Was Your Tourist (B1/B2) Visa Approved?

[mike101 8]

I do realize there is a problem with people abusing tourist visas and the main problem is that there is no way of tracking people once they get to the USA or forcing them to return home if they overstay a visa. It costs money to enforce this so they then have to rely that the people will go back home on their own based on property and family ties.

Just because someone does not have a lot of money or property doesnt mean that they have no intentions of traveling back to their home country once their visa expires. Example my sister-in-law doesnt have a lot of money but is an honest person and just wants to visit her sister and see the USA.

I propose that people who fall in a "High risk" category be required to put up a refundable bond to secure their visa. similar to how credit card companies require a deposit to issue a credit card for people with bad credit. Example a person in a high risk category would be required to buy a $5,000 bond to secure their tourist visa. If they return before the visa expires they get their money back. If not, the US Govt keeps the money and its used to track and deport the person.

Thay way the USC that sponsors the immigrant would also have an interest in them returning home to get their bond money returned.

Edited December 17, 2014 by mike101

[Transborderwife 4,666]

The other person that was approved has a sister that is living illegally in the States, not to mention her fathers year ago went illegally including an aunt.

My fiance has no family in the states.

Like I said, no respect.

Your fiancé has you. Any romantic relationship with a USC is going to be heavily scrutinized. My parents are LPR's and I've never had trouble coming down to visit them, but saying I was visiting a bf or fiancé different story. I'm from a low fraud country but that doesn't even help. I'd bet that she didn't mention the illegal family to the IO.

[msbau764 245]

Your fiancé has you. Any romantic relationship with a USC is going to be heavily scrutinized. My parents are LPR's and I've never had trouble coming down to visit them, but saying I was visiting a bf or fiancé different story. I'm from a low fraud country but that doesn't even help. I'd bet that she didn't mention the illegal family to the IO.

The other person has a USC boyfriend. As of right now, this person we are speaking of is in the States and cannot even finance her trip without her USC boyfriend wiring money. I am 100% of things go wrong she is staying illegally. Not to mention she bought a one way ticket (how does one even get away with that at the border).

So damn unfair this system. I have known too many people with no jobs, no ties and illegal siblings get visas. I will never forgive the USGOVT for what they did to us. Never.

Edited December 17, 2014 by msbau764

[Transborderwife 4,666]

The other person has a USC boyfriend.

You didn't mention that, you just mentioned her family. It is all about what is told to the IO. The tourist system like immigration is a broken system. Edited December 17, 2014 by Transborderwife

[Girl from Celebes 588]

For whatever reason you did not satisfy the POE officer that you would leave at the end of your allotted stay.

Hmm, I don't understand you have replied to me. I did not satisfy the POE officer? for what?

[Girl from Celebes 588]

Your fiancé has you. Any romantic relationship with a USC is going to be heavily scrutinized. My parents are LPR's and I've never had trouble coming down to visit them, but saying I was visiting a bf or fiancé different story. I'm from a low fraud country but that doesn't even help. I'd bet that she didn't mention the illegal family to the IO.

I've got " dating an American man thing" that made them refused my B-2 visa though I am not a girl from street that drooling over come to America.

[msbau764 245]

I've got " dating an American man thing" that made them refused my B-2 visa though I am not a girl from street that drooling over come to America.

what I don't get is that people that do pass the filter because the CO believes they will return are allowed to adjust status. That makes no sense whatsoever. The whole point of the scrutiny is to prove your ties that you will return, so when you adjust status you are doing the opposite with no penalty whatsoever. I imagine the number of people that adjust status is in the hundreds of thousands if not millions a year.

[Girl from Celebes 588]

what I don't get is that people that do pass the filter because the CO believes they will return are allowed to adjust status. That makes no sense whatsoever. The whole point of the scrutiny is to prove your ties that you will return, so when you adjust status you are doing the opposite with no penalty whatsoever. I imagine the number of people that adjust status is in the hundreds of thousands if not millions a year.

Exactly. I have tried to understand that so hard. My husband was so upset when I told him about many B-2 visa holders got married and the main reason I got refused because I was dating him and they worried I would use B-2 visa to marry him. Though it was not written but asked my then-boyfriend (my now husband) "to file I-129F" on the sheet of my B-2 visa refusal was very obvious reason they don't want me to use B-2 visa to get married in the US.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

They're damned if you do damned if you don't. If aos wasn't possible in country people would cry that it's in humaine to separate those while waiting for a visa or to have to possibly wait out bans. Some think that the k1 class is a ridiculous visa as just as much fraud seems to come through with it.

There has got to be a better system in place for visiting. People don't understand getting turned away if you have a passport.

[mike101 8]

They're damned if you do damned if you don't. If aos wasn't possible in country people would cry that it's in humaine to separate those while waiting for a visa or to have to possibly wait out bans. Some think that the k1 class is a ridiculous visa as just as much fraud seems to come through with it.

There has got to be a better system in place for visiting. People don't understand getting turned away if you have a passport.

I agree people shouldn't be allowed to adjust to an immigrant status if they traveled to the USA on a non-immigrant visa and especially a tourist visa. If they do get married that should have to return to their home country and file for an immigrant visa.

[Pennycat 880]

This isn't what makes it difficult for people from high fraud countries to obtain a tourist visa. There is a perfectly legal route to take for this process. It's the people that come here and do not get married and do not adjust status, work illegally and take jobs away from American citizens that cause the problems.

Sorry, you're wrong on this one. The sheer number of people who would have qualified for a tourist visa otherwise (otherwise meaning not having a USC girlfriend/boyfriend) denied on those grounds and told to go for a K1 shows it. Yes, it's legal I suppose because anyone can legitimately change their minds/plans at any time but if you intend to use a B2 as a shortcut around the K1--that's fraud and that's a factor in what keeps others from getting B2s.

