|
|
| Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam |  Review on November 7, 2009: |
Dale&Quynh
Rating:  | Review Topic: K1 Visa
I would recommend that anyone that will be having a fiancé going to an interview in the HCMC Embassy please be aware that you should have a “textbook” relationship, courtship and marriage plans with your fiancée. The interviewer that interviewed my fiancée’ Ms Quynh, was not open minded enough to realize that someone 52 years old may not have a relationship with someone the same as someone in their 20’s and 30’s. I thought that if I just told the truth that they would understand our relationship. Now I am planning another trip to marry My Love so that we can have more PROOF for them. If your relationship is similar to mine than I hope that you heed my warning and show them the pictures and tell them the story that they want to hear.
In Quynh’s first interview on 9/21/2009, everything seemed to be fine though she did not understand a couple of the 14 questions that she was asked. The interviewer looked at a few photos and read my statement of love and commitment and then gave her a blue, denial letter which stated;
1. “Based on the information ascertained through the visa interview and through documentary materials, consular officers do not believe that there is a bona fide fiancée or spousal relationship between Petitioner and Beneficiary. If you have any other evidence to present which would convince a reasonable person that the relationship exists for a reason other than immigration, please submit it.” The paper also had a return interview date of 10/19/2009. I was, of course, very disappointed but thought that maybe this was very common, to see what the reaction of those affected would be. I was sure that she would get her visa at her next interview. I didn’t know what more proof that I could send her, they could see my whole life before them, so I sent her updated phone and webcam receipts and waited expectantly.
At Quynh’s second interview she was only asked for the new proof and was not asked any questions and had to wait for their decision. They returned with another denial letter which also states that our case is closed in their embassy and our paperwork will be returned to the service center where it was first processes. The reasons for the denial are:
1. Photographs submitted as evidence of the relationship indicate that the Petitioner and Beneficiary have spent only three or four days together. Quynh submitted 58 dated photographs which show us together 12 of the 14 days that I was there. I don’t understand why he could not see the dates on each photo.
2. Beneficiary and-or Petitioner submitted evidence of only a small, inconsequential engagement ceremony without any US guest. This contradicts local social and cultural norms in which many family members and friends, including those in the US, are invited to engagement celebrations numbering in the hundreds of guests for families of even modest means. I am 52 and have been married 2 times before and have no family or friends in the US that have the money to fly to Vietnam for an engagement party. Quynh is 43 and has been married before. I would think that if we wanted to have a smaller party with her immediate family and a ceremony here in the US later than they would understand that. We had originally planned on having a large ceremony when I returned to pick her up after receiving her visa but because of the recession I had to change my plans on that.
3. In contrast to Vietnamese social and cultural norms which mandate a lengthy and careful period of pre-nuptial arrangements, Petitioner and Beneficiary became engaged before meeting in person. I guess that he based that statement on the questions that he asked her about our engagement and our future marriage ceremony. As I explained in my letter to confirm my desire to marry Quynh, I am not an overly romantic guy and never got down on one knee at a particular time and place and asked Quynh to marry me. Her sister Rose and her American husband David introduced us knowing that we were both looking for a marriage partner to spend the rest of our lives with. We were not looking for a pen-pal or someone to date; we were looking for our future spouse. So as soon as we got to know each other it was understood that if we fell in love and after meeting each other we found that we enjoyed each others company and personality that we would be married.
4. Beneficiary’s chronology of the claimed relationship is not credible, for example, Beneficiary could not recall when Petitioner proposed to her. Again, there was not a specific date that I asked Quynh to marry me. We were both looking for a spouse and as we got to know each others hearts, personalities and temperaments we started talking about our future together and if we still felt the same after meeting each other than me would be married.
In summary it looks to me as thought the Embassy is basing all of its decision on the interview and looking at a few of the pictures that you provide. It did not seem to care that I call Quynh every night and talk to her for a bout 4 hours each weekend on webcam. I submitted all of my phone correspondence records including the latest which showed that from 3/4/09 until 8/21/09, five and a half months, I talked to Quynh for 4,708 minutes or 78.46 hours and our Yahoo webcam correspondence of over 81 hours from 5/29/09 until 9/20/09. The letter that I wrote for the first interview and the letter that I wrote for the second interview explained how we met through her sister and explained our somewhat different courtship due to our ages but that didn’t seem to convince them of the reality of our relationship either. It looks like I will be heading back to Ho Chi Minh City to see and possibly marry Quynh this time. Maybe that will prove to them that we do have a relationship with each other.
| |
|
Consulate / USCIS Member Review #5203