questionable prior work experience?

[zardox 0]

My friend had an online chatting relationship with a 20 year old Filipina (philippines citizen in philippines) for the past year. They met through a web site like cherry blossoms. They only recently met in person. There no questions about her intentions, integrity, motivations, and so forth. Please don't address those issues in your response.

He is seriously interested in submitting a K-1 Fiance Visa for his GF. However, there is a troubling issue that may or may not be a problem when this girl is to interview at the Embassy in Manila. The potential problem is that his GF previously lived and worked in Thailand for 1 year and a month. She worked as a video chat hostess, I think you can guess the rest. She has quit that work and will never do it again. She NEVER in all of her life met any person for sexual purposes in exchange for money. She NEVER worked as a GRO, in a KTV, in a bar, or anything like that. It was just for show on the cam. She has no police record and that activity is totally in the past now.

However, what will the Embassy think of that previous job? I understand that the Embassy will deny a visa if they think the applicant was ever a prostitute, and even though she never was, maybe they would deem that work experience as the same?

I know that a Thai police clearance is required and that it can be obtained at the Thai Embassy in Manila. I don't know if there is some extra difficulty to obtain that but there is time since he has not even submit the K-1 petition yet.

Are there any worries?

Michael

[JoeMama 0]

Tell your friend to give it a shot. It's up to whomever is going to conduct the interview. They're the person that's going to give the approval on the visa. If she's got a clean police record from that time, I don't see how it would be problem. But I'm not the one approving the visa. Maybe the best thing is to tell your friend to consult with a good immigration attorney for expert advice on the situation. That's about all I can tell you.

[mRx 16]

Honesty... Honesty.... Honesty. The interviewing AO will know that she didnt work in Thailand as an auto mechanic. She will need to list this job on the G-325A and will most definetely be questioned about it during the interview stage. I have no idea how to list such a job on a G-325A without coming off as questionable, but video chat hostess seems to be the most modest sounding term to me. Perhaps submitting a letter along with the G325A, giving a description of the job, and a signed statement saying that no physical sexual acts were performed for money. This would work to cover their azzes, if something were to arise during the interview stage. Just a thought. But the most important thing is to not lie or try to cover it up, as that is grounds for inadmissability and visa denial. In this case, a consult wouldnt hurt either.

[rebeccajo 14]

Ask a lawyer.

[Yodrak 7]

matt,

G-325A is not of concern. DS-230 is.

Yodrak

Honesty... Honesty.... Honesty. The interviewing AO will know that she didnt work in Thailand as an auto mechanic. She will need to list this job on the G-325A and will most definetely be questioned about it during the interview stage. I have no idea how to list such a job on a G-325A without coming off as questionable, but video chat hostess seems to be the most modest sounding term to me. Perhaps submitting a letter along with the G325A, giving a description of the job, and a signed statement saying that no physical sexual acts were performed for money. This would work to cover their azzes, if something were to arise during the interview stage. Just a thought. But the most important thing is to not lie or try to cover it up, as that is grounds for inadmissability and visa denial. In this case, a consult wouldnt hurt either.

[Mononoke28 135]

How about just giving her employer's name and changing/enhancing the title of the position. You don't really have to say "chatroom video hostess", you can mold it to say the same but in a different way. She has to be creative without having to lie.

[JaEnglishGirl 34]

'Online Chatroom Hostess' sounds fine to me....

[Andy 2]

I can't believe it's being suggested that the beneficiary attempt to mask the nature of the job when all it would take is for her to be asked 'exactly what did this entail' or for any record of the actual substance of the job to surface during processing. Given that sex workers are at risk of being found ineligible on the grounds of moral turpitude, any hint that she has tried to obscure the facts is easily taken to be an omission of a material fact. Being denied a visa on those grounds is far harder to overcome than on moral turpitude.

Honesty and forthrightness may not be the easiest course to consider in this situation, but it is far safer to do so when the system is geared towards discovering these kind of details in a beneficiary's background.

