My boyfriend got denied tourist visa. Advice please

[HFM181818 750]

just about all of these cases pretty much prove that the B2 denials were accurate....as all of the SOs wound up married shortly after being denied...which shows that whatever ties those folks claimed to have had were meaningless, and the COs recognized that fact. These are classic examples of cases that would have experienced the 'mind change' (coupled with the prefaces so often read here, 'oh gosh, we had no intentions of marrying and seeking an AOS..."....and yet.........

those of you considering having your foreign BF/GF or 'family friend' apply for a B2, then acting outraged or surprised if that application is denied, should re-read the posts in this topic. In here, you will find the reasons for those denials....even though you might believe that your situation is different, in reality, it's not.

Edited February 2, 2016 by HFM181818

[Pennycat 880]

and that pretty much substantiates the COs' decisions to deny....because K1s were filed shortly after the denials...which strongly suggests that the ever popular 'mind change' would have taken place while the luggage was making its way around the carousel....notice that in each described situation, the K1s were filed within a relatively short period of time....so the foreign fiancé easily abandoned whatever 'ties' they had to their own country....and so much for letters of support, etc....none of those would have prevented the mind change that would have likely occurred before the foreign fiancé cleared customs.

In some cases (ours at least), the quick turnaround to K1 (3 or 4 months later, I believe) could actually be legitimate.

We were-- you may or may not believe me, but there's nothing else I can say except that that very much was not part of the plan-- for both reasons of our relationship (ready to be engaged, not ready to be married), personal (I would have *real reason* to be concerned for my job if there was even a whiff of visa/immigration impropriety. Not imagined reason. Real, actual reason that I won't post publicly because it is way too self-identifying), and just baseline personality--- neither of us are lairs or cheaters and are frankly too wimpy to even consider attempting (which I see as personal strengths, even though that does mean we get the short end of every stick).

We took the long shot for the B2 because at that point in our relationship, we had been together long enough and were serious enough to very seriously consider marriage, but not ready to legally bind ourselves to each other (it's a HUGE step) and I was really really uncomfortable with the concept of basically asking someone to legally bind themselves to me while making the decision to move, possibly forever, to not only a city they've never visited, but a whole country they've never seen. I am still uncomfortable with this and feel guilty about it frequently. To me, even though I knew it was a long shot because there are cheaters (and lots of them) in this world, a B2 application seemed to be the *only* responsible course of action when facing circumstances such as these. Rushing into marriage (or even an engagement) for the sake of being together faster and before each party has had their best shot at having all the information possible to make a very serious decision and a very serious commitment is a bad idea, and fairly reckless, in my opinion.

We came to this decision (try for a B2 and a visit before making a decision about marriage) in October 2014, failed the B2 in December 2014, I visited there in December 2014/January 2015 (had purchased some sort of trip or fare insurance or whatever so I could have canceled for a small penalty on the off chance the B2 went through) at which point we weighed our options (status quo, engagement, immediate marriage). We figured that absent the ability for him to visit in the US (to see my non-vacation life, to see my city and life in the US) we both had as much information as we were likely to get, and any more time as an international couple (flights, time off work etc) was not really feasible, and the visa would take at least 6 months so we went for engagement and K1 visa. I still think it was unnecessarily "reckless" of us but we had few options available, which is unfortunately but is life.

I'm sure we're not alone in that thought process and propensity for honesty. I'm sure we're outweighed by shortcut-takers though.

[Darnell 8,478]

Hi all,

My boyfriend who is Albanian got denied a B1/B2 visa under section 214(b) in Italy. He had an affidavit of support from my parents, and all the supporting documents including a letter from his boss at work, photos of his family, and proof that he and I would return to Italy with him. The person who interviewed him didn't even really look at his supporting documents, the only mistake I think we made was saying that he wanted to visit for 4 months. My questions is, would it be worth it to even try applying again and saying he wants to come for shorter period of time? Our only other option is beginning the K1 fiancé visa, although I wanted him to visit the states before we did that. Any advice is appreciated!

