Thai spouse tourist visa to US denied.

[Boiler 45,557]

11 minutes ago, rickbechard@gmail said:

Yes, those French. Stuck it to us in the long run didn't they. 

Well we can agree on that.

[HRQX 4,145]

3 hours ago, Ikhan said:

Didnt they introduce the k3 visa because it was taking too long to process applications? Can't they do something similar now?

The K-3 and K-4 are still currently codified into law. But it's currently obsolete: "Congress sought to resolve this problem by creating K-3 and K-4 nonimmigrant visas to shorten the time your family would need to spend apart. However, because USCIS now takes less time to adjudicate the Form I-130, the current need for K-3 and K-4 visas is rare." https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/k-3k-4-nonimmigrant-visas

[SalishSea 17,842]

3 hours ago, Ikhan said:

Can't the government hold the spouse in US accountable for the person trying to get a visitor visa. I would gladly sign documents to take responsibility for the applicant that they will return before their visa ends and they will not adjusts status.

Huh?  How would someone ever 'guarantee' the behavior of another person?  That is not how the world works, and definitely not how the DOS works.

 

I can 'promise' that my teenage son won't speed, but there is no way I can make a promise like that.

[SalishSea 17,842]

1 hour ago, rickbechard@gmail said:

An American citizen living abroad, should expect a bit of consideration when travelling with their spouse. 

But the visa is not for an American citizen.  

 

And someone married to an American citizen has more reasons to suddenly decide not to go back, as we see all the time here on VJ.  

 

It is also unfortunate that your wife's fellow Thai nationals have contributed to creating this situation via past behavior.  

[rickbechard@gmail 5]

2 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

But the visa is not for an American citizen.  

 

And someone married to an American citizen has more reasons to suddenly decide not to go back, as we see all the time here on VJ.  

 

It is also unfortunate that your wife's fellow Thai nationals have contributed to creating this situation via past behavior.  

No argument on points one and three.

 

I fail to see the reasoning in point two. If I wanted to bring her to stay,  I just do the immigrant visa. A much lower hurdle to jump. It took 2 weeks to get a visitor visa for her to Australia in 2017. She could have stayed and would have gotten citizenship next year. I can tell you that she discovered, to her surprise, that while Americans and Australians make big incomes, it costs most all of it to live. Just the same as in Thailand. And as I explained to her, most of those farangs travelling around, spending money, have to pay off the credit card bills when they get home. She understands it is not the land of milk and honey in reality.

[SalishSea 17,842]

20 minutes ago, rickbechard@gmail said:

If I wanted to bring her to stay,  I just do the immigrant visa.

Yeah, which would take 18 months longer.  This is the primary reason why spouses and other family members visiting on B visas seem to spontaneously decide to stay and adjust status, rather than do the long wait at home, with all the others in the queue.

 

Even though you two may not intend to do this, many have, and as such have ruined things for others.  

[rickbechard@gmail 5]

2 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Yeah, which would take 18 months longer.  This is the primary reason why spouses and other family members visiting on B visas seem to spontaneously decide to stay and adjust status, rather than do the long wait at home, with all the others in the queue.

 

Even though you two may not intend to do this, many have, and as such have ruined things for others.  

As I pointed out in an earlier comment, my old friend from long ago was retired here for the past 5 years. He and his wife had been married for a year and a bit. He completed the spouse visa start to finish in 155 days. It is recorded on this website. They went back in March. The general 12 -18 months claims are probably true in some cases and for some countries. The   list of cases recorded here do reflect a wide range of times to complete.

[HRQX 4,145]

24 minutes ago, rickbechard@gmail said:

It is recorded on this website. They went back in March.

As you mentioned, that I-130 was filed directly at USCIS Bangkok. He did it before that option was removed barring "exceptional circumstances" and before the late March temporary suspension of routine visa services because of the pandemic: https://www.uscis.gov/archive/thailand-uscis-bangkok-field-office Just because the I-130 can now be filed online doesn't mean the majority of online filings are processed in a few months. More like "13 Months to 17 Months" just for I-130 part: https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/ Then comes NVC and embassy parts.

Edited November 12, 2020 by HRQX

[Ikhan 49]

1 hour ago, Jorgedig said:

Huh?  How would someone ever 'guarantee' the behavior of another person?  That is not how the world works, and definitely not how the DOS works.

 

I can 'promise' that my teenage son won't speed, but there is no way I can make a promise like that.

Why do we have an affidavit of support? We are basically taking responsibility for our spouse's financial needs. Can't we use the same logic and say if the spouse runs away we are legally responsible and could be fined. 

