Andy

so just let her cool off and think it over? I know her parents keep telling her to be with me, they already treat me as their son. Does that make matters worse, since the pressure being put upon her?

Will she come back to me and want me to start the procedure? I know she has a heart for me, its just she worry about so many things.....especially being marriage is risky and takes a lot of committment....and she is a generally shy person and has a hard time to express herself. Her english is okay, she is able to understand quite a bit, but has a hard time to speak it. I am able to speak chinese to her though.

It's no good that her parents or you talk to her about being with you - that's just like telling her that what she's afraid of and worried about doesn't matter. Bad approach. It's also not sensible to 'let her cool off' because that's not going to give her anything but an absence of opportunity to work it out.

You need to talk to her. Discover how she feels about the situation so you can understand it, and then work with her to overcome the problems and discover for herself what her future ought to be. If it's with you as you hope, then you'll need to begin the process of overcoming her fears about the future in the US, a place that is so different than anything she knows that anything she imagines about it will be daunting and bad.

Talk to her, and encourage her to talk to you about everything she feels in this situation. Stop thinking about what impact it has on you and start thinking what impact is has on her. If she sees you care enough about her to want to really know what's going on in her mind and to patiently work with her to see if things can be resolved, she'll find the idea of marriage less daunting because she'll know you're on her side.

Try anything else and you'll make it harder to resolve. Start by telling her that you'll not file the papers and want to talk it all over for as long as it takes to sort it all out. Tell her parents to stop pushing her, and then the pressure on her won't seem so bad.

And good luck by the way! Don't forget that pretty much every couple have this problem at some stage in the immigration process - indeed, many who don't have to go through an immigration case - so it's not unusual to have a bit of alarm of this sort. The solution is in how you deal with it and how able you are to put yourself in your partners shoes.

Just some off-the-top-of-my head thoughts...

Last point first: the last people to be the right ones to moderate the site are the ones who WANT to moderate the site. The best moderators are those who do it because they know it's a necessary evil and who tread as softly as they can when posting anything, whether 'moderator' content or immigration information, and who rarely trim or lock.

On to your other points: Yes. I agree entirely with the structural/organizational ideas, and indeed they have been alluded to before in this thread in the course of discussion. I don't think there is an issue with what is or isn't needed most - I think improvements are needed overall, and those improvements can readily be achieved and implemented together or not.

No it's not weird, it's an inevitable part of the process for someone who faces an uphill struggle with an unknown bureaucracy for a long period of frustration to then have the chance to leave behind everything familiar and start a new life somewhere so incomprehensibly different that it all seems impossible.

If you want to stand any chance of this working out, you have to give it time, and every ounce of understanding you can. Marriage requires two people who want it to work, and who want to face the same world together. If you don't understand the things she's going through, then you need to talk to her about it, ask her and listen. If she knows you're on her side and she wants to be with you, she'll come round. If not, then the marriage would not have worked.

There's no way in resetting counts? I don't give advice where I have no idea what's going on. I just came here to find out people's timelines. Well, if my congratulatory is a nusuance to seasoned members, I just will not post anymore. I thought that those who's receiving those messages are happy. But, they're not I guess.

This is not a business, or any benefit to me for posting so much congratulatory. I guess nobody realizes that.

I think you need to read what I said again, and not presume it was an attack!

Hmmm...Can someobody do a reset post counts. I am not in it for post counts when I say congratulations. I view the timelines of those who successfully went through the process, and at the excitement of seeing how happy they are I leave them a message. Or, better yet. Just not show the post counts, and let me be at the average counts forever.

I said I'd shut up, but you raise a point related to something I said that deserves comment.

VJ was ALWAYS intended to be a place where people could, should and were encouraged to post when good things happened, and where others could, should and would post congratulatory messages. It was a critical part of the need of the community then, and personally I think it is now just the same. There's nothing wrong with posting either type of message, and we should all welcome every scrap of success our members enjoy.

But post count is misleading - can be very misleading to those who don't know how it came about. To a newbie, 1,000 'great news, well done' posts is just the same, or more likely indeed to have been, 1,000 'this is how you do it' contributions. Yet it can't be turned off because otherwise there are no indicators of 'trust' of any kind for posters to go off other than how long anyone has been here - and that's not a safe indicator either!

