My boyfriend got denied tourist visa. Advice please

[RobertM54 36]

You should know that no one is allowed to accompany a B2 applicant to their interview..

I know. We scheduled the interview for 12 Feb so we could have the Valentine weekend together.

Following up to Catherine A. The applicant's strong ties to the home company are weakened at the point of getting engaged. So the CO must make the presumption that the applicant will get engaged or married during the trip in order to invalidate those ties. HFM181818's assertion that a K-1 following a B2 is an admission that the couple was already engaged is a stretch. It is the presumption of immigration intent that warps the normal progression of a relationship (compared to a VWP country) to accelerate the K-1. The prospective couple has no experience together in the new country until after they are engaged and the K-1 is approved. Since that experience is critical to marriage, the only option left to the prospective couple is the K-1 visa. So the presumption forces the the relationship to accelerate.

So, if our B2 is approved and everything goes well, then the K1 is submitted in late July after I have spent a week with her family and with significant relationship history. If the B2 is turned down, as is likely, then the K1 is submitted in February with sketchy relationship history that will improve between submission and interview. I see no other reasonable for me to get to marriage.

So my GF's interview might go something like that.

CO: I see you have very strong ties to Ukraine except for no money. How will you finance this trip?

GF: My boyfriend will pay for everything.

CO: Umm OK. Are you engaged?

GF: No. He wants me to spend time with him in USA to decide that.

CO: If he asks you to marry him how do I know you won't just stay?

GF: To minimize separation from my son. We want to make it easy for my son to come by using a K1/K2 with concurrent travel.

And the CO now has a decision. That's what they are paid to do.

[HFM181818 750]

'making it easy for the son to come ..'blah blah...is meaningless....if she has the mind change at customs and you file an I-130, you also file one for her son (assuming she has full custody) and he eventually makes his way to the US...and all your wife has to do to arrange concurrent travel, is to request AP (if necessary), travel home, pick him up and return...piece of cake...so using the son as the reason to return has no value. In fact, State Dept policy expressly refers to this feeble attempt to sway a borderline decision...in that a case is NOT made better by making such an offer....in my own experience, anyone uttering those words (or something similar) found that the interview came to an abrupt end, and they left the window sans visa. Speaking of my own experience, no applicant ever got a B2 from me who tried that excuse, because leaving a child(ren) behind has never slowed anyone down from having their mind change when the airplane's wheels kissed the runway. How do I know this? because I would often see grandma or grandpa (or a younger sister) show up some time later seeking a B2 in order to accompany their niece or nephew to the US, where mom awaits, unable to leave because the AOS is in process and getting AP is time consuming....and you can only imagine what sort of letter of explanation was presented by that relative, with tear-jerking prose and of course, somewhere in the body of the letter was that infamous phrase..."I assure you that I had no intention of getting married......"...

K1's are rarely filed for 'friends.' They are filed, however, for fiancés.

Edited February 2, 2016 by HFM181818

[HFM181818 750]

and as for a K1 having to be used to accelerate a relationship is not true...the K1 holder has 90 days in which to marry after being admitted to the US...if not, then the K1 holder departs and the petition/visa can be extended and another 90 days can be given to the beneficiary, giving ample time for the relationship to be nurtured....it's not as if the K1 holder has to marry in the airport parking lot.

[aaron2020 11,651]

and as for a K1 having to be used to accelerate a relationship is not true...the K1 holder has 90 days in which to marry after being admitted to the US...if not, then the K1 holder departs and the petition/visa can be extended and another 90 days can be given to the beneficiary, giving ample time for the relationship to be nurtured....it's not as if the K1 holder has to marry in the airport parking lot.

I though the rule was the US Embassy has the discretion to allow a K-1 who leaves early without marrying to be reissued a K-1 for the remainder of the original 90 days. Can you provide a citation to where the law allows for another 90 days?

[HFM181818 750]

essentially, the beneficiary returns and can be issued another K1 with a bit of paperwork...remember, the petition has a validity of 120 days, not 90, which can be extended another 4 months by a CO.

[RobertM54 36]

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.

Is the cure worse than the disease? Is COS/AOS a significant proportion of non-returns? If yes, how serious an issue is it since the person remains legal?

For example, in 2015 Ukraine had a non-return rate of 3.14%. It looks like the report backed out change in status. It seems like USCIS does not count COS as an overstay. My guess would be because intent is impossible to determine so there is no way to claim a violation.

This is the report

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015%20DHS%20Entry%20and%20Exit%20Overstay%20Report.pdf

discussed here

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/582902-the-long-awaited-20-years-overstay-report-has-finally-been-released/page-1

[HFM181818 750]

the non-return rate does not include AOS/COS...embassies, however, receive notification when an AOS/COS takes place...which is one way they can generate validation studies to try and determine what's going in a specific country. Of course, without an accurate departure tracking system, I am not sure from where those stats came from!

