Us Tourist/visitor Visa Applications.. From Bkk

[ChrisP]

In my other recent Post, GU22 supplied figures for the success rate of the British Embassy in BKK UK Visitor Visa applicants.

In the latest period for which figures are available (2004/5) the British embassy in Bangkok received 35,648 applications for visit visas, of which 31,029 (95.3%) (source; page 42) were issued! It is most definitely not as difficult nor complicated as this agency is suggesting.

I wonder, does anyone have any proof of similar figures for the BKK American Embassy and the US Tourist/Visitor Visa..? I have asked, but cannot get anyone to tell me.

ChrisP.

Mod.

[the gent]

Try as I might, statistics are hard to come by in any meaningful context. The US Embassy web site, Bangkok, does list a menu which specifies " visa statistics " but the page is not currently available. Perhaps this is an avenue you could explore.....

Unlike the UK, the US have legislation in force which states that ANY visa applicant is automatically presumed to be an immigrant until they prove otherwise. Thus they have a mountain to climb from the outset, whereas under the UK system one simply has to satisfy the visa officer that, on balance of probability, one intends to do what one says. In terms of a set of scales, under the UK system the balance from the beginning is level whereas the US visa officer weights it so that the the applicant begins at the very bottom and must prove themselves to the point when the scales tip in their favour. Bit of a bugger really, which explains why most US visa applicants get knocked back, usually for the reason that they have " insufficient ties ".

Food for thought for those disposed against the Brit system, perhaps?

[ChrisP]

Thanks gent..

I'm not surprised the Visa Statistics link doesn't work..

I think it's a terrible indictment of the US Immigration / Homeland Security that you are "presumed to be guilty unless you can prove innocence."

Whatever happened to the Land of the Free.. and " Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses Yearning to Be Free.."

ChrisP

[vinny]

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the Visa Statistics at the Office of Immigration Statistics.

[ChrisP]

vinny...

MANY thanks.. I'll hunt around..

ChrisP

[GU22]

I think it's a terrible indictment of the US Immigration / Homeland Security that you are "presumed to be guilty unless you can prove innocence."

If I may go off on a light hearted tangent for a moment, I'm reminded of an old joke.

What is the differance between the British, French and American judicial systems?

In Britain you are presumed to be innocent until found to be guilty.

In France you are presumed to be guilty until found to be innocent.

In America you are just presumed to be guilty!

[siddv]

In my other recent Post, GU22 supplied figures for the success rate of the British Embassy in BKK UK Visitor Visa applicants.

In the latest period for which figures are available (2004/5) the British embassy in Bangkok received 35,648 applications for visit visas, of which 31,029 (95.3%) (source; page 42) were issued! It is most definitely not as difficult nor complicated as this agency is suggesting.

I wonder, does anyone have any proof of similar figures for the BKK American Embassy and the US Tourist/Visitor Visa..? I have asked, but cannot get anyone to tell me.

ChrisP.

Mod.

[siddv]

I know that my sucess rate is 0% 0-2. It's a waste of time. If you want your TGF in the USA you're going to have to marry her. Period!

[ChrisP]

Office of Immigration Statistics says 51,643 Non-Immigrant Visas issued by the US Embassy in BKK for 2005. But it doesn't say how many applications it received...

ChrisP

[doctormann]

In my other recent Post, GU22 supplied figures for the success rate of the British Embassy in BKK UK Visitor Visa applicants.

In the latest period for which figures are available (2004/5) the British embassy in Bangkok received 35,648 applications for visit visas, of which 31,029 (95.3%) (source; page 42) were issued! It is most definitely not as difficult nor complicated as this agency is suggesting.

ChrisP.

Mod.

I agree that visa agencies, because they try to justify their high fees, do try to make the application process seem overly complicated. However, let's not trivialise this because getting, e.g., a tourist visa to the UK for your TGF is not by any means a trivial exercise. If you meet the requirements and all of the paperwork is in order then the ECO would find it difficult to refuse the visa, although you might catch him / her on an off day, of course. The catch-all 'Insufficient Reason to Return' is used too often and 'Returning' is, of course, something that cannot ever be guaranteed - you just have to provide every bit supporting evidence that you can lay your hands on.