I saw you get bashed in another thread earlier for your post count and way it was achieved, and the sad fact is that even if the poster was right in that criticism, it's still a sad reminder of how things have gone a little wrong here. Your 'congratulations' posts are every bit as much a part of the community here as my 'how immigration law works' posts (obliquely referring to that thread!) and they should be treated as such. To me, a 'post #######' is someone who posts fast and furious to build up the count just to seem important, and worse, who then uses that apparent status to try and assert views that supplant the wisdom of those who really do know. Post whores are the only ones who really know who they are, and while I used the term generically, it's inappropriate in my view for it to be used as a term to be bandied between users. That's something that while not perhaps a violation of the TOS, I would like to see stamped out.

Do you think that having member moderators will fix all that?

To address that question specifically, yes. The right moderators, chosen along the lines as suggested a page or two back in this thread, are capable of adjusting and modifying behavior patterns of posters, content and attitude very quickly. They can do that because unlike you, they are actively involved. There are potential pitfalls, which is why the choice needs to be carefully made and then those selected given the opportunity to demonstrate their skills for a relatively short period to make sure they understand the role and can perform it, but the right handful of members can do a great deal to restore the community and cohesion that VJ was famed for, but has not been for a while now.

What I don't get, with all due respect, is your objection to this. I've proposed (as I did last year) that you pick the people to do this job, and by and large you would define the boundary of their responsibilities. We've already told you in this thread why we think it's a good thing, and after untangling moderating issues from the K-1/NOA issue Tracy started with and which is now resolved (with thanks), the question of member-moderation seems the most logical place to start on the whole slew of issues about content and direction.

The problem is that your view seems tied to specific TOS violations and clearly identifiable violators, but the problems are by and large far more subtle than that, with the implication that far more hands-on solutions are needed for things to be resolved comfortably without risking the site falling into organisational and functional disrepair. The very people who really need to be feeding into the Guides and FAQ are the ones who are being discouraged by what's going on and who become less likely to do so. Bad, and I mean BAD advice gets handed out to people by members who simply don't know or don't mind offering 'advice' that is actually encouraging others to break the law - is that against the TOS? By the time you get to do anything, is it fast enough to prevent a member mistaking it for good advice?!

Doesn't it seem reasonable to suppose, that over time, if VJ slips a bit and then a bit more, the seasoned regulars upon whom it relies will drift away because here they get shouted down or drowned out, or derided for wanting to do things 'the right way'?! Wouldn't it be wise to figure out a plan about how to stop that happening, before it does? Don't you think that of those of us who have raised this collection of issues, there is a sufficient degree of experience with active participation in the site that we might actually know what we're talking about?

The thing is that even amongst us, there's wide disparity of view about the solution to all of these things, but the one thing we seem to agree on is that better moderation is needed - which is not a reflection of your own skills or responsibilities here, just that as participants we see it differently, and we see a downward trend that needs halting, that as the moderator you couldn't hope to see.

Anyway - that's my view and I'll shut up. Status as the 6th ever VJ member doesn't entitle me to be any more right than anyone else!

This is an important point because I honestly will not see things if they are not reported....

THAT is one of the primary reasons for having a moderating team comprising members who are invested in the outcome.

There are other issues at hand other than that. I would rather not list them all but suffice it to say that I still think that if we work as a team and with the proper tools the site can see some benefits.

Working as a team at the very least implies a degree of equity and cooperation, not to mention information exchange, rather than imposition of a decision by one in the face of commentary by others.

As I see it, there are plenty of members in the discussion areas who need better support and tools that help keep issues under control and content and climate conducive to the working of the site. That they don't get this, that the guides and FAQ are falling out of date and that more and more content is being posted that has greater potential to the detriment of readers than before is indicative of what we have been saying here.

We know what we want VJ to be - a community of members involved it US immigration issues in whatever form, who use this place as somewhere to visit as often as they need and get help, have questions answered, provide information, yell success from the rooftop, get commiseration and support on failure, to just gather and encourage, or be encouraged, the let off steam, to find the key.

