Is it legal to record the CR1 Interview with CO

[Transborderwife 4,666]

whatever... secondly yes just a typo....

and if you think you're right about COs lying, why don't you submit your evidence ....

i guess you are the one who uses critical thinking.... why don't you issue yourself or whoever a visa and give us a break from all these ranting and baseless whining

Take a look at post #81 on this thread: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/570205-report-rude-consular-officers/page-6

[san diego 407]

This is not about labeling countries, etc. This is about protecting country as well as protecting USC petitioners from scammers. This is a very common scam in MENA, African countries, for young guys to reach-out to older women via social media, lure them into love, getting GC, and abandoning them once they get what they want. Thus, those measures are also set to protect petitioners. Not that there are no exceptions. I am sure there are few exceptions. However, COs trained to look for signs of fraud. This is not about them showing their power. They are just following their guidelines.

[HFM181818 750]

Again, for the learning impaired, if you've not been a CO, you have no idea of their background and skills.

My comment about having an envelope ready should be read again....I said that if I got pushback or reluctance to provide what I asked for, then the applicant and the petitioner would have left me no choice but to send their case back....I did not and would not stand for someone just trying to intimidate me using a variety of ways (ones they thought would work) instead of doing what I asked.

You choose to categorize my techniques as 'a power trip'...yes, I had the power, but I had little tolerance for those who just wanted me to change my mind without sufficient cause, wanted to call me names, threaten me with bodily harm (or even death!), etc. When they crossed that line, their case went back. If I asked for X, Y or Z and got only excuses instead, back went their case. If they brought me credible X, Y or Z, then their case would be approved. Only when either the applicant (or more often) the petitioner wanted to challenge me without providing what I asked would I resort to immediately sending the case back (and the petitioner would be warned that would happen....it was up to the petitioner to decide).

What I would not (did not) do is ask for X, Y or Z, get it, then find something new to delay their case, because that would not be fair. But I was not a pushover. Many people tried all sorts of ways to convince/intimidate/threaten me to issue a visa without sufficient evidence....that's what envelopes are for.

Those who complied and qualified in all other respects or who proved the validity of their relationship via interviews, documents, photos, whatever, were issued. I cared not where they were from, but when I worked in high fraud countries, a lot of those cases got put under a microscope for good reason.

I had been given a consular commission, from Congress, to carry out my duties in certain ways. I made my own decisions without help from third parties, because at the end of the day, it was my name on the approval line. So I took my responsibility quite seriously, and did not fall prey to tears, begging, whining or threats. And that's just the way it is.

Obviously those whose applications were denied often vehemently disagreed....but disagreement does not equal instant qualification. I don't doubt that many unhappy BFs, GFs, petitioners, etc, thought that if they wrote their congressman/senator, why, all would be well....they were surprised when nothing happened. Congress lacks the authority (on purpose) to order a CO to issue or deny a visa. In fact, NO ONE, including the president of the US, is empowered to tell a CO what visa to issue and which one to refuse.

Yes, that represents a lot of authority...but that's the current law(s). Like it or lump it.

What we have not heard from some of those whose cases were denied was how certain questions were answered, what background issues their beneficiary might have had...etc...we only hear their opinions about the situation...but skillful interviewing comes with experience and there are many many variables involved, beyond merely perusing a bunch of documents.

There are a lot of very common ways in which people exhibit discomfort or evasiveness during an interview, and when those indicators are present, more detailed questions will follow...and when the applicant gives up answering those questions, well, that is NOT a reason to issue a visa. It's time to get to the bottom of whatever might be going on...and that takes time, time the CO does not have ...each applicant (for an IV) might be allocated 30 minutes or so (there are people in the waiting room)...after that, if little progress is being made, then the CO either asks for X, Y or Z within a certain time frame, or, if instead, gets a lot of push back from either party instead of acquiescing to the CO's request, then time is up and the case will be sent back, and USCIS can take over, because they have almost unlimited amounts of time to deal with these types of cases.

[strongmyk 51]

Again, for the learning impaired, if you've not been a CO, you have no idea of their background and skills.

My comment about having an envelope ready should be read again....I said that if I got pushback or reluctance to provide what I asked for, then the applicant and the petitioner would have left me no choice but to send their case back....I did not and would not stand for someone just trying to intimidate me using a variety of ways (ones they thought would work) instead of doing what I asked.

You choose to categorize my techniques as 'a power trip'...yes, I had the power, but I had little tolerance for those who just wanted me to change my mind without sufficient cause, wanted to call me names, threaten me with bodily harm (or even death!), etc. When they crossed that line, their case went back. If I asked for X, Y or Z and got only excuses instead, back went their case. If they brought me credible X, Y or Z, then their case would be approved. Only when either the applicant (or more often) the petitioner wanted to challenge me without providing what I asked would I resort to immediately sending the case back (and the petitioner would be warned that would happen....it was up to the petitioner to decide).

What I would not (did not) do is ask for X, Y or Z, get it, then find something new to delay their case, because that would not be fair. But I was not a pushover. Many people tried all sorts of ways to convince/intimidate/threaten me to issue a visa without sufficient evidence....that's what envelopes are for.

Those who complied and qualified in all other respects or who proved the validity of their relationship via interviews, documents, photos, whatever, were issued. I cared not where they were from, but when I worked in high fraud countries, a lot of those cases got put under a microscope for good reason.

I had been given a consular commission, from Congress, to carry out my duties in certain ways. I made my own decisions without help from third parties, because at the end of the day, it was my name on the approval line. So I took my responsibility quite seriously, and did not fall prey to tears, begging, whining or threats. And that's just the way it is.

Obviously those whose applications were denied often vehemently disagreed....but disagreement does not equal instant qualification. I don't doubt that many unhappy BFs, GFs, petitioners, etc, thought that if they wrote their congressman/senator, why, all would be well....they were surprised when nothing happened. Congress lacks the authority (on purpose) to order a CO to issue or deny a visa. In fact, NO ONE, including the president of the US, is empowered to tell a CO what visa to issue and which one to refuse.

Yes, that represents a lot of authority...but that's the current law(s). Like it or lump it.

What we have not heard from some of those whose cases were denied was how certain questions were answered, what background issues their beneficiary might have had...etc...we only hear their opinions about the situation...but skillful interviewing comes with experience and there are many many variables involved, beyond merely perusing a bunch of documents.

There are a lot of very common ways in which people exhibit discomfort or evasiveness during an interview, and when those indicators are present, more detailed questions will follow...and when the applicant gives up answering those questions, well, that is NOT a reason to issue a visa. It's time to get to the bottom of whatever might be going on...and that takes time, time the CO does not have ...each applicant (for an IV) might be allocated 30 minutes or so (there are people in the waiting room)...after that, if little progress is being made, then the CO either asks for X, Y or Z within a certain time frame, or, if instead, gets a lot of push back from either party instead of acquiescing to the CO's request, then time is up and the case will be sent back, and USCIS can take over, because they have almost unlimited amounts of time to deal with these types of cases.

GOD BLESS YOU!

[Unchained 37]

This is not about labeling countries, etc. This is about protecting country as well as protecting USC petitioners from scammers. This is a very common scam in MENA, African countries, for young guys to reach-out to older women via social media, lure them into love, getting GC, and abandoning them once they get what they want. Thus, those measures are also set to protect petitioners. Not that there are no exceptions. I am sure there are few exceptions. However, COs trained to look for signs of fraud. This is not about them showing their power. They are just following their guidelines.

I know you feel very fulfilled contributing to this topic but Ur comment failed in LOGIC. Visas are benefits given to relatives of a USC who meets certain requirements. These requirements are written all over the internet and once it is met, a visa is supposed to be issued to the beneficiary. Yes or No? Now u implying that IOs deny people to protect petitioners from their spouse who they(IOs) suspect could be using the petitioners for visa benefits is what i call using Emotions for Brains. And if that for any reason happens to be the case, then the IO has failed in his/her duty just like your comment.

[HFM181818 750]

All of this is not to state or claim that every CO is 'perfect.' The 'power' if you will, comes with tremendous responsibility...do some perhaps abuse that power? Probably. It is up to the senior consular officer to take such a person under their wings and train them to be better COs...in fact, that is one major responsibility of a senior CO...(or delegate to someone with experience...a job I often had....training colleagues).

I believe (some will disagree) that a CO may be perceived as 'rude' or 'arrogant' when they don't bend to emotional feedback from the applicant or petitioner...and they should not, because making visa decisions based on emotions is dangerous. So yes, a good (or hopefully good!) CO may come across rather stern at times, but (hopefully) for good reason(s). I cannot tell you how many times I've people do just about anything (other than what I asked!) to get me to grant a visa (from tourist visas to student visas to H1bs to CR1s, to DVs).....without success.

I am sorry that some of you are experiencing delays...it is not a perfect system...but trying to just castigate COs in general won't change anything...you can write letters all you wish, but those letters will be taken with a huge grain of salt...because they are expected when people don't get what they want (or what they believe they deserve).

I've been accused of just about everything, fended off irate petitioners, congressional staff aides, physical threats, physical attempts to injure me (on the street), etc, but at the end of the day, I prevailed. why? Because I did not cross the line. I operated from the high ground by not bending my ethics....ever....under any circumstance. That meant zero 'favors' requested from congressmen/senators ('reconsideration' or have their constituent moved to the head of the line, etc...the answer was always 'sorry, not happening') and that meant I could sleep at night, knowing that no one had anything on me. It takes a certain type of person to do that job with that much focus, but I enjoyed it immensely....(and no, not for the 'power to say no' but rather for the power to say 'yes' according to our laws).

[MrsBonsu 138]

Again, for the learning impaired, if you've not been a CO, you have no idea of their background and skills.

My comment about having an envelope ready should be read again....I said that if I got pushback or reluctance to provide what I asked for, then the applicant and the petitioner would have left me no choice but to send their case back....I did not and would not stand for someone just trying to intimidate me using a variety of ways (ones they thought would work) instead of doing what I asked.

You choose to categorize my techniques as 'a power trip'...yes, I had the power, but I had little tolerance for those who just wanted me to change my mind without sufficient cause, wanted to call me names, threaten me with bodily harm (or even death!), etc. When they crossed that line, their case went back. If I asked for X, Y or Z and got only excuses instead, back went their case. If they brought me credible X, Y or Z, then their case would be approved. Only when either the applicant (or more often) the petitioner wanted to challenge me without providing what I asked would I resort to immediately sending the case back (and the petitioner would be warned that would happen....it was up to the petitioner to decide).

What I would not (did not) do is ask for X, Y or Z, get it, then find something new to delay their case, because that would not be fair. But I was not a pushover. Many people tried all sorts of ways to convince/intimidate/threaten me to issue a visa without sufficient evidence....that's what envelopes are for.

Those who complied and qualified in all other respects or who proved the validity of their relationship via interviews, documents, photos, whatever, were issued. I cared not where they were from, but when I worked in high fraud countries, a lot of those cases got put under a microscope for good reason.

I had been given a consular commission, from Congress, to carry out my duties in certain ways. I made my own decisions without help from third parties, because at the end of the day, it was my name on the approval line. So I took my responsibility quite seriously, and did not fall prey to tears, begging, whining or threats. And that's just the way it is.

Obviously those whose applications were denied often vehemently disagreed....but disagreement does not equal instant qualification. I don't doubt that many unhappy BFs, GFs, petitioners, etc, thought that if they wrote their congressman/senator, why, all would be well....they were surprised when nothing happened. Congress lacks the authority (on purpose) to order a CO to issue or deny a visa. In fact, NO ONE, including the president of the US, is empowered to tell a CO what visa to issue and which one to refuse.

Yes, that represents a lot of authority...but that's the current law(s). Like it or lump it.

What we have not heard from some of those whose cases were denied was how certain questions were answered, what background issues their beneficiary might have had...etc...we only hear their opinions about the situation...but skillful interviewing comes with experience and there are many many variables involved, beyond merely perusing a bunch of documents.

There are a lot of very common ways in which people exhibit discomfort or evasiveness during an interview, and when those indicators are present, more detailed questions will follow...and when the applicant gives up answering those questions, well, that is NOT a reason to issue a visa. It's time to get to the bottom of whatever might be going on...and that takes time, time the CO does not have ...each applicant (for an IV) might be allocated 30 minutes or so (there are people in the waiting room)...after that, if little progress is being made, then the CO either asks for X, Y or Z within a certain time frame, or, if instead, gets a lot of push back from either party instead of acquiescing to the CO's request, then time is up and the case will be sent back, and USCIS can take over, because they have almost unlimited amounts of time to deal with these types of cases.

The way you explain how you handled cases I commend you for a great job! But you at least have to take in consideration that not all co's carry themselves in what you described and that's where the problem comes in, I know I'm a grown woman and can handle the truth better than lies, so if the co had actual proof of my husband being married to another person then it would have been a done deal, I asked her repeatedly what is that you need from us to show a bona fide relationship besides what they already had asked for, say for instance I started chatting with my husband in 2011 they asked for proof and they wanted phone records , I printed and expressed to him for the next interview, I mean these are things she asked for but I decided to join him for his interview and we got to the window and guess what she said when he said I have the things you asked for? She didn't wanna see them what do you do when that happens?

[HFM181818 750]

'meeting requirements' is in the judgment of the CO, not in the mere presentation of documents. The COs' task/responsibility is to weigh the evidence, then adjudicate, not glance at papers, then rubber stamp an approval...that is the LOGIC (and rules) of the situation. Any document can be crafted or created - it is up to the CO to confirm the validity of any document presented as well as the validity of the relationship...by whatever means he or she chooses. When the CO believes that he/she cannot approve the visa request, they will return the petition and other materials to USCIS, marked, 'Not Clearly Approvable'....so think about what 'clearly' means. It does not mean that if this paper and that paper are provided, a visa will be issued, because that would just not be LOGICAL.