Refused

[Sandra G. 5,057]

My friend is a naturalized U.S. Citizen, her husband passed away and her mother applied to come to the U.S to attend her son- in- law funeral, she owns a business in Brazil, traveled extensively to Europa but the U.S Consulate denied her mother's visa stating that she is a "potential immigrant" because her daughter is a U.S. Citizen, then you have an idea why they denied your visa tho.

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by sandranj

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

5 hours ago, geowrian said:

After paying for the people, processing, etc., I doubt they would be making much at all. They aren't denying people to make money. They are required by law to permit people to re-apply, but it's not recommended to do so unless your circumstances have changed.

They are required to let people re-apply but they don't tell you to improve your circumstances before doing so.  I know because when my girlfriend at the time applied they told her no but "she is free to reapply".  They forgot to mention that if she applies with nothing being different, the result will be the same.

 

As for the money maker part, look at the numbers.  In Costa Rica, they get 300-400 applicants every day.  Lets use 350.  At $150 a pop, that's $52,000 per day, or $11,000,000 per year, probably closer to 12.  I believe that the state department budget pays for the operation of the embassies, labor and overhead.  So the 11mil goes back to the state dept as a nice profit.  Other embassies I'm sure do even better. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Eric-Pris

[Jojo92122 1,924]

30 minutes ago, Eric-Pris said:

They are required to let people re-apply but they don't tell you to improve your circumstances before doing so.  I know because when my girlfriend at the time applied they told her no but "she is free to reapply".  They forgot to mention that if she applies with nothing being different, the result will be the same.

 

As for the money maker part, look at the numbers.  In Costa Rica, they get 300-400 applicants every day.  Lets use 350.  At $150 a pop, that's $52,000 per day, or $11,000,000 per year, probably closer to 12.  I believe that the state department budget pays for the operation of the embassies, labor and overhead.  So the 11mil goes back to the state dept as a nice profit.  Other embassies I'm sure do even better. 

 

You may want to look up things about visitor visas and reapplying.  There is no requirement that they tell you everything, they aren't your lawyers.  Reading up on visitor visas, you know that if a person reapply with no changes, the results are not going to change.  It's not a surprise that if nothing changes, the results will not change.  It's only the naive who thinks that reapplying with no changes will have a different results . . . well, because it's luck.

 

Visa application fees pay for the processing.  Why should US taxpayers pay to process visitor visa applications for foreigners?  You think it should be free to file and US taxpayers have to pay for the processing?  Your analysis that the US government makes $11M as profits is SO WRONG.  The fee pays for the processing.

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

4 minutes ago, Jojo92122 said:

 

Visa application fees pay for the processing.  Why should US taxpayers pay to process visitor visa applications for foreigners?  You think it should be free to file and US taxpayers have to pay for the processing?  Your analysis that the US government makes $11M as profits is SO WRONG.  The fee pays for the processing.

They didn't say that all 11 million is profit, I'd say about 1/4 to 1/3 is profit.  Yes, I realize that there are processing fees and overhead, but it's not $150/person in a poor country.

[geowrian 22,338]

50 minutes ago, Eric-Pris said:

They are required to let people re-apply but they don't tell you to improve your circumstances before doing so.  I know because when my girlfriend at the time applied they told her no but "she is free to reapply".  They forgot to mention that if she applies with nothing being different, the result will be the same.

 

As for the money maker part, look at the numbers.  In Costa Rica, they get 300-400 applicants every day.  Lets use 350.  At $150 a pop, that's $52,000 per day, or $11,000,000 per year, probably closer to 12.  I believe that the state department budget pays for the operation of the embassies, labor and overhead.  So the 11mil goes back to the state dept as a nice profit.  Other embassies I'm sure do even better. 

It's your own responsibility to do research. I think it's pretty common sense that you need something different on your next attempt because what you did the first time didn't work. "Doing the same thing and expecting a different result" and all...

 

Operating an embassy that processes ~350 applicants a day is crazy expensive. DoS does cover a number of expenses for an embassy, but the fees supplement that funding.

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by geowrian

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

Just a thought - it would make perfect sense for US tax payers to pay for at least part of the process of visitor Visas (even that it's not the case). People come and visit and spend money in the country. That benefits businesses and thus tax payers.... just saying..

[Tolly 1]

7 hours ago, geowrian said:

After paying for the people, processing, etc., I doubt they would be making much at all. They aren't denying people to make money. They are required by law to permit people to re-apply, but it's not recommended to do so unless your circumstances have changed.

If they are not denying people just to make money, then they should be refunding the money.

[geowrian 22,338]

9 minutes ago, Tosyn said:

If they are not denying people just to make money, then they should be refunding the money.

For what? They did their job and processed the application. Somebody has to pay for the services rendered.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

17 minutes ago, Tosyn said:

If they are not denying people just to make money, then they should be refunding the money.

You don't get application fees back if you fail a drivers test or don't get into college. That's silly.

