Which counsulates informally require K1 petitioners to be present during interviews?

[nasse_forelle 4]

Hi VJ support group -

 

From the various threads I read - it seems like some US consulates require (informally) petitioners to be present in K1 interviews, although USCIS doesn't have any such requirement. Has someone put already together a spreadsheet of this quirk for different consulates? If yes, any information would be grateful.

[geowrian 22,335]

I'm unaware of any compiled list. It's really something more known among individuals dealing with that consulate.

Nobody is an expert in every consulate.

 

No consulate requires it. Every case is unique. Some just tend to prefer it more than others.

 

USCIS has no role in the process after petition adjudication. Everything after that is handled by the DOS.

[nasse_forelle 4]

3 hours ago, geowrian said:

I'm unaware of any compiled list. It's really something more known among individuals dealing with that consulate.

Nobody is an expert in every consulate.

 

No consulate requires it. Every case is unique. Some just tend to prefer it more than others.

 

USCIS has no role in the process after petition adjudication. Everything after that is handled by the DOS.

Thank you for the response. We'll see how my case goes. Just filed Jan. 23, 2020, and waiting for NOA1 lol.

[Ryan H 3,790]

Moved from K1 Progress Reports to US Embassy and Consulate Discussion.

[SorrowL 138]

I think it’s  better if the petitioner can attend the interview. It shows a level of dedication to the beneficiary, as emotional support and as a sign they’re willing to travel internationally and invest in the time and money to travel. It projects a sort of importance that the beneficiary is very important to the sponsor.

 

of course it isn’t REQUIRED, but it’s helpful in my eyes. If they can be there, why not be there?

 

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by SorrowL

[nasse_forelle 4]

On 2/2/2020 at 5:48 PM, SorrowL said:

I think it’s  better if the petitioner can attend the interview. It shows a level of dedication to the beneficiary, as emotional support and as a sign they’re willing to travel internationally and invest in the time and money to travel. It projects a sort of importance that the beneficiary is very important to the sponsor.

 

of course it isn’t REQUIRED, but it’s helpful in my eyes. If they can be there, why not be there?

 

 

I heard from some people that it actually counts against you to be there - that the petitioner might get pulled in and get grilled as a result. Any truth to that?

[SorrowL 138]

52 minutes ago, nasse_forelle said:

I heard from some people that it actually counts against you to be there - that the petitioner might get pulled in and get grilled as a result. Any truth to that?

If the consulate wants to talk to both petitioner and beneficiary to “grill” them, then expect that to happen regardless if the petitioner comes or not. It’s well within their power to schedule a second interview and request the petitioner to attend if they have doubts and need to grill. In the end the ball is always in their court, and they .have full power regarding issuance of the Visa.

[nasse_forelle 4]

8 minutes ago, SorrowL said:

If the consulate wants to talk to both petitioner and beneficiary to “grill” them, then expect that to happen regardless if the petitioner comes or not. It’s well within their power to schedule a second interview and request the petitioner to attend if they have doubts and need to grill. In the end the ball is always in their court, and they .have full power regarding issuance of the Visa.

Hopefully we don't get grilled. 🤯. So far, we only have one red flag in our application where neither of our parents knows our engagement. I am not out to my parents, and his parents don't approve. We just provide that explanation.