214(b)

Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

On average, more than 2.5 million nonimmigrant visa applications are denied every year under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. US law places the burden on nonimmigrant visa applicants (except for H-1B and L-1s) to show that they are not intending immigrants. In addition, 214(b) requires that the applicant qualify for the visa — meets the eligibility criteria for the visa — and will act in accordance with its terms upon arrival to the US. These are the legal explanations for these denials. Under Trump, 214(b) has become a political and pretextual weapon for refusing visas.

Below is a short table describing the intent/residence requirement for various nonimmigrant visa categories. After the table, there is a list of more than 40 situations in which consuls regularly apply 214(b).

Visa Type	Visa Description	Intent/Residence Requirements
B	Visitor	Must show that they have a foreign residence that they have no intention of abandoning and are visiting the US temporarily for business or pleasure.
E-2	Investor	Does not need to have a foreign residence, but must convince the consular officer that they intend to depart the US at the end of their authorized stay.
F-1	Student	Must have a foreign residence and demonstrate intent to return to home country upon completion of studies
H-1B	Professional	Is not considered an intending immigrant; does not need to have a residence abroad; and can have “dual intent” (intent to work in H-1B status and intent to immigrate to the US in the future)
J-1	Exchange Visitor	Must maintain a residence abroad and have the intention of departing upon completion of the program
L-1	Intracompany Transfer (Executive, Manager, Specialized Knowledge)	Is not considered an intending immigrant; does not need to have a residence abroad; and can have “dual intent” (intent to work in L-1 status and intent to immigrate to the US in the future)
O-1	Extraordinary Ability	Does not need to have a residence abroad and can have “dual intent," but presumed to be an immigrant and must demonstrate an intent to depart upon conclusion of the authorized stay
R-1	Religious Worker	Does not need to have a residence abroad and can have “dual intent," but presumed to be an immigrant and must demonstrate an intent to depart upon conclusion of the authorized stay
TN Visa	Treaty National Professional (Mexico, Canada)	Must demonstrate that stay in the US will be temporary, that the work assignment will end predictably and will depart upon completion of the assignment.

Applicants refused nonimmigrant visas are handed standard rejection letters stating that the reason they were denied is because they lack strong ties to their home countries, do not meet the standards for issuance of the visa, or might engage in activity inconsistent with their status. In fact, the actual reasons for the denial vary greatly. As is often the case, the actual reason may not be a legitimate, valid reason. Over the course of many years, we have compiled a list of actual reasons used by consular officers to deny applicants under Section 214(b). The most popular are:

Limited ties to home country. These are individuals who are young, unemployed or have a low-paying or new job; have no children; are not married; live in rural areas; and/or own no property or assets.
Interview problems. The importance of the interview cannot be underestimated. How the applicant conducts himself; his honesty in answering questions; how he is dressed; reactions; facial expressions; eye contact; hesitation in answering questions; discrepancies in answers to questions and information contained in the application form; nervousness — all go into weighing the applicant’s intentions, credibility, and eligibility for a visa.
Inaccurate consular understanding of facts or law. Consular mistakes in the review of visa applications are manifold. Officers have limited time and resources; may be deficient in the local language; and are inadequately trained in a very complicated area of the law. Verification of an applicant’s company may have been inadequate. For example, a consular investigator may have went to the wrong address or concluded that a company was liquidated when in fact it was still operating.
Failure to meet the criteria for issuance of a work visa (e.g., E-2, H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN). Temporary employment visa requirements are technical. Applicant failure to meet the requirements may lead to a denial. While USCIS approval of work-related H, L, and O petitions are supposed to be deferred to by consular officers unless there is fraud or new, material information, consular officers often deem themselves in a “better position” to evaluate the credentials of the applicant. An O-1 filmmaker applicant who does not have the credentials of “Steven Spielberg” or an L-1 businessman who “only” has 20 employees may have their petition approvals recommended for revocation to USCIS by a consular officer (they are refused under Section 221(g)). While a consul in Country X may consider an investment of $100,000 to be substantial and meets the requirements for an E-2 investor visa, a consul in Country Y may consider a $100,000 investment as nominal and not meeting the requirement. A TN applicant for an electrical engineer position who will be traveling to the US to engage in light installation at a building may be deemed to be involved in the work of a technician and so not eligible for the TN visa.
