Beware of False Questions at Interview

[slim 1,514]

I seriously question this idea that if the relationship were strong, that hearing from someone in authority that your "fiance is a monster and that he has used 20 aliases" would not shake up the fiancee.

First of all, someone at the embassy is not "in authority" and if they're making things up, shouldn't your fiancee be the first one to call them out on it?

His fiancee is from a different culture, and is naturally going to be less certain that she absolutely knows this man. She probably has never met his family or friends, has never seen him go off to work everyday and return as would normally be the case in most relationships.

If she doesn't "know him" to the point of not being sure if he's a monster, doesn't that kind of help the embassy's claim of "it's not a valid enough relationship?" I'm not saying your fiancee should know every single thing about you and all the people around you but she should know that you're not a monster. If the C/O starts making accusations that you are, your fiancee should be able to determine that they're false and/or fabricated. If a stretch of the truth rattles her.... maybe they have a point.

Keep in mind the whole reason they're doing this is to prevent abuse to women by men who've shown a prior history of violence and/or mental issues. The OP in this case had a prior history of legal action against him by a domestic partner. Whether it was real or not, whether he should've been made out to be a monster or not, whether the weather... he was singled out in this case because of his history and on further prodding by the interviewing officical, the fiancee second-guessed her relationship with this man. From an IMBRA standpoint - that's success. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that's what it is. For all of you out there saying, "that's not fair" well, maybe it's not. But, then again, if you have a prior conviction and/or order of protection or anything else that may pop up on the radar, that's probably something you and your fiancee should talk about, at length. It's also something that shouldn't be a "surprise" for her at the interview. When they start asking 20 questions, she should already know all about it and be able to tell the whole story - even correcting them when they're wrong.

And so therefore again, I am only saying to everyone with interviews coming up, make sure you talk with your SO that the CO may make an outlandish comment or question or determination. And, that just because it comes from a US government official, they have every right to say, "You Are Wrong".

Absolutely. However, the CO shouldn't be making outlandish comments if there's no history. When we look at the OP he had a history that raised a red flag, and the CO made outlandish comments based on that. Had he been squeeky-clean, it probably wouldn't have happened.

Slim, your comments are very valid, but as I stated, never in the 10 months of being on this forum have I ever heard of such behavior or questioning by the Moscow Embassy.'

In the years that I've been on here, I've never heard of it either. But, then again, I've never seen anyone get on here and say, "Well, I had an order of protection against me filed by an old girlfriend." If we had more folks with a IMBRA-flagged history, maybe this would've popped up.

So you can not justify that just because they are doing this now, that all is normal. If this kind of questioning was occurring before, then it would have been discussed here.

As above, it probably hasn't been discussed here because the only thing that's popped up before was, "I had a driving on suspended license conviction, is that going to hurt me for IMBRA?" If we had things like, "I got charged with domestic violence when my ex-wife picked up the kids and we got into an argument." Then maybe we'd see more of this sort of thing. Keep in mind the purpose of IMBRA. From the OP, it didn't sound like the C/O did this just to mess with him. It sounded like they did this in response to his history.

And I know that our case and our relationship and our evidence was sound and good, based on the 10 months of comments from you all on this forum prior to her interview.

But you still have to look at the big picture. How old are you? How old is she? How did you initially meet? How many times have you met? What is your salary and living conditions like here in the U.S.? What is hers like back home? How is that going to change for her (and the little one) when she gets here? Did that play any part in her motivation to seek a visa to the U.S. or was it because she really does have feelings for you? Are you the first guy she's had "feelings" for or are you number ten and the first to finally agree? Why is she not speaking/understanding better English? Why? Why? Why?

Those are the (sometimes tough) questions the C/Os have to ask themselves before they grant a visa. Now, your case is simple and clear-cut. Add an order of protection in there and does it look so simple anymore?

If you folks had mentioned this possibility, I would have talked with her about this before.

There's no reason to talk with her about it if you don't have a history. They shouldn't be making things up. It appears what they did was stretch the truth. It doesn't seem like they actually fabricated anything, only embellished a little. If your fiancee can't spot that, or cares to the point where it's a deal-breaker, then maybe that does say something about the status of your relationship.

