Was Your Tourist (B1/B2) Visa Approved?

[Teddy B 17,251]

Have you met anyone denied for a B2 who is in a relationship with a USC?

I'm married to one.

[Pennycat 880]

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.

See again, though. It is not legal to intend to use the B2 to immigrate. Sorry, it's not. Can they prove intent? Can I prove intent? No. This is a gray area *at best*, but using the B2 to just get in the country faster is not a "perfectly legal route". And it's not sour grapes any more than your attitude is "as long as I get mine, eff the rest of you", which is how it can come across. It's identifying flaws, inconsistencies and injustices in the system. And like it or not, it is clear based on lines of questioning and reasons for denial that having a USC boyfriend/girlfriend is a red-flag for B2 denial precisely because the B2 is not intended for immigration. That others have been successful in using it as such is even more reason for them to auto-deny everyone else.

[Pennycat 880]

I'm married to one.

Your spouse was denied a B2 visa? From Canada, it appears?

[Teddy B 17,251]

See again, though. It is not legal to intend to use the B2 to immigrate. Sorry, it's not. Can they prove intent? Can I prove intent? No. This is a gray area *at best*, but using the B2 to just get in the country faster is not a "perfectly legal route". And it's not sour grapes any more than your attitude is "as long as I get mine, eff the rest of you", which is how it can come across. It's identifying flaws, inconsistencies and injustices in the system. And like it or not, it is clear based on lines of questioning and reasons for denial that having a USC boyfriend/girlfriend is a red-flag for B2 denial precisely because the B2 is not intended for immigration. That others have been successful in using it as such is even more reason for them to auto-deny everyone else.

No it is not legal to use the B2 with immigrant intent, that is why a good amount of people with boyfriends/girlfriends living in the states are refused these visas. You seem to be stuck on how it could be possible for someone to enter on a B2 without intent and then change their mind. It happens, it happened to me and I used the best legal avenue that was given to me by the gov't to make the process as quick and painless as possible for my wife and I. You or anyone else would do the same thing if you were faced with the right set of circumstances.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Your spouse was denied a B2 visa? From Canada, it appears?

She was denied entry, which for a Canadian is the same thing as being denied the visa because technically Canadians do not receive an actual B2. I had gone to visit her in Canada for a week and we were to fly back to the states together for a month or two. It was to be a bit of a "test relationship", but I failed to purchase her a return ticket, because we weren't exactly sure how long she would stay, which ended up being the deciding factor in her denial. She was denied entry and we were separated at the border. I flew home next to an empty $600 seat. We tried again a few weeks later and she was allowed entry. After she was here for two months and it was getting to be time for her to go home, we decided we didn't want to be apart any more or face the chance of another denial at the border. I proposed to her and we were married two months later. We filed for her AOS the day after we were married.

[Pennycat 880]

No it is not legal to use the B2 with immigrant intent, that is why a good amount of people with boyfriends/girlfriends living in the states are refused these visas. You seem to be stuck on how it could be possible for someone to enter on a B2 without intent and then change their mind. It happens, it happened to me and I used the best legal avenue that was given to me by the gov't to make the process as quick and painless as possible for my wife and I. You or anyone else would do the same thing if you were faced with the right set of circumstances.

Right. Of course it happens. Which is why I said "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..... is so low that maybe the burden should be on them...."

But here, think of it this way. There are 20,000 K1 applicants every year and, what 150,000 CR1 applicants each year? So that means that there are 170,000 people separated from their loved ones. I'd bet they'd all love to be able to visit (if time and finances allow). Most of those people are NOT from Canada or VWP countries, so they must apply for a B2. Most of them will be denied, and for many/most/half (?) that denial will be because they have a girl/boyfriend/fiance/spouse in the US, and they therefore pose too great of a risk to stay and adjust.

That stinks. That's keeping 170,000 families apart because there is a risk a few of them intend to game the system.

If it were not possible to stay and adjust status, this would not be a risk. Because it wouldn't be possible. And those who would otherwise qualify for a B2, would. Yay!

This WOULD, of course, put some other folks out. The folks who *legitimately* come on a B2 and change their mind. But (1) I highly suspect that the total number of legitimate mind-changers is far less than 170,000 and (2), joy of all joys....ok, yep, you'd have to go back home and re-process using a CR1 BUT...you could still get a B2 to visit each other during that time period! Not as great as the automatic quick work-around that works only for a handful of honest folks (and is abused by a bunch of dishonest ones) but is FAR better than the status quo for every other CR1 applicant in the world (as you yourself just pointed out--THEY are the ones you've got to feel sorry for).

So yes, less of the "perfect dreamworld scenario" for the handful of folks it would apply to but a significant improvement in the fairness and quality of life for everyone else on the planet. Seems obvious to me.

