Going to DV visa interview without proof of sufficient funds...
- Thread starter kunato
- Start date
Qewty
Registered Users (C)
Well put
A great post Kunato
I had this same conversation last night with my husband. Even though many have said they were not asked for it, even some stating it is not on the list of documents required at interview, I do not want to risk ever being denied because I "assumed". Far better to have more than not enough of what they need.
If I ever get an interview, I will take everything I think I should have - and proof of funds is on that list!
Thank you for posting Kunato
Q
A great post Kunato
I had this same conversation last night with my husband. Even though many have said they were not asked for it, even some stating it is not on the list of documents required at interview, I do not want to risk ever being denied because I "assumed". Far better to have more than not enough of what they need.
If I ever get an interview, I will take everything I think I should have - and proof of funds is on that list!
Thank you for posting Kunato
Q
A great post Kunato
I had this same conversation last night with my husband. Even though many have said they were not asked for it, even some stating it is not on the list of documents required at interview, I do not want to risk ever being denied because I "assumed". Far better to have more than not enough of what they need.
If I ever get an interview, I will take everything I think I should have - and proof of funds is on that list!
Thank you for posting Kunato
Q
well said, but if u are fron Nigeria i tell u, u dont need proof of funds or affidavit of support. take it from me. when i went for interview. I went with my wife with no proof of fund and affidat of support. We did our interview and was successful. If u are from other country i might not be able to say anythin abt dat, but for Nigerian u dont need.
John Locke
Registered Users (C)
I think you're mistaken. Nowhere in the DV instructions is anything written about having proof of funds at the interview. It's only on this forum that I've seen anything about Affidavits of Support, bank statements, paystubs or anything of that nature.
I've just passed my interview. The consular official was interested in seeing my proof of funds only because I brought them with me. They wanted to see every document I had, even when it wasn't going to make any difference to my case. For example I had my university and high school records, but I was asked to hand over my elementary and middle school records as well, seeing as I had brought them with me. I doubt I would have been refused the visa if I didn't have the proof of funds. I speak native English, I'm highly educated, I have family in the United States, I hold EU and Australian citizenship. My presumption is that those factors demonstrating that I won't become a public charge are far more persuasive than a bank statement. I'd definitely recommend bringing proof of funds to the interview, just to be expedient and for peace of mind. But I am a bit bemused by many members on this forum who seem to know more about DV regulations than what is set out on dvselectee.state.gov . This is an extremely stressful process (it was for me) and forum members should remember this when making posts.
I've just passed my interview. The consular official was interested in seeing my proof of funds only because I brought them with me. They wanted to see every document I had, even when it wasn't going to make any difference to my case. For example I had my university and high school records, but I was asked to hand over my elementary and middle school records as well, seeing as I had brought them with me. I doubt I would have been refused the visa if I didn't have the proof of funds. I speak native English, I'm highly educated, I have family in the United States, I hold EU and Australian citizenship. My presumption is that those factors demonstrating that I won't become a public charge are far more persuasive than a bank statement. I'd definitely recommend bringing proof of funds to the interview, just to be expedient and for peace of mind. But I am a bit bemused by many members on this forum who seem to know more about DV regulations than what is set out on dvselectee.state.gov . This is an extremely stressful process (it was for me) and forum members should remember this when making posts.
I agree - that's why they ask for biographical data. Anyway it is a good practice to check the instructions of the individual post you are applying. For instance, below I quote text from the web page of the US Embassy in Poland: "Diversity Visa applicants must demonstrate that they have the financial means to support themselves and not become a public charge on the U.S. government."