None the less, only for our case, this coming Monday she will sit on the plane. Come Monday just after noon my time, I will have her in my arms, and me in hers.

We are finished with the Moscow Embassy for good.

Awesome!

Some have posted that the ability to shock the person being interviewed is indicative of her uncertainty. We are forgetthing that she might have sensitivities - as do all of us. If they (CO) pushes anyone's buttons correctly it is possible to have these sensativities manifest themselves. It does not and should not mrsn thst she does not know him.

So how are they supposed to determine if a woman is confident enough to live with a man who has a history of legal action against him by a domestic partner?

It is despicable and intollerable that a CO would try to push her buttons with outright false statements.

I haven't seen this to be the case. Ever.

[Kailey 3]

This is why I am making this warning now; things have changed there.

Everywhere there is always someone who takes his or her job too seriously, and they often want to change things their way.

And that's good to the safety of some women who think that a 'domestic violence' record is just a same thing as 'i smoked marijuanna a couple of times when i was 18'.

+ And well, what i see on the russian forum tells me that interviews go VERY smoothly.

[Steve S 2]

I don't understand the point of the question, "how many men did you meet online?". It should not matter if the answer is 1 or 10 or 50. If it is a high number, it could mean she was choosy about finding the man of her dreams and you are the one. Maybe they have followup questions that would help me understand what they are driving at. Also don't know if they mean eventually meeting in person or chatting on the Internet.

[Waitinggent 2]

"So how are they supposed to determine if a woman is confident enough to live with a man who has a history of legal action against him by a domestic partner?"

What does confidence have to do with living with a man with a domestic violence history. If she is confident, then she can withstand his violence? I don't believe that this is their job to determine the confidence of the woman. They are not there to try to read the mind of the woman regarding how successful they think the relationship will be. If the woman is unhappy in the relationship, she can return home. The U.S. interest is not harmed if a relationship fails. They just need to determine if it is a scam relationship, or a sincere relationship. If the COs start rejecting visa's based on their intuition regarding the ultimate success of a relationship, we have a real problem.

I agree that the CO should tell the woman about a history of domestic violence by her fiance. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is certainly part of IMBRA. I just have a problem with the idea that a woman in love should turn off the rational side of her brain and ignore information about a man's past that had not been shared with her, and that if she actually pays some attention to this information, that the relationship was never solid enough to have preceded to that point. Only a fool would ignore this information, and the fact that he never shared it with her. Even in a relationship between people of the same culture, a person can change in the relationship or turn out to be someone that one never expected. And in this case, she must make the additional leap of faith of marrying someone where the only information she has about him is what he told her (which maybe in a language that she does not even speak well), without the benefit of even seeing how he lives in his country, of having met any of his friends or family, and with the assumption that there are not cultural differences that she may be missing. That is a leap of faith that generally one is not required to make in a relationship with someone who lives in your neighborhood. I am sure that many people marry foreign brides without spending enough time with them. That is foolish. But I don't believe that there is some theoretical amount of time, that when reached, should mean that the woman should then ignore what she then learns about the man and assume it must be bogus.

[Waitinggent 2]

Remember that this woman is going to be living with this man in a foreign land thousands of miles from home, with no support system, no friends and probably no money. She is going to be totally dependent on him and cannot simply drive over to a family member's house if she is unhappy with her husband's behavior. Anyone would be a little nervous at that idea, let alone doing it with a man with a police record including domestic violence and a pattern of what appears to be criminal behavior with so many aliases. I don't care how well she thinks she knows him - she should be nervous.

[visaveteran 1]

The culture of Russian men and their wives is different than ours.

My understanding is that during the Soviets times a Russian husband frequently disciplined his wife with physical force. And, interestingly, the wives expected it of their men. In order to show he was a real man, he would on occasion slap his wife around and the wife would be pleased she found a tough man who can take care of her. The husband's male friends might even encourage him to "give her a lesson" if they saw his wife was getting out of line in their judgment.

I can't say how this practice is embraced today in Russia, but knowing Russia is still a bastion for men, and women can still have a hard time finding a Russia man to marry or stay married to, I imagine many Russian men still beat their wives without consequences.

