Andy

Isn't that correct?

No, it's not correct.

Just wondering...

How would they know about the job if she says unemployed?

Can they check it?How?

For example I know about a lot of people in Bulgaria who went on an interview withut listing all their previous employers (not K1, J1 visa interview though) and nothing happened.

Do u think they would investigate the employers?

No they don't investigate employers - at least not as such - but what you are suggesting is that the beneficiary lies, with deliberate intent to mislead the consular official into granting a visa that might otherwise be denied if the truth were not obscured, meaning that if a visa is granted on that basis and then for any reason the true information becomes known, any immigrant status in the US is subsequently at risk, even years into the future. That's not an entirely reasoned notion, particularly since it is not known exactly what data may be available to the US, or even what other information provided by the couple themselves might contradict the statement.

Seriously - where does this thread end?

The answer to that is whenever those of us who want to contribute to a discussion of the form or function of the site decide they've said what they need to and either the discussion ends naturally or a resolution is reached and implemented.

There are legitimate issues raised here that have spawned from the original suggestion. That's the nature of debate. You have the option not to read it if you think it's beneath your dignity.

What I haven't seen answered is: What does any of this do to encourage people to actually be researching their own information or be reading ahead on their own process? I'm constantly surprised by the busy posters who turn up in the AOS forums (and others later down the road) asking 'eek, what now?! I haven't studied a thing and I need to mail this AOS next week!'. It is so much easier for people to simply ask the question and have the forum repeat repeat repeat that valuable information from past threads gets discarded. Gentle attempts to get people to read more get slammed like devilette has experienced (unfairly) this week--attempts like Ewok's 'Please consider reading the Guides..' message is clearly ignored.

Members also don't feel a contributory responsibility--that is what I miss about the olden days. Interview and experience posts are few and far between, the FAQ is falling into a shambles alongside the Guides and there is an uproar when someone's Consular post isn't listed in the reviews---because no one else before has bothered to add it to the site. IMO, members depend too much on the VJ gods to just deliver all the info (and are snippy if something is out of date!) instead of helping keep this dynamic information current.

Ewok is one creature. Site design & implementation, administration, moderate all the minutia of some very silly threads AND be an expert on all angles of immigration to keep the guides etc up to date? sheesh.

There are a lot of people who do contribute to keeping things up--I in no way mean to demean their contributions. But all of the 'new inventions' that members create on their own (timieline threads etc) seems like energy that could be channeled into activities that benefit the whole instead of a handful.

There are two issues to consider from this I think:

The first is human nature. People really don't read before asking and by and large they never have. VJ, like every other immigration resource, and other such places I frequent, have always been awash with questions that a bit of reading or some light research would have answered without much trouble. But most users interact with the site along the line of least resistance/easiest personal experience and that is to post first and look around second.... assuming they ever get that far!

We can try all sorts of ways to mitigate this behavior, but in reality it won't work - at least not without risking damaging the service being offered here. Posting replies along the lines of 'read the guides' is understandable, and informative in that if the user hasn't read them or doesn't know they're there, they are being pointed to a resource that has considerable potential benefit to them, but for many it will leave them frustrated at the apparently dismissive responses they get here and they'll go elsewhere. Likewise, if they DO read the guides and can't figure out what they mean or how they relate to the information - and many users simply wouldn't have enough notion to begin to understand without some assistance at least, they'll also go elsewhere.

I can't say I am surprised or disappointed though that you see the same faces pop up later in their own process still asking questions. Researching the whole process at the outset can make the entire process seem far more daunting and complex than it really is, and answer lots of questions they don't have in their own situation. Not only that, but it risks them being out of date on information is the process changes or some new issue comes to light while they are underway.

