rickbechard@gmail

You do realize that Covid has been with us for 2 years. It was only last September that my mother had her fall, which initiated the attempt to go visit at that time. Covid was actually active at the time with travel restrictions and 2 week quarantine on return to Thailand. After the second rejection in November, I booked airline tickets for myself to fly in early January for a 3 week trip. At the end of December Expedia notified me that the flights had been cancelled by the airline due to travel restrictions. They were only offering a voucher good for 90 days. Expedia was then offering the same flights for double the cost. After filing complaints with the airlines and the DOT, I found out it was in fact Expedia who cancelled and had already been given a full refund. They actually told my bank I did not did not qualify for a chargeback on my card as they had fulfilled their obligations. When confronted with letters from Japan Airlines and Air Canada say they had given full refunds, they relented with an email that said "good news, we have gotten your refund approved by the airlines". My response is not permitted in this forum.
I was about to hit the purchase button on new flights for myself last May, when my daughter interceded and said save the money and wait until you can bring your wife. Now this medical situation comes and I need to go asap with or without her. 

The problem is you keep pushing the narrative that the embassy has anything other than a single point of view. That view being that everyone is being dishonest and is lying to them.
As the embassy has pointed out to me and is clearly spelled out in the form letter they hand the applicant, "the official has most often made a decision solely on the information in the DS-160", before the interview. Most of the DS-160 asks question about your intent to engage in terrorism, prostitution, child trafficking etc. They have now removed the section where you could explain your reasons for wanting to visit the US. So they have even less information on which to base the denial. At the last interview, which was with the same official as the previous one, my wife handed him a packet of documents. He simply handed it back, smiled and said sorry.
 
What you see as an argument I see as a discussion. But, some people do get frustrated when they can't prevail with a simplistic "see it from the embassy's point of view" statement. I have never worked for the embassy and I suspect you haven't either, so neither of us really knows what their point of view is. Each of us is guessing based on our own experiences. If yours was good, you will very likely take a defensive tact.
 
Let me ask you this. I don't know if you are the immigrant or the sponsor, but if you were told your spouse could not travel with you to any country, because that country did not trust them to leave, would you still go?
 

The problem is you keep pushing the narrative that the embassy has anything other than a single point of view. That view being that everyone is being dishonest and is lying to them.
As the embassy has pointed out to me and is clearly spelled out in the form letter they hand the applicant, "the official has most often made a decision solely on the information in the DS-160", before the interview. Most of the DS-160 asks question about your intent to engage in terrorism, prostitution, child trafficking etc. They have now removed the section where you could explain your reasons for wanting to visit the US. So they have even less information on which to base the denial. At the last interview, which was with the same official as the previous one, my wife handed him a packet of documents. He simply handed it back, smiled and said sorry.
 
What you see as an argument I see as a discussion. But, some people do get frustrated when they can't prevail with a simplistic "see it from the embassy's point of view" statement. I have never worked for the embassy and I suspect you haven't either, so neither of us really knows what their point of view is. Each of us is guessing based on our own experiences. If yours was good, you will very likely take a defensive tact.
 
Let me ask you this. I don't know if you are the immigrant or the sponsor, but if you were told your spouse could not travel with you to any country, because that country did not trust them to leave, would you still go?
 

Sorry that made me chuckle. Lots of confusion to go around in this thread. Should really put it to bed before it becomes bigger than Ben Hur.

You might think a 64 year old would have figured all that out at least 20 years ago. And you'd be right.

For just a typical foreign citizen travelling alone, with no other reason than, "I want to see America", the current process is not necessarily inappropriate. Depends on home circumstances that the official is interested in verifying. I suppose the same has to apply to someone who wants to visit their long lost 2nd cousin twice removed, who they just discovered lives there.
 
There are millions of Americans living permanently abroad. The list of countries is vast no doubt. Perfectly happy with their own citizenship, the spouse isn't interested in getting a US one as well. When the preponderance of evidence, if examined, indicates a settled domestic situation in the home country with an American citizen, and both wish to travel, it is deserving of a more generous consideration.