The actual truth is, I think, that in every respect to some degree it is failing. It's not so much a community any more because so many people tend to be pulling in too many different directions. We've become a club for some where they can gather with a few 'friends' and mutter and moan or contribute often unhelpful content to other people's threads. We've got some who have just entered the process but already give advice (some very bad). We have others who decry anything that isn't there own contribution. Others who bully members with sharp retorts and personal invective. It's increasingly difficult to get help here since many are very sharp with the 'read the guides' replies that while perhaps correct in an ideal world, don't take into account the fact that the guides are not heavily maintained. Or who's question is answered by someone with no real knowledge but who wants to assert themselves as right. By post-hoares who run up their post count with 'hello', 'congratulation', 'me too' type answers and thus when they contribute remarks of any kind, are taken by newbie or those unfamiliar with them as being somehow authoritative. We have threads that are hijacked by personal discussions where the OP never gets another look in, or where the answers degenerate into debate about something related but not responsive to the OP. We have complex cases (and in truth even the simplest immigration case has considerable complexity and nuance) which are handled as if the issues were black and white and simple. We have posters who are in trouble and derided, contributors who know what they are talking about being mocked, belittled and contradicted by those who don't. There are members who come here with difficulties and who face personal attack and vilification, or are dealt with abruptly or with a prickly and unfriendly attitude. We have replies like 'it's your own fault' and 'get over it'.

What we have is an unruly society of people, doing their own thing, saying what they want, when they want, where they want and without a great deal of regard for much but their own freedom of expression. The atmosphere in many areas is not supportive, but combative.

If that's the VJ you want, then shame. If it's not, then you might want to enlighten 'the team' with an explanation as to your plans to resolve some or all of the above?

Captain, last year you appeared amenable to member-moderation, for all the reasons that were discussed at the time, and which had been raised as significantly important to the continued functioning of the site as a viable resource. Now you are not, and yet VJ has deteriorated in many ways in that time.

I find it little short of incredible that you do not seem prepared to give any thought to the issues of moderation quality and purpose that we have raised here, other than to promise 'tools' of an uncertain nature that have about as much probability of assisting in these concerns as a newbie K-1 in the legal niceties of a 221g filing.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but "I am not considering member moderators. The moderation will continue to be run but non participating parties that act solely based on the Terms of Service" not only falls well short of what is clearly needed in the discussion areas, but is a rather disappointing attitude in the face of members asking for it to be otherwise.

It should always be noted that since US immigration rules require that every person seeking to enter the US to visit are assumed to be intent on remaining, it is the responsibility of the individual to be able to demonstrate otherwise is requested. Patterns of previous visits which show longer periods or repeated periods of stay in the US previously, and thus less time in the UK tend to make immigration officials suspicious about exactly where the individuals main ties are to. In the event further visits are planned or intended, it is always wise to have some evidence of value to help show that even if a lot of time has been spent in the US previously, there strong remaining ties to the home country. A letter from personnel at work confirming your vacation dates is a great piece of evidence to have, demonstrating as it does that you have employment which is on-going and what your return date would be. A mortgage payment book showing up to date monthly payments is also helpful.

However, if by action or implication there appears any risk that you will not leave or intend not to, denial is automatic.

It's also not surprising to hear reports of 'bad attitude' at Dublin - those who get denied entry and not usually minded to be full of praise for the choice or treatment, and may well not have been adequately prepared to demonstrate their non-immigrant intent and thus received less than pleasing handling by officials.

It may not be a good idea to put names forward at this point so much as focus purely on the need for better moderation, the parameters of moderating work, and the method and circumstances of selection. If, for example, it is felt that Captain Ewok ought to be the arbiter of choice in selection, it's unjust to push names forward here that could influence choice to the possible detriment of others who are busy in other areas and not mentioned here.

Personally, I'd like to see an agreement on there being member-based moderators appointed and have their roles clarified before there was any suggestion as to who might be best suited. Different roles may warrant consideration of different people after all.

Pretty much every State has laws that are beyond bizarre and sometimes completely nuts, but even if found unconstitutional, because of the way US law is drafted and made, such things are rarely withdrawn so they may lie on the books for all time. That doesn't mean they have any validity or force. Those that define 'acceptable' sexual practices are a good case in point. Not only are they unenforceable, but as a result of US Supreme Court opinions in recent years, have become ineffective.

In the US, what is, and isn't 'law' is not just about what is listed on the statute books.

As such, even if there WERE an active law criminalising suicide in any given State, immigration law is Federal. It does not have to recognise State law in such an area, and indeed does not. Immigration law lays down the basis on which a visa application can be denied, and whilst mental illness has a tangential part in the potential for rendering an applicant ineligible, such would only be the case if the individual was a danger to him/herself. In a situation where there was medical evidence of good control and no recent (ie, within the last 5 years) deviations from safe and effective treatment, there would be no grounds for such an ineligibility finding.

