B2 Visa for in-laws: Intended date of arrival in DS-160

[moonlight02]

Hello Everyone,

I and my husband are planning to book a visa appointment for my in-laws. We haven't planned the exact details of their trip to come to US yet. I have a few questions on what we should write in DS-160.

1) Is it okay to enter the intended date of arrival as something like December 2018 even if we don't have the details yet?

2) Does it matter if the date we put in DS-160 is during the winter? Will there be questions like what will you do in USA during winter season? 

I would appreciate any help with this.

 

Thanks!

[xTDx]

- Yes, intended dates are fine. 

- No issues. Stay truthful. 

B2 is all considered on applicants merit and ties to home country. 

[moonlight02]

Thank you for the quick response. When they visit USA, they are mainly planning on spending time with us and visit some places. Please let me know if this answer sounds good enough.

[xTDx]

51 minutes ago, moonlight02 said:

Thank you for the quick response. When they visit USA, they are mainly planning on spending time with us and visit some places. Please let me know if this answer sounds good enough.

See this :

- Yes, intended dates are fine. 

- No issues. Stay truthful. 

B2 is all considered on applicants merit and ties to home country. 

[pontevecchio]

Why not let them answer on their best recognizance. Stay out and do not coach them. Yes, they may want to see a Winter Wonerland or a frozen Niagara. Any questions asked should be answered by them spontaneously without pre determined intent. Remember most tourist visas are granted.

[moonlight02]

Thank you for all the responses.   @Noah Lott No, they are not coming to provide child care. We just want them to spend time with us and show them some of the good places in US. It has been a long time since we visited them in India. We haven't even started planning their trip yet. We were planning on doing that once their visas get approved.

[Ken7]

Intended date can be whenever. They can always say they want to experience snow, if asked about winter, which they most likely won't.

Child care statement is ridiculous. Indian parents don't take 'money' for looking after a child or are forced .  If they are around they will look after their grandchildren. It's like saying when the mom makes dinner when visiting, is she coming here for being a cook?

[xTDx]

3 hours ago, Ken7 said:

Child care statement is ridiculous. Indian parents don't take 'money' for looking after a child or are forced .  If they are around they will look after their grandchildren. It's like saying when the mom makes dinner when visiting, is she coming here for being a cook?

This is more about taking american jobs, because once they call their parents for child care, they will not be hiring americans for babysitting and henceforth taking jobs from a qualified american worker. DOS does not take it lightly when admitted voluntarily. 

[Ken7]

1 hour ago, xTDx said:

This is more about taking american jobs, because once they call their parents for child care, they will not be hiring americans for babysitting and henceforth taking jobs from a qualified american worker. DOS does not take it lightly when admitted voluntarily. 

I understand what it's about, but if I had a baby I definitely want my family especially my parents handling the toddler and not a stranger. It's not about money or employment for the new parent, it's about family and who you trust with your baby. And if someone in a new parent, I would imagine its overwhelming and you would want your immediate family around. It's juvenile to say that the parents visit sole 'purpose' is babysitting.

As I said, if the parents cook and clean while visiting, does that qualify visiting for the purposes of cooking/cleaning  and taking American jobs away?

 

[JoeF]

2 hours ago, xTDx said:

This is more about taking american jobs, because once they call their parents for child care, they will not be hiring americans for babysitting and henceforth taking jobs from a qualified american worker. DOS does not take it lightly when admitted voluntarily. 

And this is well-known and legally established. It would be unauthorized work. These are the rules in the US, even if some people don't seem to like them.

[JoeF]

4 hours ago, Ken7 said:

I understand what it's about, but if I had a baby I definitely want my family especially my parents handling the toddler and not a stranger. It's not about money or employment for the new parent, it's about family and who you trust with your baby. And if someone in a new parent, I would imagine its overwhelming and you would want your immediate family around. It's juvenile to say that the parents visit sole 'purpose' is babysitting.

As I said, if the parents cook and clean while visiting, does that qualify visiting for the purposes of cooking/cleaning  and taking American jobs away?

