Change In Policy At The Us Embassy?

[andyc2006]

My wife has a visa interview today at the US Embassy.

We went together, as we did last year for the K1 interview, but they wouldn't allow me to enter the embassy grounds, saying that only the interviewee and a translator can go in.

As other US citizens entered freely in the left lane, the ones who'd queued up with their spouse/fiance/friend in the right lane were denied entrance, and told to wait off to the side. I felt bad for the others -- we only live a block away on Soi Langsuan, so I just walked home, but they'll be waiting outside for hours!

The new policy wasn't mentioned on any of the web pages or the interview confirmation page that we saw when we scheduled the appointment.

I'm not sure what the point of this is, given that many times the interviewers speak more with the spouse/fiance/friend than with the visa applicant themself! That was certainly the case in the past when my fiance (now wife) went for her K1 and even the time before that when she applied for her B2.

I guess the moral of the story is if you're a US Citizen who wants to accompany somebody to a visa interview at the BKK embassy (just to wait for them, be available in case needed, etc...), go immediately to the left lane and be ready to give a reason for needing to enter the embassy. Don't wait in line with the visa applicant.

Come to think of it... something sounds illegal about a Thai person telling a US citizen that they can't enter their own country's embassy... and what's really wrong about it is that it's other US citizens instructing them to do that...

Ugh, come to think of it, it's unlikely my wife is carrying the 85 baht she'll need to purchase the return envelope (one of the necessary steps when at the embassy during the application process).

Edited January 28, 2009 by ajc1970

[ubonjoe]

As a US citizen I don't think they can stop you from entering the compund. I do know that they would not of stopped me. They might be able to stop you from entering the waiting area with her. But you can get around that by going through the door for US citizen services which has access to the waiting area.

I think it was an employee overstepping their authority in your case.

[andyc2006]

As a US citizen I don't think they can stop you from entering the compund. I do know that they would not of stopped me. They might be able to stop you from entering the waiting area with her. But you can get around that by going through the door for US citizen services which has access to the waiting area.

I think it was an employee overstepping their authority in your case.

The rest of the story... 2 other US citizens (one whose husband was scheduled to interview, and the other whose wife was scheduled to interview) and I talked outside for a bit, and then I decided I was going in.

The 2 women who'd checked my wife's papers before allowing her in, and then told me that I couldn't enter, asked why I wanted to enter. I said, "to learn about my options voting abroad as a US citizen." They smiled and said no. I continued walking in. They asked the security guard to block me, which he did.

I stopped at that point and told my wife that I was walking home, and then did so.

Yes... I could easily have plunked the security guard onto the ground... but what would that have accomplished? Even if I made it inside, they'd probably then start enforcing a "no loitering" policy... "do what you need to do, then go."

And it most likely wouldn't end up even that good. I know my wife would've been embarrassed to no end (she is Thai, after all...), and I'd likely end up needing to get bailed out of jail.

Let's not forget that those Thai women & the Thai security guard are working for the Embassy, and they've almost certainly been instructed to enforce this new, unannounced policy.

But the more I think about it, the issue of not being allowed to enter your embassy is rather serious... if the US embassy is going to deny admittance to a US citizen (which they should never do), they should at least have another US citizen out there judging each situation... only a US citizen should be able to tell another US citizen that they can't enter the US embassy.

Edited January 28, 2009 by ajc1970

[ubonjoe]

I wouldn't of had a confrontation. I would of politely told them to call their supervisor and have him tell me I could not enter.

[skipvice]

As a US citizen I don't think they can stop you from entering the compund. I do know that they would not of stopped me. They might be able to stop you from entering the waiting area with her. But you can get around that by going through the door for US citizen services which has access to the waiting area.

I think it was an employee overstepping their authority in your case.

The rest of the story... 2 other US citizens (one whose husband was scheduled to interview, and the other whose wife was scheduled to interview) and I talked outside for a bit, and then I decided I was going in.

The 2 women who'd checked my wife's papers before allowing her in, and then told me that I couldn't enter, asked why I wanted to enter. I said, "to learn about my options voting abroad as a US citizen." They smiled and said no. I continued walking in. They asked the security guard to block me, which he did.

I stopped at that point and told my wife that I was walking home, and then did so.

Yes... I could easily have plunked the security guard onto the ground... but what would that have accomplished? Even if I made it inside, they'd probably then start enforcing a "no loitering" policy... "do what you need to do, then go."

And it most likely wouldn't end up even that good. I know my wife would've been embarrassed to no end (she is Thai, after all...), and I'd likely end up needing to get bailed out of jail.