So far as the reported success rate is concerned, I think that the figure of 95.3% is highly misleading. I don't know just how they manipulate the statistics but one thing is almost certain, the rejection rate of 4.7% probably only includes those applicants that were officially refused and had their passport endorsed to that effect. It will not include those applicants that were turned away because their paperwork was incomplete or incorrect in some way. Talking to the sponsors, waiting outside in Wireless Road, you certainly get the impression that being turned away to get discrepancies sorted out is a very common occurrence.

Some applicants may be unable to to provide all of the information / evidence that the ECO requires but, unless they are being economical with the truth, they will be unlikely to be officially rejected (the catch-all may still apply, of course). Now, do these count in the official 4.7% rejection rate? Almost certainly not because they haven't been rejected!

I guess that what I am trying to say is this:

If you go to the Embassy (or, as of now, the out-sourcing agency) without being properly prepared, do not expect to have a 95.3% chance of getting the visa! You will be disappointed.

I do have some limited experience of this - first two tries, using an agency, the GF was turned away. Paperwork not complete (what the h*ll was I paying them for? ) Third time, sacked the agency, assembled a mountain of documentation, covering every aspect that we could think of - no problem!

DM

[ricksilb]

Try as I might, statistics are hard to come by in any meaningful context. The US Embassy web site, Bangkok, does list a menu which specifies " visa statistics " but the page is not currently available. Perhaps this is an avenue you could explore.....

Unlike the UK, the US have legislation in force which states that ANY visa applicant is automatically presumed to be an immigrant until they prove otherwise. Thus they have a mountain to climb from the outset, whereas under the UK system one simply has to satisfy the visa officer that, on balance of probability, one intends to do what one says. In terms of a set of scales, under the UK system the balance from the beginning is level whereas the US visa officer weights it so that the the applicant begins at the very bottom and must prove themselves to the point when the scales tip in their favour. Bit of a bugger really, which explains why most US visa applicants get knocked back, usually for the reason that they have " insufficient ties ".

Food for thought for those disposed against the Brit system, perhaps?

Very well explained, Gent. That is EXACTLY how my wife and I felt yesteday the U.S. embassy

[jing jing]

Unfortunately the statistics - even if you could get the information in question - would not tell you much about your GF's chances of actually getting a tourist visa to the USA. It is very much down to a case-by-case review, and the gent has nailed the situation as far as the applicant "proving" his or her intent. It seems that having a good salaried job, property in Bangkok, and over 100,000 baht in the bank definitely will make it more likely that a tourist visa will be granted. Is it fair? hel_l no... but who said life is fair? The workaround is to first get a fiancee visa but don't get married in the US, and then for some reason subsequent tourist visa requests seem to be treated more favorably.

[GU22]

So far as the reported success rate is concerned, I think that the figure of 95.3% is highly misleading. I don't know just how they manipulate the statistics but one thing is almost certain, the rejection rate of 4.7% probably only includes those applicants that were officially refused and had their passport endorsed to that effect. It will not include those applicants that were turned away because their paperwork was incomplete or incorrect in some way. Talking to the sponsors, waiting outside in Wireless Road, you certainly get the impression that being turned away to get discrepancies sorted out is a very common occurrence.

This is a thread about USvisas, but as Doctormann has raised this point, I would like to answer.

When a visa application is initially handed in the form is checked to ensure that it is correctly filled in. Any evidence that is with the initial application is also checked. This is done by an ordinary clerk, not an ECO, and is done before the fee is paid. If there are, as he says, discrepancies then the applicant will be advised to withdraw the application, sort out the discrepancies and then return. The applicant does not have to take this advice and can insist on the application being submitted.

Obviously, if the applicant withdraws the application before it is handed in then this will not be included in the figures as the application has not yet been officially handed in. However, if an application is withdrawn after the fee has been paid, then it is counted as an application received, but not counted as either an acceptance or a refusal (see the explanatory notes)

Those that have been advised to withdraw their application to sort out discrepancies can, and probably do, return later with a better prepared application. Which means more chance of acceptance and less chance of losing the fee.

I wonder if Doctormann would prefer that they accept all applications, and the fee, without checking for discrepancies first. This would, of course, mean that the figures would show a higher rejection rate, but it would also result in some applicants unnecessarily losing the fee! Personally I think the present way is better.

'Returning' is, of course, something that cannot ever be guaranteed

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be. UK visa decisions are based on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't know just how they manipulate the statistics

The don't manipulate the figures, they simply count the applications, the number accepted and the number refused. Why on earth would they want to manipulate the figures?