He has no close ties in Italy, and cannot overcome the perceived immigrant intent. that's what 214(b ) is all about.

If'n he wants to try again, he needs to overcome the perceived immigrant intent by having stronger ties to Italy.

[RobertM54 36]

and that pretty much substantiates the COs' decisions to deny....because K1s were filed shortly after the denials...which strongly suggests that the ever popular 'mind change' would have taken place while the luggage was making its way around the carousel....notice that in each described situation, the K1s were filed within a relatively short period of time....so the foreign fiancé easily abandoned whatever 'ties' they had to their own country....and so much for letters of support, etc....none of those would have prevented the mind change that would have likely occurred before the foreign fiancé cleared customs.

I strongly disagree. The reason so many B2s are followed by K-1s is that is the only way to move the relationship forward.

The USC does not have infinite time and money to travel to meet the beneficiary. In the case of the non-VWP countries, it is almost certainly the beneficiary who can make the time to travel and live with the USC in the environment in which they will live should they decide to marry. That is certainly my intent with the young Ukrainian woman who "has latched onto me". I am flying to be with her for the B2 interview and I AM BRINGING ALL OF THE FORMS TO BE SIGNED FOR THE K-1 WITH ME.

There is absolutely no intent to commit immigration fraud. It is simply a desire to mature the relationship before going to a K-1.

So, should the B2 be disapproved then this is another couple going straight to K-1 - because it will almost certainly be approved.

In cases where a young child is involved then it is especially important to find out how my GF and I are together. If we can do that before committing and filing the K-1, then she and the child can come together. If we have no face time in USA before the K-1 is approved, then I will not bring her son over with her. We are looking at months of separation before we can get advanced parole for us to go back and bring him to his home.

With K-1 processing times so fast - I do not understand why there is an incentive to game the tourist visas any more.

[Pennycat 880]

just about all of these cases pretty much prove that the B2 denials were accurate....as all of the SOs wound up married shortly after being denied...which shows that whatever ties those folks claimed to have had were meaningless, and the COs recognized that fact. These are classic examples of cases that would have experienced the 'mind change' (coupled with the prefaces so often read here, 'oh gosh, we had no intentions of marrying and seeking an AOS..."....and yet.........

those of you considering having your foreign BF/GF or 'family friend' apply for a B2, then acting outraged or surprised if that application is denied, should re-read the posts in this topic. In here, you will find the reasons for those denials....even though you might believe that your situation is different, in reality, it's not.

We weren't outraged or surprised. We expected it but figured we'd try anyway, not as an end-run around the K1 but as a responsible adult decision to at least *try* to have all the information possible before making a real, actual, legal, lifetime commitment. Believe me or not, I can guarantee you that we personally *never would have* married on the B2. Even now, knowing what I know about how expensive, annoying and maddening the K1 process is. But there is no actual way to prove that, obviously. I'm just trying to demonstrate that really, some people can be legitimate and still be denied. I see it as evidence of not being the type of applicant marrying solely for immigration benefits. If all you want is immigration benefits, you get engaged and apply for a K1 as quickly as possible, right? You don't take time to weigh options and try for a visit and spend time and money attempting to make a responsible choice.

[HFM181818 750]

Again. it seems that no one ever had the intention of marrying after baggage claim...the stories and excuses are the same....but since K1s followed rather quickly and the foreign fiancé managed to step away from any proclaimed 'ties' offered during the B2 interview, then the 214b denials were likely accurate. Once people discover that the K1 processing time is 6-9 months, they start looking for short cuts, whether before the foreign fiancé applies for a B2 or soon after arrival in the US with a B2. If congress would pass legislation that disallowed COS from anything other than a K1, then more people might get a chance to visit, because a mind change at baggage claim would not be rewarded.

