What to expect at Warsaw US Embassy Interview (September 2022)

[StevenInAtlanta 41]

@Zoothie 

"Why do you say the certificate was valid for 1 year? NVC states 2 years since the date of issue.."

 

Because the US Embassy told us that the (Russian) police certificate was only good for a year and it HAD to be renewed. I've learned that it frankly doesn't matter what you read, or where you read it, if the Embassy wants "it" they are going to get it or in simple terms your passport/visa is not going to get processed. And if any of your documents are going to expire anywhere near the interview date, you better get them renewed and uploaded to CEAC well BEFORE your interview at the embassy. Our experience and delay boiled down to two basic events:

 

• We did not upload the updated police certificate and birth certificate prior to the interview, even though we were instructed to bring the new transcribed and certified originals to the interview and the officer had them in his hands, he insisted we return to the hotel and upload them and wait an indeterminable amount of time for review and processing.
• We were asked to also upload a 2021 Federal tax return TRANSCRIPT which I did not have with me.  All written instructions said "federal tax return OR transcript" and the embassy decided they wanted the official IRS transcript (required) and the federal return is apparently (optional).  

 

Arguing with the embassy officials is going to be fruitless. They have sole ownership of your documents and approval or refused power is entirely theirs. After several weeks that has become clear to my wife and I.  

 

My point is that it doesn't really matter what NVC says, what does matter is what the embassy says.

[Zoothie 8]

Got it, thanks. I know that the visa issuance decision is 100% in the hands of the the embassy personnel, unfortunately.

For what it's worth, forget about NVC, this is direct from the Warsaw US embassy instructions for the interview:

 

If you are older than 16 years of age:  The original police certificate from your country of current residence and countries of previous residence with English translation. If these three items are all true, you must bring a more recent police certificate to the interview:

1. You are older than 16 years of age;
2. You obtained a police certificate more than two years ago; and
3. You still live in the country that issued the police certificate.

 

"two years ago". Just for the record of how absurd things can get.

And the same for the IRS transcript, the AOS instructions clearly state the return with W2 is enough.

 

Sorry to hear this bomb fell on you.

[IraLada 7]

On 9/14/2022 at 2:17 AM, StevenInAtlanta said:

@Zoothie 

• We were asked to also upload a 2021 Federal tax return TRANSCRIPT which I did not have with me.  All written instructions said "federal tax return OR transcript" and the embassy decided they wanted the official IRS transcript (required) and the federal return is apparently (optional).  

 

 

You can get your file Tax return transcript online https://www.irs.gov/individuals/get-transcript. 

[jan22 3,049]

I'm sorry to be chiming in late on this thread -- and I have no real suggestions on how to speed up things -- but wanted to take a couple minutes and address some of the logistical issue/concerns that have been raised in various posts on the thread.  While it certainly will not eliminate the frustration that arises for most people caught up in a bureaucratic system, maybe knowing that there may be a real reason for some of the procedures might help.  The following comments are based on things I remember from reading throughout the thread and are in no particular order.  I'm also sorry this is so long -- but hopefully it will clarify a couple of things and I won't get flamed too much for appearing to defend "the status quo"!  I know there is obviously room for improvement, but making those changes on a worldwide scale is even more difficult during an overloaded, crisis situation caused by a pandemic, a diplomatic break resulting in Embassy shut-downs, and a war.