So...how this ties in to this thread is that maybe Russia women still expect a certain degree of physical abuse as part of the marriage deal. Maybe they don't fear it of consider it a deal breaker. My wife told me when she went back to Russia, all her friends were surprised and maybe even disappointed that she did not show signs that I had abused her.

No, I don't beat my wife or kids for that matter. That would be wrong and illegal in my culture, and the sign of a weak and sick man. In Russia it is seen differently...at least by some men. And I don't think the Russian police will even take any action against a man if he beats his wife. They probable applaud him doing so.

[slim 1,514]

I don't understand the point of the question, "how many men did you meet online?". It should not matter if the answer is 1 or 10 or 50. If it is a high number, it could mean she was choosy about finding the man of her dreams and you are the one. Maybe they have followup questions that would help me understand what they are driving at. Also don't know if they mean eventually meeting in person or chatting on the Internet.

So you don't think there are women out there who've "shopped" for a husband (or any willing sucker) to get a green card? How would you screen those women, especially given their primary method of finding a sucker, er, um, I mean a petitioner?

It's not the actual number that matters, it's the method. If she's tried, repeatedly, to get a green card and failed and/or sought out more than what could be reasonably expected in the given time period, it looks more and more like she's a scammer and not someone who just happened to meet a nice man over the internet. Her motivation becomes more and more aparent. If she selected you because you were the first to say, "OK" well, maybe that's a little different than her selecting you because she's taken her time to get to know you and develop a real relationship.

What does confidence have to do with living with a man with a domestic violence history. If she is confident, then she can withstand his violence? I don't believe that this is their job to determine the confidence of the woman. They are not there to try to read the mind of the woman regarding how successful they think the relationship will be. If the woman is unhappy in the relationship, she can return home. The U.S. interest is not harmed if a relationship fails. They just need to determine if it is a scam relationship, or a sincere relationship. If the COs start rejecting visa's based on their intuition regarding the ultimate success of a relationship, we have a real problem.

No, but they are there to determine if she's fully aware of what she's getting herself into. If she's not confident that she's entering into a relationship with a good guy then she may never have the opportunity to return home if it doesn't work out. She may get killed here or worse. If she's only marrying a guy to get to the U.S. and isn't fully aware of his past, she may also lack the resolve to exit a bad situation once she's here. That is IMBRA. The CO isn't making a judgement based on intuition, they're making it based on past history of the petitioner and response of the beneficiary.

I agree that the CO should tell the woman about a history of domestic violence by her fiance. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is certainly part of IMBRA. I just have a problem with the idea that a woman in love should turn off the rational side of her brain and ignore information about a man's past that had not been shared with her, and that if she actually pays some attention to this information, that the relationship was never solid enough to have preceded to that point. Only a fool would ignore this information, and the fact that he never shared it with her. Even in a relationship between people of the same culture, a person can change in the relationship or turn out to be someone that one never expected. And in this case, she must make the additional leap of faith of marrying someone where the only information she has about him is what he told her (which maybe in a language that she does not even speak well), without the benefit of even seeing how he lives in his country, of having met any of his friends or family, and with the assumption that there are not cultural differences that she may be missing. That is a leap of faith that generally one is not required to make in a relationship with someone who lives in your neighborhood. I am sure that many people marry foreign brides without spending enough time with them. That is foolish. But I don't believe that there is some theoretical amount of time, that when reached, should mean that the woman should then ignore what she then learns about the man and assume it must be bogus.

She shouldn't be irrational or ignore any warnings. However, she should be fully aware of what her petioner's past is. Had the beneficiary in the OP been fully aware of the petitioners past and been comfortable with it, she would've been able to tell the CO was full of it. That's not irrational or ignoring warnings, that's being comfortable with all aspects of your relationship and your partner.

How many of us could be rattled by a Russian CO if they said, "your fiancee, whose name is Elena, also goes by Lena, Lenka, Lenichka, Yelena, Helena and even sometimes... Olga. She does this so the police won't be able to identify her. Did you know she tried to hurt one of her old boyfriends? He had to take her to court just to keep her away from him. Are you sure you know this woman the way you think you know her?" It's complete and utter ####### to think folks who know each other intimately to the point where they're going to be married would be dissuaded from continuing their relationship because of something like this - and from what I read, this is exactly what happened. The whole "he's a monster" thing was from a posted comment here on VJ, not the CO saying, "your fiance is a monster that kills children. Did you know this?" That, of course, I could take issue with, but it appears that's not what happens. And even so, I'd still expect a fiancee to be able to cut through the #######.

