Refused

[Jojo92122 1,924]

5 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. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Eric-Pris said:

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.

Don't know who "they" are, but you said $11mil is a "nice profit."  You didn't say 1/4 to 1/3.  Furthermore, how the heck do you even know there are profits?  Do you know the overhead?  NO.

 

Do you expect American Consular Officers make the local wages in poor countries? 

 

You presume to know the cost of processing a visa.  You based your conclusions based on your assumptions.

 

[jan22 3,056]

In an attempt to clarify a couple of things that have been discussed throughout this thread:

 

The State Department makes no profit whatsoever from running visa operations in essentially every country in the world, including multiple operations in some (10 in Mexico, 5 in India and China, etc).  Visa fees are retained by the Bureau of Consular Affairs in the Department and are used to fund every aspect of the visa function and consular operations.  They pay the salary and all other costs (travel, housing, language and consular training, etc) of all consular officers, all local employees who work in the section, all DC consular support personnel, the security support needed for the personnel and for screening applicants into the facility, the space (think sort of intra-Department rent and/or construction of consular-specific facilities), all utilities and phones, computer support staff, all computer hardware including massive US-based servers for data storage, software development to maintain and improve consular software, fees for the administrative support provided by other parts of the Department and the Embassy (HR, maintenance, char force, motor pool, etc.), all the services (whatever your opinion of it is) of NVC and the Kentucky Consular Center (that runs the DV program and is involved in many aspects of immigrant and non-immigrant petition processing), the interagency structure for running all of the security checks required.....and a lot of things I am not thinking to list right now.  It is a  very expensive operation.  Fees are evaluated every couple of years to ensure that the charge is sufficient to cover the cost of the operation but not make a profit.  

 

Also, 214b is the valid reason why most non-immigrant visas are denied.  It is not an easy concept to explain or for someone to accept as the reason, but it is the law under which officers have to operate.  The ambiguity of the law and complexity of explaninig it is why most Embassies have a printed explanation they hand out so the applicant can review it as many times as they want.  Officers cannot be both adjudicator of the application and visa consultants on what specifically would make someone qualify -- also, officers have no way of knowing what might be possible for any specific applicant. More importantly, providing specific advice would skirt the prohibition on officers providing legal advice, among other issues.  And, given specfics  would merely  create more opportunities for document fraud in high-fraud countries.

 

Just wanted to provide a little "food for thought".

[geowrian 22,338]

30 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

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".

Definitely some good points here. I completely agree about needing additional transparency. And a simple explanation of why (i.e. insufficient ties to return home) would be fine. However, I don't think they are permitted to discourage somebody from reapplying for a visa in which they meet the requirements for application. Maybe I'm wrong there, but that was my understanding. Maybe something on the DS-160 could provide additional guidance (since it would then apply to all people, not targeted just at people denied)?

 

I don't think giving detailed explanations of the reason for denial or steps to take first before reapplying would be a good thing in the end. Remember, one of their goals is to identify people who are likely to violate the terms of the visa...one of which is coming to the US on a tourist visa and overstaying or adjusting status to permanent residency. Telling somebody "I think you're too much of a risk of staying in the US, but if you had a job for another 6 months or had $x more in savings, you should be fine next time" would result in additional visa fraud. Which in turn would likely result in more total denials. While there are a lot of people who don't intend to immigrate who are denied, I think the net result of telling people what they need to overcome the denial would result in additional fraud and subsequently even more denials.

 

Money does enforce the status quo, but that's a long ways off from suggesting that they are wanting people to reapply so they can deny them and take their money.

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

16 hours ago, geowrian said:

I don't think giving detailed explanations of the reason for denial or steps to take first before reapplying would be a good thing in the end. Remember, one of their goals is to identify people who are likely to violate the terms of the visa...one of which is coming to the US on a tourist visa and overstaying or adjusting status to permanent residency. Telling somebody "I think you're too much of a risk of staying in the US, but if you had a job for another 6 months or had $x more in savings, you should be fine next time" would result in additional visa fraud. Which in turn would likely result in more total denials. While there are a lot of people who don't intend to immigrate who are denied, I think the net result of telling people what they need to overcome the denial would result in additional fraud and subsequently even more denials.

I actually had a similar thought yesterday.  If they told people exactly what is needed to get the tourist visa, that's like giving a blueprint to every scammer on how to beat the system.  They would just meet the requirements and then come here and stay forever.  So I agree with that part.

 

The part that I have a problem with (and I think many others do also) is that the process is very subjective.  I understand that by its very nature and the vague rules, it lends itself to be this way, but it's still irritating that one person gets a visa and another person in the exact same situation does not.  Or when a person who clearly has a valid reason (parent's/sibling's funeral) to come here and seemingly enough ties (property, business, etc) to go back gets denied, while high risk people get approve.  Seems like luck of the draw.  I know a single woman (friend of a friend), who must be 27-28 now.  She was denied for a tourist visa on her first attempt but a few weeks later got it on her 2nd attempt, different IO.  Nothing in her life changed.  She has no job (well, she is a call girl/hooker who sleeps with tourists for money, but I'm sure she didn't list in on her application), a coke habit (her way to stay thin), no education, no kids, and is extremely good looking.  All things that would seem to make her a prime candidate to overstay.  Makes no sense!   