Details on what medical grounds DO constitute ineligibility can be found at http://www.visalaw.com/04mar1/2mar104.html and for those with a broader interest, the broader areas in which there can be grounds for inadmissibility can be found http://www.visalaw.com/05apr1/2apr105.html

If she was an exotic dancer would that be considered a CIMT? Just out of curiosity. Im wondering if the embassy would view this occupation in the same light.

One of the problems here is that the entire notion of 'moral turpitude' is so loosely defined that much depends on how the issues is viewed by the individual, rather than by the specifics involved in a case. As such, the line between what is and isn't likely to be considered in those terms varies from location to location, and as a result it's far less likely that such would be judged to have crossed that line in (for example) Thailand, where sex work is a far more prolific and unremarkable industry, than, (for example) in the UK.

It's not the job itself that counts of course, so much as what the job involves - and to some extent the degree to which the person undertook that work voluntarily or by coercion or necessity. Consular officials have considerable discretion in how they view the matter, and do so on a case-by-case basis. That's why it works far better to be honest and explain the circumstances, because that way the context makes it possible for the adjudicator to approve the application despite the job history.

Incidentally, a serious problem would also occur if the work was not openly declared but became apparent during the interview, because not only would the adjudicator have the question of moral turpitude to consider, plus the possibility of judging the omission to have been a deliberate attempt to obscure a material fact, but even assuming a decision to let the application go forward, there would be the question of whether the petition indicated the petitioner knew of this work. If not, then the probability would be that the consular officer would then refer the case back to the USCIS for review since the employment history would be expected to impact the petitioner's choice to continue or not.

I did the same, but this question perplexes me still, how do you "prove" to someone else that you met another person. Passport stamps, boarding passes, hotel receipts only show you were at a particular place at a particular time, but nothing in there shows proof of meeting anybody in particular (except maybe customs officials, airline officials, or hotel workers). I think pictures are better proof (assuming we say *nothing* about PhotoShop), but unless you are holding up a newspaper or something giving the date, how is that proof that the meeting happened in the last two years? I passed this question around my office, no-one has yet to come up with definitive proof, everything seems to be just circumstantial evidence. I think a better form of proof would be an eyewitness under oath (who would lie to the USCIS?), but haven't come-up with a good way yet to mail one into the USCIS

It's too easy to slip into the notion of 'proof', which of course is impossible. You can't prove an event happened, even if there are witnesses to it! All you can do is collect 'evidence', which when taken together builds a picture that shows it is more probable than not that the meeting took place in the time required. It helps to think of evidence like a jigsaw, where every piece adds to the picture until it's complete. Provide what adds to the picture, and don't provide what doesn't.

Don't take this too casually though, because otherwise you risk getting an RFE. Consider what evidence is more solid and what is weaker. Things that cannot be tampered with, such as airline boarding passes with name, date and flight details are telling because they can't be faked and can be verified with airlines, while letters or emails can be faked and are therefore of lesser value. That doesn't mean NO value, just less telling.

Oh, and as for how they are chosen.... the problem is that Captain Ewok has to be able to work closely with them and have trust in them as part of the 'management team' so in reality he's going to have to pick them. There are several ways of going about it, the only really bad one is by asking for volunteers. I'd say the best way is one of two methods:

Method 1: Captain Ewok decides, based on whatever criteria appears to him to be most appropriate to the forum and after giving whatever thought he sees as necessary. It's not as arbitrary as it seems to do it that way - it was how the original moderating team were picked, and (not speaking for myself but the others) worked very well in practice.

Method 2: We start a new thread here asking for nominations for moderators, where any person nominating someone has to give a brief explanation as to why. After a set period, nominations close and Captain Ewok then decides who won. We can't risk it being done by popular vote because there are too many possible 'winners' who are popular because they belong to a clique or group and who would win for that reason rather than their moderating skills.

Of the two, I'd favor method 1. It's simplest and ensures Captain Ewok retains overall control. I propose 5 moderators be selected with the objective of setting them loose no later than mid-April, for perhaps 3 months as a trial. Any of the 5 could have that status revoked if there are a significant volume of complaints which Captain Ewok adjudges to be fair. If, after 3 months it seems to be working well, the moderators continue in place.