I am not saying that you nor anyone else (well, almost!) are bad people....it's when people act stunned that COs did not believe whatever stories/reasons were given for the return of the foreign fiancé and the B2 applications were denied....it's partly because experienced COs know all too well that there are no meaningful border controls, that congress in their eternal quest to play both sides of any issue, pass laws but leave loopholes that are exploited quickly, and as a result, a CO is really the first line of defense of our borders and economy. And when they are that aware of their responsibilities, benefit of the doubt for applicants quickly evaporate and the bar for visa approval is raised every time the COs get word about those who essentially lied on their applications or to CBP.....just a fact of life.

[Pennycat 880]

I strongly disagree. The reason so many B2s are followed by K-1s is that is the only way to move the relationship forward.

The USC does not have infinite time and money to travel to meet the beneficiary. In the case of the non-VWP countries, it is almost certainly the beneficiary who can make the time to travel and live with the USC in the environment in which they will live should they decide to marry. That is certainly my intent with the young Ukrainian woman who "has latched onto me". I am flying to be with her for the B2 interview and I AM BRINGING ALL OF THE FORMS TO BE SIGNED FOR THE K-1 WITH ME.

There is absolutely no intent to commit immigration fraud. It is simply a desire to mature the relationship before going to a K-1.

So, should the B2 be disapproved then this is another couple going straight to K-1 - because it will almost certainly be approved.

In cases where a young child is involved then it is especially important to find out how my GF and I are together. If we can do that before committing and filing the K-1, then she and the child can come together. If we have no face time in USA before the K-1 is approved, then I will not bring her son over with her. We are looking at months of separation before we can get advanced parole for us to go back and bring him to his home.

With K-1 processing times so fast - I do not understand why there is an incentive to game the tourist visas any more.

Exactly. Except money, I suppose. We were going through this process *knowing* that our K1 would be sent to the Black Hole of Texas and still no way no how would have abused the system.

The real danger is letting people go visit their "boyfriends/girlfriends" and really they just want to get here to disappear into the ether and work under the table etc.

Basically, I get it. But CO here (who I generally completely agree with) really does need to understand that not 100% of K1 followups to a B2 is an indication that the B2 would have been abused. It's a natural next step in a relationship (spend more time together, you come see my life and see if you really want to share it) that, when made impossible, is necessary to skip. The timing of the K1 followup is likely the result of being otherwise "ready" but for more facetime if possible (usually not for time/money at that point in the game) and the desire to let the beneficiary make as informed a decision as possible before hitching their wagon into the unknown (and when that route is closed, you make the next best decision you can).

[HFM181818 750]

You should know that no one is allowed to accompany a B2 applicant to their interview...as far as the B2 being used to move a relationship forward, it often does....a fast forward to the altar as the statistics on those from developing countries actually returning after a visit versus staying put shows a huge disparity....the approximate ratio (when I was still working and could get information pretty quickly) was that less than 10% returned, collectively, from second and third world countries.....armed with those sobering statistics, only a foolish CO would ignore those stats and hand out visas like candy. People claim they are the honest ones, the ones who can be trusted, but then later claim (after marrying while the foreign fiancé was in the US with a B2) 'we had no intentions.....'....sorry, hard to have it both ways.

The abusers have, of course, made it more than challenging for others, but I doubt that the worldwide non-return rate among marriageable aged B2 visa holders has changed much...and since it is extremely challenging for a CO to distinguish an 'honest' applicant from one who 'has no intentions of staying' in countries where the applicant pools are quite similar in their modest jobs/lack of jobs or opportunities and otherwise fragile ties.....there is no 'income level' that automatically neutralizes immigrant intent...so whether the applicant is making, say, $400 a month or $600 a month, neither income level could be considered anywhere near strong enough to overcome 214b on its own...when applicants try to inflate their modest incomes to something so far from the norm, that is when a CO starts to take a look at documents to see where the disconnect is....(and it's soon discovered, as few applicants create a document package that tells a consistent story, one that could sustain intense scrutiny going back 5 years, for ex.

