US Embassy in Armenia tourist for Iranians

[bob zerg 1]

A pile of supporting documents such as bank information, pay stubs, property, assets, employment letters, birth certificates, invitation letter from me, etc. You know, those things that would help show ties to their home country. All notarized and translated to English for about $100 too. Wasn't even looked at.

You keep on mentioning evidence, what evidence?

Edited February 8, 2016 by bob zerg

[HFM181818 750]

to the OP: there is NOT one single (nor collection of) document(s) that when presented will overcome 214b...not a one. COs don't interview papers; they interview people. And when people are denied, they tell incredible stories about their denials....usually something along the line of ,' the CO never asked me a single question and just said, 'No visa!'....and everyone else was refused and no one was asked questions...blah blah blah...'...as a retired CO, who adjudicated many many tens of thousands of applications and interviewed enough applicants to fill a reasonable sized city, the very concept that no questions were asked, etc, is laughable. As for papers, as I mentioned, name the one that under current US law, that when presented (or read!), instantly overcomes 214b...the one that guarantees that the applicant will depart the US when it's time. Please....name it. Good luck. Because no such paper exists. Papers do not control people's actions nor can a piece of paper prove intent. Intent is what the COs are judging, not the quality of some bank document or a title deed, etc.

Your relative was not present at each and every interview that day (mostly because she would not be allowed to be standing around)...she knows nothing of what was said nor questions asked of anyone, save herself...and I sincerely doubt she has a photographic memory or perfect recall. As for stories told by the unsuccessful or successful applicants, those too will be exaggerated in one direction or another...that's just human nature.

Oh, BTW, our current laws surrounding the issuance of a B2 visa presume that the applicants are going to the US to stay until they convince a CO otherwise. The interview does not begin in a neutral mode; rather, the applicants are presumed of something they have yet to do. And that's just the way the laws were written.

there is nothing in those laws that hint that applicants who spend a lot of time and money to get to our embassy are afforded special privileges, that 214b does not apply to them.....not one single word. The application fee pays for far more than the interview...whether the applicant is granted a visa or not. Again, according to law.

COs and only COs have been trained and given a unique authority - the consular commission, and as a result, COs are the only ones empowered to adjudicate visas. You may not like it, but that fact is not going to change tomorrow because you are unhappy or disagree with their decisions.

People answer questions posed to them by a CO in different ways...some with confidence, others evasively or some not at all....the CO's job is to assess the credibility of the applicant's intentions and reasons for departing the US, not to gaze at a pile of papers for ten minutes.

And notice how your own 'recollection' of the 'facts' changed in less than a day...first, you said that she was denied before she walked through the door, then, when I questioned the accuracy of that statement, it changed to her having been asked a couple of questions....maybe you did not inherit your mother's photographic memory nor perfect recollection skills.

But you can rant, rave, hurl insults at me or the consular officers at large and nothing will change. All of that hot air being expelled merely demonstrates your own lack of understanding about the entire visa process under US law....which is not surprising because so few Americans have actually done consular work. 'Unethical?' Why? Spending money on bus tickets or having journeyed for some hours to reach one of our embassies does not a bona fide applicant make....according to US law. Period.

Edited February 8, 2016 by HFM181818

[Boiler 45,949]

A pile of supporting documents such as bank information, pay stubs, property, assets, employment letters, birth certificates, invitation letter from me, etc. You know, those things that would help show ties to their home country. All notarized and translated to English for about $100 too. Wasn't even looked at.

Evidence of ties, what did they have?

You said they were retired, so what were the pay stubs and employment letters?

[KierenHby 899]

What it boils down to is.. B1/2 visa applications are money makers for embassies. Believe it or not, some years back, embassies had a nominal application fee, and if a visa were approved, there was a separate visa fee.

Fast forward.. every applicant shells out $160 and "hopes" for a visa. A few borderline applicants are approved.. to show the process works. The other 85% are left to be an additional $160 poorer if they to hope to retry.

[HFM181818 750]

oh, my....notarized documents... woo hoo....which one, according to US law, when offered at an interview, instantly bestows bona fides upon the applicant? Which one has the magical power to haul that individual out of a chair and drag them to the airport and nudge them through security? Love to see that. Invitation letters? Whoop-dee-doo....all those do is tell the CO why someone wants to GO to the US, not why they would LEAVE the US (and no, promises to that fact made by someone else are as valueless as three week old newspaper).

Bank accounts can be emptied, property sold or rented...employment terminated...at the end of the day what matters during a B2 interview is whether or not the CO is convinced that the applicant will do what they said....and no piece of paper yet devised by mankind can do that convincing....

