Philippines previous tourist visa denials / lies during interview

[Werner Stragster 0]

Hello,

 

I'm just wondering if my wife will have issues during her interview for CR-1 Visa. She's from the Philippines. Twice in the last several years she tried to get a tourist visa to US. Both were denied essentially for not having enough travel history/financial stability.

 

The part I am concerned with is that for the second interview she took advice from some agency that told her to pretend to have a business in the Philippines. She told them she owned an apartment that she rented out. This was not true, but I don't believe they looked into it at all. I know the number one rule is to tell the truth in the process, but this happened before I met her. Do you think they will bring this up in her CR-1 interview? We are a real couple with lots of solid evidence, but I'm just worrying and don't want to waste a year applying again if there's something I could have done now.

 

Any advice would be appreciated. I am considering whether I should consult a lawyer...

[pushbrk 13,260]

They wouldn't have looked into it because it wasn't material.  She would need a lot more than to own a condo she rents out, in order to show sufficient ties to her home country.  No worries, in my opinion.

[mushroomspore 3,044]

Well, the CR-1 interview will be primarily for determining your romantic relationship and marriage. But of course they are also looking at the beneficiary's total immigration history and are free to ask whatever they want in the interview.

 

My main question is if your wife submitted any paperwork in regards to this "rental apartment". If she didn't (and I am guessing she didn't provide any papers), I agree with pushbrk above and it's probably a non-issue. If she did provide papers, that's a whole different story because paperwork is material and leaves a trail. 

[pushbrk 13,260]

In this context, paperwork does not equal "material".  What makes a misrepresentation material is whether it would make a difference in the decision.  For example, saying her sister's eyes are green, is not material to the visa decision, even if you show a photoshopped image of her with green eyes.

[Daisy.Chain 317]

It's possible, but unlikely. DON'T volunteer the information, but make sure she tells the truth on the off chance it were to come up in the interview.

[Werner Stragster 0]

Thank you. She says she brought some papers but they did not look at them. This seems to fit the idea that they don't care/won't bring it up. Fingers crossed.

1 minute ago, Daisy.Chain said:

It's possible, but unlikely. DON'T volunteer the information, but make sure she tells the truth on the off chance it were to come up in the interview.

Hmmm, if they asked and she says that an agency told her to make it up, that wouldn't disqualify her?

[geowrian 22,338]

7 minutes ago, Werner Stragster said:

Hmmm, if they asked and she says that an agency told her to make it up, that wouldn't disqualify her?

Whether she did it on her own, under the advice of an agency, or a professional attorney told her to do it would have no impact either way. The individual has an obligation to tell the truth (which was stated in the DS-160, and sworn to do in the interview) even if somebody else tells them to lie.

 

That said, I concur that it's immaterial so it shouldn't be a misrepresentation bar.

She must be truthful with anything asked about it, though.

[pushbrk 13,260]

23 minutes ago, Werner Stragster said:

Thank you. She says she brought some papers but they did not look at them. This seems to fit the idea that they don't care/won't bring it up. Fingers crossed.

Hmmm, if they asked and she says that an agency told her to make it up, that wouldn't disqualify her?

If it does, it does.  Her alternative is to compound the lie with another lie.  I don't think this lie is going to have an immigration related consequence, but it it does, it does.

 

Many Filipinos think that if there was a good reason to lie, then the lie is OK, or even that it wasn't a lie.  Don't fall into that thought trap.  Consular Officers in Manila are aware of this Filipino cultural issue but not sympathetic to it.

Edited June 27, 2018 by pushbrk

[Werner Stragster 0]

Ok thanks. I think I'll just tell her to go with the truth in the unlikely event that it is asked about.

[bakphx1 789]

The rental would be of no interest at this point because her income isn't material to her immigrating.

[pushbrk 13,260]

1 hour ago, bakphx1 said:

The rental would be of no interest at this point because her income isn't material to her immigrating.

It's not the rental that is of concern.  There isn't one.  The concern was that she lied about it in the past.  It's not about income and never was.  It's about "misrepresentation" vs "truth".

[Boiler 46,405]

From their point of view if she has lied in the past what about now, what is her credibility?

[Werner Stragster 0]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

From their point of view if she has lied in the past what about now, what is her credibility?

This is why I am concerned in the first place. In my experience in other matters just being humble and admitting what had happened (if they mention it) usually works best, but the consequences for it not working are very dire. I have to believe even if they discover this mistruth that it's not impossible to get approved, so I want to maximize the chances it's this time before wasting another year+ of our marriage being separated.