As for promises given on behalf of an applicant, well, first...how would that promise be enforced or penalized if broken? Answer: it cannot. Whose name will be on the visa approval? Yep ..the CO's, not some BF or GF or senator, mayor or dog catcher's. Neither you or I can regulate the behavior or actions of anyone who is inside the US....you cannot force your GF to board an airplane (you cannot even accompany her to the gate without a ticket to wherever it is she is supposed to going)...so promises that someone will 'make sure' that the BF or GF will depart the US is a waste of exhaled carbon dioxide. The 'pedigree' of the USC 'friend' matters not either. Whether you have $1M in the bank, graduated from Harvard or are a close friend of Congressman Slushbucket, none of that transfers to the visa applicant and instantly overcomes 214b. The applicant succeeds or fails based on their own merits and their own ability to convince the CO of their bona fides. Yet people continue to believe otherwise....but hey, that's their choice.

[HFM181818 750]

Yes, a lot of those B2 visa holders do disappear (much to their USC BF's or GF's regret) to link up with their true fiancé (often a person from their own country who is hiding out in the US in unknown status) and/or to work under the table, biding their time, waiting and hoping for yet another thinly disguised amnesty, so they can 'come out of the shadows'....(which makes a mockery of our current visa laws and penalizes those who opt to play by the rules.

And we can thank our do-nothing except for money congress, who act like they care about border security and immigration, but in reality, thanks to their campaign coffers being refilled daily by big business who wants cheaper and cheaper labor, there are no meaningful penalties for abusers that are parceled out in any great number....sure, once in a while, we hear about some workplace raid or that two dozen illegals were deported, but against the 11M still unlawfully occupying US real estate, it is but a tiny drop in the bucket.

[Pennycat 880]

Again. it seems that no one ever had the intention of marrying after baggage claim...the stories and excuses are the same....but since K1s followed rather quickly and the foreign fiancé managed to step away from any proclaimed 'ties' offered during the B2 interview, then the 214b denials were likely accurate. Once people discover that the K1 processing time is 6-9 months, they start looking for short cuts, whether before the foreign fiancé applies for a B2 or soon after arrival in the US with a B2. If congress would pass legislation that disallowed COS from anything other than a K1, then more people might get a chance to visit, because a mind change at baggage claim would not be rewarded.

I am not saying that you nor anyone else (well, almost!) are bad people....it's when people act stunned that COs did not believe whatever stories/reasons were given for the return of the foreign fiancé and the B2 applications were denied....it's partly because experienced COs know all too well that there are no meaningful border controls, that congress in their eternal quest to play both sides of any issue, pass laws but leave loopholes that are exploited quickly, and as a result, a CO is really the first line of defense of our borders and economy. And when they are that aware of their responsibilities, benefit of the doubt for applicants quickly evaporate and the bar for visa approval is raised every time the COs get word about those who essentially lied on their applications or to CBP.....just a fact of life.

I see that, I do. But you also have to understand that a lot of people won't abandon those ties (very strong or not strong enough to make a B2 case but a tie nontheless) to take a leap into the unknown (moving to a foreign country you've never even seen) without at least trying to make as informed a decision as possible. Even if you're "just a [fill in the blank with some low skill, easily transferable vocation]" you still have a job, and a place to live etc. Not everyone is willing to just throw that away (even if it looks small in the eyes of an American CO) for the unknown. So they'd like to *visit* the unknown first.

It's sad/funny that the most risk adverse in this regard (the folks who would rather not make this kind of decision without a visit) are also likely the most risk adverse in abusing a B2 visa. But again, there is basically zero way to prove this and so the denials are likely accurate, but an accurate denial does not equal "intent to abuse the B2". It means "absence of proof that you won't". And that's where, on this thread at least, you don't seem to want to acknowledge a distinction, which is pretty unfair even considering your personal experience.

[jam2016 10]

I think our COs are doing their job fine and rightly so in denying Tourists visa for a very large majority of the B1/B2 applications without enough ties to their original countries.

But there would be some very unfortunate people that are denied due to the fact they fall in the suspected profile which would force them to seek K1 later on. So, there is a catch 22 but at the end of the day, the people who decided to get K1 got what they want.