[Ivelina_Andrew 0]

Just wondering...

How would they know about the job if she says unemployed?

Can they check it?How?

For example I know about a lot of people in Bulgaria who went on an interview withut listing all their previous employers (not K1, J1 visa interview though) and nothing happened.

Do u think they would investigate the employers?

Just wondering...

How would they know about the job if she says unemployed?

Can they check it?How?

For example I know about a lot of people in Bulgaria who went on an interview withut listing all their previous employers (not K1, J1 visa interview though) and nothing happened.

Do u think they would investigate the employers?

[Andy 2]

Just wondering...

How would they know about the job if she says unemployed?

Can they check it?How?

For example I know about a lot of people in Bulgaria who went on an interview withut listing all their previous employers (not K1, J1 visa interview though) and nothing happened.

Do u think they would investigate the employers?

No they don't investigate employers - at least not as such - but what you are suggesting is that the beneficiary lies, with deliberate intent to mislead the consular official into granting a visa that might otherwise be denied if the truth were not obscured, meaning that if a visa is granted on that basis and then for any reason the true information becomes known, any immigrant status in the US is subsequently at risk, even years into the future. That's not an entirely reasoned notion, particularly since it is not known exactly what data may be available to the US, or even what other information provided by the couple themselves might contradict the statement.

[Ivelina_Andrew 0]

Just wondering...

How would they know about the job if she says unemployed?

Can they check it?How?

For example I know about a lot of people in Bulgaria who went on an interview withut listing all their previous employers (not K1, J1 visa interview though) and nothing happened.

Do u think they would investigate the employers?

No they don't investigate employers - at least not as such - but what you are suggesting is that the beneficiary lies, with deliberate intent to mislead the consular official into granting a visa that might otherwise be denied if the truth were not obscured, meaning that if a visa is granted on that basis and then for any reason the true information becomes known, any immigrant status in the US is subsequently at risk, even years into the future. That's not an entirely reasoned notion, particularly since it is not known exactly what data may be available to the US, or even what other information provided by the couple themselves might contradict the statement.

Well I think if the couple decides to do that they would be very careful not to provide contradicting evidence.

I agree with you that it is not recommended but if they think they might not get the visa otherwise...

And I seriously do not believe in the allseeing and allknowing myth about immigration officers and procedures.

But it is to their discression anyway...

[Andy 2]

Well I think if the couple decides to do that they would be very careful not to provide contradicting evidence.

I agree with you that it is not recommended but if they think they might not get the visa otherwise...

And I seriously do not believe in the allseeing and allknowing myth about immigration officers and procedures.

But it is to their discression anyway...

So you say that the couple should be careful in conspiring to commit immigration fraud. Given that the DS-230 the beneficiary signs for the visa interview contains the line "WARNING: Any false statement or concealment of a material fact may result in your permanent exclusion from the United States" at the top and on page two asks for details of employment (including job title) for the last 10 years, and since the whole object of concealing that job is to improve the chances of getting the visa, knowing that with the correct details the chances are reduced, I'd say the couple would be in some difficulty if they were to follow your advice.

And seriously, what you believe or don't about the information US immigration officials may have access to, would you risk your own future on guessing you were right? Would you guess employers are never checked and records never sought? Would you assume no police record or name check hit? Would you rely on no irregularities showing in any of the background paperwork? Would you expect no questions about irregularities? Would you assume that consular officials conducting interviews are not trained, and generally very expert, at spotting when they are not being told the truth or when there's something in the paperwork that doesn't add up? What would you do, if you'd conspired to cover up this sort of detail and the consular officer asked you, on oath remember, what you were doing during that period left blank or marked as unemployed - particularly if you don't have 100% certainty that they didn't have evidence you were not telling the truth?

The fact is that declaring that job and explaining it is FAR more likely to result in an approval, than trying to cover it up and being caught.