The new sub-forum looks fine to me. It's not quite what I had in mind since I was anticipating the new area to appear under the existing K-1 topic on the main page as a separate object from it, but a sub-forum works just as well if it stands out sufficiently. The only complaint I see is that because it's a sub-forum, there isn't a line of text to explain what it's for as there is with the renamed K-1 topic.

I was thinking about the 'moved' thread links appearing in the K-1 area, and at first it seemed a bad thing to keep seeing them, but in retrospect it's not because aside from the fact they'll move down and the way they appear in the list doesn't impede quick scanning of the active threads, it also has to be said that they act as a sort of guide to everyone too - that posts about NOAs and case progress get put somewhere else - a sort of passive moderating.

And while on the subject of moderators, to my mind the question of who they should be and whether they are known or not was where this issue got stuck last time.

My own view is that moderators should be appointed from amongst the membership. Known, long-standing members. They should have the 'moderator' tag attached to posts such that it is visible when they contribute, because for the most part their contributions would be to help guide discussions rather than edit them. The objective would be to keep topics on-topic and the posting climate as positive as possible with the lightest touch possible, and that means they have to be trusted to be able to exercise good judgement and fairness, but be able to withstand the stresses and strains of occasional abuse in reaction to their posts which would inevitably follow when certain posters are aggrieved at being 'nudged' back into line. They need to be members who are respected already, or at least who's contributions are respected - though in the somewhat combative climate out there, that might be hard to achieve!

Finally, they should be appointed for a limited time at first, such that if their actions as moderators are not appropriate to the task, another will be appointed in their place at a set time (if not before).

Above all, when responding to immigration questions, a member who is also a moderator will have to be mindful that their view, opinion or statement can readily be taken to be representative of Visa Journey as a whole rather than just of themselves as a member, making the appropriate phrasing of contributions more crucial than for any other member. Moderators must absolutely be capable of thinking first, and acting after!

Thoughts?

The reason why the topic has spread amongst several divergent issues is because it reflects a number of areas of disquiet with the usage or focus of the site, and it's operability. Some of these are the same issues as were discussed in this area a year or so ago, and which resulted in some members having the power to move threads around, but not in exercising better control of the site in any other respect.

Some issues are undoubtedly related to the explosion of threads in the K-1 area in particular, caused by the disparity of processing times between service centers, meaning there are abundant and regular posts from some announcing approvals or other positive action, while the majority (3/4 of the K-1 membership) have to sit and wait an interminable time by comparison with no action. The frustration of the one group and the insensitivity of the other is palpable, and the solution was thought, I believe, to be a separate area (my suggestion was to place it next to the existing K-1 area on the main forum page and do a bit of renaming for better 'guidance', but others have thought it would be better inside the K-1 area as a sub-group. Not only would creating a place of this sort help the 3/4 membership who are having to wait out the process longer than the 1/4 who don't, but it would also help clean the K-1 area up so that those asking questions or trying to help don't have to wade through an abundance of 'litter'. It would help target the K-1 area better.

I think we all have to admit that the tendency of new users posting instead of reading is a factor we can't really control. In the long term I'd like to see clear and concise guides by issue as downloadable links, perhaps pinned or otherwise made very obvious, but in order to reach the point where that work can be done - getting the guides and other materials up to date and as accurate as possible, there are active moderation issues to be addressed in trying to bring some control and create a more positive atmosphere for posters to work in and help gradually reduce the clutter.

Better moderation is needed everywhere on the site - excepting off topic perhaps which is there for entirely different purposes than the rest of the site. I think we all agree that things are less than ideal and VJ isn't able to effectively function as well as it has in the past for a whole host of reasons, not least being the gradual loss of focus on the question/answer/help/support role of each topic area.

Ultimately, those regulars who are capable of strengthening the informational resources and answering questions competently need to be encouraged and have some investment here other than the frustration of time spent struggling against the tide. Those people are the backbone of the site, and I sense that in many ways they're being discouraged. A couple of the contributions in this very thread, where a somewhat rambling but worthwhile, and for many crucial, discussion of some fundamental VJ issues has been met with derision is a good example.

But of course you're asking for a consensus and like everyone else here I'm just a participant. You know from our prior discussions what I feel is needed, and I don't see my viewpoint as changed in any way.

