DS-160 and various questions

[Pork and Beans 4]

Good evening members.

Long time lurker here now in need of some input regarding the B1/B2 Tourism Visa.

I'm hoping to get some feedback and I'm especially interested in getting feedback from member HFM181818 (Retired Consular Officer)

Details:

Widowed senior citizen MIL resides in the Philippines. MIL has three married daughters, two of which reside in the Philippines. The third (my wife) is a naturalized USC. MIL has a total of 6 grand-children, three of which remain in the Philippines, the other three live with us here in the US.

MIL has twice tried unsuccessfully to obtain the visa. This will be her third and final attempt. The basic, material facts in her application haven't changed between the first and this upcoming final attempt.

I've followed many threads that HFM181818 has commented in, and for the most part, I'm in agreement with his assessments and input.

From the USEM website:

Evidence of Ties

Ties are the aspects of one’s life that bind him or her to his or her place of residence, including family relationships, employment and possessions. In the case of younger applicants, who may not have had an opportunity to establish such ties, interviewing officers may look at educational status, grades, the situation of their parents, and the applicant's long-range plans and prospects in the Philippines. As each person's situation is different, there is no set answer as to what constitutes adequate ties.

1/ How does the applicant articulate or impart to the CO their specific evidence of ties? It doesn't appear as though the DS-160 offers any means to communicate any specifics, so in the absence of the CO soliciting same evidence, (or asking for any documents brought) how would the MIL convey her tangible evidences? i.e. Family members, daughters and grandchildren still in the Philippines, ownership of her home, ownership of separate property.

2/ What are some examples of "possessions" and how would that information also be conveyed to the CO?

3/ MIL is a retired school teacher/senior citizen. MIL hasn't traveled outside the Philippines hence lacking any travel history. On previous applications, MIL indicated "retired" and under occupation/description, simply put "School teacher". Was her brevity in description beneficial or viewed as a negative by the CO?

4/ Regarding the DS-160 question as to how the applicant will pay for the trip, on MIL's previous two attempts, she indicated that someone else (me/us) would be paying for the trip. Her first attempt/refusal was approximately 1st quarter 2014, 2nd attempt/refusal 2nd quarter 2015, and this March will be her final attempt. As her financial situation has now allowed her to completely pay for her trip, (should she be approved) would this be looked upon by the CO as an inconsistency? NOTE: HFM181818 has commented many, many times how (paraphrasing) "massaging/tweeking" the application is looked upon as an attempt to disguise/distort previous application facts. Therefore, while it would be an honest answer to the question, (she would now be paying for the trip herself) how would that change be evaluated by the CO? What if any mechanism exists that allows the applicant the opportunity to provide documents supporting their financial change allowing such?

5/ Dovetailing with question #4, on both the DS-160 and at the interview, MIL requested/indicated she would like to visit for 6 months as she's retired. This final attempt, she is only wishing to stay for 1 month. Would this "change" again affect the CO's evaluation as she would request 1 month on both the DS-160 and at the interview if asked. While on the surface it seems an "inconsistency", it's truthful and accurate. Generally speaking, do the CO's take that into account?

At the moment, I would like to ask for input regarding these questions but I'm sure I may have another one or two to ask later.

Thank you,

P&B

Edited February 10, 2016 by Pork and Beans

[Pork and Beans 4]

It's late, perhaps I'll find some input tomorrow.

[cristina16 81]

Studying all the facts that you presented, MIL have no really strong ties in the PH. At her age, retired, grown children- with a life of their own not dependent on MIL for anything, even with a lot of property - this was not seen by the CO as strong ties for her to come back. These will all survive without her. She have no reason to come back.

First you have to go back and review what were the questions asked from her and why her answers were not perceived as convincing that she will come back. Yes, most CO now don't ask for any documentary evidence of property and other assets. Thus it is in the way that you answer the question that you mention your strong ties and you must be really convincing.

For Example in my case when I applied for my B1/B2 Visa, I was asked what I do for a living. I answered - " I work for a German owned Company operating a _____ in the country as a ________ and assigned in the head office." This clearly shows that I am working for a reputable stable company. Likewise I was not asked for of my supporting documents to prove anything that I say.

