Trump administration approves social media checks for Visa applicants

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

 

 Some dudes are into feet.. to each their own.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Pos5t from yesterday I was talking about :

OP talks about CO was not satisfied because she did not see any wedding pics posted on FB.
OP took that as reason for refusal which it was not this time so don't do the twist but I am showing just another thread of so many

where the CO mentions facebook issues as part of refusal.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

11 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Pos5t from yesterday I was talking about :

OP talks about CO was not satisfied because she did not see any wedding pics posted on FB.
OP took that as reason for refusal which it was not this time so don't do the twist but I am showing just another thread of so many

where the CO mentions facebook issues as part of refusal.

 

They said they haven't been with their partner since 2012. 5 years, and they're married. That is obviously the red flags, not Facebook. But at least you made an effort this time.

 

Edit: I will say that if they are in effectively an indefinite distance relationship, they should have more overt proof of their relationship on sites like Facebook or wherever to satisfy to the CO that they are indeed in a real relationship. 

 

What you said here vs below are not the same, and what you say below as I quote is still not justified.

 

2 hours ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Exactly so. I have read it here, do a search. There is no such policy but it is "gone rogue CO's" that have said so. Just because it's not policy doesn't mean CO's don't take it upon themselves to use their discretion to refuse the visa for not being able to view a FB account as public.  As usual you seem confused. 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by IAMX

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Just now, IAMX said:

They said they haven't been with their partner since 2012. 5 years, and they're married. That is obviously the red flags, not Facebook. But at least you made an effort this time.

OMG. You are stating the very obvious here, didn't think I had to spoon feed the reason too since my comment for the reason is in that same thread. *Eye roll.

I make an effort every time, just not for you specifically.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

 

1 minute ago, Ebunoluwa said:

OMG. You are stating the very obvious here, didn't think I had to spoon feed the reason too since my comment for the reason is in that same thread. *Eye roll.

I make an effort every time, just not for you specifically.

 

Social media has been checked forever (not only in the US were my social media accounts used as evidence, but video game forums, chat logs, etc.), the idea that one must have a Facebook and it must be viewable by the CO is thus far a subjective belief. You take issue with people asking you for proof of your claim. Given we're on an immigrant forum it's quite an important issue. Yet you're clearly getting mad because you're asked to substantiate your claim. The issues you have are not for me to solve.

[OriZ 3,157]

56 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I don't know. As you know I got the governor in my FB. I have so many friends from so many walks if life, I don't want to start ant hot topics in fb 

I mean to each their own, I just didn't feel like I shouldn't be myself. I have friends from all sides too(although not the governor, but him I see quite often in person around here), usually it's a live and let live situation.

[OriZ 3,157]

BTW, I don't have wedding pics on my FB either, although my wife does on hers. I just didn't bother with posting pics in general at that time.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

11 minutes ago, IAMX said:

 

Social media has been checked forever (not only in the US were my social media accounts used as evidence, but video game forums, chat logs, etc.), the idea that one must have a Facebook and it must be viewable by the CO is thus far a subjective belief. You take issue with people asking you for proof of your claim. Given we're on an immigrant forum it's quite an important issue. Yet you're clearly getting mad because you're asked to substantiate your claim. The issues you have are not for me to solve.

1. What issues do I have ? What are you talking about. If you are insinuating I have FB/CO issues then no never had any.
2. I stated that FB had been screened and checked for years, you are repeating it, not sure why.

3. I quote you :"The idea that you must have a facebook and it must be viewable by the CO is thus far a subjective belief"  Ehem yeah, neither I nor anyone else in this thread

ever said you must have FB and it must be viewable. I do not know anyone claiming that so I have no idea why you felt the need to say that.
4. Yes it is annoying when you insist on proof when you could have done a simple search yourself if it peaks your interest.
Your style is not "please can you show me proof I am genuinely interested", no, it is "substantiate and proof your claim" 24/7 in your comments in most threads you post
and yet your comments and claims are full of fluff without links to prove them yourself. Annoying.
Not every thread is a deep debate for me and I do not spoon feed.

Read my posts more slowly without jumping to the conclusion that I said "anyone must have FB to be approved". I simply showed threads where CO's want to see it.
That doesn't mean everyone must open one. It means the CO is deflecting away from the real reason to refuse or is one gone rogue.

Kapich ?

 

[Boiler 43,859]

Nothing new, Obumma was doing this for years.

[TBoneTX 43,538]

5 hours ago, Ebunoluwa said:

There is no such policy but it is "gone rogue CO's" that have said so. Just because it's not policy doesn't mean CO's don't take it upon themselves to use their discretion to refuse the visa for not being able to view a FB account as public.

[regular-member hat firmly on]

With due respect to my contemporaries at Guayaquil, there is arguably no one who has been hosed worse than Ebunoluwa during the consular process.  I have immense personal respect for her, her strength, and her tenacity during her horror-movie experiences.  Some (many, most) people on this website have no inkling at all about the potential perils of the consular phase in the non-powder-puff countries, and Ebunoluwa is a priceless asset in advocating awareness.  Her posts in the upper forums (besides their overall high value in general) serve as clarion calls to be alert, to be prepared, and to beware.  We can believe everything that she says on this topic.

[down off soapbox]

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Thanks for the kind words and yes we went through hell and back. I know you were also hosed. We persevered. Makes one stronger. 

[mexigrl 2]

This is truly an invasion of privacy, do we have to consent to a bug being put inside our homes next while we wait out the process? I'm not even sure that my new husband would agree to giving over private accounts and personal messages like that. This could really affect us and our options. I understand flagging terrorist countries, or specific people but to ask everyone to allow the US government to be privy to their private conversations is beyond acceptable. We have spent the last few years talking about immigration, moving, getting married before a minor child turns 18 etc. Also lots of anti- Trump memes. Will that preclude him from getting a visa? It's just all ridiculous and confusing.

 

Mexigrl

[mexigrl 2]

On 6/2/2017 at 11:37 PM, Boiler said:

Nothing new, Obumma was doing this for years.

That is a lie, fake news as I'm sure you would say. The Obama administration only asked select people required to give that information. This is a new requirement for ALL visa requests (except diplomatic of course). This could really hurt people.

[Boiler 43,859]

6 minutes ago, mexigrl said:

That is a lie, fake news as I'm sure you would say. The Obama administration only asked select people required to give that information. This is a new requirement for ALL visa requests (except diplomatic of course). This could really hurt people.

The principal was set some time ago, so the issue is who gets asked and who does not.

 

If it could hurt people well it would already have, quite a few have been subject to this.

 

 

[mexigrl 2]

Just now, Boiler said:

The principal was set some time ago, so the issue is who gets asked and who does not.

 

If it could hurt people well it would already have, quite a few have been subject to this.

 

 

That still isn't true. This new rule applies to ALL visa applicants period. I have no faith that this law-breaking administration will not use our personal comments to each other as fodder to deny a visa, especially those that don't agree with their views. Have you not seen what is going on with asylum seekers right now? There is no justice or concern for privacy anymore.