MacUK

I'll admit, I have personal issues regarding this story. The OP admits to knowingly breaking the rules once before but was fortunate enough to be given a second chance, given the opportunity to learn from previous mistakes and continue to enjoy the benefits of travel to the U.S. And then they decide to ignore the laws again. I made that first mistake myself, many years ago. Thanks to that I haven't seen my children in 14 years. I have applied 3 times since then, asking to be given that second chance. I have zero desire to live in the US, I only want the chance to be able to visit my children but I have been refused 3 times. And now the COs have even less reason to believe that someone who's lost their VWP privileges can be trusted to learn from their mistake. OP, I doubt you'll have any issues in leaving the States. But when you do leave, be sure to say your farewells to anything or anyone there that you care about, I doubt you'll ever set foot in the US as a tourist again.

What would be the point of having quotas for denials? All countries love genuine tourists who show up, spend money, then sod off! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why any country would restrict genuine tourists by having quotas.

Then presumably she's wealthy enough to be able to hire someone else to do the day to day running of her businesses and doesn't need to be there? It's a silly thing I know, but when it comes to ties to home countries and tourist visas you have to do some real mental gymnastics. Every thing you think of as a concrete tie you have to then think of how it could possibly be turned around and used against them, see it from the COs perspective as someone who by law has to think that everyone coming up to their window is lying. Documents mean nothing thanks to the ease of forgery. It's all down to a gut instinct decision based on a single questionnaire and a conversation that can be anything from 2 minutes to 10 minutes long and whether or not the CO thinks the person in front of them is trustworthy.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to prove that someone else will do anything. You can provide any amount of letters saying you will guarantee they will leave but other than physically carrying them onto a plane and strapping them to a seat how exactly can you guarantee it?

I beg to differ, or at least add another perspective. The U.S. Government is very happy to take action against those who overstay AND LEAVE the U.S. I speak from personal experience as someone who (significantly) overstayed VWP nearly 20 years ago and has been unable to visit the U.S. ever since and probably never will be able to again. The ones the government seem to have no will or desire to take action against are those who overstay and never leave, at least not as tourists.

Unfortunately there is no magic checklist of ties to home countries, thanks to the extreme lengths that other people have gone to just to get into U.S. soil, leaving behind children, homes, businesses, family. What it comes down to in the end is the personal opinion of the interviewing officer, based upon the information given on the ds-160 and on the how the applicant answers questions at the interview. The law says the officer must start with the opinion that the applicant is untrustworthy and it's up to the applicant to change that opinion. a Is it fair? Not really Is it ideal? Far from it Do they make mistakes? All the time Is it likely to change any time soon? Not a chance You could be denied today by one officer but be approved next month by another. Lots of people manage to convince the officers they'll return when they never have intention to and lots of honest people fail to convince the officer and get denied. It's an unfortunate aspect of international relationships

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't mean they're laid back in enforcing their rules, merely their attitude when doing it. Very strict on the rules, especially when it comes to plant life and foodstuffs, but usually done with a smile and a bit of banter.

I've had many friends saying I should go to the newspapers with my tale of woe. They tell me I should spin a tale about me being a hard done by military hero (Army veteran) who is being kept from my children by an evil U.S. Government over a silly mistake. The Sun and the Daily Wail love stories like that, a photo with me doing a 'sad face' would be essential. My usual response is that no, I screwed up, I broke the rules, I have to live with the consequences.

I love the Australian version, they're so laid back about everything, even the serious stuff. The U.S. version shows the officers being very stern and by the book. The U.K. version is more about bureaucracy. The Australian version? "Two kilos of cocaine in your bag? Not smart mate. No worries, we'll just arrest you, wait for the Feds to get here and you'll go to prison for years. Do you want a drink while we wait?"

For all the people who continually come on threads to tell about the thousands of people they know who walked into an embassy waving an invitation letter and got an immediate approval, a bottle of champagne and free Disneyworld tickets... What exactly do you think an invitation letter does? The US doesn't care why you want to visit, only that you'll leave. 214(b) is all about not overcoming presumption of immigrant intent, there's nothing in there about not having a valid reason to vist. A line in it about someone covering expenses? Totally worthless as it can't be legally enforced. You can say anything in a letter, nothing will come back at you if you don't go through with it. I can print off hundreds of invite letters promising all kinds of things, doesn't make it true

One episode that stuck out to me was an elderly woman openly telling the CBP that she was coming in to take care of her grandkids so her son can go back to work. CBP just waved her through.

Am I the only one here who thinks the cross in the box for passport looks suspiciously different than the cross in the box for an invite letter? Looks like a slightly different shade of ink, and I'm no handwriting expert but the 'X's look sufficiently different for me to wonder if they were made y the same person. Maybe I'm too cynical but my first thought is the person who shared this letter was convinced they needed an invitation letter so added it on to show their U.S. relative/friend

There's no such thing as a criteria for tourist visas as it based on the opinion of the consular officers. You could have two applicants interviewing with the same officer, with exactly the same "criteria" and get completely different outcomes of the officers trusts one applicant more than the other. Alternatively you could have one person take two interviews with two different officers and likewise get different results simply because one officer feels they can be trusted and the other doesn't. It would be wonderful if there was some checklist of criteria that you could go through and if you check ✔ to all of them then bingo! you've got the visa, but unfortunately that's not how it works. It's seen on here time and time again where you get applicants who you'd think were a definite for an approval who get denied and then you get people who you'd think would be a definite denial come back and say they got approved. As for the AP, has your friend got a common name that may have been confused for someone on a no-fly list?

If only that was true

"Guilty until proven innocent" is the same for every country when it comes to tourist visas. It's the law. All tourist visa applicants are presumed to have immigrant intent until shown otherwise. A return flight would be worthless, it means nothing for a tourist visa application. The embassies specifically tell applicants to never buy flight tickets until they physically have their visa in hand.