As for MIL, she can mention that she is a retired school teacher and say what keeps her busy now. Serving in the church or any community programs - what are her daily routines that she are attached to that will make her come back.

In terms of who will be paying for the trip? Having a lot of money does not guarantee approval. It should be realistic by saying my daughter will pay for my ticket and I will stay with her family during my visit. Or she can say I will buy my own ticket and all my expense in the US will be shouldered by my daughter and son in law.

Remember all info she have given during the first 2 attempts are all in the system, while asking her during the interview, the CO will see all previous answers to the questions asked from her.

What I clearly see here is the CO is looking at the other side of this Visa application. Why not the daughter who is now a USC file to petition MIL? Or if you have filed a petition for MIL, there is another way to answer that question. Most people with existing petition will have a hard time getting a B1/B2 Visa.

[HFM181818 750]

still looks like a leaky ship...suddenly being able (and willing) to pay versus you paying looks like an attempt to make her app look better and the 1 month instead of 6 is the real killer....COs know that CBP routinely admits folks for 6 months with rare exception....what excuse is she going to offer for the drastic reduction in proposed visiting time? Doesn't have to go back to work....going back to change diapers for a grandchild...nope.....harvesting crops? At her age? What this is starting to look like is this: let's bring over mom, file for her GC and let her chill out in the USA instead of waiting it out in the PI....she might get lucky, but it would be better for her daughter to file for the GC....(and I have not read anything credible yet that suggests that she does not want one)....BTW, this is a common tactic...try to keep changing stories to bring the older relative to the US where said relative can have an easier time of going through the AOS (after, of course, the mind change while standing near the baggage carousels)...

[Pork and Beans 4]

Studying all the facts that you presented, MIL have no really strong ties in the PH. (Agreed, while they are factual ties, I believe that you're saying that her circumstances negate the veracity of those ties) At her age, retired, grown children- with a life of their own not dependent on MIL for anything, even with a lot of property - this was not seen by the CO as strong ties for her to come back. These will all survive without her. She have no reason to come back. (Yes, in the eyes of the CO, I suppose they'd view it that way)

First you have to go back and review what were the questions asked from her and why her answers were not perceived as convincing (Indeed, it's all about convincing the one person that can issue or deny the visa request, and by previous outcomes, failed to do that. MIL's dour outward appearance and emotionless face probably didn't help sway the CO of her intent to return.) that she will come back. Yes, most CO now don't ask for any documentary evidence of property and other assets. (I've read of very view cases on VJ where documentation was asked for at the embassy in Manila, so that bears out. They might as well remove the statement from their website) Thus it is in the way that you answer the question that you mention your strong ties and you must be really convincing. (MENTIONING strong ties goes against the conventional advice proffered by other VJ members, rather it's stated that one ONLY answers the questions posed by the CO without going into specifics)

For Example in my case when I applied for my B1/B2 Visa, I was asked what I do for a living. I answered - " I work for a German owned Company operating a _____ in the country as a ________ and assigned in the head office." This clearly shows that I am working for a reputable stable company. Likewise I was not asked for of my supporting documents to prove anything that I say. (It's great you were able to articulate in that fashion once asked by the CO; I think that definitely benefited you, sincerity intended.)

As for MIL, she can mention that she is a retired school teacher and say what keeps her busy now. (That fact is already documented in her application so attempting to mention it seems self-serving. If only clarification questions were posed by the CO, perhaps it would provided more insight to the them.) Serving in the church or any community programs - what are her daily routines that she are attached to that will make her come back.

In terms of who will be paying for the trip? Having a lot of money does not guarantee approval. (Agreed and understood, nor should it) It should be realistic by saying my daughter will pay for my ticket and I will stay with her family during my visit. (Right, that is more realistic. MIL answered as such WHEN asked by the CO on her previous two attempts.) Or she can say I will buy my own ticket and all my expense in the US will be shouldered by my daughter and son in law.

Remember all info she have given during the first 2 attempts are all in the system, (Yes, understood and expected.) while asking her during the interview, the CO will see all previous answers to the questions asked from her. (Not asked by CO, then can't be answered unfortunately.)

