• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

DV 2015 Selectees from Ghana

Britsimon said:
Hmmm - that would also be excluded under the "what if" rules (strictly speaking) regarding public charge. I think the only justification can be the concern of false documents.
Click to expand...

I agree with Simon, the CO's questions about hepatitis most likely has to do with doubts she had with regards to false educational documents and not related to public charge concerns.

Even though 9Fam 42.33 N7.3 B Educational Evaluation clearly states:

A DV refusal must be based on evidence that the alien did not in fact obtain the required degree and not on your assessment of the alien's knowledge level. You may not administer an exam, either oral or written, to test an applicant's basic knowledge in order to determine whether they have the equivalent of a U.S. high school education. You may not refuse a DV applicant solely on the basis of your analysis of the applicant's basic knowledge. Doubts about the applicant's claimed educational level raised by your interview, however may lead you to investigate the authenticity of the educational credentials claimed by the DV applicant.
​
The truth is CO's still randomly engage in the practice of oral exam administration when they become suspicious of an applicant's claimed educational qualification. This is a 'normal' practice in the US Lagos embassy because of the high fraudulent practice associated with the place.
 
The questions were not in connection with the basic education requirement however, but related to the further education above that and the related job. That's why I thought maybe public charge. I certainly don't think it was an oral exam to test knowledge to meet the requirement.

The CO asked both myself and my husband what we did for a living, including a couple of brief questions about what the jobs entailed. Maybe just curiosity, who knows. It certainly didn't strike me as anything to worry about, or as being unusual.
 
The "claimed educational level" section of the quote above shows the CO wasn't focusing on just the basic educational requirement to qualify. The OP indicated she had more than the basic high school requirement and that's what the CO focused on with regards to those questions IMO. And like the OP implied in another post (?), she looks younger than one would expect from someone with with her qualification, so that may explain why the CO wanted her to talk a bit about her claimed field of specialty.
 
@aiguo the item you shared was posted in 2003 and I believe was a true reflection of events of that time. I remember how people you know are unqualified are entered into the draw by the so called agents who themselves did not necessarily know the rules that govern the operation of the DV. Has anyone realized that the number of agent tents in Ghana have reduced? I remember those tents were present in any open space back in days. That is my personal observation and I stand to be corrected. One thing I found interesting however is this, I went for my medicals at the Akai Clinic and this place is very close to the US Embassy. After my medicals I picked a taxi and asked the driver to use the road that passes in front of the Embassy, would you believe that right in front of the US Embassy there was an agent tent over there? I was surprised.
 
Sm1smom said:
The "claimed educational level" section of the quote above shows the CO wasn't focusing on just the basic educational requirement to qualify. The OP indicated she had more than the basic high school requirement and that's what the CO focused on with regards to those questions IMO. And like the OP implied in another post (?), she looks younger than one would expect from someone with with her qualification, so that may explain why the CO wanted her to talk a bit about her claimed field of specialty.
Click to expand...

Ok so we are intepreting the same fact to have a different meaning.... Oniy the CO knows why he asked. (Claimed education in the quote to me means claimed high school in the context of the quote...and we both agree the CO was not questioning on the basic education requirement, we just think motivated differently)
Anyway bottom line is those who are being truthful and honest have nothing to fear from interview questions.
 
@Sm1smom I have seen the FAM procedure on refusals and I am tempted to believe that there was something wrong with Flan's refusal. The guideline directs the CO to issue a refusal letter, and explicitly state the provision of the law under which the visa is refused, unless advised otherwise by the Department.
 
guykofi said:
@Sm1smom I have seen the FAM procedure on refusals and I am tempted to believe that there was something wrong with Flan's refusal. The guideline directs the CO to issue a refusal letter, and explicitly state the provision of the law under which the visa is refused, unless advised otherwise by the Department.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here? Didn't we already arrived at a conclusion on that case?
 
SusieQQQ said:
Ok so we are intepreting the same fact to have a different meaning.... Oniy the CO knows why he asked. (Claimed education in the quote to me means claimed high school in the context of the quote...and we both agree the CO was not questioning on the basic education requirement, we just think motivated differently)
Anyway bottom line is those who are being truthful and honest have nothing to fear from interview questions.
Click to expand...

The reason I'm convinced "claimed educational level" is looking beyond the HS diploma in the OP's case is because on the eDV registration form, one is asked to indicate their highest level of educational qualification and selectees get to provide more information on this on their DS-260 form. So I firmly believe that is in reference to whatever educational qualification level an applicant is claiming.

And I completely agree, regardless of the motive for the additional questions, the important thing is to not present fraudulent papers and to always be truthful when it comes to immigration matters.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Why? I thought the public charge determination had a large amount of discretion built into how a CO approaches it? Many people are asked what they plan to do in the US, it seems to me quite a logical extension of that question?

(The possible concern about false documents had occurred to me btw.)
Click to expand...


I as thinking about the clause below, thinking it was a two way street, but re-reading it it is only a one way street (May not refuse based on a what if). However, given the detail of the questions, I think the fraud concern more likely.


a. INA 212(a)(4) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) applies to all aliens seeking entry into the United States, with a few exceptions (see 9 FAM 40.41 N3). With respect to immigrant visa applicants, the amount and type of evidence generally required is much greater than that required in a nonimmigrant case. In all cases, however, you must base the determination of the likelihood that the applicant will become a public charge on a reasonable future projection of the alien's present circumstances. You may not refuse a visa on the basis of "what if" type considerations (e.g., "what if the applicant loses the job before reaching the intended destination," or "what if the applicant is faced with a medical emergency."). Instead, you must assess only the "totality of the circumstances" existing at the time of visa application. (See 9 FAM 40.41 N5 below.) In short, you must be able to point to circumstances which make it not merely possible, but likely, that the applicant will become a public charge, as defined in 9 FAM 40.41 N2, above.
 
guykofi said:
@SussieQQQ @Britsimon @Sm1smom; this is my question, how does not following the rules directly fits in to any of the provisions INA 212 and 221(g).
Click to expand...

There are so many sections under both INA 212 and 221 that can lead to a visa denial. For instance, under 212(a):

INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) - Fraud and Misrepresentation
What does a denial under INA section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) mean?

You were refused, or found ineligible, for a visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) because you attempted to receive a visa or enter the United States by willfully misrepresenting a material fact or committing fraud. This is a permanent ineligibility, so every time you apply for a visa, you will be found ineligible for this reason.

What is meant by misrepresentation of a material fact?

Misrepresentation means that you falsely presented facts and were not truthful in an attempt to receive a visa or enter the United States. A fact is considered material, as it pertains to this section of the INA, when, had the truth been known, you would not have been eligible to receive a visa or enter the United States.

Then there's also 212(a)(9):

What does a denial under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) mean?

You were refused, or found ineligible for, a visa under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) because you were considered to have been unlawfully present in the United States, if
  • You stayed in the United States after the expiration date for the period of stay authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for you, without the required authorization to extend your stay; or
  • You entered and were present in the United States without receiving the required authorization from CBP.
When denied a visa for unlawful presence, you are ineligible for a visa for the following length of time:

  • When unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days or longer but less than one year, you are ineligible for a visa for 3 years after departure from the United States; or
  • When unlawfully present in the United States for one year or longer, you are ineligible for a visa for 10 years after departure from the United States.

You can read more from the DOS website under visa denial (unfortunately I can't quite post the link now because of some changes being implemented in the forum - but Google travel state .gov visa denial to get the link yourself)

Those two INA sections are quite broad and anything basically can be made to fit within. Not following the rule could be interpreted as withholding material information required to adjudicate a case. The CO in @F-Lan's case probably felt the unintentional claim of NFN (with the placement of the first name where the middle name should have been) was a fraudulent act intended to fool the process/witholding of material information.
 
guykofi said:
@aiguo the item you shared was posted in 2003 and I believe was a true reflection of events of that time. I remember how people you know are unqualified are entered into the draw by the so called agents who themselves did not necessarily know the rules that govern the operation of the DV. Has anyone realized that the number of agent tents in Ghana have reduced? I remember those tents were present in any open space back in days. That is my personal observation and I stand to be corrected. One thing I found interesting however is this, I went for my medicals at the Akai Clinic and this place is very close to the US Embassy. After my medicals I picked a taxi and asked the driver to use the road that passes in front of the Embassy, would you believe that right in front of the US Embassy there was an agent tent over there? I was surprised.
Click to expand...
yes bro when i read it, for me it still make senses today. remember if they can use it in 2003, they can apply now too although it might not be right. as long as the visa is determine by the CO, everything is possible right or not. Actually, the first time i read of the embassy asking practical question was from the Nigerian site. anyway, how is the weather treating you? anyway, i am out of Ghana for now due to work but will be returning in june.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Ok so we are intepreting the same fact to have a different meaning.... Oniy the CO knows why he asked. (Claimed education in the quote to me means claimed high school in the context of the quote...and we both agree the CO was not questioning on the basic education requirement, we just think motivated differently)
Anyway bottom line is those who are being truthful and honest have nothing to fear from interview questions.
Click to expand...
being honest and truthfully is the issue.
 
Sm1smom said:
There are so many sections under both INA 212 and 221 that can lead to a visa denial. For instance, under 212(a):

INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) - Fraud and Misrepresentation
What does a denial under INA section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) mean?