She went on a tourist visa while the spouse visa was being processed. Both were applied for at the same appointment in Chiang Mai. It took 2 week for the visitor visa approval. We had planned to stay in Australia for 5 years, then return to Thailand when I retired. After about a year, she decided she would rather live in Thailand and I was ready to retire. So she cancelled her spouse visa application. Her passport clearly shows two international exit stamps. I am not 100% sure but since she is in Thailand now, it surely means she left and came back twice on her own accord. The official even asked her about the two exit stamps and was told flights to Australia.
My original post is really quite simple, and not a "rant".
The application asks:
1. Have you been to other countries?  YES
2. Which countries? Laos/ Australia.
3. Who are travelling with? Spouse
4. Spouse nationality? American
5. Spouse email/phone? Provided
6. How long have you been married? 3 years
 
With the application submitted 1 month before the interview, if you have a question about the validity of the information, wouldn't you just call the spouse to enquire and perhaps ask the spouse (an American) to come to the interview as well? If not why collect the information at all? It is a bit insulting to basically say, "Yes, we know you are American, but we think your wife is lying". The "one size fits all" decision process is flawed. Especially when it denies a visa to a spouse in a well established marital relationship, with evidence of previous international travel. It isn't even a financial issue as the official did not ask to see her bank account record. When your answer to "How many cars do you have and where will you park them"? is more important than " I see. Your husband is American and wants to take you on a trip home"., it all starts to look like a failure of America's well quoted, "Innocent until proven guilty" concept.

Yes, those French. Stuck it to us in the long run didn't they. 

Perhaps it is a preference for tax paying immigrants over visitors. 

A visa for the spouse of an American citizen should warrant some higher level of reason to deny. Doesn't mean it is a right for the foreign person, but the citizen should be accorded some right in travel with their spouse. As for security questions, not a single one of those is in the I130 form. So, does that mean you can be any of those and slip on through? 
Different people have different situations. My wife's parents live at the motel. They do most of the work along with an aunt. They prefer it that way, probably so I don't throw out all the junk they have collected in various corners. So it is not an issue if we go away for 3 months.
Honestly, it isn't that much of a privilege. I lived in Australia for 16 years. Great public health system. I have been admitted through emergency numerous times, spend a few days for one thing or another. I have had knee surgery and cancer surgery. I have never received a bill for any hospital treatments. In 2 years if I still lived there, I would qualify for the free public pension system. After our wedding at the end of August 1017, we filed for a spouse visa and visitor visa for Australia. My wife was in Australia on September 21. If I/we wanted to leave Thailand that is where we would go.
 

Actually, there used to be 30/60/90 rule. If you applied within 30 days to modify, it was assumed you entered on false pretense and would be denied. After 60 days it was considered suspect and may be granted depending on information supplied to justify the change. After 90 days it was assume there was a change of circumstances and it would likely be approved.
 
Now it is just 90 days. 

Yes, I understand the problem of illegal immigrants. We happen to know a much younger woman than us who tried for a visitor visa last year. She was denied , because of course she had no reason to go, no job here, no house here, and frankly she just wanted to go find a husband. Was happy to hear she got denied. But when presented with a documented 3 year marriage to an American, there should be a different approach. If it was a 2 week old marriage ok. But 3 years on a 5 year relationship, with the husband in Thailand on a marriage visa, that should indicate they are settled here.

Well....thinking logically about it, which they don't, if one were being dishonest, they would say 1 week, knowing they plan to disappear. So if the person says my husband said he would like to stay 3 months, that probably is the plan. As I understand it, what is given is a 10 year entry permit. The length of stay is set by the immigration officer at the port of entry. The first one is almost always 6 months I am told. So why the shock if a person knows this and says I want to stay 3 months?
She also has two exit stamps from Suvarnabhumi, which means she has travelled international and presumably returned. Again logical thinking required.
It's like the 5 page security questionnaire. Are you going to the US to engage in terrorist activities? Are you going to the US to engage in prostitution? Are you going to the US to engage in espionage? Seriously, who is going to answer yes to any of those, even if they had those intentions. But as long as they feel you have "compelling reasons to return" they are going to accept those answers. Because of course if you were going to conduct a bit of terrorism, you would be compelled to return as soon as you did it.
She told them her husband said he would like to stay 3 months as he had not seen his mother in 17 years. And to repeat my earlier point, when you have an applicant who gives you a 3 year old marriage certificate to an American, if you are thinking logically (already explained above), you would know that if the couple wanted to stay in the US they would just do the immigrant visa and be done. 

Actually, there used to be 30/60/90 rule. If you applied within 30 days to modify, it was assumed you entered on false pretense and would be denied. After 60 days it was considered suspect and may be granted depending on information supplied to justify the change. After 90 days it was assume there was a change of circumstances and it would likely be approved.
 
Now it is just 90 days.