There was a notion at one point, a long time ago now, to combine the guides and faqs into a series of downloadable files such that when logging in, options to download documents about specific case types, procedures or supporting information would be presented to them rather than leave it to a more passive notice and for people to have to click on things in order to get into the data. It never happened because at the time VJ was much smaller and it seemed less urgent than perhaps now, and because the difficulty in ensuring the information was kept up to date by those who actually knew for sure what they were talking about would have inevitably led to outdated information at times. That would not always be a problem in itself, but there would have been an unacceptable risk of misleading a user and causing potentially serious problems. The same is true of the informational content on the site as it is, except that of course because it's not widely read and users post instead, they don't see it in the guides/faq where it tends to carry more authority than a misleading post in the forum which everyone knows can't reliably be taken as true and good advice.

The second is moderation. Without the sort of active moderation that VJ hasn't had since Steve's day, just about any content is OK and the culture and climate has changed as a result. People often forget that good moderation isn't about curtailing freedom of speech or hacking posts or threads apart, but about ensuring the forum is fit for purpose and that it stays on mission. The lack of it leads to a rather shambolic place that is full of content that tugs the whole venture away from what it is supposed to do by obscuring content that is what the site is supposed to be about.

I remember the cliques of a not-so-long-ago where just about every thread turned into a bouncing round of inane contributions about fruit etc, making it impossible to provide help and assistance and continually preventing useful discussion. The contributors didn't intend to have that effect, but that's the consequence of it. We still see many threads that degenerate with off-topic and completely irrelevant contributions, and ultimately it makes it harder for the knowledgeable to respond coherently and have their replies considered, and it makes it harder for someone with a question to ask get the help and assistance they need.

Active moderation resolves those things and if done well, is barely noticeable in any way except that the posters who need help are more visible, and those who want to help are more able to deliver it.

Oh, and I guess the third of two issues: many members seem to place very little value in VJ as a resource, somewhat taking for granted their right to be here and post what they like without consideration to others or the consequence. Users need to be reminded (again, a moderator can do this) when people step out of line with snippy posts or insulting or divisive comment, just as those who may be able to help keep the guides and faqs together and up to date need to be supported in that effort.

I think Visa Case Filing & Progress Reports is a great name but it doesn't imply anything about touching/NOA1/NOA2 posts. I'm thinking on it...

Well, no idea is perfect. I am a committee after all!

But I think that sort of name makes sense and does imply any activity - or could be named in such a way as it includes any such activity.

Of course, let's not forget that there's a descriptive line under the title that would allow for an explanation of the purpose. Not everyone will read that, but most do.

I think many people, seeing the original title change to 'Questions and Help' will have a good grasp of the purpose of 'Case Filing & Progress Reports', and new posters who weren't used to the old scheme will be easily guided there if they don't work it out for themselves.

Nothing wrong or problematic about the fact she had a prior K-1 and it was while in that status that you met. She can expect some questions on the subject during consular interview to ensure that she is not 'visa seeking' and does, in fact, have a genuine relationship with you, but on that front, that's all.

As to evidence - photos are import, but then like anything else they don't tell the whole story, such as, when exactly were they taken. You need to consider evidence in the light of the picture you want to paint - that you not only did meet, but that it was in the last two years. That's why such things as boarding passes and copies of her passport stamp would be useful, because those are dated and unequivocal, as would be any hotel bill or receipt in her name from the period of stay, or any other such document as car hire agreement etc.

There is absolutely no requirement that you travel to her country, nor any penalty or problem in processing a case that is consequent on you not doing so. It's entirely your choice if you wish to make that journey and, as one contributor said, meet her in her own surroundings in order to facilitate getting to know her as best as possible.

I can't believe it's being suggested that the beneficiary attempt to mask the nature of the job when all it would take is for her to be asked 'exactly what did this entail' or for any record of the actual substance of the job to surface during processing. Given that sex workers are at risk of being found ineligible on the grounds of moral turpitude, any hint that she has tried to obscure the facts is easily taken to be an omission of a material fact. Being denied a visa on those grounds is far harder to overcome than on moral turpitude.