"An applicant for a fiancé(e) or diversity immigrant visa may generally satisfy the requirement of the law by the presentation of documentary evidence establishing that:
1. the applicant has, or will have in the U.S. personal funds sufficient to provide support for the applicant and dependent family members, if any, or sufficient to provide support until suitable employment is located;
2. the applicant has arranged employment in the U.S. that will provide an adequate income for the applicant and dependent family members;
3. relatives or friends in the U.S. will assure the applicant's support; or
4. a combination of the above circumstances"
"An applicant for a fiancé(e) or diversity immigrant visa may generally satisfy the requirement of the law by the presentation of documentary evidence establishing that:
1. the applicant has, or will have in the U.S. personal funds sufficient to provide support for the applicant and dependent family members, if any, or sufficient to provide support until suitable employment is located;
2. the applicant has arranged employment in the U.S. that will provide an adequate income for the applicant and dependent family members;
3. relatives or friends in the U.S. will assure the applicant's support; or
4. a combination of the above circumstances"
John Locke
Registered Users (C)
I'm not going to respond to your more gratuitous remarks, which unfortunately seem to be the order of the day on internet forums. Good English is vital to success in any English-speaking country, so I’d encourage you to brush up on your grammar if you’re intending to live in the US. I was speculating (as we all do on this site) that having a wealthier background, such as holding western citizenship, and being well-educated, are going to be taken into consideration at the interview. A bank statement has weaknesses in proving the applicant's financial viability.
The dvselectee website explains what documents to obtain for the interview. It doesn't request information about the applicant's financial situation. That's the issue I'm taking up with you, and others on this site. To quote from the same URL you pasted:
In order to receive a DV to immigrate to the United States, those chosen in the random drawing must meet ALL eligibility requirements under U.S. law. These requirements may significantly increase the level of scrutiny required and time necessary for processing for natives of some countries listed in this notice including, but not limited to, countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism.
I think it's up to the Embassy/Consulate to decide how far to scrutinise each applicant. That’s why I’d recommend taking some proof of funds to the interview.
The dvselectee website explains what documents to obtain for the interview. It doesn't request information about the applicant's financial situation. That's the issue I'm taking up with you, and others on this site. To quote from the same URL you pasted:
In order to receive a DV to immigrate to the United States, those chosen in the random drawing must meet ALL eligibility requirements under U.S. law. These requirements may significantly increase the level of scrutiny required and time necessary for processing for natives of some countries listed in this notice including, but not limited to, countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism.
I think it's up to the Embassy/Consulate to decide how far to scrutinise each applicant. That’s why I’d recommend taking some proof of funds to the interview.
Qewty
Registered Users (C)
if you are so highly educated, how come you didn't read through the official DV visa instructions provided by the US government and available at: http://travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_2013_instructions.pdf
- The fact that you are Australian (The Island of Convicts) has even less relevance in proving you have sufficient funds. Seriously, I visited Australia twice in the past 15 years. In my view, Australia is economically and culturally at least 20 years behind the US and at least 10-15 years behind Europe. Based on what I've seen people can barely afford cars in Australia, let alone fight ticket to get the hack away from the continent. Many Australians I met receive some form of government support.
"
Although I will remain optimistic and relish the thought of possibly getting the chance to move back the to the US, after this thread I doubt I will post again or make comment on what was simply my opinion of what I intend to do if I get an interview.
Such awful generalisations and judgements. I thought we were beyond this
Q
John Locke
Registered Users (C)
I don't blame you. All the information you need is already on this site anyway, if you search for it. My reason for posting was that there's also a lot of misinformation which caused unnecessary stress leading up to the interview.
I agree with the general consensus that one should be well prepared for the interview. I have also learnt that with immigration issues you should do exactly as you are asked for. If you do that, you should get the visa. Having more documents than what is required is nice, but it does not really add anything to the process as you would already have complied with all requirements with fewer documents.
My point is this : In Australia (as John Locke said) they do not require proof of funds at the interview. It is not listed in the interview letter (which sets out all the documents you must bring to the interview) and they also do not ask for it. Other consulates/embassies might well do so, but Sydney doesn't. The vital thing is that you should take with you the consulate-specific documents - these will be listed in your interview notification letter.
The instructions on the web is general in nature and each consulate may have subtle variances to it... as Sydney has iro proof of funds.
I hope that makes it clearer.
My point is this : In Australia (as John Locke said) they do not require proof of funds at the interview. It is not listed in the interview letter (which sets out all the documents you must bring to the interview) and they also do not ask for it. Other consulates/embassies might well do so, but Sydney doesn't. The vital thing is that you should take with you the consulate-specific documents - these will be listed in your interview notification letter.
