DV 2015 Selectees from Ghana

[EURO2014]

"From: XXX
Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:39 PM
Accra, IVDV
RECONSIDER MY DV CASE NUMBER 2015AF7. MALIK ANTWI."

This is the original message sent to the US Consulate, just "Reconsider my DV case number" and that's it? No references to any of the expressed points of contention? Sorry if I truly get confused by the whole affair...
On the bright side, the message seems to have been written by Malik Antwi himself, is he the person we all have been rooting for?

 

[SusieQQQ]

"From: XXX
Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:39 PM
Accra, IVDV
RECONSIDER MY DV CASE NUMBER 2015AF7. MALIK ANTWI."

This is the original message sent to the US Consulate, just "Reconsider my DV case number" and that's it? No references to any of the expressed points of contention? Sorry if I truly get confused by the whole affair...
On the bright side, the message seems to have been written by Malik Antwi himself, is he the person we all have been rooting for?

Replies that do not include the original email would still include the sender and subject details so I presume it is the latter you're seeing and there was surely more in the original mail. My experience with DoS in general, kcc and consulates is that they don't include the original text in replies.

Seems to be the actual case number too btw. Refused 5 June in Accra.
Wonder why he took so long to interview?
Anyway irrespective of whether or not there were other reasons for refusal the embassy response does indicate they think administering oral tests is ok.

 

[Britsimon]

Well, if it makes you somehow feel better go right ahead, I just think it strange to get all excited about a second source story of a guy who doesn't even post on this forum. Possibly SusieQQQ is right and he is afraid to be tracked by the US Government... if so, this does not necessarily qualify him (presuming for a sec he is male) as a good source of information in my book. But be it as it will, if it makes you feel better....

The story is real and I am in direct contact with the selectee. It does not surprise me that others in this forum know him. Accra embassy have now responded to his request to reconsider the request with a confirmation that they think their approach is reasonable. Here is what they said.

“We wish to inform you that there are no reviews or appeals in Diversity Visa cases. Applicants are expected to demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents. For example, if you passed your English exam, then it would be reasonable to expect that you speak enough English to have an interview. If you present and advanced degree in biology, then it would be reasonable to assume that you can speak logically and well about general biology topics.”

This answer in itself is laughable - but critically, it confirms their approach in this case is their general approach - and since they have refused the applicant on this basis alone, it is clear they have mishandled this case.

 

[Britsimon]

Wow. So they are justifying their contravention of the guidelines....

Sadly however they are correct in that there is no appeal of DV cases.

There was a case a few years ago when some applicants successfully lobbied the department of state to stop - one of the North African countries, morocco or Algeria? I can't remember - from routinely asking for I134s. Maybe if someone wants to take the trouble to do that - won't help this person but may help future genuine applicants.

I was reading down and posted above with the text of the email. My assessment is exactly the same as yours Susie. Their response is the smoking gun and ties exactly with the story that was told. The original email to the embassy did indeed have more meat to it.

 

[T. Shedrick]

If that should be the solution then we have his birth certificate ,medical report and passport all ready. the only problem is filling his personal ds260 .we are waiting for the response from the embassy.

Crossoficio, to be honest with you I become shame every time I read this post about not filling out forms for your derivative, owning to the fact you been a member of this forum for such a time, anyway we are here to help each other, again I don't understand what respond from embassy you are waiting for, pls fill the ds 260 form for child! You are wasting time bro. The rule clearly state that each applicant MUST submit an application for a visa. BE FAST.

 

[EURO2014]

The story is real and I am in direct contact with the selectee. It does not surprise me that others in this forum know him. Accra embassy have now responded to his request to reconsider the request with a confirmation that they think their approach is reasonable. Here is what they said.

“We wish to inform you that there are no reviews or appeals in Diversity Visa cases. Applicants are expected to demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents. For example, if you passed your English exam, then it would be reasonable to expect that you speak enough English to have an interview. If you present and advanced degree in biology, then it would be reasonable to assume that you can speak logically and well about general biology topics.”

This answer in itself is laughable - but critically, it confirms their approach in this case is their general approach - and since they have refused the applicant on this basis alone, it is clear they have mishandled this case.