I think that the number of people who legitimately change their minds and spontaneously decide to get married while here on a B2 (which I admit can happen. But more likely is the intention is to marry on the B2 as a workaround) is so low that maybe the burden should be on them....no AOS. "Sorry folks, you can't adjust status because you did things a bit wonky, but no big deal, go home, get on the right track and wait in line with *literally everyone else in the world who is engaged/married to a USC*. Them's the breaks, kiddos, and that's how this process works. Don't like it? Can't do it? This may not be the right marriage for you. A lot more fair to put that relatively small number of people through that hassle (which, they did kind of invite on themselves) while also effectively punishing those who intended to break the rules, than it is to ask tens of thousands of people who probably *would* like to spend more time with their boyfriend/meet the family/see the town they're signing up to live in but can't just in case they turn into a scofflaw.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Sorry, you're wrong on this one. The sheer number of people who would have qualified for a tourist visa otherwise (otherwise meaning not having a USC girlfriend/boyfriend) denied on those grounds and told to go for a K1 shows it. Yes, it's legal I suppose because anyone can legitimately change their minds/plans at any time but if you intend to use a B2 as a shortcut around the K1--that's fraud and that's a factor in what keeps others from getting B2s.

I think that the number of people who legitimately change their minds and spontaneously decide to get married while here on a B2 (which I admit can happen. But more likely is the intention is to marry on the B2 as a workaround) is so low that maybe the burden should be on them....no AOS. "Sorry folks, you can't adjust status because you did things a bit wonky, but no big deal, go home, get on the right track and wait in line with *literally everyone else in the world who is engaged/married to a USC*. Them's the breaks, kiddos, and that's how this process works. Don't like it? Can't do it? This may not be the right marriage for you. A lot more fair to put that relatively small number of people through that hassle (which, they did kind of invite on themselves) while also effectively punishing those who intended to break the rules, than it is to ask tens of thousands of people who probably *would* like to spend more time with their boyfriend/meet the family/see the town they're signing up to live in but can't just in case they turn into a scofflaw.

What it shows is that the person did not satisfy the POE officer that they did not have immigrant intent. You have no idea who would or wouldn't qualify for a tourist visa.

[msbau764 245]

What it shows is that the person did not satisfy the POE officer that they did not have immigrant intent. You have no idea who would or wouldn't qualify for a tourist visa.

I have talked to several people that have been through the process. Many times the decision is already made. Whenever they want to reject you they will go out of their way to find a reason to deny you. Not objective at all, there is very little "satisfying" of criteria. I have known people with government jobs get rejected as well as people with no money to their name get accepted. It is a dumb process and by no means does a CO deserve any glorification for their perceptive abilities.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I have talked to several people that have been through the process. Many times the decision is already made. Whenever they want to reject you they will go out of their way to find a reason to deny you. Not objective at all, there is very little "satisfying" of criteria. I have known people with government jobs get rejected as well as people with no money to their name get accepted. It is a dumb process and by no means does a CO deserve any glorification for their perceptive abilities.

There's no doubt that the basis of deciding who gets in and who doesn't is very inconsistent. As long as you have humans running it, there will always be different interpretations of who qualifies and who doesn't. I think there are many CO's who take their job seriously and do the best they can, but there are also many who don't give a damn ad are there for the paycheck. What gets me is when some people single out another group of people who chose a perfectly legal route allowed to them by the gov't as the problem simply because they were able to do things quicker and easier. All sour grapes to me.

The people who have a right to be angry are the poor folks who are already married and have families that are separated while they are stuck waiting 18 months or more for their marriage visas to be approved. No one should have to endure that amount of wait time.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Teddy B

[Pennycat 880]

What it shows is that the person did not satisfy the POE officer that they did not have immigrant intent. You have no idea who would or wouldn't qualify for a tourist visa.

....except if they've previously successfully received a B2 and then when applying for another (later down the road) and the only difference is the existence of a relationship with a USC. Which has/does happen and I believe has been outlined in this thread.

Have you met anyone denied for a B2 who is in a relationship with a USC? Have you read posts from those kinds of people here on VJ? Have you read all the posts in this very thread? It is pretty clear that people who would or who have previously qualified are being denied by either the Counselor Officer at US Embassies abroad or at the Port of Entry in the US because of the existence of that relationship, and the "risk" of the applicant using the visa as an immigrant visa, based on past experience of exactly this type of abuse.

When the person denying you tells you to apply for a K1 instead, it is pretty clear what the reason for denial is. When the line of questioning at the POE veers into personal relationship questions including "do you intend to get married" and then denies you, it is obvious along what lines the officer is thinking (or if you have any sort of proof that they are specifically NOT thinking this, I'd love to see it).

And while this part is complete speculation (but based on a firm understanding of how these things operate based on my own employment history), I would not be at all surprised if this is some sort of job performance metric that the State Department uses for Counselor Officers---I know for sure that they measure B2 processing times/rates and refusal/approval rates (I do not know if there are any guidelines or quotas, however). It is very possible that they further measure how many of a particular CO's approvals don't return. If the easiest way to immigrate on a B2 is to lie to a CO about your intentions and then stay and adjust based on marriage, and a CO gets a poor job performance every time someone overstays (or stays and adjusts based on marriage), and you're in a relationship with a USC...isn't it easier to just deny everyone who is in a relationship with a USC? Especially if they're measuring you on how many visas you can process in a day? Why take the extra time to really hear the person out? They've got a "legal" way to not return, making your other metric look bad too (if that other metric exists---that's the question mark). Easier to hear the word "boyfriend" and auto-deny.