 

That may all be, but people on a visitor visa are not allowed to babysit. If the parents need somebody to babysit, they absolutely need to hire a nanny with work authorization. No but or if.

These are the rules of this country.

[Ken7]

14 hours ago, JoeF said:

That may all be, but people on a visitor visa are not allowed to babysit. If the parents need somebody to babysit, they absolutely need to hire a nanny with work authorization. No but or if.

These are the rules of this country.

So let me get this right, the rules of this country forbids a grandparent visiting their children and relatives to take care and be with their grandchildren when they are home? and by same token they are forbidden to cook for their children? I'd love to see a regulation that says that. The law forbids using a B-2 visa as an excuse to come here as a babysitter. That's all it says. Grandparents visiting their children and grandchildren and spending time with them (and inherently taking care of them) don't fall in that category.

[Ken7]

I would also like to find a section of INA that defines what  constitutes "once a blue moon" and what constitutes "full time" childcare and how "once is blue moon" is acceptable. Also, a section of law that defines what period of stay constitutes a "visit" and what doesn't. It is indeed " laughable" that perceptions of the length of stay are used to determine intent and base visa decisions if that indeed is the case. Parents, especially older retired folks,  more often than not maximize the stay with their children which can be six months as legally allowed here or like it is 3-months is some European countries.  Believe-it-or-not, spending time with the family is desirable and a necessity for a lot of people. And there can be multitude of reasons for extending stay. Vague terms like "tons" and "hundreds" doesn't really mean much without factual data. Ofcourse there will be a small percentage, a fraction, that violates rules, that will be the case for any country and visa class. But that doesn't mean most people have an intent to violate regulations. And I'm not sure what special "carefully planned" three or four questions can reveal the truth. Most people with language barriers, and poor communication skills, and being nervous and having misconceived perceptions of the visa process and interview, will 'trip-up' anyway without actually having any nefarious visa abuse intent. Again, the process is so subjective it's ridiculous.

[JoeF]

4 hours ago, Ken7 said:

I would also like to find a section of INA that defines what  constitutes "once a blue moon" and what constitutes "full time" childcare and how "once is blue moon" is acceptable. Also, a section of law that defines what period of stay constitutes a "visit" and what doesn't.

INA 214(b).

"(b) Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)"

Case closed.

If you like the process or not is completely irrelevant. If you want to change it, become a US citizen, vote for people who want to change it or run for office yourself.

[Ken7]

17 hours ago, JoeF said:

INA 214(b).

"(b) Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)"

Case closed.

If you like the process or not is completely irrelevant. If you want to change it, become a US citizen, vote for people who want to change it or run for office yourself.

Didn't realize there was a case being litigated. It is exactly what I meant by being subjective and ridiculous, because the reality may not matter it's mostly what you can convince the person across the glass. And thanks for the advice, maybe I'm already running for office, in the meanwhile I think I'm allowed to voice my opinion in an open forum irrespective of it's relevancy.

[JoeF]

5 hours ago, Ken7 said:

Didn't realize there was a case being litigated. It is exactly what I meant by being subjective and ridiculous, because the reality may not matter it's mostly what you can convince the person across the glass. And thanks for the advice, maybe I'm already running for office, in the meanwhile I think I'm allowed to voice my opinion in an open forum irrespective of it's relevancy.

Huh? You don't seem to be familiar with English phrases such as "csse closed." Look it up instead of ranting.

The law is clear.

[Ken7]

4 hours ago, JoeF said:

Huh? You don't seem to be familiar with English phrases such as "csse closed." Look it up instead of ranting.

The law is clear.

I think what needs to be looked up is the word sarcasm (its a rhetorical device in the English language). Maybe that wasn’t clear, like the laws. Again, ranting or not, is a prerogative. Look up the other laws of this country.

[Ken7]

I don’t have the experience of interveiwing candidates and judging by the posts here, neither has anyone else. Again, older parents and grandparents are often retired and often want to maximize staying with their kids and grandchildren whenever they can. 6-months is allowed by law, its ironical how where needed the law is cited, but in terms of the allowable period of stay, it’s for “convenience” and to reduce paperwork and viewed negatively if availed.