[MacUK 983]

None of what you suggested will prevent the people who are willing and intent on staying here illegally from doing so. Those are the folks who "bypass the immigration system", not the people who legally adjust their status once here. The only thing that you suggested will do is prevent people from taking the legal course of immigrating that is allowed by law. Eliminating adjustment of status from a tourist visa will not stop the law breakers. People who legally adjust from a tourist visa are not the problem in regards to satisfying immigrant intent at POE. People who never intend to adjust their status or go home are the problem. There is a reason why certain countries and certain people are denied visas, it's because they have shown a pattern of coming here and living here illegally.

Hence why I said illegals should be deported and overstays not forgiven. If people knew that they would NEVER be able to get a decent job, a driving licence, a car, a decent home or benefits of living legally and knew that they would spend their entire lives in fear of a knock on the door then all but the most determined would probably think twice.

Most everyone I see on this board that complains about people who adjust from a tourist visa have a chip on their shoulder with the immigration system for one reason or another. They were either denied entry or feel slighted because they had to wait for what they consider to be too long for their visa to be approved while others are approved ahead of them. It's the same for folks who have had to wait 18 months or so recently for their marriage visas to be approved as opposed to 5 or 6 months for a K-1. What I would suggest is that every immigrant visa application including adjustment of status from inside the states from a tourist visa all get put in the same line so that they all have the same wait times. This will take away any so called "time advantage" or "bypassing of the system" away from everyone and level the playing field in that regard.

A reasonable suggestion except that it wouldn't be levelling the playing field as those adjusting inside would still be sitting out their wait times with their loved ones.

The only chip I have on my shoulder about the visa system is its lack of consistency and logic and the stupidity that the hopes of applicants is controlled by the personal assumptions of a single person who you have to hope is always objective in their decisions. I'd love to know how many people probably get denied on a daily basis simply because the CO was in a bad mood or just took a dislike to them.

Edited December 17, 2014 by MacUK

[Teddy B 17,251]

Right. Of course it happens. Which is why I said "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..... is so low that maybe the burden should be on them...."

But here, think of it this way. There are 20,000 K1 applicants every year and, what 150,000 CR1 applicants each year? So that means that there are 170,000 people separated from their loved ones. I'd bet they'd all love to be able to visit (if time and finances allow). Most of those people are NOT from Canada or VWP countries, so they must apply for a B2. Most of them will be denied, and for many/most/half (?) that denial will be because they have a girl/boyfriend/fiance/spouse in the US, and they therefore pose too great of a risk to stay and adjust.

That stinks. That's keeping 170,000 families apart because there is a risk a few of them intend to game the system.

If it were not possible to stay and adjust status, this would not be a risk. Because it wouldn't be possible. And those who would otherwise qualify for a B2, would. Yay!

This WOULD, of course, put some other folks out. The folks who *legitimately* come on a B2 and change their mind. But (1) I highly suspect that the total number of legitimate mind-changers is far less than 170,000 and (2), joy of all joys....ok, yep, you'd have to go back home and re-process using a CR1 BUT...you could still get a B2 to visit each other during that time period! Not as great as the automatic quick work-around that works only for a handful of honest folks (and is abused by a bunch of dishonest ones) but is FAR better than the status quo for every other CR1 applicant in the world (as you yourself just pointed out--THEY are the ones you've got to feel sorry for).

So yes, less of the "perfect dreamworld scenario" for the handful of folks it would apply to but a significant improvement in the fairness and quality of life for everyone else on the planet. Seems obvious to me.

Sorry, but you make far too many assumptions to have a meaningful discussion.

[Pennycat 880]

Sorry, but you make far too many assumptions to have a meaningful discussion.

Sorry you can't keep up with imagining how to improve an imperfect system.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Hence why I said illegals should be deported and overstays not forgiven. If people knew that they would NEVER be able to get a decent job, a driving licence, a car, a decent home or benefits of living legally and knew that they would spend their entire lives in fear of a knock on the door then all but the most determined would probably think twice.

A reasonable suggestion except that it wouldn't be levelling the playing field as those adjusting inside would still be sitting out their wait times with their loved ones.

The only chip I have on my shoulder about the visa system is its lack of consistency and logic and the stupidity that the hopes of applicants is controlled by the personal assumptions of a single person who you have to hope is always objective in their decisions. I'd love to know how many people probably get denied on a daily basis simply because the CO was in a bad mood or just took a dislike to them.

I agree that illegals should be deported, but these aren't the people who apply for B2 visas in the first place. As for overstays, I think it depends on the situation. But I understand where you are coming from Mac. I know your story and it certainly is a sad one.

[MacUK 983]

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.

The only problem with that is that there are people, as TeddyB says, that would be so determined to get to the US that they'd probably gladly hand over the cash to get a visa and then adjust status. If you've got the cash what's a few grand compared to being with your family a year earlier than planned?