Thank you Britsimon for confirming, at last, that Malik Antwi exists and this is actually a real case. Now to the substance: I understand that CO's are being asked to refrain from conducting ad hoc knowledge tests etc. at the time of the interview. So much is clear. However, is a CO also required to ignore any obvious disconnects, i.e. as quoted by the consulate as an example, an OP presenting an advanced degree in English, while being unable to speak the language to the extend of answering simple questions? No one can obviously be sure whether or not this was the (only) reason for rejecting the application in this case, yet how can a CO be possibly be required to fully ignore a scam if the whole story already crambles during the interview and it becomes obvious to the CO that the OP has simply made critically important things up (not talking about this specific case but in general terms)? How is a Consulate supposed to operate in a situation where 2/3 of conducted interviews are not sound (share of rejected DV interviews), put all those folks on AP and then use all available resources to conduct deep research into each and every case, instead of interviewing more folks and "picking out the good apples" there and then? Just saying...

 

[SusieQQQ]

Thank you Britsimon for confirming, at last, that Malik Antwi exists and this is actually a real case. Now to the substance: I understand that CO's are being asked to refrain from conducting ad hoc knowledge tests etc. at the time of the interview. So much is clear. However, is a CO also required to ignore any obvious disconnects, i.e. as quoted by the consulate as an example, an OP presenting an advanced degree in English, while being unable to speak the language to the extend of answering simple questions? No one can obviously be sure whether or not this was the (only) reason for rejecting the application in this case, yet how can a CO be possibly be required to fully ignore a scam if the whole story already crambles during the interview and it becomes obvious to the CO that the OP has simply made critically important things up (not talking about this specific case but in general terms)? How is a Consulate supposed to operate in a situation where 2/3 of conducted interviews are not sound (share of rejected DV interviews), put all those folks on AP and then use all available resources to conduct deep research into each and every case, instead of interviewing more folks and "picking out the good apples" there and then? Just saying...

There IS a system for this. The system is to put the applicant on AP and confirm with the educational institution that supposedly issued the qualification whether or not it is valid. Just because you and they think it takes too much time, is no excuse to break the rules, heck, how do you think the Ankara embassy feels about all the Iranians it interviews and puts on AP?? The point of the process is that it is supposed to be fair to everyone and that means you don't start giving COs with often no knowledge about what they are "examining' in the opportunity to do so. I'm surprised that someone supposedly from Europe seems to support such an arbitrary way of deciding whether or not people are qualified for visas. It's completely unfair to discriminate against bona fide applicants just because other people commit fraud.

 

[usamommy2015]

There IS a system for this. The system is to put the applicant on AP and confirm with the educational institution that supposedly issued the qualification whether or not it is valid. Just because you and they think it takes too much time, is no excuse to break the rules, heck, how do you think the Ankara embassy feels about all the Iranians it interviews and puts on AP?? The point of the process is that it is supposed to be fair to everyone and that means you don't start giving COs with often no knowledge about what they are "examining' in the opportunity to do so. I'm surprised that someone supposedly from Europe seems to support such an arbitrary way of deciding whether or not people are qualified for visas. It's completely unfair to discriminate against bona fide applicants just because other people commit fraud.

Besides the "requirement" is grade 12. Not a phd in astrophysics. Let the scale be uniform across the board. Let it not be a barely through high school diploma in one case and a revision exam for 4 years of university. Seriously Euro2014, even if you want to play devil's advocate based on how this case was presented even you would agree the OPs answers were correct and just because he couldn't read out the wikipedia definition of chemistry it is no reason to dismiss him. I bet if it was you in his stead you'd probably not have left the interview room as composed as Malik did.

 

[Britsimon]

Thank you Britsimon for confirming, at last, that Malik Antwi exists and this is actually a real case. Now to the substance: I understand that CO's are being asked to refrain from conducting ad hoc knowledge tests etc. at the time of the interview. So much is clear. However, is a CO also required to ignore any obvious disconnects, i.e. as quoted by the consulate as an example, an OP presenting an advanced degree in English, while being unable to speak the language to the extend of answering simple questions? No one can obviously be sure whether or not this was the (only) reason for rejecting the application in this case, yet how can a CO be possibly be required to fully ignore a scam if the whole story already crambles during the interview and it becomes obvious to the CO that the OP has simply made critically important things up (not talking about this specific case but in general terms)? How is a Consulate supposed to operate in a situation where 2/3 of conducted interviews are not sound (share of rejected DV interviews), put all those folks on AP and then use all available resources to conduct deep research into each and every case, instead of interviewing more folks and "picking out the good apples" there and then? Just saying...