Fit overstay profile or from a country in which many visa holders do not return home. If the applicant matches a profile that validation studies have shown tend to overstay visas, the applicant is likely to be denied. For example, Russians previously would buy timeshares in the US and use that as a pretext to visit the US. When several individuals did not return to Russia, the Embassy clamped down on such applicants, with both legitimate and not-so-legitimate timeshare owners paying the price with a 214(b) denial. US government statistics track the percentage of visa holders who overstay their visas and their countries of origin, as well as those who apply for asylum. If a pattern of overstays or asylum applicants from certain countries emerges, consular officers will deny more and more visa applicants under 214(b) from those countries.
General economic and political situation in the home country. If a country is poor, wracked by civil discontent, involved in a war, experiencing a highly unstable political situation, economic crisis, downturn, or depression, consular officers are much more likely to invoke 214(b).
A single or many protracted visits of several months to the US as a B visitor, even if the I-94 authorized the stay, or extending status while in the US. A consular officer may believe that the applicant is no longer residing in his home country; may be engaging in unauthorized employment in the US; and/or not in the appropriate visa status. This problem frequently arises for grandparents who spent substantial time in the US visiting to help out with a newly-born grandchild and are denied visas because they have spent too long, in the opinion of the consular officer, in the US. Another example: undergoing medical treatment in the US for a long period of time may call into question ties to the home country after they return — regardless of the urgency or criticality of the treatment in the US. Those who spent substantial time in the US laying the groundwork for future employment in the US may also have a problem when they return to apply for the work visa: for example, visitors who arrive to engage in activity necessary for a future E-2 visa such as registering a company, renting an office, hiring a consultant to write a business plan who end up spending months and months in the US. A J-1 foreign physician applicant who spent substantial time in the US in B status engaged in unpaid fellowships may “need to reestablish ties” to the home country, in the eyes of the consul, to qualify for the visa. An R-1 applicant who spent time in the US as a B visitor and received donations in the US may be viewed by the consul as having engaged in unauthorized employment.
Change of status in the US. Notwithstanding USCIS approval of a change of status, a person returning to his home country to receive a new visa after changing status often is denied a visa. A consular official may feel deceived that the applicant’s true intent at the time of the first application was to change status. Or the consul may feel that the applicant worked unlawfully before changing status or cannot be trusted to depart the US in the future. For example, the applicant stated to the previous consul or the CBP inspector that he planned to visit the US for tourism purposes, but then upon arrival, changed his status to F-1. This can lead to a 214(b) denial or a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation decision based on the 90-Day Rule. Or a businessman who arrived as a visitor to the US from Canada, bought a business, changed status to E-2, worked in the business for a year, and then returned to Canada to apply for an E-2 visa. Or a student graduated from the academic program, changed status to O-1, worked in that status for 2 years, then returned home to apply for a visa.
Previous denial/Lack of change in circumstances since previous denial. Consular officers often reflexively defer to a previous denial, citing to a lack of “change in circumstances." Obviously, there may be personal or political considerations as well. This may occur even if an applicant is re-applying within days of the original refusal, presenting new evidence. “What has changed since your last application?” is a common initial question.
Student-specific F-1 problems. Consular officers often deny students because
a. of planned enrollment in a community college or a “non-brand name” university;
b. lack of adult-like economic ties to their home country;
c. enrollment in perceived non-career enhancement courses (e.g., a writer who enrolls in a business management program);
d. enrollment in a program with little practicality in the home country;
e. applications of older students (over the age of 30);
f. a perceived poor track record while in the States (e.g., poor grades or poor attendance on an initial F-1 visa);
g. inadequate progress in the English language while located in the US for an ESL program.
TN Denials. As discussed above in paragraph 4, 214(b) can be invoked when the consul finds that an individual applicant is not qualified for the visa. Specific occupations and categories of TN visas have been targeted in recent years for heightened scrutiny: management consultants, accountants, scientific technicians/technologists, animal scientists, animal breeders, and engineers. These denials impact both first-time applicants and those renewing their visas, i.e., consuls are not deferring to previous judgments that the applicant was qualified. The reasons for these TN denials vary. They include consular conclusions that the job duties the applicant will be engaged in do not match the TN occupational category; the beneficiary does not meet TN eligibility requirements; or that the offered position is not a professional TN position.
E-2 Refusals. The E-2 category has numerous prerequisites that the applicant must meet in order to qualify. Over the years, we have seen scores of E-2 214(b) denials, but what makes these denials particularly traumatic for the applicant is that usually they had already invested substantial amounts of money and spent enormous amounts of time trying to establish and develop the business. Their access to the US may be cut off because of the E-2 refusal. These denials can take various forms, such as consular allegations that the invested funds were not from a lawful source; the applicant did not have the qualifications to develop the business (e.g., housewife); the business was still at its planning stage; the investment was not substantial; the business was marginal, sufficient to support only the investor and his family; the applicant had “jumped the gun” by starting to work in the US while still in visitor status; the applicant does not have “essential skills” for the business (e.g., chef in a restaurant); the investment was not irrevocably committed to the enterprise; the applicant will not depart the US after the completion of the E-2 stay because he had previously spent protracted time in the US, changed status in the US, or was refused B visas and now attempting to obtain an E-2 visa. When the applicant is applying for a second E-2 visa, the consul may reject it because the applicant did not adhere to the first business plan which was the basis for the first E-2 visa. It is not only 214(b) that the E-2 applicant needs to be concerned about, but also a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) permanent bar if the consul believes the 90 day rule — working in B status within 90 days of entry as a visitor — was violated.
O-1 Denials. If the qualifications of the O-1 applicant are questioned, the consul is supposed to return the petition to USCIS and refuse the visa under 221(g). But the consul can avoid such review by invoking 214(b), by questioning the applicant’s willingness to depart the US after the conclusion of the O-1 status. This can be seen in consular refusals of O-1 applicants based on nationality (e.g., Russians living in a third country during the war), a past change of status in the US, protracted visits to the US, younger O-1 applicants who studied in the US and spent many of their formative years in the US.
J-1 Refusals. There is no petition for J-1 visas submitted to USCIS, and so the J-1 decision falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the consul. 214(b) is invoked for both intent and qualifications issues: a lack of ties to the home country; problematic nationalities; past protracted visits or time spent in the US; past change of status in the US; questionable J-1 program sponsors or intermediaries; insufficient English; or the applicant, in the eyes of the consul, does not truly intend to take the position but is trying to use the J-1 to travel to the US.
Free speech/social media/online presence. Under Trump, consular officers are wielding 214(b) as a weapon — to punish applicants who may have expressed a political opinion opposed by the Administration. Consuls are scrutinizing postings on social media to determine whether the applicant is “anti-American," has “objectionable” views, or in any other way is “undesirable." While these applicants enjoy 1st Amendment protections in the US, they are subject to the whims and caprices of the consul and the policy dictates of the Administration outside the United States. While some of these applicants could be considered for a 212(a)(3)(C) inadmissibility denial for adverse “foreign policy consequences," such a determination requires a detailed analysis and is subject to review of the State Department. The easy way out? Deny under 214(b).
Home country deterioration of political relationship with United States. If the applicant is a citizen of a country where the political relationship with the United States has deteriorated or is tense or hostile, this can impact applicants from that country. For these applicants, 214(b) is the political tool wielded by the US government to ensure that these applicants cannot visit, study, or work in the US. In addition, if the applicant is directly or indirectly (family members, business partners) associated with the government in power, consuls may deny visas of these individuals under 214(b).
“Shady” intermediaries. Even for applicants who would otherwise qualify for a visa use the services of an intermediary — a consultant, a notario, a travel agent — that the consulate views as “shady," the taint may lead to a 214(b) decision.
Other relatives who previously emigrated. This category of applicants with relatives in the US may be denied for a couple of reasons:
a. the fact that an individual has a close relative in the US may be a negative consideration because it would be easier for the applicant to settle in the US;
b. if the relative in the US obtained status in a manner objectionable to a consular officer (e.g., B to asylum), the officer may find the applicant less trustworthy or simply punish the applicant for the perceived transgression by the relative in the US. Asylum processes can take years and years, with the asylee unable to return home during that time. So the 214(b) denials and the separation for the close relatives — to the spouse, to the children — usually will last at least as long as that asylum process continues.
c. Consular officers often ask in what status did the relative arrive in the US and legalize his status. Even a benign situation where an individual on a J-1 Summer Work Travel visa meets, falls in love with, and plans to marry an American citizen can lead to a visa denial for the parents to attend the wedding. There is no “statute of limitations” on this line of inquiry: a person with a green card for several years still may be the target of consular wrath and the applicant left to suffer the consequences.
Pending or previously denied immigrant petition/application. Immigrant visa registration is usually treated as a “no-brainer” by consular officers: in their eyes, registration to immigrate — even if the line for immigration is many, many years — is tantamount to an intent to immigrate. This is true whether the person submitted the petition (e.g. EB-5) or if someone else submitted the petition for them (e.g., immediate relative, family-based immigration, employment-based immigration).
