MacUK

Thanks everyone for the reassurance. 

We'll be heading back to the UK next week so there's no chance of any overstay. (After 20 years of not being able to visit I'm not screwing that up again!)

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

See what the online status says, probably just the wrong stamp.

Thanks, just checked it online and it says she's got a 90 day stay.

As long as that wrong stamp doesn't cause dramas in the future

20 years after I stupidly messed up my own VWP I finally was able to get approved for my B1B2 and arrived in the US last night to attend my sons wedding.

Got a few questions from CBP regarding why I'm using at B1B2 instead of VWP and then waved us through.

The issue we have is that my girlfriend is here with me and she came over using VWP. 

When we looked at our passports this morning I noticed that hers is stamped B1B2 and she's been given 6 months stay instead of 90 days.

I can understand the CBP officer mistakenly just stamping both our passports with the same stamp but I'm just worried that this may effect any future US visits for my girlfriend.

I don't want her to be accused of entering under the wrong category when we didn't do anything wrong.

12 hours ago, Gondorf said:

Thanks for your response.

 

She is enrolled at the University and currently taking classes. We own the home where she lives and have discussed using an attorney to place it in her name.

 

I thoroughly understand what you are saying. It's a long shot. I could understand refusal if her brothers were here under asylum status, but I petitioned as their stepfather and they are here living with me. Just frustrating to be a U.S. citizen and unable to penetrate all the red tape.

 

Thanks again for your response.

You being a U.S. citizen has nothing to do with it, it's not you that is applying.

You have to look at it from another point of view.

All of her immediate family are in the U.S., you said yourself that the reason she isn't there also is because she was over 18 at the time.

I don't know why you mention asylum seekers, people use tourist visas all the time to "visit" family and forget to return home. I don't know the statistics but I imagine there are far more cases of tourists abusing their visas than there are asylum cases.

No one is saying that's what you're doing but that's the way the consular officers look at it. They don't know your stepdaughter and have to guess her intentions based on what is in front of them.

That all sounds quite negative but you shouldn't let that stop you trying.

People get approved all the time but it's always best to remember that it's not guaranteed and there's very little you can do to help other than give her advice to think more about what her reasons are for returning to Honduras and less about her reasons to want to be in the U.S.

They don't care why people want to visit, they only care that they'll go home again afterwards.

4 hours ago, Bill Hamze said:

 

She didn't even have a chance to tell them that she plans to come back by a specific date and that we live together in Vietnam.

 

The verdict would likely still be the same, you can thank the thousands of people (from all over the world, not just Vietnam) who told the COs all about their plans to return home and then forgot about them 10 seconds after leaving the airport.

It's good that you had a realistic expectation and I'm sorry your wife had high hopes only to be disappointed.

I went in to my last B2 interview thinking I had a remote possibility of an approval and my 214(b) was a kick in the teeth. Next time I'll go in expecting the worst.

2 hours ago, Unlockable said:

When reading this thread I was shaking my head so much I have neck pains now. Like everyone else in here, I was yelling, "WHY???", when the OP revealed his/her friend lied BIG during the process. But I am going to go against the grain and put on my devil's advocate hat for a second.

 

[Devil's advocate hat on]

Some people in some countries grew up in a way of life where falsifying information, lying, withholding info, and bribing is a way of life. They may have grown up and seen it rampant in their countries. They may not know the grave consequences of the same acts when dealing with US organizations. When I first visited  my wife's country, I was sitting in traffic and I saw some drivers jump the sidewalk curve and drive down the sidewalk because they were tired of waiting. People were running and jumping off the sidewalk so they wouldn't get hit. There was no regard to traffic laws or public safety. I also remember there was a young Filipina girl who was responding to a thread similar to this one. The topic of the thread was about some material misrep that the OP was now trying to fix. The didn't defend the OP but she shed a light on the OP's actions. She simply said that in the Philippines, bending the truth to get something you need is a way of life. Over there if a person truly believes they are in need (them being poor and wanting better life for them by immigrating to America, for example) then lying is justifiable to them. Because to them they are lying for a good reason. Often these people believe they can fix the lie later when things are better. The OP's friend may be one of those that thought it could be fixed now.

[Devil's advocate hat off]

 

With all that said, what they did was inexcusable. when immigrating to any country, a person should be aware of laws, rules, and regulations. If not at a legal level at least at a human level because it is basic human decency. You don't accept and opportunity given to you by disregarding rules. 

 

 

Unfortunately, this will be a really tough lesson for them to learn. Whether they were naive or it was intentional, there will be consequences and they should be aware of that. If you speak to them again, you should be supportive but make them aware that moving forward, they should be 1000% honest on everything and own up to their mistake. But more than that, they should be prepared to accept any repercussions that may come from this just in case. This is not going to be easy, cheap, nor fast to resolve IF it is even possible to resolve at all.