Let's not forget that those Thai women & the Thai security guard are working for the Embassy, and they've almost certainly been instructed to enforce this new, unannounced policy.

But the more I think about it, the issue of not being allowed to enter your embassy is rather serious... if the US embassy is going to deny admittance to a US citizen (which they should never do), they should at least have another US citizen out there judging each situation... only a US citizen should be able to tell another US citizen that they can't enter the US embassy.

I was allowed to go inside the Embassy but not into the interview room at the old Embassy, To my understanding the reason is the person beinging interview is ask questions the may anger the partner. This was back in 1970 and the policy has not changed.

[andyc2006]

I was allowed to go inside the Embassy but not into the interview room at the old Embassy, To my understanding the reason is the person beinging interview is ask questions the may anger the partner. This was back in 1970 and the policy has not changed.

In 2008, I accompanied my wife for 2 visa interviews. The first, the B2, they interviewed me more than her (since I tied her to the US and gave her a reason to stay there, they wanted to establish that I was residing in Thailand).

Then again that year for her K1 interview, I accompanied her. Now that I think back, they spoke more with her than with me, but they did speak with me briefly.

So the policy change confuses me, since they sometimes do speak with those they're now not allowing to enter -- but I guarantee you that today (at the least) it's different than it was in 1970.

But the annoying part is that they didn't announce it, so people are making efforts to go to the embassy early in the morning and being told to wait outside.

And the troubling aspect is that any person who judges the merits of whether a US Citizen can enter a US Embassy should be an US citizen working in a formal capacity for the embassy.

[Svenn]

Yep, pretty insane if you ask me. The US embassy is essentially US soil. Little places like that end up building up a bureaucracy type mentality, to the extent that you end up with this sad situation where an undereducated foreign security guard is deciding who can enter another country's embassy.

This visa process is by far the worst part of this whole sorry situation. Why American citizens can't guarantee a foreigner's custody while in the US is beyond me- just make us pay $50k dollars or something if they go missing, put a tracker on their ankle, ANYTHING.... but for g-d's sake get rid of this 'proof of return on your own merits' nonsense! It doesn't work and has allows thousands of trash into the country every year.

[chuckd]

They would have an extremely loud and difficult time keeping me out of the Embassy.

It is US territory and I have a US passport which by law should entitle me to admittance. I would have required somebody above the Consul level telling me I was not allowed inside.

I have had run-ins with the State Department bureaucrats working at this and various other embassies around the world over the years. I have found the Supervisors tend to back down when they have no legal right to do what they are doing and it is explained to them in terms they seem to understand. In other words, show me the law or statute that says you can keep me out, or open the door and let me in.

Perhaps this is something Hillary has started? Keeping the riff-raff out.

[andyc2006]

I wouldn't of had a confrontation. I would of politely told them to call their supervisor and have him tell me I could not enter.

I walked back 2.5 hours later, planning to enter. If they asked why I needed to be there, I was going to say "to discuss, with an American consular official, the policy of non-Americans preventing Americans from entering a US embassy," and then if she said no, to say that I'd like to see a U.S. citizen supervisor.

But my wife came out a few minutes before I arrived (and they approved her B2 application). Moot point for me now, but I still think this policy change, and lack of announcing it, are reprehensible.

FYI, since this may matter more in the future now that US citizens can't accompany visa applicants (assuming the new policy sticks), here's a letter I'd written the night before.

My wife said the interviewer read the whole letter during the interview, and based on what she told me after the interview and her fear of speaking with authorities -- especially older, white, English-speaking authorities -- I'm guessing the letter helped.

At least the letter was a substitute for me being there, and others may find that a similar letter helps them...

Consular Staff, U.S. Embassy

Bangkok, Thailand

I'm writing in regards to Mrs. ajc1970's B2 "tourist" visa application.

Mrs. ajc1970 applied for a B2 visa in July 2008, but her application was denied since she could neither prove that she would not attempt to immigrate to the U.S.A., nor that she would return to Thailand.

Since then, Mrs. ajc1970 (now my wife) has traveled to the U.S.A. She was admitted on the K1 "fiancé" visa, and had she desired, she could have stayed in the States and legally switched her status from non-immigrant to immigrant. Instead, she just visited our family and friends, and then returned to Thailand, where we reside together.

Given that she has traveled to the U.S.A. and returned, and that she had the opportunity to immigrate legally but chose not to do so, I submit these actions for your consideration in determining whether she's likely to overstay a tourist visa or attempt to illegally immigrate to the U.S.A.

Though we have no means to prove (beyond doubt) that she would not violate any U.S. immigration laws, it's our opinion that her recent trip supports the conclusion that she would not violate the terms of any visa issued to her.

We have included copies of my passport stamps with her B2 visa application. These indicate that I've resided in Thailand since April 2008 and that I currently have a valid visa to remain in Thailand until January 2010.

We've also included a copy of her boarding passes (which demonstrate that she returned to the U.S.A. before her visa expired), and a copy of our marriage certificate (which demonstrates that we used the "fiancé" visa as intended -- that she married me in the U.S.A. after entering using the fiancé visa).

Since Mrs. ajc1970 does not have significant income or financial assets, I've included copies of my financial statements to demonstrate that she can afford to travel to the U.S.A. I will fully finance her travel to and from the U.S.A., and pay her expenses while in the U.S.A.

We’ve attempted to proactively include any documents that will help the Consul decide how to proceed with Mrs. ajc1970’s B2 visa application, but if we have missed anything, please indicate what it is and we’ll happily provide it.

Finally, since we plan to reside in Thailand indefinitely, we respectfully request that you consider issuing Mrs. ajc1970 a B2 visa valid for a full ten years. We have no specific dates or travel plans at this moment. Instead, it is more likely that for as long as we live in Thailand, we'll make two trips each year to the U.S.A. to visit our family and friends. A visa that's valid for ten years will reduce our burden when making those trips.

Thank you,

ajc1970

contact information was here

My wife said that interviewer grilled & lectured her about not staying in/immigrating to the US the first time that she entered.

I would've loved to have been there to point out that the K1 is a non-immigrant visa, and that she'd followed all the explicit rules (leaving within 90 days, etc...) and implicit rules (marrying while there) for the visa.

My wife simply answered that we wanted to live in Thailand and that they'd turned her down for the B2 tourist visa because they thought she wouldn't return to Thailand, so our only option was to apply for the K1 visa. The irony...

Edited January 28, 2009 by ajc1970

[andyc2006]

They would have an extremely loud and difficult time keeping me out of the Embassy.

Believe me, my first emotion was extreme anger and I really wanted to let loose and launch into the woman, for the reasons that you mentioned (minus the Hillary bit).

I recognized the anger and thought a couple of things: 1) I may act in a way I'd regret or that'd get me thrown in jail, and 2) regardless of whether I was right or wrong, any loud actions on my part would prove extremely embarrassing for my wife. So I walked away to re-group.

[hhgz]

"Come to think of it... something sounds illegal about a Thai person telling a US citizen that they can't enter their own country's embassy... and what's really wrong about it is that it's other US citizens instructing them to do that..."

The US Embassy is considered to be US soil, and you are entitled to enter. However, just like other places on US soil, you do not have the right to go anywhere that you please. There are places in the embassy that are off-limits - it is just that simple.

[PeaceBlondie]

Trying to say this politely: Yes, of course, you are a citizen. You are not a bureaucrat. You do not own the embassy, not personally. If you cause a ruckus on federal property back n the homeland, you will be ushered out by well-trained gun-toters and possibly charged with a crime. Civilians cannot walk onto a US Military Base without good cause, etc.

So, is this excluding policy official, and established? Let's not blame Hilary just yet. Maybe Condoleeza or Colin...

[freddiefunk]

Trying to say this politely: Yes, of course, you are a citizen. You are not a bureaucrat. You do not own the embassy, not personally. If you cause a ruckus on federal property back n the homeland, you will be ushered out by well-trained gun-toters and possibly charged with a crime. Civilians cannot walk onto a US Military Base without good cause, etc.

So, is this excluding policy official, and established? Let's not blame Hilary just yet. Maybe Condoleeza or Colin...

There is no reason they can not communicate this policy change. You can bet I was annoyed when I accompanied my wife from Hatyai to Bangkok, only to be told I can not join her for moral support after all. I did not raise a big ruckus, but I did not leave until I got confirmation of the policy from a more senior person.

I get the point that US citizenship does not give you the right to stomp anywhere around the US embassy, but a little heads-up about this policy change would be the right thing to do...

[Langsuan Man]

I have to laugh at all this posturing about your rights to enter the United States Embassy just because you are a citizen.

I used to work for the US Department of State, had a Diplomatic Passport, a State Department issued Identification card, and I was not allowed into Embassy's without a locally issued ID.