The language used in the guideline is quite clear - "you may not...". The questions should not have been asked. The refusal must not be based on the COs assessment of the knowledge level. The CO is not trained or qualified to do that - as is clear from the transcript of this interview.

Now, to your point, yes they, no doubt, see a lot of bad cases. It must be frustrating and a strain on their resources. However, they take a fee for each of these interviews, and in Ghana they could hire extra help with the 330 bucks they get. At the end of the day it is not the selectees who should pay the price for the embassy failing to staff correctly to cope with the workload. So again, the guideline is very clear. Theses concerns should either never have come up, or if they had come up the answer was AP to confirm the documents deemed questionable.

 

[Britsimon]

Besides the "requirement" is grade 12. Not a phd in astrophysics. Let the scale be uniform across the board. Let it not be a barely through high school diploma in one case and a revision exam for 4 years of university. Seriously Euro2014, even if you want to play devil's advocate based on how this case was presented even you would agree the OPs answers were correct and just because he couldn't read out the wikipedia definition of chemistry it is no reason to dismiss him. I bet if it was you in his stead you'd probably not have left the interview room as composed as Malik did.

It is a pity the CO wasn't checking Wikipedia - as the answers of atoms, nuclear and nucleus would all have been clearly shown there. The CO clearly had much less of an understanding of chemistry than the selectee - which is why they are told not to try and be expert on something that they do not understand.

 

[EURO2014]

There IS a system for this. The system is to put the applicant on AP and confirm with the educational institution that supposedly issued the qualification whether or not it is valid. Just because you and they think it takes too much time, is no excuse to break the rules, heck, how do you think the Ankara embassy feels about all the Iranians it interviews and puts on AP?? The point of the process is that it is supposed to be fair to everyone and that means you don't start giving COs with often no knowledge about what they are "examining' in the opportunity to do so. I'm surprised that someone supposedly from Europe seems to support such an arbitrary way of deciding whether or not people are qualified for visas. It's completely unfair to discriminate against bona fide applicants just because other people commit fraud.

Well, there are many DV success cases originating from Ghana, for those folks it certainly is advantageous for the Consulate to currently focus on conducting interviews instead of using most of their resources for conducting AP processes on 2/3 of all DV interviewees. Frankly, this is not about holding a "phd in astrophysics" but, to quote the Consulate to "demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents", which is the very least one could and should expect from any applicant for an Immigrant Visa, in my humble opinion. Look, I am not the one telling the US Consulate how to do their job. One should start from the assumption that those folks have been well trained and have learned from their extensive experience in interviewing DV applicants. Do we really assume that the US Consulate would put a statement, such as the one above, in writing if it would not have been double and triple checked on its correct legal basis? I really don't think so, but this is my personal opinion...

 

[EURO2014]

The language used in the guideline is quite clear - "you may not...". The questions should not have been asked. The refusal must not be based on the COs assessment of the knowledge level. The CO is not trained or qualified to do that - as is clear from the transcript of this interview.

Now, to your point, yes they, no doubt, see a lot of bad cases. It must be frustrating and a strain on their resources. However, they take a fee for each of these interviews, and in Ghana they could hire extra help with the 330 bucks they get. At the end of the day it is not the selectees who should pay the price for the embassy failing to staff correctly to cope with the workload. So again, the guideline is very clear. Theses concerns should either never have come up, or if they had come up the answer was AP to confirm the documents deemed questionable.

You are right, of course. In view of the many bad cases, they would have to noticeably expand their IV workforce and personnel base in the country. Being aware of this, one can assume that they should have thought about this and, wrongly or rightly, decided against it. So at this stage, it is what it is, yet this does not represent necessarily a problem for folks who have their ducks in a row and do not make up stuff for the interview, hoping to outsmart an experienced CO. Just my personal opinion, of course....

 

[SusieQQQ]

Well, there are many DV success cases originating from Ghana, for those folks it certainly is advantageous for the Consulate to currently focus on conducting interviews instead of using most of their resources for conducting AP processes on 2/3 of all DV interviewees. Frankly, this is not about holding a "phd in astrophysics" but, to quote the Consulate to "demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents", which is the very least one could and should expect from any applicant for an Immigrant Visa, in my humble opinion. Look, I am not the one telling the US Consulate how to do their job. One should start from the assumption that those folks have been well trained and have learned from their extensive experience in interviewing DV applicants. Do we really assume that the US Consulate would put a statement, such as the one above, in writing if it would not have been double and triple checked on its correct legal basis? I really don't think so, but this is my personal opinion...

