Tourist visa for nephew & niece (both minors)

[pb2au]

My nephew and niece (ages 14, 11.5, respectively) were denied the B-2 visa at the Mumbai consulate this week under 214(b). Their single mother (my sister) accompanied them at the interview. Mother was not applying, has no intention of applying for visa. Father, too, has no intention of applying but was not present at the interview (parents are divorced). My wife and I wanted these two to visit us for around 5-6 weeks during their summer vacation. All the papers/documents were in order, theirs as well as the ones we sent from here (I-134 and supporting papers). They were asked at the interview how long they intend to stay, and replied 4-6 weeks. They were asked if they were traveling alone. They replied yes. Have they traveled to any country outside India before? They said no. The mother was asked what she did. Housewife. When was she divorced? She told the year. Those were the questions. He didn't look at the I-134.

My comments and questions are: this was a straightforward visa case, or so I thought. Kids coming here for the summer vacation without their parents (hence a clear case for returning). No intent whatsoever to immigrate etc. Uncle and aunt assuming all responsibility, financial and otherwise (we have a very strong case here) for their stay. Every thing was truthful. Yet this was an arbitrary refusal.

Q1: What could have gone wrong? I know that "strong ties" is nebulous, but what could be stronger ties for minors to return than having parents back in India?

Q2: Was the fact they they would be unaccompanied minors somehow go against them? Why?

Q3: Would it help to re-apply in a few weeks and if yes, what additional documents/steps should we take?

Q4: The DS-160 forms were filled by my nephew. Was that a mistake? Can I fill the DS-160 forms for the 2 of them from here or should I have their mother do it?

Any other suggestions would be helpful. I haven't yet sought a consultation with local attorneys here on how to proceed next (I know the visa officer's decision cannot be contested; all I seek is guidance on how to go forward from here to maximize their chance of getting the tourist visa).

[peace999]

documents are really not important.

The reason;
* the divorced status of mother
*her housewife status
* And the fact that you were funding the trip.

All these point to an unstable financial situation in the family.
Strong financial status of the family is the most important tie they look at.

Also, history of foreign travel helps when other factors are negative.

The fact that you sent an I-134 does cover the funding and support requirement for the visa. But what people do not realize is that it
also brings in a big negative , as it indirectly tells the officer the applicant cannot support the trip himself. He did not look at the I-134
but he could see this info completed in the DS 160.

If the mother had been working ( even if divorced) with a strong income and shown funding for the trip of her children without
a need for an I-134 from you, the outcome would have been successful.
This is something you cannot change in a short time to reapply again.

[pb2au]

peace999,

Thank you for your input.

[pb2au]

In the event I decide to send them again, do they have to go again to the OFC for biometric data, or would the consulate have those records taken the first time?

[pb2au]

documents are really not important.

The reason;
* the divorced status of mother
*her housewife status
* And the fact that you were funding the trip.

All these point to an unstable financial situation in the family.
Strong financial status of the family is the most important tie they look at.

Also, history of foreign travel helps when other factors are negative.

The fact that you sent an I-134 does cover the funding and support requirement for the visa. But what people do not realize is that it
also brings in a big negative , as it indirectly tells the officer the applicant cannot support the trip himself. He did not look at the I-134
but he could see this info completed in the DS 160.

If the mother had been working ( even if divorced) with a strong income and shown funding for the trip of her children without
a need for an I-134 from you, the outcome would have been successful.
This is something you cannot change in a short time to reapply again.

peace999,

I have been thinking about your response and have come up with the following.

Would it help if the mother and father went with them to the interview? The father has a very good business/family property and can fund their visit. He could take all his financial papers etc with him in case he is asked for proof. Now, during the first round, my wife and I were listed on the DS-160 as financial support and we had sent the I-134 along with documents. In the second round, is it better to list the father as the funding source or should we retain us as their support (with the associated I-134)? If we change it to the father, they may be asked why they effected this change. What should their response be? (This is really straightforward from our end - that is, both we and their father are fully capable of funding their visit and can demonstrate it.)

[peace999]

Like I said before, funding requirement is secondary. First and foremost is the strong financial ties of the family to home country. In this situation ,even if the father
shows support ( you cannot do both I-134 and father's support, as you can only show one on the form and they read the form only), the officers
will always assume the kids may not come back as parents are divorced and the mother is not working ;their future is not good in India.

Check Private message.

[pb2au]

peace999,

Thank you.

By the way, I did not see any private message from you.

[peace999]

peace999,

Thank you.

By the way, I did not see any private message from you.

just sent it.