ON EDIT: regarding the possibility that other areas would want the same additional 'progress' type topic area off the main page if K-1 got it - why not? What's the problem with that if it helps organize the site - and since everyone is interested in progress and success stories, it should do just that. It might then mean the service center topic area could go completely too, plus assistant with a little re-purposing.

And may be you are not american but you do not sound as an eastern european too....

What I 'sound like' to you seems more like racial stereotyping than anything else to me, and it doesn't have any bearing on this discussion. Since you don't know anything about me, it's not really possible for you to make a cogent judgement.

Ultimately, the US immigration system functions in the framework of American culture and law however, so whomever anyone is, the one consistent factor is having to pass through this mechanism, as constructed by American lawmakers and operated by American civil servants.

There are certainly people who are in the US unlawfully one way or another - an unknown number of million of them to be somewhat vaguely precise - but that's hardly a good argument for adding to the number or recommendation for a good way of life! Nor does that fact mitigate in any way what are the rules and laws governing the legal immigration process.

By the way, in doing casework, I do put myself in other people's shoes every day. I wouldn't do it if I were not prepared to do so. I have learnt (and I can tell you that it's true) that a very conservative attitude to the US immigration system is the best way to avoid problems when dealing with it. It's not 'american' to take that approach, it's what works for the people on behalf of whom I work.

I do not think though that you would understand me and I sure understand you but i cannot accept your point- you are typical american and I am typical eastern european...we do not speak the same language...

we have grown up trying to find ways around things that we do not like or do not wanna do the way they were supposed to be done. and in america almost everyone does things exactly as they are supposed to - i guess that is the difference.it would definetely be hard adaptation for me in this sense.

But are you saying that you would not lie if you were sure they would not give you a visa?

Firstly, I am not a 'typical american', whatever that is. Not even an American in the first instance in fact. Secondly, while I see that you have just filed your I-129F (and best wishes, good luck and I hope you are processed and approved quickly - sincerely) I have been involved in US immigration casework for almost 8 years now, and if I had a dollar for every case where those involved has said 'I wish I'd known then what I do now', or some such, I'd be rather rich by now.

I understand you perfectly well, and I understand the cultural background of which you speak perfectly well too. The problem is that when coming to the US, a certain amount if adapting to 'the american way' is inevitable, even if it takes time for it to happen. Unfortunately where immigration is concerned, adapting to the needs and mechanisms of the system is crucially important at the outset. It's not that cheats and fraudsters don't get through the system because they do, but typically the ones that do so plan it and understand the systems they are working through far better than the usual applicant, who often in all innocence, get caught. And even if they didn't, it means that every day for the rest of the time the immigrant was in the US, they would have to wonder if today was the day something in their case comes to light that could render them liable to deportation. Given that in an average K-1 case, from date of I-129F filing until Permanent Resident status is approved can be something like 5 years and there are 4 major adjudication in that period of time, all of which involve background checks which are becoming more organized as time passes, the significant risk of being caught out doesn't go away for a long time - and that's without additional consideration given to possibly seeking US Citizenship too, and the impact such a thing could have on that.

Would I lie if I knew I'd be denied? To be honest, I'd be tempted but in the end no, I wouldn't. But then I know the system and I know the waivers and the discretionary powers so I don't have the same view of the procedure you might.

When you go to the interveiw, always take originals, never copies.

Right. But take copies too. In most instances they'll want to originals to verify authenticity, and copies to keep for the file.

Yes the couple would be in some difficulty if they ever found out.....

Consular officials are not just trained to look for any and all signs of irregularities and indications that beneficiaries are not telling the truth, but they get to practice that art every single working day, hundreds and hundreds of times. They know what to look for and they know what signs mean what things. They aren't policemen because unlike policemen, consular staffers only do one thing, over and over again and they get very good at doing it.

The problem is, aside from the lie it would be necessary to tell and then support by further lies during any questioning and by documentary evidence if it is demanded, that on OUR side of the consul desk, being interviewed, we have no idea WHAT information the consulate has access to. Certainly there is much more than merely police certificates. One can either assume they know nothing and can thus not detect the lie if carefully obscured, or that they MIGHT know something, in which case the lie is dangerous. Either way, if the beneficiary goes to interview and exhibits any of the tell-tale signs the officials are trained to spot, there is a problem.