But the quote from the consulate you underlined is contrary to Department of State guidelines. These are readily available, as simon has already linked to. Do you really think it's ok for COs to just take matters into their own hands? How would you feel if your CO decided on some arbitrary basis to refuse you and justify it on reasoning that has no bearing on their decision-making powers, then tell you tough bro there is no appeal?

 

[SusieQQQ]

You are right, of course. In view of the many bad cases, they would have to noticeably expand their IV workforce and personnel base in the country. Being aware of this, one can assume that they should have thought about this and, wrongly or rightly, decided against it. So at this stage, it is what it is, yet this does not represent necessarily a problem for folks who have their ducks in a row and do not make up stuff for the interview, hoping to outsmart an experienced CO. Just my personal opinion, of course....

Sorry but this is not devil's advocate anymore, this is just you not wanting to admit you're wrong! Having your ducks in a row does not stack up with what happened. On your logic you should be able to answer any question from any of your high school exams. Can you?
Do you know that Nigeria used to employ people to go door to door and ask neighbors questions when they suspected fraudulent marriages on DV cases? But according to your reasoning it would have been ok to just deny anyone they were suspicious about without bothering to check, just because others had been fraudulent.
Are you from Western Europe or eastern europe?

 

[Crossoficio]

Crossoficio, to be honest with you I become shame every time I read this post about not filling out forms for your derivative, owning to the fact you been a member of this forum for such a time, anyway we are here to help each other, again I don't understand what respond from embassy you are waiting for, pls fill the ds 260 form for child! You are wasting time bro. The rule clearly state that each applicant MUST submit an application for a visa. BE FAST.

You still don't get it . i have filled the ds260 already but then there is no add new applicant section to add my son. My son's details are all inclusive my application and that of my wife as a son. The embassy has to open or allow me add a new applicant which is my son then i can complete his ds260 for him.

 

[USA14]

Thank you Britsimon for confirming, at last, that Malik Antwi exists and this is actually a real case. Now to the substance: I understand that CO's are being asked to refrain from conducting ad hoc knowledge tests etc. at the time of the interview. So much is clear. However, is a CO also required to ignore any obvious disconnects, i.e. as quoted by the consulate as an example, an OP presenting an advanced degree in English, while being unable to speak the language to the extend of answering simple questions? No one can obviously be sure whether or not this was the (only) reason for rejecting the application in this case, yet how can a CO be possibly be required to fully ignore a scam if the whole story already crambles during the interview and it becomes obvious to the CO that the OP has simply made critically important things up (not talking about this specific case but in general terms)? How is a Consulate supposed to operate in a situation where 2/3 of conducted interviews are not sound (share of rejected DV interviews), put all those folks on AP and then use all available resources to conduct deep research into each and every case, instead of interviewing more folks and "picking out the good apples" there and then? Just saying...

In effect, you are saying those on AP do not merit a reconsideration of their cases to determine whether some of them are deserving of a visa or not because in your view it's a "waste" of resources. I know some AP cases are extensive and drag on to the end of the FY-that doesn't mean AP cases in general, should be abandoned. I think your comment could be "offensive" to any applicant on AP right now/ who may have gotten a visa through AP. You might want to, kindly, reconsider your stance. We are here to help not to discriminate and people on AP should be given a fair hearing- irrespective of the amount of resources needed to look into those cases- I think that is entirely the decisive business of the Consulate/Embassy.

 

[EURO2014]

Well, just briefly on some important points:
- AP is already widely used by the US Consulate in Ghana, based on the data kindly shared by Thowa earlier, the ratio AP/Visa Issued by the Consulate is 109/266 or 41%. An argument that AP is not being used effectively by this specific Consulate therefore would be rather nonsensical.
- All interviewees give an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth at the beginning of the consulate interview. There is a definite reason for the visa application of a person found not to be in compliance with the oath to be rejected at the end of the interview, no need to put anyone in this situation on AP - there were 416 refusals for the Consulate by the end of May for this and other reasons.
- The critically important role of the CO is to determine objective DV eligibility based on the information provided by the DV applicant, checking in detail for possible inconsistencies and fraud attempts. In this respect, a requirement to "demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents" would therefore seem to be rather logical and any CO certainly will be provided sufficient leverage to reduce visa fraud in DV and other IV cases. The example the Consulate provided in their response "if you passed your English exam, then it would be reasonable to expect that you speak enough English to have an interview", would sound very much like common sense to most people - an experienced CO certainly will not require long time or many intrusive questions to confirm this. Obviously, this is very different from being able to "to answer any question from any of your high school exams", isn't it?