At the US Embassy in Bangkok you will not see an American (Marine Security Guard) until you run the gauntlet of the Thai Contract Security Guards and even then you will not even see them at American Citizens Services since that is considered a Consular building and not the main Embassy. The main Embassy is across the street.

Even as a retired State Department employee I have to go through the same process as everyone else. (income verification letter, residence letter, etc.) And believe me I don't go there with any kind of attitude that they HAVE to do anything for me.

[ubonjoe]

Trying to say this politely: Yes, of course, you are a citizen. You are not a bureaucrat. You do not own the embassy, not personally. If you cause a ruckus on federal property back n the homeland, you will be ushered out by well-trained gun-toters and possibly charged with a crime. Civilians cannot walk onto a US Military Base without good cause, etc.

So, is this excluding policy official, and established? Let's not blame Hilary just yet. Maybe Condoleeza or Colin...

There is no reason they can not communicate this policy change. You can bet I was annoyed when I accompanied my wife from Hatyai to Bangkok, only to be told I can not join her for moral support after all. I did not raise a big ruckus, but I did not leave until I got confirmation of the policy from a more senior person.

I get the point that US citizenship does not give you the right to stomp anywhere around the US embassy, but a little heads-up about this policy change would be the right thing to do...

They will tell you it's for security reasons.

I can see them limiting the number of people going in with an applicant. But not their spouse or significant other that is a US citizen. That's just plain wrong.

If it happened to me I think there would be some emails going out and a phone call or two if need be.

Of course knowing about the policy there would be nothing to stop you frome entering separately for a visit to the US citizens service area. You could even make an appointment for something.

[andyc2006]

I have to laugh at all this posturing about your rights to enter the United States Embassy just because you are a citizen.

I think you're missing (or choosing to ignore) the 2 points that matter most (in my opinion).

1. They changed the policy but they didn't announce the change anywhere (conspicuous).

People who've gone through the process before, or who've read about it online, will make arrangements to accompany a visa applicant, and sometimes those arrangements mean flights and burdensome travel.

Since they force all visa applicants to schedule online, and give them a confirmation page with a barcode that they must print to enter the embassy, it seems a trivial matter to print the rules right there on that confirmation page -- especially any rules that've recently changed.

2. Yes, correct, you can't just go anywhere on US soil simply because you're an American.

But the ramifications of having non-Americans decide who can enter the US embassy (and when) go beyond inconveniencing the spouses/fiances/friends of visa applicants -- especially when you're allowing citizens of the host country make that decision.

If they're going to deny US citizens entry into an embassy (or the "services" annex to the embassy), they should have an embassy official there -- a US citizen -- making that decision (based on a clear policy).

Think about the bigger picture here... maybe you're in a country where you don't trust the justice system, and you want to access your embassy in that country for advice or other forms of help, but that country's own citizens can stop you from entering.

[freddiefunk]

I have to laugh at all this posturing about your rights to enter the United States Embassy just because you are a citizen.

I used to work for the US Department of State, had a Diplomatic Passport, a State Department issued Identification card, and I was not allowed into Embassy's without a locally issued ID.

At the US Embassy in Bangkok you will not see an American (Marine Security Guard) until you run the gauntlet of the Thai Contract Security Guards and even then you will not even see them at American Citizens Services since that is considered a Consular building and not the main Embassy. The main Embassy is across the street.

Even as a retired State Department employee I have to go through the same process as everyone else. (income verification letter, residence letter, etc.) And believe me I don't go there with any kind of attitude that they HAVE to do anything for me.

Well, I guess the average citizen is treated better than retired state department employees because I just showed by US passport to get in.

Basically, you are making the argument that because the process is consistent, it is fair, but "fair" and "consistent" are not equivalent. If Thailand rounded up all visitors, and towed them out to sea to die, would it be "fair" simply because they did it to all visitors?

[andyc2006]

The US Embassy is considered to be US soil, and you are entitled to enter. However, just like other places on US soil, you do not have the right to go anywhere that you please. There are places in the embassy that are off-limits - it is just that simple.

The new policy makes the entire embassy and services annex to the embassy off-limits, but only to Americans who show up with a visa applicant.

Now that I think about it, it's no wonder that they didn't announce the change -- it's rather simple to beat the system by approaching the embassy separate from the visa applicant. Oh, the horrors that'd wreak.

So, is this excluding policy official, and established?

I'm curious, but I couldn't tell you. I walked away in order to avoid acting out of anger.

There is no reason they can not communicate this policy change. You can bet I was annoyed when I accompanied my wife from Hatyai to Bangkok, only to be told I can not join her for moral support after all.