 

You can't promise your son wont speed but you'll do your best to prevent him from speeding because you'll pay the cost of a hefty ticket + impounding fees. If you dont trust him then you wont let him drive in the first place. In our example, if you dont trust the person youre sponsoring then you shouldn't sponsor them. 

[Boiler 45,557]

2 minutes ago, Ikhan said:

Why do we have an affidavit of support? We are basically taking responsibility for our spouse's financial needs. Can't we use the same logic and say if the spouse runs away we are legally responsible and could be fined. 

 

You can't promise your son wont speed but you'll do your best to prevent him from speeding because you'll pay the cost of a hefty ticket + impounding fees. If you dont trust him then you wont let him drive in the first place. In our example, if you dont trust the person youre sponsoring then you shouldn't sponsor them. 

So you promise to send her back?

 

How.

[rickbechard@gmail 5]

5 minutes ago, HRQX said:

As you mentioned, that I-130 was filed directly at USCIS Bangkok. He did it before that option was removed barring "exceptional circumstances" and before the late March temporary suspension of routine visa services because of the pandemic: https://www.uscis.gov/archive/thailand-uscis-bangkok-field-office Just because the I-130 can now be filed online doesn't mean the majority of online filings are processed in a few months. More like "13 Months to 17 Months" just for I-130 part: https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/ Then comes NVC and embassy parts.

One certainly can't discount the possibility that the government in it's wisdom can take what should be an improvement, and turn it into a complete mess.

[SalishSea 17,842]

8 minutes ago, Ikhan said:

Why do we have an affidavit of support? We are basically taking responsibility for our spouse's financial needs. Can't we use the same logic and say if the spouse runs away we are legally responsible and could be fined. 

 

You can't promise your son wont speed but you'll do your best to prevent him from speeding because you'll pay the cost of a hefty ticket + impounding fees. If you dont trust him then you wont let him drive in the first place. In our example, if you dont trust the person youre sponsoring then you shouldn't sponsor them. 

How is sponsoring someone in any way accepting responsibility for their actions?  Sponsorship is a legal arrangement between a USC/LPR and the US government.  It is a promise that the cost of means-tested benefits used by the immigrant will be repaid.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

My son does not need my consent to drive.  His right/privilege to drive is an arrangement between him and the state of Washington department of licensing.  Exactly in the way that the spouse of a USC does not need the USC's consent to apply for a tourist visa.  The only two parties involved are the applicant and the department of state.

[Ikhan 49]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

So you promise to send her back?

 

How.

I mean if it was such a big problem sending someone back they wouldn't have introduced the k3. 

[Ikhan 49]

1 hour ago, Jorgedig said:

How is sponsoring someone in any way accepting responsibility for their actions?  Sponsorship is a legal arrangement between a USC/LPR and the US government.  It is a promise that the cost of means-tested benefits used by the immigrant will be repaid.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

My son does not need my consent to drive.  His right/privilege to drive is an arrangement between him and the state of Washington department of licensing.  Exactly in the way that the spouse of a USC does not need the USC's consent to apply for a tourist visa.  The only two parties involved are the applicant and the department of state.

You're not making sense. An affidavit of support legally binds you to supporting the person you're sponsoring. They can't go on welfare and you're responsible for their financial needs. That isn't between them and and the govt. 

 

If the govt is holding you responsible for their financial needs why can't they hold you financial responsible in the case they 'run away'. 

 

Your son does need your consent to drive the car if it's your car. If he gets into an accident, it will be your insurance that pays for it. You pay the fine for his actions. Unless you want to argue that he stole your car

 

There is no incentive for a spouse to overstay. They risk causing financial loss to you and they will blocked from entering US. If a petition is already ongoing, they just need to go home and renew their visa again. 

 

If people overstay and don't want to leave they wouldn't have introduced the k3. What I'm saying is that there are long wait times and something needs to be done temporarily to reunite immediate family. 

 

 

 

 

[Just Paul 4,595]

22 minutes ago, Ikhan said:

You're not making sense. An affidavit of support legally binds you to supporting the person you're sponsoring.

OP wants a B2 (or a spousal in 155 days - not understanding that option is dead).  Sponsorship isn't an option for that.

 

24 minutes ago, Ikhan said:

If people overstay and don't want to leave they wouldn't have introduced the k3.

That wasn't the point of the K3.  The K3 couldn't be obtained in the US.  The K3 allowed  a married couple to  literally take the benefit of the spousal and made it more costly  and time consuming than doing a fiance visa.  I know people that did a K3 way back and they would never have done that again.