You were refused, or found ineligible, for a visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) because you attempted to receive a visa or enter the United States by willfully misrepresenting a material fact or committing fraud. This is a permanent ineligibility, so every time you apply for a visa, you will be found ineligible for this reason.

What is meant by misrepresentation of a material fact?

Misrepresentation means that you falsely presented facts and were not truthful in an attempt to receive a visa or enter the United States. A fact is considered material, as it pertains to this section of the INA, when, had the truth been known, you would not have been eligible to receive a visa or enter the United States.

Then there's also 212(a)(9):

What does a denial under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) mean?

You were refused, or found ineligible for, a visa under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) because you were considered to have been unlawfully present in the United States, if
  • You stayed in the United States after the expiration date for the period of stay authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for you, without the required authorization to extend your stay; or
  • You entered and were present in the United States without receiving the required authorization from CBP.
When denied a visa for unlawful presence, you are ineligible for a visa for the following length of time:

  • When unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days or longer but less than one year, you are ineligible for a visa for 3 years after departure from the United States; or
  • When unlawfully present in the United States for one year or longer, you are ineligible for a visa for 10 years after departure from the United States.

You can read more from the DOS website under visa denial (unfortunately I can't quite post the link now because of some changes being implemented in the forum - but Google travel state .gov visa denial to get the link yourself)

Those two INA sections are quite broad and anything basically can be made to fit within. Not following the rule could be interpreted as withholding material information required to adjudicate a case. The CO in @F-Lan's case probably felt the unintentional claim of NFN (with the placement of the first name where the middle name should have been) was a fraudulent act intended to fool the process/witholding of material information.
Click to expand...
Claro!
 
Britsimon said:
Interesting that the CO asked the questions about hepatitis. That is the first time I read that and administering an exam is NOT supposed to be done (it is specifically excluded for testing education qualifications). So if you had met the education qualification, these questions should not have been asked. After all. What would she have done if you had answered the questions completely wrong? I get the intent, but not sure it should have been done....
Click to expand...
Test of honesty? congrats. that was an interview indeed.
 
Sm1smom said:
I agree with Simon, the CO's questions about hepatitis most likely has to do with doubts she had with regards to false educational documents and not related to public charge concerns.

Even though 9Fam 42.33 N7.3 B Educational Evaluation clearly states:

A DV refusal must be based on evidence that the alien did not in fact obtain the required degree and not on your assessment of the alien's knowledge level. You may not administer an exam, either oral or written, to test an applicant's basic knowledge in order to determine whether they have the equivalent of a U.S. high school education. You may not refuse a DV applicant solely on the basis of your analysis of the applicant's basic knowledge. Doubts about the applicant's claimed educational level raised by your interview, however may lead you to investigate the authenticity of the educational credentials claimed by the DV applicant.
​
The truth is CO's still randomly engage in the practice of oral exam administration when they become suspicious of an applicant's claimed educational qualification. This is a 'normal' practice in the US Lagos embassy because of the high fraudulent practice associated with the place.
Click to expand...
Thought???? Am amazed by your opinions..i had my appointment letter with me..my PIN from my nurses and midwives council with,my national service posting letter and certifcate with me,huh???? Am a professional nurse and definitely my interview will be different from others thats all...in other jobs people are just promoted but my field you go for a comprehensive interview to tell them you have not stopped learning..hahaha
 
guykofi said:
Claro!
Click to expand...
I didnt only provide my SSCE but added my transcript..so where from those opinions of yours? The only thought,i think they had was my age,think am not 28years,i did my birth cert in 2007,my passport in April with the. Intention of applying for a school in the USA but not for the DV and fortunately for me,In May the results was announced and was selected..thats all guys
 
Da_nn said:
Thought???? Am amazed by your opinions..i had my appointment letter with me..my PIN from my nurses and midwives council with,my national service posting letter and certifcate with me,huh???? Am a professional nurse and definitely my interview will be different from others thats all...in other jobs people are just promoted but my field you go for a comprehensive interview to tell them you have not stopped learning..hahaha
Click to expand...

Da_nn said:
I didnt only provide my SSCE but added my transcript..so where from those opinions of yours? The only thought,i think they had was my age,think am not 28years,i did my birth cert in 2007,my passport in April with the. Intention of applying for a school in the USA but not for the DV and fortunately for me,In May the results was announced and was selected..thats all guys
Click to expand...

Try not to get so prickly such that you miss the essence of what is actually being discussed. Nobody is insinuating there was something wrong with your papers or credentials; we're simply postulating on what could be behind the CO's line of questioning, the interview at the embassy had nothing to do with how people in your line of work get promoted compared to other professions. And I did state in a follow up post anyway that the CO probably thought you looked younger than your stated age and couldn't be working in the profession you claimed hence the questioning to confirm the claimed educational level.

No one here so far as said anything to malign you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top