Remember that this woman is going to be living with this man in a foreign land thousands of miles from home, with no support system, no friends and probably no money. She is going to be totally dependent on him and cannot simply drive over to a family member's house if she is unhappy with her husband's behavior. Anyone would be a little nervous at that idea, let alone doing it with a man with a police record including domestic violence and a pattern of what appears to be criminal behavior with so many aliases. I don't care how well she thinks she knows him - she should be nervous.

Why should she be nervous? About the move, the new life, etc. Sure. But about him and who he is? Absolutely not. If she's agreed to be the beneficiary of a man with a pattern of criminal behavior and a history of domestic violence, she should know full well what she's getting into. It appears in the OP the beneficiary was not sure. Therein lies the problem.

The culture of Russian men and their wives is different than ours.

......... Russian police will even take any action against a man if he beats his wife. They probable applaud him doing so.

This has nothing to do with IMBRA and should even add to the fact that the COs did what they were supposed to do in accordance with IMBRA. IMBRA is in place so foreign women do not become victims of violence after arriving here. It's not like they "tricked her" into thinking her petitioner was a bad man. They did stretch the truth, embellish a little, make him out to be worse than what he really was.... but why didn't she know that? It's not like they added anything to the story, they simply made it sound worse than what it was. If anyone here would try to do the same it should be immediately shot down. Would your mom put up with that #######? Why not?

I thought you just said you had a real relationship and your fiancee knew you. (Because I know you just said, "No, my mom would know that I'm not like that. My fiancee doesn't know me the same way my mom does." Well, if she doesn't...... then why not? You're going to marry her, aren't you?)

I believe many on this forum are now concerned because they're feeling like they have to convince their fiancees they're not bad men, otherwise someone will "trick" their fiancees into thinking they are. That does not seem to be the case in Moscow. What it seems is that someone with a history that's going to be flagged by IMBRA needs to make sure their fiancee knows what happened in the past and is able to correct the CO when they start stretching the truth. If you're not one of those guys, then don't worry about it. If you are one of those guys (ex-wife called the cops on you, etc.) then you may want to have a few more talks with your fiancee. Dare I say this is something you probably should've talked about already, but, then again, it's not my relationship, it's yours.

[Chris_Жанна 11]

I don't understand the point of the question, "how many men did you meet online?". It should not matter if the answer is 1 or 10 or 50. If it is a high number, it could mean she was choosy about finding the man of her dreams and you are the one. Maybe they have followup questions that would help me understand what they are driving at. Also don't know if they mean eventually meeting in person or chatting on the Internet.

So you don't think there are women out there who've "shopped" for a husband (or any willing sucker) to get a green card? How would you screen those women, especially given their primary method of finding a sucker, er, um, I mean a petitioner?

It's not the actual number that matters, it's the method. If she's tried, repeatedly, to get a green card and failed and/or sought out more than what could be reasonably expected in the given time period, it looks more and more like she's a scammer and not someone who just happened to meet a nice man over the internet. Her motivation becomes more and more aparent. If she selected you because you were the first to say, "OK" well, maybe that's a little different than her selecting you because she's taken her time to get to know you and develop a real relationship.

What does confidence have to do with living with a man with a domestic violence history. If she is confident, then she can withstand his violence? I don't believe that this is their job to determine the confidence of the woman. They are not there to try to read the mind of the woman regarding how successful they think the relationship will be. If the woman is unhappy in the relationship, she can return home. The U.S. interest is not harmed if a relationship fails. They just need to determine if it is a scam relationship, or a sincere relationship. If the COs start rejecting visa's based on their intuition regarding the ultimate success of a relationship, we have a real problem.

No, but they are there to determine if she's fully aware of what she's getting herself into. If she's not confident that she's entering into a relationship with a good guy then she may never have the opportunity to return home if it doesn't work out. She may get killed here or worse. If she's only marrying a guy to get to the U.S. and isn't fully aware of his past, she may also lack the resolve to exit a bad situation once she's here. That is IMBRA. The CO isn't making a judgement based on intuition, they're making it based on past history of the petitioner and response of the beneficiary.

