RhettVoe

The Seven Dwarfs? Bernie Madoff?....but certainly not the Dept of State....how can a US entity order a citizen from another country to hold their bank account as hostage, awaiting their return from the US? Bottom line: they cannot...there is NO legal mechanism by which the DoS can 'order' a visa applicant to freeze some funds as some sort of bond (apparently the poster who believes otherwise did not go to the embassy's website, where such a procedure is listed as an unavailable and useless option...hard to understand why somebody would think otherwise, in view of the facts.

Love to see undeniable proof of this fairy tale...does such a "requirement" exist in other countries???? In fact, no such requirement exists in any country, for the simple reason above...the US of A has no power or authority over citizens from other countries....

Being stubborn will not win her any Brownie points (nor get her a visa)...with a K1 in the works, a previous denial and new and improved reasons for returning that miraculously appeared within the last few weeks, well, really....do you think (or hope) that a CO is that naïve?

she might luck out, but given what has already transpired with her first attempt, the ongoing K1, the high rate of visa abuse by others in her demographic combined with the ongoing upheaval in Ukraine, ask yourself if you were a CO...what would you think the likelihood of her returning instead of changing her mind 2 minutes after the airplane's wheels kiss the concrete?

and while you might think it unfair that the standards for getting a tourist visa to my country are so strict, but again, many thousands of Filipinos have used their tourist visas to live and work in the US....sad, but true...and that salient fact will only make it more difficult for others to get a tourist visa. If you doubt this, ask around. It is a fact of life.

travel agencies do not and cannot improve one's chances to get a tourist visa....there is no reason to blame me nor the COs...blame the untold thousands of YOUR countrymen who have forgotten to live up to their word after having been given an object of trust. They are to blame for any difficulties you or anyone else may have obtaining a tourist visa...

The refusal rate at a given embassy is not really the issue,...what matters (to the COs) is the percentage of the population in the country they are working who abuse or violate the terms of a tourist visa...(which will then affect the refusal rate....the higher the rate of abuse, the higher the refusal rate will be)

The track record of the Philippines will likely work against you, as thousands of your countrymen said similar things, but 'forgot' to return...the CO does not care WHY you want to GO to the US; they are only interested in what overwhelming reasons will cause you to LEAVE the US. Trips to Disneyland don't matter....remember, schools can be abandoned (there are an estimated 700,000 kids attending public schools in the US using their B2 visa....) and courses you may have signed up for don't count for much...you have been out of work for some time...a property can be managed by relatives in your absence, etc....it will be up to you to convince the CO you will return...not papers, not some random future educational course....it has to be compelling.

but (as the CO will wonder, then ask), if they can care for your parents for 9 months, why NOT a day longer, or a year, or more? There is nothing magic about 9 months....if your siblings can do this for 9 months, without upsetting their own lives, why would their limit be 9 months? That's the inconsistency....if you don't return, your siblings will still be there, correct? And they cannot force you to return, correct?

This particular excuse, upon close examination, won't stand up well to logic.

As I have said (repeatedly), there are NO magic answers. You were the one who claimed no questions were asked (and have not been able to provide a coherent, logical reason or rationale why a CO would even contemplate this). Applications are often reviewed before the interview begins, but the decision is not taken until after the applicant has been interviewed.

If having a sibling in the US was a legal bar to being granted a visa, (which it's not), that fact would be posted on an embassy's website....I've never seen this posted on any embassy website nor is it a part of any current immigration law or policy. This particular 'rumor' is one that is perpetuated worldwide, mostly by unsuccessful visa applicants.

Section 214b states, however, "every applicant seeking a non immigrant visa subject to this law is presumed to be an intending immigrant until such time as they are able to convince a consular officer that they will depart the US after a visit (or period of study) of appropriate duration."

In other words, every applicant asking for (in this case) a student visa (or a tourist visa, and some other categories of non immigrant visas) is presumed by law to be going to the US to remain permanently. Thus, the conversation (the interview) does not begin in a neutral position - applicants (for certain types of visas) are, in essence, presumed guilty, if you will, of something they have yet to do.

But there are no legal grounds for disqualification based on having close family members residing in the US. None. Zero.

You may think that this aspect of the situation is 'unfair' but it has been this way since 1952. COs are tasked with determining the applicant's bona fides and their credibility, and to judge whether or not they (the applicants) will abide by the terms of the visa class they are seeking.

A CO cannot carry out this responsibility and duty via pantomime.

Sorry she was refused, but there are no quick fixes or routes to a successful interview the next time.

You posted your question in the 'student visa' category, not the 'Bringing Family Members to the US' category, hence my question. Are you seeking an immigrant visa?