...

I get the point that US citizenship does not give you the right to stomp anywhere around the US embassy, but a little heads-up about this policy change would be the right thing to do...

Exactly... I only woke up at 6AM for no reason and walked around the block -- I'll get over it. Some people take off work and hop on a flight.

Plus, the policy doesn't exactly make sense... the first 2 times my wife applied for a visa, they wanted to speak with me. Are they changing their entire set of procedures inside the embassy too?

They will tell you it's for security reasons.

That'd be a tough one to sell, since they'll let any other US citizen enter -- you just can't show up with a visa applicant.

They're not saying an area is off-limits to all... it's not the same. I could go in there tomorrow and eaves drop on the interviews, but the spouse of an applicant can't be there in case he/she is needed???

Additionally, I still think there's the much bigger issue of who decides who can enter a US Embassy.

I can see them limiting the number of people going in with an applicant. But not their spouse or significant other that is a US citizen. That's just plain wrong.

I did once see an incident where they told a visa applicant that her fiancee had been arrested/convicted on domestic abuse charges in the States, and the fiancee hadn't told her about that. I overheard it from the sitting area, and I suspect he did too, because he went up there and started berating the interviewer.

I can understand how they'd want to avoid a situation like that, and I'm speculating that's why they've changed the policy, but a little head's up with some way to make exceptions when circumstances merit would have been nice...

I also once heard them grilling a musician who was applying for a visa. He worked at the Grace hotel, and though he only played music in the lobby, they denied his visa because of the "types of things" that happen at that hotel (the interviewer was more explicit, and I heard enough of the interview to know this was the sole concern). Given how un-American the guilt-by-association is, they're probably ashamed to have other Americans overhear interviews like that, as they should be.

Edited January 28, 2009 by ajc1970

[lectito]

Perhaps the US have adopted a similar approach to the British - for the British the interviewing guidelines suggest "Posts may encounter reluctant applicants (e.g. spouses, fiancé(e)s, domestic servants). In order not to compromise the confidentiality and safety of such applicants, ECO's usually ask to see them on their own. Maintaining a standard procedure for all applicants ensures an even handed approach and avoids drawing attention to the cases where reluctance is believed to be a factor."

If a wife/girlfriend/partner doesn't really want a visa, but is being pressured into applying by her husband/boyfriend, being interviewed alone means she can discreetly say "I don't want to go..". The embassy can knock back the visa, and the Thai woman can save face (and stay safe if domestic violence is an issue), by blaming the decision on the embassy.

[andyc2006]

Perhaps the US have adopted a similar approach to the British - for the British the interviewing guidelines suggest "Posts may encounter reluctant applicants (e.g. spouses, fiancé(e)s, domestic servants). In order not to compromise the confidentiality and safety of such applicants, ECO's usually ask to see them on their own. Maintaining a standard procedure for all applicants ensures an even handed approach and avoids drawing attention to the cases where reluctance is believed to be a factor."

If a wife/girlfriend/partner doesn't really want a visa, but is being pressured into applying by her husband/boyfriend, being interviewed alone means she can discreetly say "I don't want to go..". The embassy can knock back the visa, and the Thai woman can save face (and stay safe if domestic violence is an issue), by blaming the decision on the embassy.

Personally, I'd have no problems with that policy.

But since it'd be a change, they should announce that change, so that the applicant knows to personally prepare for the interview, and the spouse/fiance/friend of the applicant knows not to bother going to the embassy.

Additionally, they should have an area -- separate from where they interview visa applicants -- for US citizen services, so that US citizens can always enter the citizen services section of the embassy without first going through a non-US citizen to judge the merit of why he/she needs to enter.

But basically, the people running the show at the embassy are proving themselves to be typical bureaucrats, paid from tax dollars regardless of performance, with a monopoly on the services they provide. This leaves their "customers" with no alternatives, which means the bureaucrats don't need to worry about whether they're serving their customers well.

It's done for me at this point and I don't care... at this point I just want the topic to stay as a notice to those preparing for an interview at the embassy, since there's been no attempt by the embassy to notify them. Hopefully this topic will save somebody a little time and/or money.

[chuckd]

I am well aware there are areas off limits to the average US citizen when entering an Embassy. While I am not a retired employee of the State Department, I have served as a Warden for some 19 years and know something about the workings of an Embassy. I also know something about the mindset of many State Department employees, and to be quite honest, have never been impressed with either of the two.