At the end, one can always agree to disagree and simply because an opinion might not be specifically popular with some, does not make it wrong by definition, does it? Personal remarks are off the mark and should never become part of public or private discourse.

The only important points from this are therefore potential learnings for the folks interviewing at this specific consulate. Hopefully these will include but not be limited to:

* Read and follow all instructions in preparation of your interview and prepare any and all documents carefully and completely
* Make sure you can back up any documentation by personal presentation and representation at the interview
* Simply tell the truth and nothing but the truth at the interview - do not make up stuff, either verbally or document wise, there is a very high chance that you will be found out and your visa application will be rejected at the end of the interview. Found lying under oath at the interview will result in a lifetime ban from the US
* There is only one chance you got and "there are no reviews or appeals in Diversity Visa cases", however much one might feel wronged or treated unfairly - make sure you'll give it your very best shot.

Good luck!

 

[SusieQQQ]

Well, just briefly on some important points:
- AP is already widely used by the US Consulate in Ghana, based on the data kindly shared by Thowa earlier, the ratio AP/Visa Issued by the Consulate is 109/266 or 41%. An argument that AP is not being used effectively by this specific Consulate therefore would be rather nonsensical.
- All interviewees give an oath to tell the truth but nothing but the truth at the beginning of the consulate interview. There is a definite reason for the visa application of a person found not to be in compliance with the oath to be rejected at the end of the interview, no need to put anyone in this situation on AP - there were 416 refusals for the Consulate by the end of May.
- The critically important role of the CO is to determine objective DV eligibility based on the information provided by the DV applicant, checking in detail for possible inconsistencies and fraud attempts. In this respect, a requirement to "demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents" would therefore seem to be rather logical and any CO certainly will be provided sufficient leverage to reduce visa fraud in DV and other IV cases. The example the Consulate provided in their response "if you passed your English exam, then it would be reasonable to expect that you speak enough English to have an interview", would sound very much like common sense to most people - an experienced CO certainly will not require long time or many intrusive questions to confirm this. Obviously, this is very different from being able to "to answer any question from any of your high school exams", isn't it?

At the end, one can always agree to disagree and simply because an opinion might not be specifically popular with some, does not make it wrong by definition, does it? Personal remarks are off the mark and should never become part of public or private discourse.

The only important points from this are therefore potential learnings for the folks interviewing at this specific consulate. Hopefully these will include but not be limited to:

* Read and follow all instructions in preparation of your interview and prepare any and all documents carefully and completely
* Make sure you can back up any documentation by personal presentation and representation at the interview
* Simply tell the truth and nothing but the truth at the interview - do not make up stuff, either verbally or document wise, there is a very high chance that you will be found out and your visa application will be rejected at the end of the interview. Found lying under oath at the interview will result in a lifetime ban from the US
* There is only one chance you got and "there are no reviews or appeals in Diversity Visa cases", however much one might feel wronged or treated unfairly - make sure you'll give it your very best shot.

Good luck!

Please answer my two questions to you earlier.
Could you answer in your interview any question that you would have been able to answer in your high school or subsequent exams? (You can't arbitrarily decide it's different when the applicant was asked chemistry questions)
Would you be happy to have a CO refuse your application (without appeal) by going against the Department of
State guidelines, and not validly following the correct procedure?
Unless you can answer "yes" to both these questions, your arguments do not hold water.