What I clearly see here is the CO is looking at the other side of this Visa application. (I think you may be right.) Why not the daughter who is now a USC file to petition MIL? (That is now the plan after much thought and consternation.) Or if you have filed a petition for MIL, there is another way to answer that question. Most people with existing petition will have a hard time getting a B1/B2 Visa.

Thank you very much for taking the time to offer your observations.

P&B

[Pork and Beans 4]

still looks like a leaky ship...(Yes, from the prospective of a CO, a retired one at that, I suppose it is) suddenly (2 years of saving, life happening, and financial opportunites coming to fruition during those 2 years doesn't seem "suddenly" to me, but it's the eyes of the CO that matter in the end.) being able (and willing) (Yes, willing. Cultural and generational pride play a role. Financial obligations often lessen with age and CD's, investments of many types, lump-sum retirement payments coming to fruition, Philippine Social Security equivalent) available.to pay versus you paying looks (Yes, it "looks" that way, and even if it isn't, once again it's the CO's eyes that matter.) like an attempt to make her app look better and the 1 month instead of 6 is the real killer (That's too bad, priorities change, desires change, life happens and expectations change) ....COs know that CBP routinely admits folks for 6 months with rare exception....what excuse (No excuse, just the truth. While it may be difficult for some to believe, expectations change, she would PREFER NOT to be away from her family in the Philippines but was originally amendable to it but now isn't...simple as that.) is she going to offer for the drastic reduction in proposed visiting time? (Doesn't want to be away from her other two daughters and three grandchildren for 6 months any longer...simple yet truthful.) Doesn't have to go back to work....going back to change diapers for a grandchild...nope.....harvesting crops? At her age? (Actually, she still does alongside her 87 year old sister, and raises livestock as an outlet at her age...imagine that.) What this is starting to look like is this: let's bring over mom, file for her GC and let her chill out in the USA instead of waiting it out in the PI....she might get lucky, (It's unfortunate that some CO's may view it that way, but it's truthful and it's life happening in real time, but I understand what you're saying.) but it would be better for her daughter to file for the GC....(and I have not read anything credible yet that suggests that she does not want one)....(She doesn't WANT one, but it seems it's her only avenue to possibly see her grandchildren and daughter living in the US). After explaining this to MIL, this may be what she will agree to do.) BTW, this is a common tactic...(It's not a tactic, it's truthful and honest. If CO's view it as a tactic, then there's not much that can be done to change their opinion) try to keep changing stories to bring the older relative to the US where said relative can have an easier time of going through the AOS (after, of course, the mind change while standing near the baggage carousels)...

Thank you for taking the time to give your input, it confirms much of what we believed we already knew. We (her family in the US) will explain her options and my wife will likely petition for her in the hopes of being granted residency.

P&B

Edited February 10, 2016 by Pork and Beans

[HFM181818 750]

Changing the proposed visit from 6 months to 1 month is just not realistic, and is usually seen as a ploy by the applicant to keep changing something on the DS160, hoping that change, whatever it is, will strike a resonant chord with the CO (it won't). But to now remember that she has to return to care for somebody, while previously she didn't, really does not add up...other relatives are still in the PI, available to do the caring....going from not paying for the trip to paying really does not add any equity to her case (after all, you might have already agreed to pay her back, so of what value will her statement to pay be? None..,Paying or not paying for the trip has nothing to do with whether or not an applicant will depart the US when they say.

Trying to bring relatives over on B2 visas so they can relax and begin processing an AOS is a tactic....a very common one...one that has been seen countless thousands of times....depending on the country involved, the less developed the applicant's country, the more likely they will stay for the AOS...while I never worked in the PI, I had lots of interaction with colleagues (it has been some years), but we also shared abuse rates, etc, often when together in the US for training (usually fraud training!)....the stats a few years ago (and not much has happened that has made the PI a new and improved economy), parents of USCs who wandered off to the US for the 'visit' had around a 3-4% chance of returning instead of staying for the AOS...and those were usually folks who were more than 70-some odd years old. Sorry, but 3-4% returning is strongly suggestive that bringing mom and dad over on a B2 has another purpose in mind, if they have at least one USC adult child living in the US. A 96% rate of abuse is way too high. Now, when I say 'abuse', I am talking about what they said to the CO, what the invitation letters contained that were written by the USC child, etc, that all turned out to be lies, but the applicants wanted to be believed as did the USCs...but....it did not take long for the trust given to someone to have been ruined.....and each time that happens, it merely raises the 214b bar for the next applicant. Benefit of the doubt goes away, sympathy, non-existent. And whose fault is it at the end of the day? Yep, the ones who thought it OK to lie their way to a tourist visa (but most try to rationalize the quick (and often planned) mind change with the usual unbelievable excuse of ..'gosh, we had no intention....;...sure.