[USC1961 251]

2 hours ago, Eric-Pris said:

They are required to let people re-apply but they don't tell you to improve your circumstances before doing so.  I know because when my girlfriend at the time applied they told her no but "she is free to reapply".  They forgot to mention that if she applies with nothing being different, the result will be the same.

 

As for the money maker part, look at the numbers.  In Costa Rica, they get 300-400 applicants every day.  Lets use 350.  At $150 a pop, that's $52,000 per day, or $11,000,000 per year, probably closer to 12.  I believe that the state department budget pays for the operation of the embassies, labor and overhead.  So the 11mil goes back to the state dept as a nice profit.  Other embassies I'm sure do even better. 

Ok for the sake of argument let's suppose you are working at an Embassy.  You earn a fixed salary and make no commission.  It's your job to accept or deny tourist visas.  You enjoy the job for the most part, but there is this one guy who you have denied a couple of times already, who keeps applying.  He's a nice gentleman but no matter how you explain something to him (denial reason), it doesn't stick and he replies back with 100 questions.  In other words he's a very bad listener.  Yes THAT GUY! (we all know one.)   You really wish you could just tell him to stuff it and go where the sun don't shine, because he is simply a pain to deal with.  To make matters worse, since you are on a fixed salary, you don't get paid extra to deal with him.  But because you want to keep your job and the rules state so, you always end with the spiel that he can reapply. 

 

In other words the front line employees aren't in on this conspiracy theory.  But lets talk about the $150 fee that is paid to the State department for every application.  That money is not pure profit as there are many many expenses to run an operation this big.  I won't waste your time breaking it down, but in short the government isn't trying to fleece people here.  There are many cogs and wheels to make it work, and it isn't cheap.

 

55 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

Just a thought - it would make perfect sense for US tax payers to pay for at least part of the process of visitor Visas (even that it's not the case). People come and visit and spend money in the country. That benefits businesses and thus tax payers.... just saying..

We already have that its called VWP or ESTA.  If you come from a country not part of that program, it's because it would cost us more than any benefit gained.  So no, let's not make it easier for these non VWP countries to apply for tourist visas.  In fact it should be even tougher.   

Edited April 26, 2017 by Cruise77

[MacUK 983]

9 hours ago, Eric-Pris said:

Not always.  I know people who have been denied without a reason.  They are given that same paper that they don't qualify under rule 214(g) or whatever it is called.  That could be a thousand reasons, but they should give people real reasons.  They don't want to do that because they want these people to keep applying and they can turn them down.  It's a good money maker.  Think about the insane amounts of money that these embassies make on these poor suckers.

 

Failing to overcome 214(b) is all the reason they need, they don't have to be any more specific.

214(b) is a catch-all reason that could be anything from USC immediate relatives, to being from a country with a poor tourist visa abuse history, to being unemployed, all the way down to just that the CO not thinking you look trustworthy.

It would be so much easier if there was a checklist that if you could tick so many boxes then you get the visa, and you'd have a definite list of goals you'd need to remedy those things you're lacking.

But it doesn't work like that. Fair or not, the current system isn't likely to change for the better anytime soon.

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

1 hour ago, Cruise77 said:

We already have that its called VWP or ESTA.  If you come from a country not part of that program, it's because it would cost us more than any benefit gained.  So no, let's not make it easier for these non VWP countries to apply for tourist visas.  In fact it should be even tougher.   

Based on what would it "cost more"?  Are you making things up as you go along?

If you don't have money you won't be getting a visitors visa in the first place. The non VWP or ESTA countries are mainly so cause of reasons related to the governments in those countries rather than the individual citizens looking and able to go on vacation. 

 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

1 minute ago, Suss&Camm said:

Based on what would it "cost more"?  Are you making things up as you go along?

If you don't have money you won't be getting a visitors visa in the first place. The non VWP or ESTA countries are mainly so cause of reasons related to the governments in those countries rather than the individual citizens looking and able to go on vacation. 

 

I believe that they're referring to those who would overstay 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

7 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

I believe that they're referring to those who would overstay 

Got it, that I understand. So the worry would be illegal workers then?  The cost being loss of jobs? 

I was trying to disern which cost they were referring to. Although I'm of the opinion that the companies hiring illegals should be held accountable for this cost - I'm getting way of topic here now

Sorry for that! 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Suss&Camm

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with a one sentence explanation of the reason for denial. It doesn't take
more than a minute. If someone wants to make 5 minutes out of it then why not, he is paying a fee.
If someone goes into a long spiel about it then they can show him the door. What is the big deal ?!
Transparency is something that usually is completely lacking with DOS and USCIS.
How many here are wandering  around in the dark with their cases or get stupid and wrong answers from
the embassies and USCIS ? I believe the agencies can do better.
I agree with Eric to a certain extend that the money coming in is an incentive to keep status quo going and raking it in.
If half no longer apply then half the money will not be coming in.
Just saying you can reapply and not give a reason is ridiculous "service".