Jump to content
All posts are moderated, so it will take time for your post to appear!
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Emile DJ

Mom's second visit denied

Recommended Posts

I am a US Citizen. My mom successfully got a B1/B2 visa in 2016 when my 1st son was born. She stayed from October 2016 through March 2017. 

We wanted her to come back this year to meet  my daughter recently born in May 2019.  I was surprised when she called me after her interview to tell me her visa was denied. The reason for denial was article 214 b). We basically follow the same steps we did when applying in 2016. Any thought as to why it was denied this time?

She said the interview was very brief and the visa officer did not even look at the evidences she brought.  Do you think we apply for another visa too soon given it's been less than 3 years since she last departed the US? Is there a rule of thumb as too how long one must wait to re-apply for a B1/B2 visa ?

Any suggestion of to how to proceed from here? 

Share this post


Link to post

my guess is the following: 

1- she did not tell the CO that she was going to stay for 6 months during her first interview

2- she did not tell the CO that the real reason for her visa request was to provide child care

3- this newest request is a repeat of the first....

4- there is no such thing as documentary evidence that a person will depart the US when they said and not engage in unlawful activities while in valid B2 status. 

during the second interview, it likely became obvious that she provided child care during her first trip...

and one does not 'meet' a newborn....

this is what can happen when people play games with a CO,.

Edited by Noah Lott
grammar

Share this post


Link to post

I guess your Mom mentioned your child and gave the impression that she was here to help and especially if you are working, this may explain the rejection.

Most normal people would take the first available opportunity to "meet" aka getting acquainted with the new arrival. Nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post

sure, there is nothing wrong with seeing a newborn, but the 'meet' aspect seems odd....but the bottom line is that issue of child care likely arose and that is what is likely causing problems...and will continue to do so, regardless of what papers are thrust through the window towards the CO...

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, pontevecchio said:

I guess your Mom mentioned your child and gave the impression that she was here to help and especially if you are working, this may explain the rejection.

Most normal people would take the first available opportunity to "meet" aka getting acquainted with the new arrival. Nothing wrong with that.

I get that; but how is that different than the 1st time when she was granted a visa? and 214-b)  really threw me off! She already came once and left within the allotted time of her visa

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/29/2019 at 4:56 PM, Noah Lott said:

my guess is the following: 

1- she did not tell the CO that she was going to stay for 6 months during her first interview

2- she did not tell the CO that the real reason for her visa request was to provide child care

3- this newest request is a repeat of the first....

4- there is no such thing as documentary evidence that a person will depart the US when they said and not engage in unlawful activities while in valid B2 status. 

during the second interview, it likely became obvious that she provided child care during her first trip...

and one does not 'meet' a newborn....

this is what can happen when people play games with a CO,.

Noah, thanks for your response. All your guesses are pretty much wrong and I 'll explain:

1) The DS-160 from 2016 clearly stated her intended stay of 6 months. she was issued a one year visa and stuck to the duration that was mentioned in her DS-160

2)  The evidences submitted during the 2016 application abundantly mentioned that my son was the main reason for her visit

3) Yes, but a different child! 3 years later

4) She came once and left within the allotted time per her visa; not sure what much evidence is needed. 

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "one does not meet a newborn" and "People play games with CO". Your responses come across as very condescending! People travel all the time to meet newborns. It just happens that my mom is 70, lives 22 hrs away and we don't get to see her much; so if she comes visit I would like her to stay for some time. If i wanted my mom to stay permanently here, i can file for her permanent residency.

Share this post


Link to post

You may believe my responses as condescending, but they re the by product of more than 20 years of working in and around the interviewing process...people often try to play word games, say one thing, then do another...etc...

as to 'meeting' a new born, the child is not even conscious enough to shake hands and say, 'how are you?'...

I understand that older folks stay a while due to various factors...but given the facts as you have stated them do not jive with why her second application was denied, because credibility is the best asset an applicant can have, and if she did write or state she was planning a 6 month visit, which she apparently did, then the only other issue will be that of child care on such a basis as to allow your wife to return to work (not just an occasional Saturday night when you and the wife wander off to a movie or something)...

But something is missing....because if this case is exactly as your described, the interview should have lasted almost 30 seconds and been approved...a person who pretty much does what they said in the approximate time frame they stated, then returned, is not the sort of case that needs a deeper look....there too many questionable cases waiting to be interviewed that might take a bit of extra time...and a CO learns to conserve time by issuing the 'easy' cases to leave time for the more challenging ones...

However, the denial suggests a disconnect somewhere, and based on my own considerable experience (many tens of thousands of applicants interviewed, time spent as a fraud manager, time spent interacting with INS (old days) and DHS following 9/11, plus having trained and observed dozens of new officers, well, guess what I learned? People often do not tell the truth (or the entire truth)...and when that fact comes to light, that the applicant lied in some fashion, well, credibility goes down the drain in a hurry and there is no time (realistically) to hold the applicant's hand and spend 25 minutes going over each detail, each story, each excuse, etc....and listen to a dozen apologies and/or promises not to do X again, etc, that are meaningless at that point in time...interview over, next applicant....

It may sound cold or abrupt, but COs do not have the luxury of being able to spend 15 minutes with every B2 applicant..there are long lines in the waiting area and they want people out the door by 4 if possible, 5 at the latest...ideally COs are trained to conduct interviews in about 3 minutes...to do that, one needs to recognize quickly the good cases, approve them, move them along...use the saved time to tackle more challenging cases, uncover fraud or find other trends that can help shape more efficient decision making...

You call it condescending, I call it the real world. One of us has a perspective about such things that the other does not.

Is the current methodology perfect? No. Efficient? Generally yes, at least on a volume basis...there were (and are) ways to improve the accuracy but within the approximate time constraints faced by COs, their boss has to really care enough to train them thoroughly on how to interview,...something I did at several different assignments...there are a lot of useful techniques to get the answer, that do not rely on documents or third party opinions....and a few other things that are again, a by product of more effective training, a more responsible focus by COs and supervisors who randomly spot check visas issued and denied, to gauge how thorough a CO is across a broad spectrum.

It is not an easy job and one does not get the job by merely filling out an application...

There are good COs, a few bad ones (who have sold visas for $$ or 'favors') and a lot of middle of the road types...it is the supervisor who must take the time to thoroughly train his or her staff on how to do this job in the best way possible, to develop the interviewing and judgment skills to reach a conclusion that is as accurate as is practical...while adhering to our laws...and also recognizing how porous our borders are....Congress has made as many loopholes as laws, and that is where the problems begin.

If, for example, any COS was disallowed except from a K1 visa, things might be better for a lot of future applicants. But with the current situation, it is far too easy for people to have the ever popular mind change at baggage claim....I have long lobbied my representatives to close some of the loopholes (which, BTW, would not cost American taxpayers a penny!!!) but special interests who want cheap labor are able to stuff enough cash into the legislators' pockets to drown out my requests...) the end result are COs who are the first line of defense against illegal immigration and other complexities that arise when unqualified people are allowed access to the US or who are not tracked down to be removed or who fund true love ten minutes after their deportation hearing....close many of these loopholes and other doors might open.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×