I agree that the CO should tell the woman about a history of domestic violence by her fiance. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is certainly part of IMBRA. I just have a problem with the idea that a woman in love should turn off the rational side of her brain and ignore information about a man's past that had not been shared with her, and that if she actually pays some attention to this information, that the relationship was never solid enough to have preceded to that point. Only a fool would ignore this information, and the fact that he never shared it with her. Even in a relationship between people of the same culture, a person can change in the relationship or turn out to be someone that one never expected. And in this case, she must make the additional leap of faith of marrying someone where the only information she has about him is what he told her (which maybe in a language that she does not even speak well), without the benefit of even seeing how he lives in his country, of having met any of his friends or family, and with the assumption that there are not cultural differences that she may be missing. That is a leap of faith that generally one is not required to make in a relationship with someone who lives in your neighborhood. I am sure that many people marry foreign brides without spending enough time with them. That is foolish. But I don't believe that there is some theoretical amount of time, that when reached, should mean that the woman should then ignore what she then learns about the man and assume it must be bogus.

She shouldn't be irrational or ignore any warnings. However, she should be fully aware of what her petioner's past is. Had the beneficiary in the OP been fully aware of the petitioners past and been comfortable with it, she would've been able to tell the CO was full of it. That's not irrational or ignoring warnings, that's being comfortable with all aspects of your relationship and your partner.

How many of us could be rattled by a Russian CO if they said, "your fiancee, whose name is Elena, also goes by Lena, Lenka, Lenichka, Yelena, Helena and even sometimes... Olga. She does this so the police won't be able to identify her. Did you know she tried to hurt one of her old boyfriends? He had to take her to court just to keep her away from him. Are you sure you know this woman the way you think you know her?" It's complete and utter ####### to think folks who know each other intimately to the point where they're going to be married would be dissuaded from continuing their relationship because of something like this - and from what I read, this is exactly what happened. The whole "he's a monster" thing was from a posted comment here on VJ, not the CO saying, "your fiance is a monster that kills children. Did you know this?" That, of course, I could take issue with, but it appears that's not what happens. And even so, I'd still expect a fiancee to be able to cut through the #######.

Remember that this woman is going to be living with this man in a foreign land thousands of miles from home, with no support system, no friends and probably no money. She is going to be totally dependent on him and cannot simply drive over to a family member's house if she is unhappy with her husband's behavior. Anyone would be a little nervous at that idea, let alone doing it with a man with a police record including domestic violence and a pattern of what appears to be criminal behavior with so many aliases. I don't care how well she thinks she knows him - she should be nervous.

Why should she be nervous? About the move, the new life, etc. Sure. But about him and who he is? Absolutely not. If she's agreed to be the beneficiary of a man with a pattern of criminal behavior and a history of domestic violence, she should know full well what she's getting into. It appears in the OP the beneficiary was not sure. Therein lies the problem.

The culture of Russian men and their wives is different than ours.

......... Russian police will even take any action against a man if he beats his wife. They probable applaud him doing so.

This has nothing to do with IMBRA and should even add to the fact that the COs did what they were supposed to do in accordance with IMBRA. IMBRA is in place so foreign women do not become victims of violence after arriving here. It's not like they "tricked her" into thinking her petitioner was a bad man. They did stretch the truth, embellish a little, make him out to be worse than what he really was.... but why didn't she know that? It's not like they added anything to the story, they simply made it sound worse than what it was. If anyone here would try to do the same it should be immediately shot down. Would your mom put up with that #######? Why not?

I thought you just said you had a real relationship and your fiancee knew you. (Because I know you just said, "No, my mom would know that I'm not like that. My fiancee doesn't know me the same way my mom does." Well, if she doesn't...... then why not? You're going to marry her, aren't you?)

I believe many on this forum are now concerned because they're feeling like they have to convince their fiancees they're not bad men, otherwise someone will "trick" their fiancees into thinking they are. That does not seem to be the case in Moscow. What it seems is that someone with a history that's going to be flagged by IMBRA needs to make sure their fiancee knows what happened in the past and is able to correct the CO when they start stretching the truth. If you're not one of those guys, then don't worry about it. If you are one of those guys (ex-wife called the cops on you, etc.) then you may want to have a few more talks with your fiancee. Dare I say this is something you probably should've talked about already, but, then again, it's not my relationship, it's yours.

