I guess I will never get to see my brother !!!!

[Donald Duck]

Hey, that's what happened with my brother, so apparently all not married young guys/girls get denied. US immigration have their reasons, A LOT of single male/female applicants DO NOT COME BACK !

[rcmax]

US visa is a scam perpetrated by the US govt. to rake in money dishonestly. They should be upfront about who gets visa and who does'nt and not steal people's money with a ludicrous argument that people get rejected because they cannot prove ties to their home country even though the decision to reject would have already been made. If they reject they should refund the fee that would be honesty. Unmarried youngsters and widows are routinely rejected and the consulate does not say upfront that the chances of getting visa for such people is remote because the US consulate wants to rob people in a legal but unethical way. It is a bait and switch scheme. Folks they deserve tit for tat so spread the word among anyone you know who is applying for US visa that they have to be 'CREATIVE' with truth.

I know a senior member here tries to preach be 'truthful' because it is not his money that the US consulate is stealing, it is your money. I again advocate be "CREATIVE' if you suspect you have a chance of being rejected or do not apply for the visa and waste your money.

[rcmax]

@Donald, the truth about US visitor's visa is you get rejected if you are truthful, you get it if you lie and show that you 'meet their absurd criteria'.

[rcmax]

Yep! lesson learned, but we are as Americans didn't really want to lie to our US government. And I'm not really upset about the money (they warn that it's not refundable) I'm upset that it was not fair ! I really wanted to see him after such a long time ! and now we have to wait even longer, God knows how long ! but you know what? its whatever, I'll get over my feelings, and you people go and spend $160 on lottery ticket ! I also hope that someone from US immigration office or FBI or whatever government people read this and feel bad !! Yeah I have spoken the TRUTH, how do you feel about that?

Well it is less about the money and more about raising people's hopes and dashing it. That is distasteful of them. If they were sincere they could put a disclaimer upfront or when filling up the DS160 form that people in these categories have a very high chance of rejection. They could also say exactly what kind of ties would satisfy them, objectivity is needed not some surreptitious wording to bait people. They are simply dishonest there is no other way to describe it.

[rayb]

Ducky Guy,

Would you feel any better if every visa applicant was given a visa?

--Ray B

I wish they do more research on people !

[rayb]

DD,

Denied applicants can reapply after being denied visitor visas, and many repeating applicants are approved on second or third attempts. The $160 visa fee bought your brother an in-person interview, and the denial was based on "general" screening criteria. By responding to your message in a "devil advocate" manner, I am not suggesting that your brother's visa denial was appropriate, but my state (California) has thousands of visa overstays who are likely to remain in the U.S. until they die or decide to return to their home countries (or marry U.S. citizens and convert their status).

--Ray B

No, I would not feel any better if every visa applicant was given a visa, I would feel better if I knew that my brother has a chance to come and visit me once in a while just like mom did, because non of them are ever planning on living here in US with me/us nor I'm planning to sponsor them here, because I know how it is... But it would be nice if he, not just my mom, could visit. But now those chances has reduced dramatically. I would also feel better if they allow people to appeal and reconsider their decision and look at invitations and papers more definitely. Thank you for your input !

[daggit]

No, I would not feel any better if every visa applicant was given a visa, I would feel better if I knew that my brother has a chance to come and visit me once in a while just like mom did, because non of them are ever planning on living here in US with me/us nor I'm planning to sponsor them here, because I know how it is... But it would be nice if he, not just my mom, could visit. But now those chances has reduced dramatically. I would also feel better if they allow people to appeal and reconsider their decision and look at invitations and papers more definitely. Thank you for your input !

Others before you, some of whom were granted and entered on a B visa, overstayed their welcome and never returned back home, despite their 'promise' to do so at the interview. Blame them for your situation. The US has laws, and while those laws aren't perfect, the COs are required to follow those laws at interview. The law states anyone applying for a B2 must prove non-immigrant intent. It is up to the applicant to convince the CO of their non-immigrant intent.

Arguably, the process isn't necessarily fair; but COs at embassies in certain 'high fraud' nations do their best under trying circumstances. The meandering lines outside certain embassies, or the length of time some applicants have to wait to schedule interviews, should offer a clue to the volume of interviews. The COs have at most a few minutes to determine an applicant's credibility at the window and adjudicate yes\no. Do some bad apples get a visa? Sure. Do some deserving applicants end up with a denial? Probably.