As was suggested on another thread a few months ago, maybe a solution could be a second category of B2 visa, a B2A or something.

One that could be applied for by those considered a high risk of immigrant intent that has a clause that states that it can't be adjusted or extended under any circumstances and harsh penalties for anyone abusing it.

[msbau764 245]

She was denied entry, which for a Canadian is the same thing as being denied the visa because technically Canadians do not receive an actual B2. I had gone to visit her in Canada for a week and we were to fly back to the states together for a month or two. It was to be a bit of a "test relationship", but I failed to purchase her a return ticket, because we weren't exactly sure how long she would stay, which ended up being the deciding factor in her denial. She was denied entry and we were separated at the border. I flew home next to an empty $600 seat. We tried again a few weeks later and she was allowed entry. After she was here for two months and it was getting to be time for her to go home, we decided we didn't want to be apart any more or face the chance of another denial at the border. I proposed to her and we were married two months later. We filed for her AOS the day after we were married.

sounds a lot like fraud to me. For every person that does AOS like you did someone else will be denied illegitimately due to increased paranoia by some CO official.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Sorry you can't keep up with imagining how to improve an imperfect system.

Drop these folks a line, they'd love to hear from you.

http://www.uscis.gov/about-us/contact-us

sounds a lot like fraud to me. For every person that does AOS like you did someone else will be denied illegitimately due to increased paranoia by some CO official.

How so?

[Ian H. 207]

I agree with MacUK, msbau and unaMexicana. People who overstay and marry are abusing the system plain and simple. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

My parents were separated for years and as a result their marriage broke down, my relationship was strained as well but fortunately we fought through it, as many others I have known because of all the bureaucratic cr@p. Yes you can say have a chip on my shoulder, but rightly so and I have every right to be upset.

I for one don't care if it involves manpower and money to enforce the law, that's why taxes are squeezed out of all of us like orange juice and they need to use that money to enforce the law and stop rewarding lawbreakers (obamanesty).

They need to implement stricter guidelines, I agree with the part of the bond though since it makes perfect sense to me. Based on the level of risk you present should determine the amount of your bond. It should work the same way as a bail bond, you don't show up to court, you lose that money and have a bounty hunter after you (or is that only in movies lol). Or how about ankle bracelets? Those could work.

So in this case if you overstay that money can be used to track you down and drag you back to the first plane back home. There wouldn't be need to spend taxpayer money. It's all about using intimidation tactics. Fear of "possible" deportation and a "possible" ban isn't enough. The reason I put possible in quotes is because there are people who have overstayed and have been living here illegally for decades without getting caught.

There are countries who enforce their immigration laws very strictly without the need to do so because they are usually countries with low immigration rates. Why can't the USA with such a risk for illegal immigration enforce it's own immigration laws?

If people are sufficiently scared of what would happen to them if they overstayed with any reason other than medical, less fraud would occur. I'm sure people can come up with other ways to enforce the system or make it stronger. I hate going to DR and am certainly angry that my family isn't even able to visit me and enjoy this country because of the way the system is set up. Rant over lol

Edited December 17, 2014 by Ian H.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I agree with MacUK, msbau and unaMexicana. People who overstay and marry are abusing the system plain and simple. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

My parents were separated for years and as a result their marriage broke down, my relationship was strained as well but fortunately we fought through it, as many others I have known because of all the bureaucratic cr@p. Yes you can say have a chip on my shoulder, but rightly so and I have every right to be upset.

I for one don't care if it involves manpower and money to enforce the law, that's why taxes are squeezed out of all of us like orange juice and they need to use that money to enforce the law and stop rewarding lawbreakers (obamanesty).

They need to implement stricter guidelines, I agree with the part of the bond though since it makes perfect sense to me. Based on the level of risk you present should determine the amount of your bond. It should work the same way as a bail bond, you don't show up to court, you lose that money and have a bounty hunter after you (or is that only in movies lol).

So in this case if you overstay that money can be used to track you down and drag you back to the first plane back home. There wouldn't be need to spend taxpayer money. It's all about using intimidation tactics. Fear of "possible" deportation and a "possible" ban isn't enough. The reason I put possible in quotes is because there are people who have overstayed and have been living here illegally for decades without getting caught.

There are countries who enforce their immigration laws very strictly without the need to do so because they are usually countries with low immigration rates. Why can't the USA with such a risk for illegal immigration enforce it's own immigration laws?

If people are sufficiently scared of what would happen to them if they overstayed with any reason other than medical, less fraud would occur. I'm sure people can come up with other ways to enforce the system or make it stronger. I hate going to DR and am certainly angry that my family isn't even able to visit me and enjoy this country because of the way the system is set up. Rant over lol

Actually it does. The fact that you or anyone else do not don't agree with the law doesn't make the people who follow it bad people or people who are bypassing the system. The law IS part of the system.