Very well put Slim. Honestly, our interview is on Tues. I know if the CO tells Zhanna anything that is wrong about me she will call BS on it. I'm confident in this because she knows who I am and visa versa. I wouldn't have asked her to marry me if we didn't have that understanding and trust between us. But, I understand that this is just my relationship and others may define their relationship as they see fit. For me, I just think honesty and trust to be the cornerstones of any close relationship, especially marriage. If one of the two are not there the foundation goes.

I just know that if the CO said anything that was not the truth she would trust me before some stranger (CO) and she wouldn't be so easily persuaded unless they could show her solid, hard core, evidence that I was the baby killing, animal fornicating, degenerate they claimed I am.

Honestly in my case I'm the least bit concerned about this aspect of the interview. But I know to others this may be alarming.

It is nice to see people give a "heads up" here on VJ. I think it is important for your S/O that is going to the interview that some statements made by the CO could be embellished and to prepare for the right responces. I'm a "hope for the best prepare for the worst" person, for me it is nice to know that the other RUB members are trying to clear a trail for the ppl behind them.

Well, it looks like Jonathan and Katya's interview is in a few hours and Zhanna is on deck for Tues. Hopefully, we'll both have really boring stories to report back to you guys or "Ya'll" as they say down here.

Thank you, to everone who has helped out thus far.

[ZorValachan 0]

I think Slim stated it well.

I did want to add one thing. In addition to the OP of that other thread stating he had a domestic charge against him, he later stated that a criminal friend had used his name (the friend had his name and birthdate) as one of his aliases. And he has had trouble since then with the friend's crimes being tacked on to his police report. So if the CO got a list of not just the domestic case against the petitioner but also all the cases of abuse, drugs, whatever of the friend's too (along with all the aliases the friend used) it would seem he was a monster.

As with Identity Theft or when a Social Security clerk accidently types your SSN instead of a recently deceased person's, years and decades can go by with other people's troubles counting against you.

If the beneficiary let his SO know "Honey, an EX-friend used my name without my permission in the past. He's done a lot of bad things...-explanation-" She could have then been more prepared.

I won't make any statement on the online meeting/how many men did you meet. I have less information on that, and it seemed the visa was still issued.

I am grateful this was brought up, just to do some more practice questions with the SO and help those of us still waiting on the interview.

[sachinky 464]

To me it seems like the CO is just doing their JOB. Is it fair? Probably not. I'd say it's borderline unethical. But please remember that they've also had years of experience with unethical, unscrupulous scammers. It's just the nature of the beast.

Now if you've done YOUR job and your SO is well aware of who you are and any past "red flags" that might come up during the interview, well, then you've got no problem. Unless the CO is able to provide hard concrete evidence to the contrary, the SO should be able to call BS on it. It's a reflection of how intimately you both are aware of each other's history.

As for the "how many men did you meet?" -- that too seems like a reasonable question. I was on a five year F-1 visa when I met my husband at a college in NY through a common friend. I'd fully expect a question along the lines of "And how many American men did you date in college?" or "How many American boyfriends did you have previously?" Answer: "I went on several dates with some nice guys who turned out to be great friends but nothing really serious until I met my husband in junior year."

It's natural to be nervous but if you've been honest with each other then there is no need to get rattled. Be calm and don't get offended. Keep your cool and there's no need to get defensive.

Good luck to everyone on their visa journey!

[Waitinggent 2]

Slim, I am glad that you are so confident in your relationship. I also am very confident in mine. But 50 percent of people who think they are entering into a "till death do us part" relationship have judged wrong. That is simply a fact.

[slim 1,514]

50 percent of people who think they are entering into a "till death do us part" relationship have judged wrong. That is simply a fact.

Yeah but usually those people were 99% sure going in.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

This kind of reminds me of the joke question, "Do you beat your wife daily or only occasionally?" There is no right answer for that.

Of course there is.

I only beat my wife when necessary!

JJ....

-P