Edited April 27, 2017 by Eric-Pris

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

OP, here is a link with the reasons of denial and some guidelines to read over. The CO chose not to tell you that he feels you

lack ties to your home country and may have immigrant intent and in my opinion he should have said so.

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/denials.html

 

Jan22, though DOS has to have visa fees to function and maintain, I did not infer they are making a huge profit.
Maybe they do and maybe they do not. I don't know and until we see the agency's numbers we simply don't know.
Being well aware of all the costs involved yes, of course it requires visa fees. To what extend is the question.
How much of a loss would the agency encounter if repeats would simply stop applying ?
But it would be too much off topic to discuss DOS budgets in this thread, if anyone has the real numbers I am

interested to see it.
 

Geowrian, the link from travel.gov above goes specifically into some reasons of what 'not enough ties' entails.
OP has these ties. Was she able to show enough evidence of it...I don't know. Many have very strong ties and no
relatives here and are still denied based on the CO's discretion. I believe in OP's case it is the brother (immigration intent).
Simply following and meeting the requirements unfortunately is often not enough., there is that 'discretion' that

can wipe it all out.
What can a CO tell an applicant who meets all the criteria other than just say  'you don't have enough ties'

(when they clearly do).

In my opinion the CO could have said what I bolded below, after all it is in the travel. gov guidelines.
But most CO's do not. It is not 'advising or consulting or giving legal advise', it is a simple clarification.

 

After being found ineligible for a visa, you may reapply in the future. If you reapply for a visa after being found ineligible, with the exception of 221(g) refusals, you must submit a new visa application and pay the visa application fee again. If you were found ineligible under section 214(b) of the INA, you should be able to present evidence of significant changes in circumstances since your last application. See more information below under INA section 214(b).

 

So more clarification = less repeat applications = less fees coming in to maintain the agency would be my

conclusion. Why make it easy when you can make it complicated is an old joke but true with government agencies.

 

Meanwhile thousands are wasting hard earned application fees, missing weddings, funerals and other events

by continuing to apply in hopes of an approval.

In OP's case I would like to add that visiting the brother with mental issues means that a mental issue is not resolved
in a few weeks if ever and therefore compounds the suspicion that 'she would stay there because he needs her and has
no one else except his wife' like she put it in her comment. Not likely a temporary situation.

 

Interesting discussion, should they or shouldn't they be transparent and why and why not.
My opinion is simply yes. Confusion is never a good thing with any agency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[geowrian 22,338]

22 minutes ago, Eric-Pris said:

The part that I have a problem with (and I think many others do also) is that the process is very subjective.  I understand that by its very nature and the vague rules, it lends itself to be this way, but it's still irritating that one person gets a visa and another person in the exact same situation does not.  Or when a person who clearly has a valid reason (parent's/sibling's funeral) to come here and seemingly enough ties (property, business, etc) to go back gets denied, while high risk people get approve.  Seems like luck of the draw.  I know a single woman (friend of a friend), who must be 27-28 now.  She was denied for a tourist visa on her first attempt but a few weeks later got it on her 2nd attempt, different IO.  Nothing in her life changed.  She has no job (well, she is a call girl/hooker who sleeps with tourists for money, but I'm sure she didn't list in on her application), a coke habit (her way to stay thin), no education, no kids, and is extremely good looking.  All things that would seem to make her a prime candidate to overstay.  Makes no sense!   

Not arguing that...I wish there was more consistency to the process so you at least have a good idea going into it what your chances are.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

As to the fraud issue to create ties....they already do, lying about marriages and kids as ties and it will eventually

bite them in the behind like a piranha. We see the consequences here a dime a dozen.

Since ties to the home country already mentions marriage/kids in the .gov guidelines it is not a secret and can't be the reason to not

explain to the applicant the proper reason to discourage fraud. I do not buy that, why put it for all to see on the web site then ?
That brings me back to my previous equation : less applications = less fees.

[Jojo92122 1,924]

Lying about ties.   Ah.  There are numerous people immigrating on spousal and fiancee visas who who come on VJ with the problem that they previously lied on visitor visas that they were married when they were not and then running into the problem of not being able to get a divorce decree when the US Embassy ask for one because of the previous lie.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

3 minutes ago, Jojo92122 said:

Lying about ties.   Ah.  There are numerous people immigrating on spousal and fiancee visas who who come on VJ with the problem that they previously lied on visitor visas that they were married when they were not and then running into the problem of not being able to get a divorce decree when the US Embassy ask for one because of the previous lie.

Yes, exactly.