[Ivelina_Andrew 0]

Well I think if the couple decides to do that they would be very careful not to provide contradicting evidence.

I agree with you that it is not recommended but if they think they might not get the visa otherwise...

And I seriously do not believe in the allseeing and allknowing myth about immigration officers and procedures.

But it is to their discression anyway...

So you say that the couple should be careful in conspiring to commit immigration fraud. Given that the DS-230 the beneficiary signs for the visa interview contains the line "WARNING: Any false statement or concealment of a material fact may result in your permanent exclusion from the United States" at the top and on page two asks for details of employment (including job title) for the last 10 years, and since the whole object of concealing that job is to improve the chances of getting the visa, knowing that with the correct details the chances are reduced, I'd say the couple would be in some difficulty if they were to follow your advice.

And seriously, what you believe or don't about the information US immigration officials may have access to, would you risk your own future on guessing you were right? Would you guess employers are never checked and records never sought? Would you assume no police record or name check hit? Would you rely on no irregularities showing in any of the background paperwork? Would you expect no questions about irregularities? Would you assume that consular officials conducting interviews are not trained, and generally very expert, at spotting when they are not being told the truth or when there's something in the paperwork that doesn't add up? What would you do, if you'd conspired to cover up this sort of detail and the consular officer asked you, on oath remember, what you were doing during that period left blank or marked as unemployed - particularly if you don't have 100% certainty that they didn't have evidence you were not telling the truth?

The fact is that declaring that job and explaining it is FAR more likely to result in an approval, than trying to cover it up and being caught.

Yes the couple would be in some difficulty if they ever found out.

No I would not risk my own future because I did not hide anything. About checking the employers - believe it or not the American Government that all-mighty institution does not have access to every record in every country in the world. Yes some countries are still independent and some records are for their own purposes only and consulates do not have access to other countries records. Thats why they ask you to provide police certificate - because they cannot check it themselves.

Yes you are right about that you should be honest, I am not trying to make them lie, but it is a possibility.

What I am trying to say is that the consulates are not all-mighty (and every country has their own rules as to what information they would provide them access to) and there is no way they know everything.

Consulate officials are trained but they are not policemen as you are making it sound.And again I wanna stress that I think it depends onthe country the consulate is in - some consulates do not get many K1 petitions and are more generous and less likely to go into details. Also if the country is high visa fraud country...

So I do understand what you are saying but it is not up to me or you.

[Andy 2]

Yes the couple would be in some difficulty if they ever found out.....

Consular officials are not just trained to look for any and all signs of irregularities and indications that beneficiaries are not telling the truth, but they get to practice that art every single working day, hundreds and hundreds of times. They know what to look for and they know what signs mean what things. They aren't policemen because unlike policemen, consular staffers only do one thing, over and over again and they get very good at doing it.

The problem is, aside from the lie it would be necessary to tell and then support by further lies during any questioning and by documentary evidence if it is demanded, that on OUR side of the consul desk, being interviewed, we have no idea WHAT information the consulate has access to. Certainly there is much more than merely police certificates. One can either assume they know nothing and can thus not detect the lie if carefully obscured, or that they MIGHT know something, in which case the lie is dangerous. Either way, if the beneficiary goes to interview and exhibits any of the tell-tale signs the officials are trained to spot, there is a problem.

And since you admit you wouldn't take this risk, it seems odd that you'd offer it as a serious contention for anyone else to follow! It's easy to suggest such a fraud if it's someone else who faces the consequence if they get caught. My purpose is to explain to the original poster here how they could get caught if they try.

[*JG* 2]

I think if she lied and said she was unemployed that may even work against her.

-She's 20 years old

-They met on the internet

-They only met in person recently

-And, she's unemployed

Looks to me like she talked him into sending her money and now, she wants him to marry her for a visa.

Now, while that is not the case, I think it would be better to show she was employed (even if slightly questionable cause it can be explained) and supoprting herself while casually meeting him and falling in love.