The instructions on the web is general in nature and each consulate may have subtle variances to it... as Sydney has iro proof of funds.
I hope that makes it clearer.
Qewty
Registered Users (C)
Island of Convicts?
Thanks.
We are 20 years behind? Comments like that are 100's of years behind.
I get so tired of hearing it. As an Australian, it's offensive. I understand you were obviously cross with the other poster, but was there a need for that?
Q
Qewty
Registered Users (C)
A great post Kunato
I had this same conversation last night with my husband. Even though many have said they were not asked for it, even some stating it is not on the list of documents required at interview, I do not want to risk ever being denied because I "assumed". Far better to have more than not enough of what they need.
If I ever get an interview, I will take everything I think I should have - and proof of funds is on that list!
Thank you for posting Kunato
Q
I just wanted to correct something from my original post.
When I wrote that proof of funds in on "that list" - I meant MY list of things to do, NOT the list of required documents. It's only now I realised how my "every day speak" would have been misconstrued (I always refer to what I need to do as being on one list or another).
Q
First of all, the "thanks" was intended to be sarcastic, secondly you are generalising all Australians as not only the descendants of criminals, but criminals in general, which is ridiculous and inflammatory.
A silly assertion. Australia was not founded for the purposes of being a penal colony; it was a territorial area discovered by the Cook voyage for the intended expansion of the British Empire. Australia’s enormous size made it suitable to send convicts there as opposed to any other place after the loss of the American colonies.
If you actually knew your history, you would know that what is now called the United States of America was the primary destination for convicts sentenced to “transportation.” The very place this section of this forum is dedicated to getting to. The American Revolutionary War put an end to that destination, so Australia was set up as an alternative.
Interesting how you claim that you provide “facts.” This is not a “fact” it is a source, and moreover you have been dishonest on you presentation of this quote from this source, the rest of it follows;
“...you have yet, perhaps, to learn that these are the people who have quietly submitted to the laws and regulations of the colony... These are the men who have built houses and ships, who have made wonderful efforts, considering the disadvantages under which they have acted, in agriculture, in maritime speculation, and in manufactures." In character, both moral and political, Macquarie declares, they outweigh the free settlers, who struggle for their depression. Let not Mr Bigge's disposition for doing good be "overwhelmed by an overstrained delicacy, or too refined a sense of moral feeling: for such I consider the preference given to a bad man who has perhaps narrowly escaped the stigma of having once been a convict, to one who is now good, but who has been proved not to have been always so.”
The moral, which you appear to have missed, is the concept of how tarnishing everyone with the same brush because of the past is a mistake. Conversely, those who may appear to righteous at first, when tested are not so. The British Justice System which sent these people to penal colonies was hardly a stellar system of moral, fair or rigorous jurisprudence. Many of the convicts sent to Australia had done nothing more than assert rights they would have had under the United States Constitution, mainly freedom of expression, association and forming labour unions, prohibited under the The Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act (or Criminal Libel Act) (60 Geo. III & 1 Geo. IV c. 8).
No source, irrelevant, convicts set up businesses, employed and were employed, so? And as for those who apparently think it was "paradise" many such people also thought that women shouldn’t get the vote, nor be allowed to divorce or work, unions should not be allowed to organise and petition for better employment rights or withhold their labour by strike, and the people shall not have their liberty. Just because someone had an opinion of something in the 18th century doesn’t make it a “fact,” nor correct.
What you neglect to mention is that while 166,000 people were sent to Australia as convicts between 1788 and 1868, in 1852 alone, 370,000 immigrants arrived in Australia by their own free will, thus convicts throughout the entire period of transportation is less than a third of a single year; hardly a “nation of convicts.” It should be pointed out too that the gold rush made the population of Australia boom from over 400,000 people to over 1,000,000 during 1845 to 1896.
I wonder how Police Certificate issued in Australia looks like
HAHA!
Childish, ignorant and immature.
Last edited by a moderator: