answer as to what strong ties are if it is up to the CO to determine what those are as a strong reasoning for the CO may not be the same for another individual? For example, my whole life is in the Philipines regardless of how I live it, but if I'd like visit a family member in the US at that USC's invitation, I'm going over to the US with the intention of never returning to the Philipines according to the CO. Confused how this logic is determined before arriving for the interview, and without ever looking at documental proof.

Sorry just needed to vent some frustration at our "American Paranoia" . . . .

[MacUK 983]

Personally I strongly resent the presumption that only USCs could possibly love their own country. At least that's how it looks from my point of view.

I love my country, I served my country, I'll always be proud to be British.

But that's something that can't be proved in the eyes of the US government.

Once upon a time I was willing to move to the States for what I thought was love at the time, but I've never WANTED to live there.

But again, that's something that no piece of paper or form could ever prove.

[RhettVoe 282]

The State Dept is NOT at fault...a visa decision is not preordained....but when certain demographic applicants sbow up, whose prior behavior with tourist visas have been questionable at best, and whose stories for returning are the same, well, what are the COs supposed to do? Believe everyone just because some American bf thinks his pedigree means something? Refuse everyone because of historic abuse of visas? Or, interview everyone, ignore promises of compliance by everyone, and make their best judgment? I think the latter is what is currently true by and large. If there were not so many visa cheats and 'mind changers', perhaps more folks could get a tourist visa.

[alicia98981 128]

The State Dept is NOT at fault...a visa decision is not preordained....but when certain demographic applicants sbow up, whose prior behavior with tourist visas have been questionable at best, and whose stories for returning are the same, well, what are the COs supposed to do? Believe everyone just because some American bf thinks his pedigree means something? Refuse everyone because of historic abuse of visas? Or, interview everyone, ignore promises of compliance by everyone, and make their best judgment? I think the latter is what is currently true by and large. If there were not so many visa cheats and 'mind changers', perhaps more folks could get a tourist visa.

I didn't say that. I said the State Department has preconceived notions based on a certain demographic or profile. The law states that everyone much be treated with immigrant intent to prove other wise. It is up to each individual to convince and change the mind of the CO that that is not the case. Maybe you have't heard of the stories of wealthy business men denied B1 visas for failure to establish strong ties who then set up their businesses in Canada or else where. If you scour these forums, you will find similar stories with similar questions and backgrounds. One was denied, the other approved. The law says that the decision is premade based on immigrant intent until that individual an convince the CO otherwise of your intentions, regardless of what your real intentions are deep down in the bottom of your heart. You essentially answered your questions.

See this consular officers's statement for example: http://tribune.com.pk/story/563982/tips-on-getting-a-us-visa/

She says

"After a brief interview, the visa officer makes a decision about the applicant’s eligibility and explains it to the applicant. Unfortunately, not all applicants are eligible for visas, a fact driven by immigration law, not the officer’s personal opinion".

Not true according to

• 9 FAM 41.31 N2.3 Mere Suspicion Not a Reason for Refusal (CT:VISA-1034; 09-24-2008) Suspicion that an alien, after admission, may be swayed to remain in the United States because of more favorable living conditions is not a sufficient ground to refuse a visa as long as the alien’s current intent is to return to a foreign residence.

I find this hard to believe given that so many people on these forums have expressed that their interviewers didn't even look at their documents and asked 3 or 4 basic questions already answered on the DS-160.

• 9 FAM 41.31 N3.1 Period of Time in United States
  Consistent with Purpose of Trip (CT:VISA-701; 02-15-2005)The applicant must establish with reasonable certainty that departure from the United States will take place upon completion of the temporary visit. . . provided that you are satisfied that the intended stay actually has a time limitation and is not indefinite in nature.

So the CO determines the acceptable time frame to whatever the nature of the trip is, is how I interpret this.

• 9 FAM 41.31 N2 RESIDENCE ABROAD 9 FAM 41.31 N2.1 “Residence” Defined (CT:VISA-1365; 10-29-2009) The term “residence” is defined in INA 101(a)(33) as the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent. This does not mean that an alien must maintain an independent household in order to qualify as an alien who has a residence in a foreign country and has no intention of abandoning. If the alien customarily resides in the household of another, that household is the residence in fact.

So for all those single, young men and women, who are just starting out with a job or have no job yet have sponsor that don't own property, a lot of them fit the type with weak ties then even if they have future plans that would bring them back to their home such as school or work. The statement above is likely ignored if you believe the post of people who have been denied for having weak ties. So again, who defines what a strong or weak tie is?

• 9 FAM 41.31 N4.1 Unlawful Activity While in Visitor
  Status (CT:VISA-1753; 10-21-2011)The law contemplates that an alien is traveling to the United States for legal purposes. Therefore, an application for a visitor visa must be denied in those cases where you have reason to believe or know that, while in the United States as a visitor, the applicant will engage in unlawful or criminal activities.

That's basically in direct contradiction with the first law above because if the CO has any reason to believe in their professional personal opinion that the individual may be swayed to overstay their visit, i.e. breaking the law , because of weak ties home such as not owning a home (even though not owning a home is not considered abandonment under the law), not having a job, and being sponsored by another individual, you will be denied. It says believe meaning is in your opinion as the CO besides the obvious this personal will break a law.

• 9 FAM 41.31 N4.2 Adequate Funds to Avoid Unlawful Employment (CT:VISA-701; 02-15-2005) The arrangements which the applicant has made for defraying the expenses of his or her visit and return abroad must be adequate in order to prevent their obtaining unlawful employment in the United States.

If some COs won't even look at the documents of people requiring sponsoring from people who say they are willing and able to pay, then clearly part of the law is not being enforced.

And finally,

• FAM 41.31 N5 IMPORTANCE OF FACILITATING
  INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL You must be satisfied that the applicants have overcome the presumption of intending immigration.

That alone speaks volumes.

The only thing I can think of for a denial is

• 9 FAM 41.31 N3.2 Specific and Realistic Plans (CT:VISA-701; 02-15-2005) The applicant must have specific and realistic plans for the entire period of the contemplated visit.

And honestly a lot of ones I have seen are kinda vague: I want to visit (insert family member), I want to see this city, I'm having a baby ( although I don't know how much more plan than that you can get).

So I don't know how else you want to spin. That's my interpretation of the law how I read it, and based on what com mentors have stated as their own personal experiences, the law gives premeditated decisions that must be overturned by a CO.

[RhettVoe 282]

There is no contradiction...while the law presumes immigrant intent, the applicant must convince the CO otherwise...and note...there is no document on the planet that proves intent...nor is there a legal requirement that COs look at every silly piece of paper in order to judge intent...documents are easy to forge or purchase, so what good are they? They can only make a case weaker rather than stronger.

Young, single people make up the largest group of visa abusers, so it should come as no surprise thst their claims of honest jntentions are the least credible...as to the part about the CO being confident that the visa will be used properly, how many posters on this site and others have asked for clever ways to avoid having their frien spjn some story about visiting a friend, or a mother to avoid saying she is coming to babysit? Constantly.

COs are tasked and authorized to judge the applicant'intentions....not by following some narrow brightline requirements (which, if based mostly on documents, then every applicant zround the globe would soon find a way to obtain said documents, rendering them useless for adjudication purposes....which is what they are already)

[alicia98981 128]

There is no contradiction...while the law presumes immigrant intent, the applicant must convince the CO otherwise...and note...there is no document on the planet that proves intent...nor is there a legal requirement that COs look at every silly piece of paper in order to judge intent...documents are easy to forge or purchase, so what good are they? They can only make a case weaker rather than stronger.

Young, single people make up the largest group of visa abusers, so it should come as no surprise thst their claims of honest jntentions are the least credible...as to the part about the CO being confident that the visa will be used properly, how many posters on this site and others have asked for clever ways to avoid having their frien spjn some story about visiting a friend, or a mother to avoid saying she is coming to babysit? Constantly.

COs are tasked and authorized to judge the applicant'intentions....not by following some narrow brightline requirements (which, if based mostly on documents, then every applicant zround the globe would soon find a way to obtain said documents, rendering them useless for adjudication purposes....which is what they are already)

Ok, if you say so. I disagreed with your initial post, and you seemed to have some opinionated answers to what seemed like a cut and dry story that to me didn't have reason to be denied. But yet you argue with everything someone comments on and fully and wholeheartedly support the same system that people are learning to navigate to be reconnect with family members and special friends. *shrug* Whatever you say . . .

Edited January 2, 2014 by alicia98981

[Dave&Roza 748]

I will throw my wife's experience with getting a tourist visa out there for people to see how the same Consulate can come to a different conclusion. My wife wanted to visit the US in 2008--as our relationship was just getting started. So she applied for a tourist visa that I paid for. I sent her the money, she completed all the forms and submitted all her evidence of ties to her home country to the Consulate in Almaty, Kazakhstan. She had her "interview" with a nice young woman and was promptly denied. We discussed this and decided to change the invitation letter from me to a former co-worker she knew who happens to be a USC living in Kansas. So with a new letter of invitation she re-applied with all the same information as before. This was about 3 weeks later. She had an "interview" with a nice middle-aged man and was approved. The only real difference I can see is that the man knew where she worked and knew her income was well above the country's average salary. There was also the previous application at a cost of $160 and this application at a cost of $160. So you have the same Consulate in the same country with two different CO and two different outcomes.

OP: Have your MIL apply again by herself. Submit all documentation with the application. In Almaty they actually tell you to do this as the interview is to inform you whether you received the visa or was denied. There is no "interview" at the Consulate in Almaty as the decision is made before you arrive.

Good luck,

Dave

[SennaBrigante 92]

I applied for the tourist visa 3x. First was in 2010 while I was still formally employed. I went to the interview with my mom and she got approved and I got denied. I was asked 2 questions: what's your age and who's paying for your trip? The CO didn't ask to see any of the documents I brought with me even after I volunteered to show them.

I applied again in Nov. 2012 and I was at that time starting my own web content writing company. I did the interview alone. Brought the same types of documents just with updated info. CO didn't ask to see any of it. Got denied again for insufficient ties.

Stubborn me applied yet again in January 2013.Nothing has changed substantially from my situation and this time, brought close to zero documents with me. Went through the motions of the interview and got approved. I received a 10 year multiple entry visa.

My past denials were no doubt in the system but did it play a role in my last application? I'm not sure. I was lucky I got a friendly CO. Get your mom to apply again, alone this time. There's always a 50/50 chance when you apply and zero if you don't.

[RhettVoe 282]

BTW.. the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) is not law, but rather policy...neither the law nor the FAM requires COs to look at documents before making a decision. Intent cannot be proven via some piece of paper.

[cwaf 1]

I will weigh in on this for my sister-in-law in Ukraine. She has applied 3 times for a tourist visa over the last 6 years and denied 3 times. She is now 48 years old, so she was not some young girl looking to make a new life in America. Her first visit, they announced to the entire room not to hand any documents to the agents unless they are asked for them. She had a letter of invitation from me, a letter from her sick mother that she was the one providing support for her, evidence of the apartment they have lived in since it was new in 1971, and a letter from her employer authorizing her to take a 30 day vacation and guaranteeing she still had her job upon her return. They did not look at any paperwork other than her application and her passport. They asked one question: how long have you had your job? At that time, she had officially been employed for a little over a year, but actually had been working there for over 5 years. She answered "one year". The agent looked at her passport and saw that she had applied, and been denied, a visa to Germany about 3 years before, and then announced "if Germany denied you, so will I". ( A big difference is if Germany denies your visa, they refund 50% of your application fee!) She told us that her appointment time was at 8:30 that morning, but they made her wait until just after 12. She ended up being one of the last for the day. She also said she could see that almost everyone earlier was approvied---easy to see since they use a two color paper card system, one for approval and one if denied. She said beginning with the two women in front of her, each was denied very quickly, as were the last 3 behind her. When I asked questions about that, I was assured there is no quota system, but it sure seemed like it!

She applied again 6 months later, armed with similar documents, and again they did not look at them. Her reason to visit the USA was to visit her sister (my wife). DENIED A year later, attempt number 3 went better and and they actualy looked at her documents, and she said the gentleman was very nice. The timing of this visit was to see us, and to attend her only daughter's wedding (she had just traveled over on a fiance visa and was to marry an Air Force sergeant. They have been happily married for over 2 years). The agent wavered, and began reaching for the color card to indicate approval, but then changed and grabbed the other one and said he was sorry, but he was denying her. She was crushed. It has been about 2 1/2 years since then and my sister-in-law has married her long time live-in boyfriend. She has a new name and had to get a new passport since her other one expired--plus the name change. We hope the freshness will make things better because we will try for the 4th time, aiming for a May visit. It is much cheaper to pay for one person--her--to travel instead both me and my wife to go back to Ukraine for annual visits! Hopefully, being married and traveling without him is a sign of her desire to return to the Ukraine. Eventually we would like to have both live here permanently, but it will be within the system and not illegally! Until that time, we hope to have her as a visitor for a while each year. After all, I want to take a US vacation again and not have to use all my vacation time going back to Ukraine each year. hahahaha

[Boiler 45,690]

She wants to retire to the US?

[RhettVoe 282]

Which document(s) should be considering undeniable proof of an applicant's intentions? Why?

What unwaivable penalty should be given to an applicant who forges such documents?

I think, after some consideration, that most of you will agree that having COs rely heavily on documents is unwise zt the very least, and possibly dangerous at worst (if some really bad guy uses them to gain access to the US to do us harm).

So papers can do little to improve a case, but could easily work against an applicant who brings fake papers to his/interview.

One thing that might bring about an increase in visa issuance would be to end ALL changes of status or adjustment of statux from B2 visas, and halt all waivers....enforce responsibility by strictly enforcing our laws and close all loopholes to do otherwise.