How could she be rendered 'disqualified' based on a DS 160 and a handful of other documents? While she might well be in a high risk demographic (young single female), that fact alone would not generate an instant refusal the moment she stepped up to the window....questions would have been asked of her...COs just don't inform an applicant that their application is denied the moment they appear at the window without asking some questions....for numerous reasons...not the least of which is the CO's own ethics, and training and motivation to carry out their duties to the best of their abilities....and then being able to justify their decision when reviewed by their supervisor...to assume that there are hordes of COs out there denying applicants in 3 seconds, then making up stories to put into their database is just plain ludicrous. And no one has ever seen this happen...each and every time we hear this tiresome story, it is always based on hearsay feedback from the unhappy and unsuccessful visa applicant.

Our COs are being castigated without foundation nor justification....

as for advice, simple: there is nothing a third party can do to improve the chances someone will be granted a student or tourist visa....nothing, nada, zilch....there are no guarantees anyone can make, no specific 'notarized' document that will overcome 214b....bottom line...there are no magic solutions...if one existed, virtually every applicant would have it. Things that are often tried and will fail:

* job offers in the future - meaningless, as there is no penalty for the person who fails to take said job or a company that forgets to keep the 'job' available

* letters from anyone claiming that they know the character and honesty of the applicant...again, not enforceable in any way

* pointing back to elderly parents who need care, but will somehow remain healthy while the applicant is away in the US studying

* letters of 'admission' from some university back in the home country - again, not enforceable and there is no penalty for failing to take up said offer....

* letters from some congressman attesting to the intentions of a person they don't even know...

* offers to post some monetary bond...not even allowed.

It all comes down to what the CO believes...based on the questions posed to the applicant. Only the applicant can convince the CO of their intentions...no one else can.

Now, you may not like to hear my 'advice' but, it is direct, and the truth. No one using this site (nor any other) has ever come up with the 'magic' solution...they just suggest many of the above in some form or another.

If you read the embassy websites, this question is constantly asked...and the answers will be the same....the applicant must qualify based only on their own merits.

and you think that is the reason they ask no questions? If true, they should be able to empty the waiting room in 20 minutes....perhaps even faster if just one CO went into the waiting area with a bullhorn and announced.."you are all refused...please leave!"....do you really think that is what is taking place?

Still haven't heard a rational, logical, believable reason as to why a CO would do such a thing....

Why would the Foreign Service spend thousands on teaching new COs complicated languages just so they could tell applicants to go away...

or is that the only phrase you think they are taught?

It's amazing what some people will believe....no matter now irrational or illogical.....tell you what....why don't you write a letter to the embassy and directly accuse the CO who allegedly carried out this question-less interview in writing? Show them how 'tough' you are. See what happens.

The CO was not convinced, based on the answers she gave at her interview, that she would return to her country after completing her studies...that's what happened. Since that denial has apparently disrupted whatever other plans that may be in the works might explain the reaction.

when the CO asks you this question, "who will take care of your parents during your 9 month absence?", what are you going to answer?

If "oh, some relatives will take care of them..."..then the next question will be,,"if they can take care of your parents for 9 months, why not 9 years?"...there is an inconsistency in this particular 'tie' to Turkey that needs to be addressed.

are you referring to a student visa application or an I-130? If your husband is sponsoring your student visa, what reasons can you give (that are believable) as to why you return home after completion of studies?

it's not the traveling to meet you that is the issue....it's the traveling back to the Ukraine after visiting...that's what's being assessed...her purported honesty has little to do with it...it's what the CO believes...right now, there is far too much turmoil in the Ukraine for the COs to be generous....I can only imagine how many hundreds, if not thousands of Ukrainians who already have tourist visas and are in the US are really and truly planning to return...(if I had to guess, I'd about 3).

what is a notarized letter from a friend or roommate supposed to prove about your reasons for returning? Having already overstayed, having already violated the trust given to Canadian citizens (ease of crossing our borders), why should our border folks be motivated to give you back this privilege based on a notarized letter from some random person, short term employment and a boyfriend living in the US?

Your chances are slim at best, with no job to return to, a close relative living in the US and your husband out to sea...your stated intentions don't carry much weight, as thousands of your countrymen have said the same thing, yet are still in the US.

Let's take a look at the myth of the question-less interview from the CO's perspective:

first, what does a CO have to gain by conducting such an interview? Answer: nothing.

COs aren't given bonuses for visa denials, nor extra credit for not asking questions.

At the conclusion of an interview, the CO has to enter some notes into their unique data base, describing in brief detail why the visa was issued or why the applicant failed to qualify (most often, why they did not overcome 214b)...now, if a CO asked no questions of the applicant, then what lies is the CO supposed to have written into a data base, whose records remain there permanently for years to come? Why would a CO violate their ethics, ignore their training, and jeopardize their careers by telling an applicant the moment they stepped up to the interview window that their application was denied and send them away? Why?