Anyway, there it is...as I said, she could get lucky...but if she does, and if you are then considering the 'mind change' at the airport, just think about the harm you would be doing to future applicants.

Edited February 10, 2016 by HFM181818

[Pork and Beans 4]

Changing the proposed visit from 6 months to 1 month is just not realistic, and is usually seen as a ploy by the applicant (Assuredly, I agree that in the eyes of the CO, it isn't realistic and it's a ploy but alas (sigh) that isn't the case. Changes happen, desires change...it's a fact of life) to keep changing something on the DS160, hoping that change, whatever it is, will strike a resonant chord with the CO (it won't). But to now remember that she has to return to care for somebody, while previously she didn't, really does not add up (MIL doesn't need to return to care for anyone either now or previously. She does however continue to harvest crops by hand alongside her 87 year old sister) ...other relatives are still in the PI, available to do the caring....going from not paying for the trip to paying really does not add any equity to her case (Understood that it doesn't add any equity in the eyes of the CO, but it's factual and truthful all the same.) (after all, you might have already agreed to pay her back, so of what value will her statement to pay be? None..,Paying or not paying for the trip has nothing to do with whether or not an applicant will depart the US when they say. (Indeed, in the end that's so very obvious and true.)

Trying to bring relatives over on B2 visas so they can relax and begin processing an AOS is a tactic....a very common one...one that has been seen countless thousands of times....depending on the country involved, the less developed the applicant's country, the more likely they will stay for the AOS...while I never worked in the PI, I had lots of interaction with colleagues (it has been some years), but we also shared abuse rates, etc, often when together in the US for training (usually fraud training!)....the stats a few years ago (and not much has happened that has made the PI a new and improved economy), parents of USCs who wandered off to the US for the 'visit' had around a 3-4% chance of returning instead of staying for the AOS...and those were usually folks who were more than 70-some odd years old. Sorry, but 3-4% returning is strongly suggestive that bringing mom and dad over on a B2 has another purpose in mind, if they have at least one USC adult child living in the US. A 96% rate of abuse is way too high. Now, when I say 'abuse', I am talking about what they said to the CO, what the invitation letters contained that were written by the USC child, etc, that all turned out to be lies, but the applicants wanted to be believed as did the USCs...but....it did not take long for the trust given to someone to have been ruined.....and each time that happens, it merely raises the 214b bar for the next applicant. Benefit of the doubt goes away, sympathy, non-existent. And whose fault is it at the end of the day? Yep, the ones who thought it OK to lie their way to a tourist visa (but most try to rationalize the quick (and often planned) mind change with the usual unbelievable excuse of ..'gosh, we had no intention....;...sure.

Anyway, there it is...as I said, she could get lucky...but if she does, and if you are then considering the 'mind change' at the airport, just think about the harm you would be doing to future applicants.

I understand the entirety of your second paragraph and can't dispute your statistics. And at the end of the day, you're right, anyone considering doing what you've reiterated will harm future applicants. Sadly, prior applicants that didn't fulfill their obligations have affected those with honest, truthful intentions...but that's life also. Personal observation? PI approval rates WILL never get to the point where's it's beneficial for the majority of honest, trustworthy people to apply in the hopes of approval because of past practices. My wife will explain this to her mother and petitioning MIL for green card seems to be the only other option...other than visiting her every five years or so due to it being cost prohibitive to fly a family of five to the Philippines on a regular basis. Further banter on this thread is fruitless as we'll save the $160 towards the $420 I-30 cost. The writing is on the wall. Now that's life!

Thanks for your input.

P&B

Edited February 10, 2016 by Pork and Beans

[cristina16 81]

Apply IR 5 instead.

[Pork and Beans 4]

Apply IR 5 instead.

Yep, that's now the plan. Thank you.