[HFM181818 750]

Consular operations overseas are funded by the application fees, not your tax dollars. It is a 'user pay' service. It does not enrich the coffers of the US Treasury, nor line the pockets of COs around the world. The fees pay for infrastructure, salaries for Americans and LES, light, electricity, computers, etc. Congress mandated this, not some CO with some idle time on his or her hands. There is no quota on how many B2 visas can be issued daily (nor a limit on denials), the COs don't sit around before the first applicant arrives and decide in advance who is going get a visa or not. Their decisions are reviewed by their boss. There is ongoing training on a variety of topics related to visa adjudication.

Of course, I doubt that many of you believe any of this, and of course, you are entitled to your beliefs. But no matter how much people belittle, badger or complain about any part of the process, it will not affect a single decision made by any CO.

[KierenHby 899]

Let's not get too defensive about whats funded and how. There is no mention of denial or approval quotas.. or for that matter, any idle COs. The fees are locked in.. way before any adjudication decisions are made. It's not like there is a separate visa fee to be collected any more.

[bob zerg 1]

Because no such paper exists. Papers do not control people's actions nor can a piece of paper prove intent. Intent is what the COs are judging, not the quality of some bank document or a title deed, etc.

Understood, so by this logic, I suppose you just take a good long look at the applicant's face and clothing and try to determine if they are "worthy" or not based on appearance or whether they stammer from nervousness to a handful of magic questions? For immigration visas and green cards, it seems documents hold a lot of weight and denials occur because of lack of documentation. However, on non-immigrant visas it's the complete opposite. It's more about a CO's mood and attitude towards an applicant assuming that you were indeed a former CO, which I actually find quite believable now.

From this link http://iran.usembassy.gov/visas/214b-refusal.html:

What Constitutes "Strong Ties"?

Strong ties differ from country to country, city to city, individual to individual. Some examples of ties can be a job, a house, a family, a bank account. "Ties" are the various aspects of your life that bind you to your country of residence: your possessions, employment, social and family relationships.

Well, gee, they didn't even look at any of this. And since you say documents hold no weight, how could they prove they have any of that?

Your relative was not present at each and every interview that day (mostly because she would not be allowed to be standing around)...she knows nothing of what was said nor questions asked of anyone, save herself...and I sincerely doubt she has a photographic memory or perfect recall.

As I said before, all of these people traveled there for one sole purpose. To get a visa to the USA. So yes, they did hang around inside and outside the building FOR HOURS to discuss their situation before and after interviews. I don't know why you can't fathom that people from the same country, same ethnicity, and sharing the same purpose would talk to each other. I guess you go through life quietly standing in line and avoiding eye contact, but don't assume everyone is like you.

And notice how your own 'recollection' of the 'facts' changed in less than a day...first, you said that she was denied before she walked through the door, then, when I questioned the accuracy of that statement, it changed to her having been asked a couple of questions....maybe you did not inherit your mother's photographic memory nor perfect recollection skills.

This was an exaggeration on my part and I assumed that the decision was made before walking in the door based on the brevity of the interview. However, after the CO's questions, the application was denied immediately. Since they can't be bothered with looking at documents, I'm not sure how intent could ever be proven under your reasoning. Do they need to put on a good game face or smile more? This whole process is nothing more than a ####### shoot and a very expensive one for these applicants.

But you can rant, rave, hurl insults at me or the consular officers at large and nothing will change. All of that hot air being expelled merely demonstrates your own lack of understanding about the entire visa process under US law....which is not surprising because so few Americans have actually done consular work. 'Unethical?' Why? Spending money on bus tickets or having journeyed for some hours to reach one of our embassies does not a bona fide applicant make....according to US law. Period.

I'm not hurling insults. I am criticizing this process as I see it. And so far you have clarified nothing other than that this process is completely arbitrary, opaque, and that CO's have all the power. Got it.

[bob zerg 1]

They have retirement accounts with money in them; my father is still employed but getting close to retirement age. I realize you and others are probably trying to discredit me, but I came onto this forum trying to gain an understanding of this B-1/B-2 visa process since it's the first one I have ever had to deal with for my folks. It does not appear that anyone here knows anything of value in this particular case or about Iran visas specifically. The ex-CO's posts, although vitriolic, was probably the most helpful as that has given me some insight on how they think and the hopelessness of the situation. I apologize for posting my story in this forum but I will say that it's true and I have no reason to lie or make anything up here.

Good luck to the rest of the people here applying for B-1/B-2 visas if you are coming from Iran or another country in a similar diplomatic situation with the USA (i.e. -- not good).

Evidence of ties, what did they have?

You said they were retired, so what were the pay stubs and employment letters?

[HFM181818 750]

No, I asked questions of the applicants while watching their faces, eyes, hands, body language...anything and everything that would shed some light on their credibility or lack thereof...it is true that the immigrant visa process is largely document driven, while certain NIV categories are not based on papers. As is often said in the consular world, 'adjudicating immigrant visas is a science; adjudicating NIVs is an art.' Because the process is not document driven (NIVs), other elements come into play...do I believe what I am being told? Does the planned trip make sense? Are there stronger reasons for the applicant to return rather than stay? (which cannot be proved by presenting some notarized piece of paper)...Is there something not being said to me? Are questions being answered or avoided?

With around 3-4 minutes to spend with each NIV applicant, I did not have the time to sit down with them at a table with tea, hold their hands and chat for a half an hour about their lives, etc. COs have to make a judgment call rather quickly. Views of the process are often expressed with disdain, but that's because, having never done it, you really aren't experienced enough to know anything about the entire process from start to finish...,you just think you know (how often I have heard that statement from self-important types, whose egos just can't stand the fact that they cannot positively influence the outcome of a decision nor pick up the phone and call their favorite congressman to 'show that CO who's boss!'....)...over the years, I have been called names, threatened with reassignment (by people who didn't even work in the State Dept, but believed they could go and whine to their congressman and I would be shipped off to outer Mongolia the next day....ha!)...threatened with bodily harm, including death or lawsuits from A to Z....none of those threats ever came to fruition save one attack outside the embassy once...but this overweight clod discovered that not all 'gubment bureaucrats' are in poor physical shape.

Interviewing and adjudicating NIVs takes considerable skill, more than most disbelievers know. Do we 'get it right' 100% of the time? No. But the default answer to any B2 interview is 'No'...until the applicant can establish his or her credibility...no one else can offer up theirs, no other individual's pedigree means anything. And since border control is largely a slogan, a good CO is the first line of defense against visa abuse, and should take his or her decisions seriously, without emotional involvement and certainly without sympathy....because a sympathy-based visa issuance is a bad decision.

Edited February 8, 2016 by HFM181818

[bob zerg 1]

You are the expert.

Any tips on my father passing the CO examination or should he flip a coin into a wishing well? He hasn't been denied yet, but his interview is next, thanks to their applications needing to be separated (explained earlier). But he is over 60 and married with all his property in Iran. The country has much to fear from him possibly overstaying his visa.

No, I asked questions of the applicants while watching their faces, eyes, hands, body language...anything and everything that would shed some light on their credibility or lack thereof...it is true that the immigrant visa process is largely document driven, while certain NIV categories are not based on papers. As is often said in the consular world, 'adjudicating immigrant visas is a science; adjudicating NIVs is an art.' Because the process is not document driven (NIVs), other elements come into play...do I believe what I am being told? Does the planned trip make sense? Are there stronger reasons for the applicant to return rather than stay? (which cannot be proved by presenting some notarized piece of paper)...Is there something not being said to me? Are questions being answered or avoided?

With around 3-4 minutes to spend with each NIV applicant, I did not have the time to sit down with them at a table with tea, hold their hands and chat for a half an hour about their lives, etc. COs have to make a judgment call rather quickly. Views of the process are often expressed with disdain, but that's because, having never done it, you really aren't experienced enough to know anything about the entire process from start to finish...,you just think you know (how often I have heard that statement from self-important types, whose egos just can't stand the fact that they cannot positively influence the outcome of a decision nor pick up the phone and call their favorite congressman to 'show that CO who's boss!'....)...over the years, I have been called names, threatened with reassignment (by people who didn't even work in the State Dept, but believed they could go and whine to their congressman and I would be shipped off to outer Mongolia the next day....ha!)...threatened with bodily harm, including death or lawsuits from A to Z....none of those threats ever came to fruition save one attack outside the embassy once...but this overweight clod discovered that not all 'gubment bureaucrats' are in poor physical shape.

Interviewing and adjudicating NIVs takes considerable skill, more than most disbelievers know. Do we 'get it right' 100% of the time? No. But the default answer to any B2 interview is 'No'...until the applicant can establish his or her credibility...no one else can offer up theirs, no other individual's pedigree means anything. And since border control is largely a slogan, a good CO is the first line of defense against visa abuse, and should take his or her decisions seriously, without emotional involvement and certainly without sympathy....because a sympathy-based visa issuance is a bad decision.

[HFM181818 750]

the best thing he can do is be himself rather than attempt any cleverness, but that still will not guarantee visa issuance.