Different situation for me but the sentiment is the same.

When I overstayed on VWP I didn't think it was a big deal, at the time I didn't have much choice about overstaying but the length of time I stayed was completely on me. I figured that it wouldn't matter much, I'd just go back to my home country, maybe pay a fine and then everything would be OK.....

It didn't work out how I hoped.

This was 16 years ago, I got banned for 10 years, I've been denied a B2 three times and I might never set foot in U.S. soil ever again.

One stupid mistake I made half a lifetime ago will have repercussions for the rest of my life, I've been 100000% honest in all my dealings with the U.S. authorities since then but once you lose credibility it's near impossible to regain any trust.

Actions have consequences.

On 8/23/2019 at 1:08 PM, ElDiablo said:

Which is common sense..don't need a video to tell you the obvious.

I disagree, for most people that have no previous experience with tourist visas, "common sense" would tell you that having a U.S. spouse would have a positive effect on an application.

Most people think that the tourist visa is all about proving why you want to go to the U.S., not about why you would leave.

Most people on this site understand how it works and when you understand the presumption of immigrant intent law then of course you can say that obviously a spouse or significant other would be a negative.

But your average person on the street wouldn't think that wanting to visit family members could be a bad thing.

6 minutes ago, Lirpa said:

Yes, I saw it online , I will have to fill out a form 134 I believe, it's a affidavit of support .

Can you show us the link to the official U.S. website where you got this information please?

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.

7 hours ago, calberry said:

Yes, that makes sense -- someone could be wealthy and not have ties. However, in her case she's the owner of multiple businesses and employs many hundreds of people. Whatever the bar is for ties, be it for family, work, real estate, community etc she should pass

 

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?

On 6/23/2019 at 9:25 PM, nosleep said:

Unfortunately the government doesn't seem to have the will or desire to take action on those who overstay which practically encourages further bad behavior.  As a result, there are a lot of legitimate people with the lawful intentions who pay the price... but that's getting a bit off topic here.  

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.

19 minutes ago, tundra12nfl said:

Then what constitutes ties to come back? 

Thousands of dollars in the bank - can be withdrawn anywhere

House - can be sold

Owning a business - can be sold

 

I understand what you mean, but geez, what constitutes. I have seen people who have nothing, get a visa 

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

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

Apparently @MacUK watched a different Australian version than I did.  Nothing laid back about the many episodes I saw, whether it was drugs, people intending to look for work illegally,  or sweet Chinese grannies who didn't realize that they couldn't bring in all this food for their kids.  My take-away from that was never ever neglect to read and follow the rules about what you are and aren't allowed to bring in to Australia. 

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.

16 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Just saw an article today about a woman that was honest on her ESTA about her former drug use and then wailed to the newspapers about the meanie US government not letting this honest UK citizen in for a visit. Yawn. I'm sure a lot of people lie on their ESTAs, and still others become confused by the meaning of some questions.

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.

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

Watch the Australian version. They are on steroids vs the US one.... it’s an island so they really crack down on food etc. watched them pick a guy out because he was sweating, and with reason...

 

 

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

5 minutes ago, SJordanS said:

“Border Security:Americas Front Line”. Its a MUST SEE. You’ll binge on it now doubt  but with even more amazing is not stopping people at the port of entry. Its also the amazing job of a scanning and detecting all, and even dangerous, packages that enter our airport from other countries. 

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.

On 6/15/2019 at 3:35 PM, Jacen7 said:

My boyfriend is in a Thai online group of people who talk about the visa application process.  Many people are denied, one person was given this form  (attached) which I don't quite understand as it seems to contradict two things I have read on this forum - seems to indicate that a denial can be reversed, and seems to specifically ask for an invitation letter, which I have read here is not helpful if not damaging to an applicant's case for strong ties to home country.  Could anybody shed some light on this?  

 

 

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

On 5/17/2019 at 3:55 PM, march16filer said:

 

Not that hard if you meet the criteria they need. 

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?

On 4/9/2019 at 1:27 PM, Alice L said:

But if you study the current law of adjustment of status, if someone is illegally stayed or overstayed in any circumstances 

They won't be able to adjust their status.

If only that was true

Unusual situation but not entirely unique.

I used to have a friend when I was in the military.

His wife was previously married and her ex husband then married her sister so her children were being raised by their aunt/stepmother.

My friends marriage broke down and he subsequently started a relationship with another sister of his ex wife.

That sister had previously had a physical relationship with a man who at various times had been intimate with all three sisters (not at the same time! They're not weirdos!)

So while it definitely is a strange situation it's not entirely unbelievable but it will attract a lot of extra scrutiny