[rcmax]

DD,

but my state (California) has thousands of visa overstays who are likely to remain in the U.S. until they die or decide to return to their home countries (or marry U.S. citizens and convert their status).

--Ray B

That shows how flawed the visa approval 'decision making' process is at the consulate. People who know the 'criteria' can get it by lying and stay back because that was their intent in the first place while people who genuinely want to visit with absolutely no intention of staying back but speak the truth are rejected. This has been happening for many many years and I am surprised the US consulates have not changed their decision making process to be more objective and fair. Something like making the sponsor from US pay a large security deposit that is forfeited if the visitor stays back or cancel the sponsor's visa itself. That will go a long way to remedy the situation.

[daggit]

That shows how flawed the visa approval 'decision making' process is at the consulate. People who know the 'criteria' can get it by lying and stay back because that was their intent in the first place while people who genuinely want to visit with absolutely no intention of staying back but speak the truth are rejected. This has been happening for many many years and I am surprised the US consulates have not changed their decision making process to be more objective and fair. Something like making the sponsor from US pay a large security deposit that is forfeited if the visitor stays back or cancel the sponsor's visa itself. That will go a long way to remedy the situation.

Do you have a formula to distinguish between the genuine applicants and fraudulent weeds? If you can come up with a "..more objective and fair.." idea, I'm sure the State Dept is all ears.

Oh, and by the way, the UK offered to implement a 'large security deposit' plan some years back; it was decried by many as discriminating against those who were not financially well off, and subsequently never implemented. There are plenty of overseas folks who'd be willing to pay any huge sum to get a chance to get to the US; do you think they'd think twice about paying?

And finally, there is NO such thing as a B2 sponsor from US; applicants must qualify on their own merit.

[rcmax]

Do you have a formula to distinguish between the genuine applicants and fraudulent weeds? If you can come up with a "..more objective and fair.." idea, I'm sure the State Dept is all ears.

Oh, and by the way, the UK offered to implement a 'large security deposit' plan some years back; it was decried by many as discriminating against those who were not financially well off, and subsequently never implemented. There are plenty of overseas folks who'd be willing to pay any huge sum to get a chance to get to the US; do you think they'd think twice about paying?

And finally, there is NO such thing as a B2 sponsor from US; applicants must qualify on their own merit.

The current system is also discriminatory on the basis of which category you come under (youngsters, widows, widowers, low income jobs). So bringing in the UK example does'nt make sense.

It is not hard to make the system more objective as opposed to the 100% subjective process now PROVIDED the powers that frame policies have the will to do it. It is no rocket science but change in government processes come at a snail's pace.

[daggit]

The current system is also discriminatory on the basis of which category you come under (youngsters, widows, widowers, low income jobs).

There is no official discrimination policy.. but singles, youngsters, underwage employees are more likely to abandon their home, and thus have a higher hurdle to clear, than say a set of retired parents wishing to visit a loved one in the US; that is a known fact. Just peek at the AOS\COS sections of numerous online forums to get a sense.

. So bringing in the UK example does'nt make sense.

That was brought up as a reference to counterpoint your argument about making someone pay a 'deposit' for a visa.

[rcmax]

There is no official discrimination policy.. but singles, youngsters, underwage employees are more likely to abandon their home, and thus have a higher hurdle to clear, than say a set of retired parents wishing to visit a loved one in the US; that is a known fact. Just peek at the AOS\COS sections of numerous online forums to get a sense.

Well it is a discrimination because the VO is pe-judging someone based on some factors even though they may may be genuine visitors having no intention at all to stay back. It is just like the white cops profiling blacks and stopping them more often, now don't say the white cops are not pre-judging and not discriminating against the blacks.

That is exactly the reason a high security deposit ($50-100k) + affidavit provider's visa cancellation threats can be used as a deterrent for those intending to stay back because with tourist visa they can at best do a minimum wage cash job and can't recoup that much money ever. If some people don't want to go that route for visa evaluation they can still still go through the current 100% subjective route. There are ways to do it if there is a will.

[tshh]

So, now my young sister has to get married in order to get to see me? because this is ridiculous...

[rayb]

That's one way of looking at it. But your sister may have her own plans.

--Ray B

So, now my young sister has to get married in order to get to see me? because this is ridiculous...

[Trinity71]

I guess I will never get to see my brother !!!!

If you see a wolf go into your chicken coupe once a week and you end up missing a chicken once a week... you look for wolves.

This is my opinion and not legal advice. Use of this information is strictly at your own risk.

Trinity71