In addition, much of time that interviews are being conducted, other employees of the embassy, citizens of the host country, are routinely passing back and forth behind the windows...if they saw a CO behave in such a way, they would very likely express their concerns to their supervisor....thus, once again, possibly jeopardizing the career of said CO...there is nothing for a CO to gain by not asking questions of a visa applicant.

Now, what might the applicant gain? Mostly sympathy....after being denied, and having to report this to their relatives or friends, often feel like it's their fault, and rather than admit or consider this fact, instead they try to cast themselves as some hapless victim, who was treated unfairly (i.e., their application was not approved) by some mean, nasty CO who never even gave them a chance to demonstrate or establish their bona fides, the(hopefully) sparking outrage by their relatives or friends, and immediately moving any responsibility for their own failure to qualify for some visa to the CO and away from themselves.....

So, all of you who claim to 'know' that such events, the question-less interview, has taken place...please post your video on YouTube...in real life, this does not happen for the simple reason that a CO will not benefit one iota for doing such a thing.

If instead, some of you believe that there are COs who would not only ask no questions of a visa applicant, but then enter outright lies and fabrications into a near permanent record, well, I'm not sure what that says about you.

Interviews without a single question asked exist only in Fantasyland...one key component of a student visa interview is testing the applicant's English speaking/understanding abilities....something that is difficult, if not impossible to do without asking a single question of the applicant. Sorry, but a 'no questions asked' interview does not happen. While it is true I was not there, neither was the OP. Why would COs be trained in interviewing techniques only to ask nothing during an interview? Please explain the answer to these points with a rationale behind such an approach....love to hear it.

I am guessing that even the mod was NOT present during those alleged dozen or so 'question-less' interviews in Ecuador, instead relying on some visa applicant's opinion (and we all know that visa applicants never lie nor distort the truth!)...and you could not be a first hand witness to said interviews because American citizens are NOT allowed in the waiting area nor at the interviewing window where tourist and student visa applicants are being interviewed.

It's amazing what people will say and believe...in spite of the illogical nature of those beliefs...

New COs spend nearly a week in training on interviewing techniques....there is no class entitled "How to Interview Visa Applicants without Asking A Single Question"....

sorry, but these stories of 'interviews' that contained no questions are nothing but fantasy...she was asked several questions...she just told you she was not asked anything so as to point some sort of blame at those 'mean nasty COs'....if they don't believe she will return to Islamabad after completing her studies, they will (by law) deny her application....period...there is NOTHING you can do to change their minds...nothing you can say, write or promise will have any positive effect on her next application...the same rules will apply, the same standards applied.

It's amazing that anyone with even an ounce of common sense would believe that somebody was interviewed by asking the applicant nothing but telling them to go away....utter nonsense.

this copied from the Embassy Manila website, under 'non immigrant visas' and 'evidence of ties'..

"

Posting of Bonds

There is no provision in the law that allows for the posting of bonds as a guarantee of return. Moreover, this is not considered as familial, social, economic or professional ties that can affect the applicant’s eligibility for a visa."

I rest my case.

Sorry, but a CO cannot order a bank account frozen...so your so called experience or knowledge about this is totally false...how to disprove me? Let's go to the embassy Manila's website and find the 'frozen funds' requirement in order to get a tourist visa....ready????...no CO from the US of A can tell an applicant what to do with their time or money, other than regulate to some extent their behavior while inside the embassy...the US of A cannot tell people what to do with their money...the Dept of State has no authority to order somebody to freeze their bank accounts, nor do they accept maintenance of status bonds...you either overcome 214b or you don't, and freezing bank accounts is NOT part of the deal.

money in a bank account is far from the only item under consideration by the COs....money can be withdrawn from the account, 5 minutes after visa issuance, so it does not represent a significant tie or reason to return to one's own country after visiting...it may (may) allay concerns about the applicant working illegally as a tourist, but that's about all.

However, the COs know that there really isn't any way the K1 would be jeopardized by having somebody overstay...nowadays, all one has to do is marry an Amcit and the 'sin' of overstaying is forgiven, so there is no real downside, and thus, no reason to dole out a B2, hear about the 'mind change' that happens so frequently, the eventual AOS, etc...if our do-nothing useful Congress ever legislated some real immigration laws, maybe some folks would get a chance to get a tourist visa under these conditions, but right now there is no realistic penalty to be paid for changing one's mind ten minutes after baggage claim...so the COs are the only line of defense against this sort of thing.

sounds like you were (are) ineligible for having committed a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT)...and you were granted a waiver for that ineligibility, then given a visa....however, your ineligibility did not evaporate....it's still there...which is why you now need another waiver in order to be granted (renew) a new visa...and the COs are not empowered to grant waivers...only visas...and they cannot issue you a new visa until you are granted a waiver by (essentially) USCIS/DHS, which could take some amount of time. There are lots of waiver requests in the queue...so, it will take some unknown amount of time to have your request adjudicated.