1. The applicant being required to scan the new documents into the system:  While it is exceedingly frustrating to be told you need to go somewhere and do this when it looks like something the officer could easily do, it is actually for the protection of the applicant (and the officer).  There are critical fields in an application that must be filled in/completed by the applicant because, by doing so and then submitting the electronic file for transmission, the applicant is swearing that everything submitted is true and correct to the best of their knowledge under penalty of perjury.  The officer is not allowed to change those fields (in most cases, the system will not allow them to).  For most fields that they can appear to change (update an address or something similar), they actually don't do so directly in the text field -- the new information is entered in a separate text box next to the original entry.  To allow anyone other than the applicant to change the information and supporting information would nullify the oath under penalty of perjury that is sworn to by hitting "Submit".
2. Entry into the interview area:  For most posts, the standard is that only the applicant can enter the interview area, including the waiting room.  Some Embassies have allowed the petitioner to come in, as they have large waiting areas compared to the number of applicants they serve.  When the workload increases -- as it does when an Embassy like Warsaw takes over processing another country's applicants in addition to their own -- it becomes an issue.  There are fire codes for occupancy that must be adhered to and, often, the Embassy security office sets a maximum number of people who can be inside the building at any given time.  Plus, every additional person adds to the time it takes to get the applicants cleared into the building, delaying the process for all.  I wholeheartedly endorse the concept that the Embassy should post a notice on the website and prominently post it outside the building, if possible, that only the person with the interview appointment can enter the building unless an exception has been approved (minors, adult needing physical assistance, etc).
3. Intake and interview process:  The first "officer" that was referred to as having excellent Russian was almost assuredly not a consular officer.  He/She was a locally-employed clerk, probably a native speaker of Russian, whose job was to receive the paperwork being accepted and organize it for the interviewing officer to review – that is, the second officer whose Russian was not that great.  The OP discussed how well-organized and complete their application was, how short the interview was, and commented that it seemed like the officer had not really looked at the documents, etc.  OP is likely correct -- because their application was so well put together and complete (with the exception of the new documents they presented).  The organization of material by the intake clerk, and the familiarity with what the correct documents look like that the OP mentioned as a possibility, allows the officer to review them very quickly, knowing exactly where to look for the information he/she needs to see.  There is no need for a long interview to review an application that was thorough and complete. 
4. New employees and interview waivers don't appear to be of any use to immigrant visa applicants:  I believe that the new employees being referred to by the poster are USCIS adjudicators -- whether they are assigned to immigrant petitions or not, I don't know.  But, even if they aren't, if they take up more of the non-immigrant workload, it should then free other adjudicators to do the immigrant petition adjudications...at least that is what I think.  It hopefully, will make the USCIS portion of the process much shorter and thus make the entire process shorter.  However, it will likely not have any effect on how quickly an Embassy will be able to process an application.  First, there is no provision in law to waive an immigrant visa interview; waiving specific non-immigrant visa interviews under specific criteria will, however, free space and more time for staff to focus on immigrant visa applications.  There are limitations to how much and how quickly an Embassy can change staffing patterns.  Many of the issues are space related -- there are limits to the number of interviews that can be scheduled based on the number of people that can be processed by security for entry into the building, by the size of the waiting area (both for those waiting to enter the building and within the building), and the number of interview windows available.  While the volume can be increased by working interviews in "shifts" to maximize the use of the interview windows over more than a normal current work day, the process of adding new officers is a long, expensive process that requires creating the position, ensuring it is funded, bringing in new officers through the Foreign Service evaluation and hiring process, providing proper training (including language training, if needed), the Embassy concurring that the officers are needed, and there is adequate support to meet personnel needs of a new employee -- appropriate housing, security, office space, IT support, etc.  The State Department also needs to negotiate adding diplomatic personnel to an Embassy with the host-country government.  Some countries make if difficult, if not impossible, to add consular officers (or any other additional officers).  Without a need for language-training, the whole process takes, conservatively, at least a year or two.  If language training is needed, add six months to two years to that.  (Consular Affairs has established a few non-traditional hiring mechanisms to speed up part of the process, such as bringing in limited-appointment adjudicators who already have language skills, but that only cuts a relatively small time off the entire process).  And, finally -- there needs to be $$$$ to support the hiring and logistics of the new adjudicators.  Consular Affairs is fee-funded.  With more than two years of extremely limited visa processing worldwide that, of course, limited the number of visa fees paid -- while fixed costs continued -- has made personnel options/changes/increases much more complex. 
5. Information from call center:  Many posters here have been spot-on about the personnel at the information centers.  They are not Embassy employees who have access to your complete file.  They are contractors, who work off-site and have limited access to your case.  They can answer basic questions about the processes and where your case appears to be within the process, but they can't make any changes to the information they see or read any notes about issues in the case.  If your question/concern does not fall within the parameters of what they can answer, their role is to "elevate" the question to the Embassy officials for their response.  This system was put into place to free up staff and adjudicator time to actually work on cases.  And -- it doesn't always work as well as it should, as I'm sure you would all agree!
6. They can't tell me how long anything will take:  This is one of the most frustrating things, I know...it is also frustrating to Embassy staff.  Most of the post-interview checks and processing are not actually done by the staff at the Embassy.  Often, they don't even know the reason why something appears to be held up or where in the process it is, but they can't move the case forward until whatever it is has been resolved and reported back to them.  
7. They haven't accepted my newly-submitted documents:  This does not necessarily mean that they haven't looked at the documents.  NVC has to formally accept the documents before the case can be considered DQ-ed and be moved forward and put in line for interview.  Once it is at the Embassy, an officer can review things without needing to click on anything to work on the application or move it forward...anything that needs to be actually marked as “approved” can all be done at the final point of adjudication and the visa is queued to be printed if it hasn't been done before that time.  While it could mean that the documents still need to be reviewed, it doesn't necessarily mean that nobody has even looked at your case.  Unfortunately, while this might save a little bit of time for the adjudicating officer, it causes concern for the applicant.

Hope this provides a little bit of insight .  And, more importantly, that you hear good news about your case soon!

 

[Zoothie 8]

I know and I did. What I meant was that the instructions do not require a transcript, clearly so.

[BenNomad 88]

On 9/14/2022 at 11:17 AM, StevenInAtlanta said:

@Zoothie 

"Why do you say the certificate was valid for 1 year? NVC states 2 years since the date of issue.."

 

Because the US Embassy told us that the (Russian) police certificate was only good for a year and it HAD to be renewed.

Picking up an older thread here, because the question of the police certificate validity is a timely one for me at the moment, since my wife just went in to apply for a new one (in Russia) but perhaps she doesn't need to wait in Russia another month just for a new certificate. Our current one is a year old.

 

I checked the Warsaw Embassy website on IV interviews today, and found the following:

 

 

The first page was updated January 20, 2023. Seems like they got their requirements in line with NVC. My trust level is not very high considering what others have gone through in Warsaw, but the above does seem like ample evidence that certificates are good for two years now.

 

Also, is it true that an apostille is NOT required for the police certificate? 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by BenNomad