And since you admit you wouldn't take this risk, it seems odd that you'd offer it as a serious contention for anyone else to follow! It's easy to suggest such a fraud if it's someone else who faces the consequence if they get caught. My purpose is to explain to the original poster here how they could get caught if they try.

It certainly could be true that people simply don't have the time or interest to contribute any more, but I suspect that isn't true, based on my observations about "how" people will spend their VJ time when left without guidance. Timelines, daisy paths, fancy siggy images, 'gathering threads' etc..

I wonder if it's not a part of active moderation to strongly encourage people to write up THEIR interview experience, medical appt experience, etc---maybe have a format to help the non-writers flesh it out?. My observation has been that people LOVE to read these stories and LOVE writing up their own.. and it's *those* details where we get valuable consulate-specific tips etc. Perhaps our collective error has been in trying to capture this data into Guides and checklists and 'how to's'? Maybe if we went back to a more stripped down format and encouraged this kind of post writing, the rest would solve itself?

I stongly believe that a member-generated site is best at keeping up with changes in the Service and keeps everyone on the 'right' side of the line by encouraging people to reach their own decisions and conclusions about their cases instead of having the answer supplied. Seasoned members can help with the translation of legalese-->humanspeak so that when people DO read source material or Guides they have a better understanding of what the words mean in Immigrationlandia.

<shrug> It's a culture thing. We can talk all we want, but if the culture is not decided from the top and enforced, you get the Wild West, which is what I think VJ has been for awhile.

I didn't intend to imply that people don't have interest to contribute to the guides etc any more - I think the culture has changed and it acts as a form of deterrent to that kind of participation now, and an increasingly 'trivialized' content.

I agree with you absolutely that active moderation should be about encouragement and facilitating a renewal of energy and a return to the ethos of posting experiences of interviews and the like. I think those were incredibly valuable resources when it was a common part of VJ content and where not only did such posts give insight into the system but also helped prepare those to come and show that it wasn't as much of an ordeal as they gradually come to expect as their own date grows near.

That's the kind of purpose VJ always had, and one of the most significant things it no longer does. Their lack is a disservice to our members, and I think detract greatly from our value.

And yes, absolutely to your other comments. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Business days are Monday-Friday, but there are work process programs and volume targets to meet that mean that yes, some USCIS staffers could well be working over weekends. For the last few years this has always been the case, so there is no reason to believe that the presence of a 'touch' on a Saturday means anything other than that a staffer logged an action relating to that file on that day.

Well I think if the couple decides to do that they would be very careful not to provide contradicting evidence.

I agree with you that it is not recommended but if they think they might not get the visa otherwise...

And I seriously do not believe in the allseeing and allknowing myth about immigration officers and procedures.

But it is to their discression anyway...

So you say that the couple should be careful in conspiring to commit immigration fraud. Given that the DS-230 the beneficiary signs for the visa interview contains the line "WARNING: Any false statement or concealment of a material fact may result in your permanent exclusion from the United States" at the top and on page two asks for details of employment (including job title) for the last 10 years, and since the whole object of concealing that job is to improve the chances of getting the visa, knowing that with the correct details the chances are reduced, I'd say the couple would be in some difficulty if they were to follow your advice.

And seriously, what you believe or don't about the information US immigration officials may have access to, would you risk your own future on guessing you were right? Would you guess employers are never checked and records never sought? Would you assume no police record or name check hit? Would you rely on no irregularities showing in any of the background paperwork? Would you expect no questions about irregularities? Would you assume that consular officials conducting interviews are not trained, and generally very expert, at spotting when they are not being told the truth or when there's something in the paperwork that doesn't add up? What would you do, if you'd conspired to cover up this sort of detail and the consular officer asked you, on oath remember, what you were doing during that period left blank or marked as unemployed - particularly if you don't have 100% certainty that they didn't have evidence you were not telling the truth?

The fact is that declaring that job and explaining it is FAR more likely to result in an approval, than trying to cover it up and being caught.

Well, .....

You've got to be kidding, right?!

I think we've reached, or are reaching, a number of conclusions that go rather beyond giving a handful of members the right to move posts around. First there has to be somewhere to move them to if they're in a bad place rather than just a wrong one, second there are issues of structure, thirds there are issues of direction, purpose and control..... are we to have no progress on those, or are the concerns raised here not worthy of consideration?