tom169

I stumbled across this:

https://www.quora.com/As-a-visa-offi...athryn-Berck-3

Thought it was interesting to read.

uk_grenada

Great value read

tom169

I think it backs up the commonly held notion of the officer has a good idea of approving / denying before you even get to the window.

neill

She has posted a lot of quality advice/info/insight on Quora.

Rete

I liked her take on US immigration attorneys.

retzie

I have been The Complicated Story

The ConOff stuck with it for a week of back and forth with head office and I got my B-1 in the end

morpeth

Just my own anecdotal experience quite the opposite. In our family we had one issue where the immigration attorney knew the law , which the immigration officials did not- but it then took us a few thousand dollars until finally reached immigration official who admitted our lawyer was correct.

In one country I know , generally the more documents on hand, and carefully crafted stories , seem to have the better chance of getting a visa. Considering how thousands pour across the US order every week, or over-stay their visas, I often wonder how people who legally try to get US visas get turned down so easily.

My own take is the US consular officials have a quota to meet, I have no proof this, and manage heir approvals accordingly.

Yes an interesting read to be sure from the other side of the desk.

S Folinsky

I agree with the contents. Ms. Berck is a published author and writes very well.

In the context of the piece, I agree with her observation on Immigration attorneys. Most attorneys in immigration have very little direct contact with consular officers and don't understand that the rules are quite different in that arena. This drives the ConOffs nuts, with damn good reasons.

It should be noted that lawyers have two distinct roles: representation (advocate) and counselor (advisor). The ConOff will see the representation (on field participation) and not see the counselling (off field coaching).

When I did direct consular work, it was rare I attended interviews. It was never for a garden variety case. And even then, my role was primarily to observe. Good ConOffs might direct questions at me, but those would be generally directed at "legal issues."

Most of my direct consular work was post denial and had to be done with a very light touch. My first inquiry was about why the denial given the absence of detailed written decision. This would then be followed by inquiry about what the ConOff might need to overcome the denial. Again with a light touch. Sometimes, the reason for the denial would be purely "legal" in nature and this would allow advocacy.

Each case was unique. With one notable exception, the ConOffs welcomed competent representation which facilitated correct decisions.