Honesty and forthrightness may not be the easiest course to consider in this situation, but it is far safer to do so when the system is geared towards discovering these kind of details in a beneficiary's background.

Reading/following this thread is like watching our Congress on CSPAN.

A lesson on how a very simple idea (which by the way, people have already begun doing on their own) has turned into Grandstanding, Filibustering (talking w/out listening), Over-Sight Committees, Lobbyists, Study-Groups, Opinion Polls, Pork Belly Ad-Ons, and Historical Reminiscence.. it's no wonder nothing gets done in government...

~Rant

And poor Capt.Ewok..stuck in the middle...

It's the same consequence as trying to design by committee, but to trivialize the contributions and ideas of those who have concerns at the way the forum works and that it is best able to meet it's objectives is not all that helpful in itself!

Just as another idea, how about renaming the existing K-1 forum from 'K-1 Fiance(e) Visa General Discussion' to K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Questions and Help' and then adding a new one underneath called 'K-1 Fiance(e) Visa Case Filing and Progress Reports'

"Celebrating Milestones"

I think it may have to be a rather more obvious 'in your face' sort of name than that or many won't realize that it's for their service center/NOA/filer/woopee posts.

PS...Andy, if you're still reading this...been meaning to get back to you! Have been awfully busy but things are going really well (our two year anni was Monday!) and WILL get back to you soon...appreciate your insights!!! M.

Hi Michelle!

Yes, still watching - and I hoped that not hearing from you was the result of good stuff keeping you busy! Happy (belated) anniversary to you and Craig by the way!

And I agree with you on the link to the moved topics being just as much clutter as the unmoved topic would have been. Not a great help when trying to navigate around. I'd put the 'Whoopee! Good News! Read All About it!' sub topic inside the K-1 area itself and maybe do the same in other areas to help collect the clutter in the first place. People who see that sort of sub-area clearly for their good news, will be much easier guided to post there in the first place.

Andy

Yes, if you read those two quotes you mentioned and ignore the others...

I read those items quoted in the context in which they were written, nothing more, nothing less. Those were emotive forms of expression that underpin the frustrations, but which I didn't find mitigated through other comments. What's more, in the context of the wider discussion between various members in this thread (and from previous threads on the same subject) they are indicative of the kind of things that get said, whether meant or otherwise, and which in these kind of written environments are very easily the cause of upset or confrontation.

Do I think you meant them that way? No. But I think it easy, in the context of my point that 'these very sentiments are the reason people might feel there's resentment' to use forms of words that have potential to be misconstrued, and which can't readily be taken back if it happens.

It would, I agree, be nice to see sympathetic posts from VSCers, and it's sad that it doesn't really happen and that for the most part there's no obvious way for VSC filers to be collectively aware of the issue and thus be sensitive to it. That too is something that should be fixed, because it IS the same boat we are all sailing in.

Yeah, I am the guilty one on that. :-p In general everyone I would like to say that moderation is a passive event and that I would emphasize that you should please report any threads using the "report tool" if you believe something is a violation of the TOS. ....

Well with all due respect, this isn't so much a specific TOS issue as it is an issue with maintaining better order. There are, for example, myriad's of threads where some random comment drags the thing off topic so far that the OP can't realistically get further help, or follow what's being said. Other places such as the K-1 area where the littering of 'whoopee' and 'NOA' and 'monthly filer' threads makes it hard to actually pick through the content, let alone the upset it causes to everyone else. These aren't really TOS violations, but they are detrimental to the function of the site, and there are undoubtedly other examples too.

I think there's a rather pleasing irony in the face of comments regarding the need for improved and increased moderation, that not only has the post I replied to in the above since gone, but also the quote of it in my own!

I don't think that would be an entirely safe conclusion, but in a real sense the whole issue of unlicensed practice of law was never the absolute threat that it was made out to be. The reality was that even if a complaint was filed with the appropriate state bar association(s) it would be hard to prove the point given the nature of internet discussion groups and the sheer impracticality of it. However, it was enough at the time to cause major upheaval here, which even in the absence of an actual complaint, effectively brought VJ to a standstill. Since something had to be done it made sense to hand the site over to the captain - though I regret that it meant that members ceased to have any real control of the site. That was one of the features that had made VJ strong.

The sad fact is though that at the very least, much of the solution does in fact depend on more active and effective moderation, because without that for every step forward in structural organization, we'll take two steps back in posting content!

It always comes back to this very point.

Geez, I mean every other board I've posted on has a gammet of mods. Why is there such a lack here?

Well, there are good reasons it ended up this way. When Steve gave up this site, the member-based moderating team lost their control too. It happened because it was necessary to protect VJ from attack from a lawyer who's apparent intent was to close it down, and as long as the site was run and moderated by members, it was at risk of being forced out of business if any of the 'management' contributed anything that was problematic (in the legal sense). Claims of Unlicensed Practice of Law and all that, which could be directed at the site as a result of member moderation, rather than any any individual. Part of the notion of passing control to the current site admin, Captain Ewok, was that if moderating was done purely on behavioral issues not the actual content of answers/replies/explanations the site would not be vulnerable.

In a purely legal and simplistic sense it did make sense at the time, though the reality was not so much that VJ or the then moderators were at risk as that the lawyer was ... well in my humble option, barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, complicated and not really of much interest in the detail I suspect.

In the first instance after Captain Ewok took over there were a few others listed in the moderating team, but there was not much content-driven control, and now I see the 'team' is just the Captain. Discussion regarding increasing the moderating team have happened, largely due to similar concerns as being expressed here, but nothing seems to have come out of it. Ultimately, Captain Ewok, as the Site Admin is the only arbiter of choice.

I had a major issue on the day i found and joined VJ. I wouldn't have given VJ a seconds look if I had to wait a week prior to posting. Nothing in the guides would have been able to help me with a refusal at the interview.

I think in reality that's true of many people. It's also true that many who come here needing help don't know enough to actually know what to read or what it means when they've read it. It strikes me that the idea of forcing people to wait any period before posting the first time is a simple recipe for having them go elsewhere, and have VJ tail off into the future with decreasing membership.

With the best will in the world we cannot legislate for human nature. What we have to do is look at way to effectively remediate the behaviors that come out of it - which is why this thread is a good one, because we can see what these issues are and what effect they have, and we're discussing what we can do to improve things.

The sad fact is though that at the very least, much of the solution does in fact depend on more active and effective moderation, because without that for every step forward in structural organization, we'll take two steps back in posting content!

ON EDIT: Yes, it's tough to solve when the people suffering the problem have no control over the outcome!

It seems to me that these very sentiments are the reason people might feel there's resentment:

At a certain point, a level of frustration and "who decided that they deserve to be with their loved one before me" kicks in ....

And, sometimes... you would like those VSC'ers who are running to the front of the line...

The fact is that no VSC filer has decided they deserve to be with their loved ones any faster than anyone else, and no VSCer is running to the front of the queue. They get the service they get, and characterizing it in these sort of terms in not a fair representation. If I were a VSC filer, I'd somewhat resent the implication.

What I think we all understand is the consequence in terms of the sheer frustration of watching month after month after month of filers get approved while you're still waiting to hear, but it isn't through any action, intention or desire on the part of those people that their cases are running faster in the first instance than yours. It is also an intrinsic consequence of the way the system works, and there have always been discrepancies in processing times.

Not long ago, before the AOS process was revamped, depending on where you were in the country your AOS application could take anything from 2 or 3 hours to 3 years. Some got walk-in options in their DOs and some got a prolonged queue with multiple EAD applications. Before that it was Citizenship, where some got processed in 3 months, and some weren't completed after 5 years pending. There have always been 'before that...' examples of the same things.

As victims of this iniquitous system, we should all be outraged by it's variability, inefficiency, dire bureaucracy, idiotic design and methodology, obstructive and opaque nature, whether we've been on the loosing end of the equation or not. We are ALL victims of the system in some way, and it's exactly that for which VJ is intended to help.

The frustration is understandable, the characterization isn't.

There is, as one would expect, another facet to this question which warrants a brief mention.

Since the long-term goal in seeking or attending interviews implies an intent to remain, and thus immigrant intent as a whole, two factors are crucial - that there is in fact a legitimate path to lawful employment in the US for the B visa holder, and that IF ASKED the B visa holder states that an intent exists to attend one or more interviews if such is planned or scheduled at the time of entry.

Both factors go to the heart of immigrant intent. Thus if, for example, a K-1 beneficiary visits on a B-2 and has an interview, there's no issue because the K-1 is only for those cases where immigrant intent is clearly demonstrated. On the other hand, if the B visa holder has no legitimate long-term immigrant path, attending interviews for work and not declaring that to be his or her intent at the time of entry could create considerable problems later on, since by most measures of such things, the lack of indication of that intention would very likely be considered a material factor in the granting of admission, and the lack of statement to that effect would thusly have potentially very harmful impact on future visa applications.

Of course, that's a bit of a strictly 'rules based' issue rather than anything, but it just goes to show why differing opinions can be expected even in relatively simple situations!

I disagree. There must be some reason cases get transferred-be it a backlog at the local office or what.....

There are very good reasons - at least, pertinent and telling, not necessarily positive, reasons - that cases get transfered, and indeed for all other aspects of the way cases are processed and by what mechanisms things are done. In the absence of detailed knowledge people tend to make assumptions, and those assumptions, if sufficiently plausible, when repeated often enough take on the appearance of fact when in reality they may be well and truly off the mark, but in the absence of knowledgeable correction, they gain currency in their own right however wrong they are.

It also has to be said that even were a knowledgeable person to post information to correct such an established misconception, in the current climate it would likely lead to a heated discussion with plenty of posters presuming an error in the contradiction of known 'fact'!

As with many of the issues relating to how VJ functions and where it doesn't do so well, human nature is the biggest hurdle - and that's not readily fixable!

......Alternatively.....

That's my preferred option I think!

By the way, good to 'see' you again!

I guess rebeccajo just succintly posted (in three small paragraphs) what I've been trying to get at. I think the timeline driven VJ doesn't help VJ - it, in fact, hurts it.

I couldn't agree more. In the first instance, VJ users were encouraged to post timelines because none of the published data from the USCIS was accurate, and indeed, at one point in either 2002 or 2003 the INS (as was then) actually admitted massaging processing times in their mandatory reports to Congress to help hide the poor performance, delays and backlogs. Posting timelines was often the ONLY way members could figure out what was going on and how long their own cases were likely to take.

These days, it's hard to tell if the USCIS are anything like as casual with the truth as before, but likely not since Congressional oversight is certainly rather more harsh and senior USCIS people suffered from the previous experience, so timelines have very little value as they are used here now, and I agree, they are damaging - certainly can be very misleading since they don't give any real clue as to how long others can expect to wait.

.... Please, do not make me out to be the bad guy... at least, not by implying things that I never said.

That's not what I'm doing or intending. It's not a question of anything but the consequence of the discussions there being of the nature they are, and what can or should be done to prevent the degradation of the service WE offer to OUR users here in VJ, let alone what service the service centers offer their users around the country.

I've worked for years around this system and I've seen this happen over and over again, and I can tell you that as far as the Regional Directors are concerned, they think they are offering a fair and balanced service, regardless of the differences in processing times. You don't, of course have to be happy at the consequences of that view, but on the other hand, since that is the system and that's how it works, unless you're going to take an active part in trying to change it (and it has been done, so that's not just a throwaway remark) all you can do is accept it as it is and live with it - less frustration comes from that path.

I've been through this system so believe me I understand it. I've worked hundreds and hundreds of cases, so believe me I know exactly what you mean and have dealt with every inequity in the system you can imagine - maybe some you can't - but in the end, the system is exactly what it is - in almost every respect for very specific reasons.

Anyway, apologies, that's getting off the point of the thread and diluting the potential for encouraging change of whatever form is thought useful. I just wouldn't want to see that part of VJ segregated as the service centers are, because that way lies poorer and less equitable service for our users, just as it has for petitioners around the country.

Any law, even a good one, that imposes expensive controls and restrictions, demands conformity, and creates standards based on the notion that what we have already is inadequate yet fails to provide one red cent to fund all the programs and resources essential to success is a bad law. And at the outset this law didn't even start as a good one.

And that's without considering by what right the federal government think they have in playing with the education systems of the many and various states.

I don't think John&Diana was faulting VSC filers. In fact, he said "I don't think anybody faults VSC filers". We don't, and anyone who tries to 'blame' them is barking up the wrong tree.

Just read Andy's last post. I'd be all about chopping away such content as not being 'useful debate'.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone does 'blame' VSCers for their improved service level, just that it's very to take the comparative poorness of one's own service personally when reading the content which, as you rightly said, has become somewhat 'timeline driven'. The problem is that one's frustration at having to wait impacts on the way posts from others who are less unfortunate are then read, and as can be seen in places, it does become personal, and the fact it's become a bone of contention seems to evidence that fact.

I have to say that if were a moderator here as I once was, I would look to be very active in trimming content in that area of the site and removing posts that were not necessary to good 'debate'. I hate that kind of moderation, but I think it's necessary at the outset to get it back under control. After that, far easier, lighter, nudging of threads with reminders where necessary are all that would be necessary to keep things under better control and thus service the needs of all users rather better. After all, even if we segregate the service areas, those who do want to chirp gleefully at their 2 week turnaround will continue to do that regardless, and many won't be much bothered where they post so it won't fix the problem. A moderator able to restore some semblance of community would.

Is it going to happen? I wish! VJ was actually based around that K-1 discussion area so it's not pleasant to see what it's like now! But we managed then to control the disparate voices having to wait brief days or an interminable lifetime for their approval without segregating discussions, so there's no reason to think we can't now. Sadly we'll more likely get the simplest solution or none (and this issue has been raised before), so what do I know!?!

I am happy to step up and say I will help moderate. I have said for a long time that this site is under moderated for such a huge place.

But how will active moderation help to heal the wounds of the VSC/CSC divide? What do you moderate - do you tell people not to create 'monthly service center' threads? Do you move them when they do? If so, where do you move them? Do you tell VSCers to be more sensitive to CSCers (when they more than likely don't feel they're being insensitve - and often times are NOT being insensitive, just true to life as they know it)?

Really - what can we do? I'm open other ideas as to how to mend what John&Diana so succintly described - if there's anyway it can be mended. It wasn't always this way. The K1 forum was not always so date and timeline driven.

Sorry if this rambles - I'm in a room with a bunch of loud talkers and can't concentrate.

Moderating these things is all about changing the culture and climate of the discussions taking place. Removing content that spits good service in the faces of those suffering bad service, stopping the VSC vs every other SC debates and the like. There need be no place for 'I got my NOA' posts in the main discussion unless it asks a question which in itself is as applicable to other users regardless of service center.

In the old days, there were frequent frustrations between the various SC users - VSC was taking it's customary 14 days and Nebraska for instance was in practice taking 18 months for many I-129Fs at one point. We didn't need to do much more than remind people very now and then that this was not a matter of useful debate since no-one is able to change it. I think I recall having to chop one thread on the subject once, otherwise it was merely gentle reminders that controlled the climate of the area - and that was at a time when processing times were far more divergent than they are now.