Re-interviewed for Schengen visa but got rejected for other reasons

You met a woman on the net and she offered to sponsor you for a Schengen. She has children either older than you or in the same age range as you. This aspect of your sponsorship was probed during two interviews at the German consulate. You explained the premise of your visit was a family meeting in order to play football with her children. You are employed as a teacher. You did not include anything in your question about your proficiency in the German language. You were ultimately refused on economic grounds and are disappointed at this result.

So I think there are 2 possibilities and I am really wonder which is
true?

You want to know if the consular officer used the discrepancy method to refuse your application and you are inviting us to help reveal the ‘hidden’ reason.

It is likely that the consular officer had an array of reasons he could select as grounds for your refusal…

• Your economic circumstances;
• Disproportionate expenditure;
• Lack of viable premise; or
• Relationship with sponsor.

Based upon what you wrote, any of these reasons can be a relevant show-stopper. The grounds he selected were…

Your intention emigrate visa from the territory of the Member States,
before the end, could not be found, because:

1) The documents submitted by them do not allow positive conclusions
on the Presence of a secure livelihood in Iran

2) They have not proven your economic bond in Iran with the documents
in courts.

So they opted to refuse on economic grounds and your ties to Iran. Your next question is implicitly stated…

If I cleared the first interview. Why did they call me back for a
second interview if they were not satisfied with the result?

Your first interview was conducted by a local hire, an assistant. She was ‘minded to refuse’ and reported her conclusions. Normally it would stop right there but the consular officer re-examined your application and decided there was scope to possibly overrule the assistant and grant you the visa. So you got called in again for an interview with a Vice Consul, a decision-maker.

This interview started from square 1, the officer essentially discarded the first interview and started fresh. So your assumption that the first interview cleared certain points from the criteria is wrong; the proceedings are not connected and do not naturally follow one-to-the-next.

According to what you wrote, you gave strong and tenable answers that could not possibly lead to a refusal, but this was the result anyway. It’s likely that your economic ties were questionable along with a questionable premise…

Genuine visitors do not normally visit Germany to play 
football with the children of someone they met on the net.  

And they will question the authenticity of sponsorship 
when correspondence on the net constitutes 
the entire relationship.

And not having a common language with your sponsor 
invites big-time credibility problems.

You can invite your sponsor and her children to Iran for some football and this will help lend credibility to your application, but your economic circumstances are still a formidable hurdle.

Summary: I don’t think the discrepancy method was used in your case. The officer had several grounds to select from and selected the most obvious. The fact that you had a second interview was something in your favour, but your performance in the second interview did not carry the application.

Significantly, the officer asked you to speak some German, this was likely the final nail.

Note: we are not the Tribunal or the Appeals Board. Maybe they were right or maybe they were wrong, it’s still a refusal. It’s understood you are disappointed, but all we can do is reflect on what you have provided. Comments on your question have provided links to various protests that might be available to you.

He probably assumed that you were trying to immigrate there; you would go, and never come back – this is why he asked “What is your purpose of visiting Germany”.

It is clear from the rejection reasons that according to your application, you did not submit sufficient evidence of ties to Iran which convinced the officer that you intended to return back after your visit.

So if he wanted to reject me for insufficient ties to Iran, why did he
invited me for second interview and asked about why is she older than
me, how is her family, how did you met , was it in person or on
internet, how long do you know he?!!

These are questions asked since it was not clear what is your relationship with this person.

In my opinion, once you told the officer about the true nature of your relationship; it further enforced the idea that you had no legitimate reason to come back, since you have no significant ties to Iran, and the premise of your trip (the reason for your request for visa) is simply to visit someone with which (according to the German Embassy rules/requirements/interpretations) you do not have a legitimate (true) relationship.

Keep in mind that there are no one-reason that ends all, the application is reviewed in its entirety.

Here is how your application was (probably) judged:

1. You applied for a short term visit visa; the purpose of your visit was unclear.

2. In addition, you submitted documents. These documents should show [a] you are financially capable of supporting yourself on this trip; [b] you have an itinerary that matches the intended purpose and duration of your trip; [c] you have significant ties to your home country such that you are likely to return at the end of your trip. The documents did not fulfil the requirements for which they were submitted.

Now, the next part is the interview. This is done for many reasons:

1. Confirm/establish the validity of documents.
2. Confirm the intent of visit.
3. Detect fraudulent applications.

Your answers in this interview (for whatever reason) were not to the satisfaction of the officer and, given on the other negatives in your application the officer decided that you did not meet the criteria for a short term visit.

You are of course free to lodge a request for review.

Another explanation of what happened was that he knew that financial things weren’t good, but not so bad that he would have refused your application if you had convinced him that your friendship wasn’t suspicious and that you have good enough reasons to return.