 

[Britsimon]

Well, just briefly on some important points:
- AP is already widely used by the US Consulate in Ghana, based on the data kindly shared by Thowa earlier, the ratio AP/Visa Issued by the Consulate is 109/266 or 41%. An argument that AP is not being used effectively by this specific Consulate therefore would be rather nonsensical.
- All interviewees give an oath to tell the truth but nothing but the truth at the beginning of the consulate interview. There is a definite reason for the visa application of a person found not to be in compliance with the oath to be rejected at the end of the interview, no need to put anyone in this situation on AP - there were 416 refusals for the Consulate by the end of May.
- The critically important role of the CO is to determine objective DV eligibility based on the information provided by the DV applicant, checking in detail for possible inconsistencies and fraud attempts. In this respect, a requirement to "demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents" would therefore seem to be rather logical and any CO certainly will be provided sufficient leverage to reduce visa fraud in DV and other IV cases. The example the Consulate provided in their response " if you passed your English exam, then it would be reasonable to expect that you speak enough English to have an interview", would sound very much like common sense to most people - an experienced CO certainly will not require long time or many intrusive questions to confirm this. Obviously, this is very different from being able to "to answer any question from any of your high school exams", isn't it?

At the end, one can always agree to disagree and simply because an opinion might not be specifically popular with some, does not make it wrong by definition, does it? Personal remarks are off the mark and should never become part of public or private discourse.

The only important points from this are therefore potential learnings for the folks interviewing at this specific consulate. Hopefully these will include but not be limited to:

* Read and follow all instructions in preparation of your interview and prepare any and all documents carefully and completely
* Make sure you can back up any documentation by personal presentation and representation at the interview
* Simply tell the truth and nothing but the truth at the interview - do not make up stuff, either verbally or document wise, there is a very high chance that you will be found out and your visa application will be rejected at the end of the interview. Found lying under oath at the interview will result in a lifetime ban from the US
* There is only one chance you got and "there are no reviews or appeals in Diversity Visa cases", however much one might feel wronged or treated unfairly - make sure you'll give it your very best shot.

Good luck!

Sorry Euro, but you are way off base here. All your advice makes perfect sense IF evberyone is playing by the rules. The CO wasn't in this case and yes I absolutely think their response is wrong.

For instance the "if you passed your English exam, then it would be reasonable to expect that you speak enough English to have an interview" is complete poppycock. You can pass an exam in English but you are still smart to insist on having an interview in your native tongue if possible. As for the "requirement" to "demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents". Their is NO SUCH requirement. Any document presented can be questioned, but not by an oral assessment by a CO who clearly is not qualified to do that. Their response was laughable and wrong.

I'm really not sure why you keep playing devils advocate on this point.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Well, just briefly on some important points:
- AP is already widely used by the US Consulate in Ghana, based on the data kindly shared by Thowa earlier, the ratio AP/Visa Issued by the Consulate is 109/266 or 41%. An argument that AP is not being used effectively by this specific Consulate therefore would be rather nonsensical.
- All interviewees give an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth at the beginning of the consulate interview. There is a definite reason for the visa application of a person found not to be in compliance with the oath to be rejected at the end of the interview, no need to put anyone in this situation on AP - there were 416 refusals for the Consulate by the end of May for this and other reasons.
- The critically important role of the CO is to determine objective DV eligibility based on the information provided by the DV applicant, checking in detail for possible inconsistencies and fraud attempts. In this respect, a requirement to "demonstrate a basic level of knowledge commensurate with their documents" would therefore seem to be rather logical and any CO certainly will be provided sufficient leverage to reduce visa fraud in DV and other IV cases. The example the Consulate provided in their response "if you passed your English exam, then it would be reasonable to expect that you speak enough English to have an interview", would sound very much like common sense to most people - an experienced CO certainly will not require long time or many intrusive questions to confirm this. Obviously, this is very different from being able to "to answer any question from any of your high school exams", isn't it?

At the end, one can always agree to disagree and simply because an opinion might not be specifically popular with some, does not make it wrong by definition, does it? Personal remarks are off the mark and should never become part of public or private discourse.

The only important points from this are therefore potential learnings for the folks interviewing at this specific consulate. Hopefully these will include but not be limited to:

* Read and follow all instructions in preparation of your interview and prepare any and all documents carefully and completely
* Make sure you can back up any documentation by personal presentation and representation at the interview
* Simply tell the truth and nothing but the truth at the interview - do not make up stuff, either verbally or document wise, there is a very high chance that you will be found out and your visa application will be rejected at the end of the interview. Found lying under oath at the interview will result in a lifetime ban from the US
* There is only one chance you got and "there are no reviews or appeals in Diversity Visa cases", however much one might feel wronged or treated unfairly - make sure you'll give it your very best shot.

Good luck!

Have you stopped to consider that the list of learnings you have does not include what happens when the CO goes against guidelines? That the person you seem so happy to see refused probably met all of this yet still got denied?