[RobertM54 36]

'making it easy for the son to come ..'blah blah...is meaningless.. --> Thanks for the that insight

and as for a K1 having to be used to accelerate a relationship is not true...the K1 holder has 90 days in which to marry after being admitted to the US...if not, then the K1 holder departs and the petition/visa can be extended and another 90 days can be given to the beneficiary, giving ample time for the relationship to be nurtured....it's not as if the K1 holder has to marry in the airport parking lot.

Cool - thanks. So if we do not get to yes in 90 days, she goes back and immediately files another DS-160 for a second K1?

[HFM181818 750]

pretty much....there is a little paperwork shuffle but not nearly as onerous as the first petition!

[Unlockable 7,315]

I think the key word that is missing here between all the exchanges of recent posts is the word "risk".

The CO can deny a B2 visa if the applicant is a RISK of not returning. If an applicant has no property, job with job substantial income, higher education that contributes to said job, immediate responsibility to dependents, etc, etc in their home country but has a person they love in the US then they are in fact... a RISK.

And that is the job of the CO. To identify risk. Doesn't mean that he or she perceives you as liars or scammers. They are doing their job based on the standard that was given to them in their role. Side rant: I hate having to nearly strip naked at the airport security. But if it is used to identify people of risk then so be it.

A B2 is not a get-to-know-you-better solution to relationships. And no one is forced to rush into marriage. Although it sucks you can continue the long distance relationship. I understand that having your mate over to the US would be a huge boost to the relationship. But their are different classifications of visas for a reason. Work, tourist, student, family, and so on.

I think the point HFM is trying to make is that the people who tried to obtain a tourist visa to visit their lovers had a better and more proper chance of continuing to build their relationship the way it is then properly apply for a fiance or spouse visa when it got to that point.

[RobertM54 36]

A B2 is not a get-to-know-you-better solution to relationships. It is if it is approved, It is the best way if everyone followed the rules.

I think the point HFM is trying to make is that the people who tried to obtain a tourist visa to visit their lovers had a better and more proper chance of continuing to build their relationship the way it is then properly apply for a fiance or spouse visa when it got to that point. The problem with K1 do develop a relationship is the commitment letters and IMBRA. If it does not work the first time then the hurdle is higher the second. I do not know how much higher.

[HFM181818 750]

As I said before, the majority of applicants are not outright lying or trying to cheat the system (but in a few countries, the ratio might be 50-50!!), but are often trying hard not to tell the entire story.

[HFM181818 750]

A B2 is not a get-to-know-you-better solution to relationships. It is if it is approved, It is the best way if everyone followed the rules.

I think the point HFM is trying to make is that the people who tried to obtain a tourist visa to visit their lovers had a better and more proper chance of continuing to build their relationship the way it is then properly apply for a fiance or spouse visa when it got to that point. The problem with K1 do develop a relationship is the commitment letters and IMBRA. If it does not work the first time then the hurdle is higher the second. I do not know how much higher.

Actually, a B2 can be used to get to know someone better....the problem, not surprisingly, is that once the couple knows each other, what's the next step (statistically, when the foreign BF or GF is from a second/third world country)? Off to the courthouse or its equivalent, with ink still drying on their B2 visas! Now, as I have mentioned before, if Congress had disallowed AOS/COS from B2s, and drafted laws with some teeth in them regarding overstays and working without permission, then B2s might well be given to more people to develop relationships, visit friends and relatives, etc. But since there is a gaping loophole in our immigration laws (allowing COS and not really inflicting meaningful penalties upon those who ignore our rules), well, it's hard to blame COs for being circumspect when adjudicating B2 visas for those wishing to visit 'a friend.'

Edited February 2, 2016 by HFM181818

[RobertM54 36]

Actually, a B2 can be used to get to know someone better....the problem, not surprisingly, is that once the couple knows each other, what's the next step (statistically, when the foreign BF or GF is from a second/third world country)? Off to the courthouse or its equivalent, with ink still drying on their B2 visas! Now, as I have mentioned before, if Congress had disallowed AOS/COS from B2s, and drafted laws with some teeth in them regarding overstays and working without permission, then B2s might well be given to more people to develop relationships, visit friends and relatives, etc. But since there is a gaping loophole in our immigration laws (allowing COS and not really inflicting meaningful penalties upon those who ignore our rules), well, it's hard to blame COs for being circumspect when adjudicating B2 visas for those wishing to visit 'a friend.'

Or increase cost of AOS/COS and speed up CR1. Why does the CR1 take so long? As to statistics, I agree - my girl appears to be ready to go. I want to take my time.

(mod - thanks for letting this continue)

[KierenHby 899]

".. if Congress had disallowed AOS/COS from B2s, and drafted laws with some teeth in them regarding overstays and working without permission.. "

If this is such an awesome idea, and if most COs like yourself support it, why hasn't it happened??????????

There may be a crappy Congressman Schmo or a congressman Schlum, but as a whole, congressionally made laws are fairly reasonable keeping in view US national interests.