I fail to understand how a citizen entering the Embassy with his wife at the time of interview creates a problem if he is not privy to the interview process itself. Perhaps somebody can explain to me how his presence within the confines of the Embassy somehow taints the process and/or intimidates the interviewing employee?

The State Department has largely been an autocratic bureauracy over the years. Nowhere does this fact shine through more than in Bangkok.

[mdechgan]

What if the U.S. citizen was the translator?

[MattFS218]

Can anyone else besides ajc confirm that they are not letting US nationals accompany Thai applicants for their visa appointments? My long-term partner has an interview next week, and it would be nice knowing before hand. Also, since they don't allow you to take cell phones in, I don't really wanna be waiting outside the embassy for 2 hrs, as the the US state department advises against congregating in areas that could possible be targets of terrorism...

Edited January 31, 2009 by MattFS218

[MattFS218]

What if the U.S. citizen was the translator?

something sounds wrong, cause the US embassy employs multi-lingual staff.

[freddiefunk]

Can anyone else besides ajc confirm that they are not letting US nationals accompany Thai applicants for their visa appointments? My long-term partner has an interview next week, and it would be nice knowing before hand. Also, since they don't allow you to take cell phones in, I don't really wanna be waiting outside the embassy for 2 hrs, as the the US state department advises against congregating in areas that could possible be targets of terrorism...

Yes, this is the new policy. If you really want to go inside and wait, it is easy enought to do. Simply don't go inside at the same time as your partner, and have a reason ready for using the American Citizen Services (ACS). However, even though you may get inside of the consulate, my understanding is that you still will not be able to join your partner for the interview. You could be waiting several hours alone and unable to accomplish anything. I would suggest waiting at a nearby coffee shop and having your partner phone you when they exit the consulate. If you don't have a cell phone, I would establish a rendezvous place beforehand for after the interview.

[andyc2006]

Yes, this is the new policy. If you really want to go inside and wait, it is easy enought to do. Simply don't go inside at the same time as your partner, and have a reason ready for using the American Citizen Services (ACS). However, even though you may get inside of the consulate, my understanding is that you still will not be able to join your partner for the interview. You could be waiting several hours alone and unable to accomplish anything.

While you're unlikely to accomplish anything, you won't be waiting alone. The visa applicant will also be waiting around for 90% of that time, and you can sit together and chat.

For the conclusion to our personal embassy journey, my wife received her passport back on Friday, and they gave her the 2-year tourist visa. I'll check back in 2 years to see what the new policy is

Edited January 31, 2009 by ajc1970

[MattFS218]

unless they also changed the policy, if i remember correctly they do not allow you to bring cell phones into the Embassy, and I don't recall any pay phones outside.

So I'm debating if I should just say I need to add pages to my passport (which I do), and then walk up to the interview window with my partner. when I was there in Sept 07, the two sections were connected. presumably the consul officers know of the new policy and thus might think i'm mischievous and that might negatively affect my partner's chance of getting her second visa?

They had a big press release when they raised the price to $135 USD ...

it's interesting your wife only got a 2 year multi entry after already having a fiancee visa....that sort of worries me that my partner's chances might be less than I'm anticipating. Did your partner ask for a 10 year visa?

--matt

[dotcom]

They take your cell phone off you at the front (metal detector).

You get it back as you leave. NBD really.

[dotcom]

P.S. I got told all kinds of BS about my wife getting a tourist visa (married for 20 years). In the end we went for K-3.

Interested to see the answer Matt gets.

[freddiefunk]

unless they also changed the policy, if i remember correctly they do not allow you to bring cell phones into the Embassy, and I don't recall any pay phones outside.

So I'm debating if I should just say I need to add pages to my passport (which I do), and then walk up to the interview window with my partner. when I was there in Sept 07, the two sections were connected. presumably the consul officers know of the new policy and thus might think i'm mischievous and that might negatively affect my partner's chance of getting her second visa?

They had a big press release when they raised the price to $135 USD ...

it's interesting your wife only got a 2 year multi entry after already having a fiancee visa....that sort of worries me that my partner's chances might be less than I'm anticipating. Did your partner ask for a 10 year visa?

--matt

There is no harm in trying... I wouldn't be surprised if the CO has no idea of the policy. My impression is that internal communication at the consular section is nearly as bad as public communication. Even if the CO is aware, they would just ask you to leave... its not likely to have any impact on the visa process (assuming, of course, you listen to the CO and don't raise a big stink!).

Regardless, it would be prudent to have a back-up plan in the event you are not able to wait with your partner at the consular section.