Edited February 2, 2016 by jam2016

[HFM181818 750]

It's not the 'intent to abuse'....it's the legal fact that our laws already state that every applicant for a B2 (and a few other types of NIVs) are presumed to be an intending immigrant and therefore INELIGIBLE to receive a B2 visa, until they convince a CO (paraphrased) otherwise...so, the applicant is 'guilty' of something they have yet to do - namely, stay put in the US instead of leaving. The majority of B2 denials are for this reason...the absence of proof that the applicant won't use the B2 for something else, except their own credibility. The percentage of applicants who are outright lying or scamming varies of course, on the source country, but overall it's less than about 1 in 4.....but a significant percentage of the remainder are just not telling the entire story, and it's the COs job to decipher that story if possible....and to judge 'intent.' That's the 'you didn't convince me that you wouldn't use the B2 for something else' factor. You can imagine that getting over that bar is no mean feat, depending on where the applicant is from....obviously, the VWP countries have a much lower abuse rate of visas, which is why they have that privilege...whereas lots of other countries citizens have done a disservice to their countrymen by scamming their B2 visas and promptly using it for other purposes....which leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of COs working in those countries...who become far less willing every day to give the benefit of the doubt versus adopting the 'Nancy Reagan' solution ('Just say 'No!').

Besides, a CO can rarely get in any trouble for saying no.....but saying 'yes' too much is not career enhancing.

But again, our visa rules are much different than most other countries...and our border enforcement/political support is almost non-existent, which is why COs take their responsibilities so seriously....

[Pennycat 880]

I think our COs are doing their job fine and rightly so in denying Tourists visa for a very large majority of the B1/B2 applications without enough ties to their original countries.

But there would be some very unfortunate people that are denied due to the fact they fall in the suspected profile which would force them to seek K1 later on. So, there is a catch 22 but at the end of the day, the people who decided to get K1 got what they want.

Exactly. I'm not griping about the failed B2. I get it, we knew it was a long shot (I do have CO friends who said that they have the ability to make judgement calls and that they have made them in favor of an applicant in a similar position to us but that it's still a long shot). We just figured that it was the most reasonable course of action in the face of some less than ideal circumstances. That's not what I'm taking issue with-- I'm talking about this after-the-fact "see? You applied for a K1 right away so there's my proof that you would have abused the B2" which is very simply not the case, believe me or not.

The only thing a quick K1 application for us meant is that we were honest about the nature of our relationship and that the main thing holding us back from the commitment of engagement was our desire for him to be able to visit here and get an idea of my life etc and make sure he wanted to take that step. With that possibility off the table, the only next step was to apply for a K1 and at that point, why drag it out? It's not like we got married as soon as the B2 fail, either. We spent a full 12 months after the B2 fail to get actually married. There was no "rush to the alter but first let's try this easier/cheaper path" going on.

But because that is actually impossible to prove, the COs must assume the worst and deny. Which I completely understand. I'm just saying that a K1 followup is not necessarily proof of intent to marry on a B2.

[Pennycat 880]

It's not the 'intent to abuse'....it's the legal fact that our laws already state that every applicant for a B2 (and a few other types of NIVs) are presumed to be an intending immigrant and therefore INELIGIBLE to receive a B2 visa, until they convince a CO (paraphrased) otherwise...so, the applicant is 'guilty' of something they have yet to do - namely, stay put in the US instead of leaving. The majority of B2 denials are for this reason...the absence of proof that the applicant won't use the B2 for something else, except their own credibility. The percentage of applicants who are outright lying or scamming varies of course, on the source country, but overall it's less than about 1 in 4.....but a significant percentage of the remainder are just not telling the entire story, and it's the COs job to decipher that story if possible....and to judge 'intent.' That's the 'you didn't convince me that you wouldn't use the B2 for something else' factor. You can imagine that getting over that bar is no mean feat, depending on where the applicant is from....obviously, the VWP countries have a much lower abuse rate of visas, which is why they have that privilege...whereas lots of other countries citizens have done a disservice to their countrymen by scamming their B2 visas and promptly using it for other purposes....which leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of COs working in those countries...who become far less willing every day to give the benefit of the doubt versus adopting the 'Nancy Reagan' solution ('Just say 'No!').

Besides, a CO can rarely get in any trouble for saying no.....but saying 'yes' too much is not career enhancing.

But again, our visa rules are much different than most other countries...and our border enforcement/political support is almost non-existent, which is why COs take their responsibilities so seriously....

Yes, I am completely aware of that fact. That is not what I'm taking issue with here.

I am taking issue with the idea that you have repeatedly presented that a quick K1 follow up to a failed B2 is your proof that the applicant would have stayed on the B2. Those are two separate things. All a K1 follow up to a failed B2 is further positive evidence of a real relationship. Maybe it's a game of "gotcha" if someone is claiming to want the B2 to go to Disneyland, or to visit "a friend" and then when denied, shows up as a K1 beneficiary. But for people who are perfectly honest: "I want to visit my girlfriend" it's not "gotcha" at all. Just because you take the next logical step in a relationship after the next most logical step is off the table doesn't show *anything* about how that B2 would have gone.

Basically, a denied B2 is "you couldn't prove that you wouldn't stay". We all get that. Many of us accept that (many newbies don't-- and usually the newbies who if you read between the lines enough may have sought the B2 as a shortcut so I say "meh" to them). But what you seem to suggest on this thread (intentionally or not) is that a denied B2 followed by a K1 is "proof that you were going to stay"-- which is very different from "lack of proof that you won't stay", and is not always the case-- and to the scrupulously honest is an unfair accusation.

Sure, in some cases could be evidence of wrongdoing (or intention of wrongdoing) or something which brings a lie of omission to light, but it is not proof that *that individual* had the intention to abuse the visa. Not meaning that "no intention to abuse" should equal "I get the visa" (because intent is impossible to prove) but not a strong enough case to start hurtling such insulting accusations at everyone who followed that path.

[HFM181818 750]

the rapid transition to a K1, with the beneficiary so willing and able to abandon his/her life within a relatively short time span strongly suggests that those 'ties' would not likely have prevented the inevitable mind change at customs...it's not as if the beneficiary spent the next 18 months outside of the US...no, they arrived within a short time span following a B2 denial...saying goodbye to their parents (the ones they 'love so much' and 'have to care for'), their job (I'll say nothing else) and anything they offered up as the reasons why they would not stay...if those ties were really that substantial, then leaving them fairly fast later suggests (to me, anyway, for what it's worth, which isn't much, but I did see these scenarios thousands of times...and a pattern emerged)..that it would not likely have bothered that same person too much to wave goodbye with a B2....hard to prove, sure....but quick K1s following a denied B2 is strongly suggestive that an AOS from a B2 was far from improbable.

Still, the main problem/cause is the lack of willpower by the worst congress money has bought, who passed immigrant laws that are as solid as Swiss cheese....way too many loopholes, a lack of political backing to give people the resources/authority they need to enforce the few laws that might actually mean something...

If COS/AOS from a B2 (and other visa types) were prohibited, combined with severe penalties without waivers for having violated our immigration laws, then a lot more people would get the opportunity to visit, etc. Take the alleged 3/10 year ban for overstaying....if the visa cheat never leaves the US and winds up marrying some dodo living in a trailerpark, they weepily seek a waiver which has a fairly good prospect of being approved...so where's the incentive to obey our laws? Merely remove the waiver...and watch more and more people decide not to overstay, especially if there was no salvation available by marrying some village idiot living in the boondocks...(which would also reduce marriage fraud). But no, congress 'forgot' to include applying the penalty thoroughly and with waivers made available merely by marrying some USC, well, whatever theoretical mirage of immigration law enforcement disappeared like fog....while congress congratulated themselves.....hmmph...

Edited February 2, 2016 by HFM181818