Submission of a DV Lottery entry. While most consular officers do not give weight to the mere submission of an entry in the Lottery, there are some that do. Of course, if one is selected as a “winner” of the Lottery and she submits an immigrant visa application, then she will be considered to have shown immigrant intent and obtaining a nonimmigrant visa during the pendency of the immigrant process or after an immigrant visa denial will be problematic.
Applicant suspected of fraud. A consular officer may have a strong suspicion that a document (employment reference, bank statement) submitted is fraudulent, but does not have the time or resources to investigate. It is easier to just deny the application under 214(b) than to pursue a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding.
Lack of travel to Europe. In some consulates, holding a UK or Schengen visa may be deemed a prerequisite to “graduating” to an American visa. Such travel to Europe may reflect the availability of discretionary income; a return to the home country after having the opportunity to stay in a European country may evidence ties to the home country. Travel to beach resorts such as Thailand or Cyprus may not address this second concern because an individual would be less likely to live and work in that beach resort country.
Shifting purposes of travel to the US. A widespread myth among applicants is that if they change the purpose of their trip after an initial denial — instead of going to visit Disneyworld, they decide to enroll in an ESL program — they will increase their chances of obtaining a visa. In doing so, they are, of course, digging their own visa “grave” deeper, exhibiting desperation, which may reflect on their ability to get a visa for years to come.
Previous contact with police. An individual with an arrest record not rising to the level of 212(a)(2)(A) (e.g., a shoplifting conviction and two shoplifting arrests) may be considered a danger to engage in criminal behavior in the US. This has been taken to the extreme by the Trump Administration, weaponizing 214(b) against any applicant who ever had an encounter with law enforcement — regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. They are not denied for a lack of ties, but because they might, in the view of the consul, engage in activity in the US inconsistent with their status.
“Poison-pen” letters. These letters are from jilted lovers, business competitors, ex-spouses or other ill-wishers. They send the letters to the embassy, hoping to ensure the denial or a revocation of a visa and cutting off access to the United States. Often times, consular officers will take these letters at face value, without verifying the contents or motivations of the sender, and deny the visa.
Denied ESTA or entry problem at the border. Another category of individuals who have 214(b) problems are those who have been flagged by CBP: either denied ESTA or not permitted entry to the US under Section 212(a)(7)(A). Even if CBP allows them to withdraw their application for entry, the encounter with CBP is highlighted and so the next visa application will trigger heightened scrutiny. Of course, the underlying reason is important, but if the applicant is seeking to apply as a visitor or student after such encounter with CBP, it is likely that such a visa application will be denied, at the least, under 214(b).
Get-acquainted trip to see significant other. Invitations from Americans to their romantic interests often lead to denials. There does not seem to be regard for the stage of the relationship, whether the couple met last week over the Internet or have known each other for years and met each other in the applicant’s home country or in third countries. Usually, little regard is given to the applicant’s ties. There seems to be an assumption that the applicant will do anything to get out of her home country; that the American is her “ticket out”; and that the parties will marry upon her arrival in the States.
Indicating a prolonged visit in the DS-160 visa application form. A Catch-22 situation arises when an applicant indicates an intended prolonged visit in the application. By indicating this prolonged visit, a variety of questions and suspicions may be triggered. “What employer will give their employee 3 months to take off of work to travel around the US?” “Who can afford to spend 5 months in the US visiting friends and relatives?” These questions then lead to a 214(b) denial.
Application at a non-home post/re-application at new post after denied at a different consulate (“Post-shopping”). An application at a non-home post may arouse suspicions that the applicant has attempted to circumvent the home post. For example, the home post may have a bad reputation among visa applicants, and a third country post may be viewed as more amenable to favorable review. The applicant who engages in the “post shopping” may attempt an application at the “favorable” post, only to have the application formally denied with a referral back to his home post. Similarly, an application at a different consulate after a refusal is more than likely doomed to failure. In 2025, the Department of State implemented a new rule requiring most nonimmigrant visa applicants to apply in their home countries or where they are resident — preventing forum shopping. A failure to do so may lead to 214(b).
Guilt by association. An officer may deny every individual in a group because of the misdeeds of one or two individuals. For example, if an unrelated individual’s application is surreptitiously included in a baseball team’s group submission by the organizers, and the officer becomes aware of this, all members of the baseball team and its group may be denied.
Inadequate finances to support the purpose of the trip. If the purpose of the trip is medical, then the applicant should have the financial wherewithal to pay the bills, either personally or have the support of a sponsor. An applicant in need of the medical treatment who opens a bank account immediately before submitting his visa application and places funds on the account may arouse suspicion that the funds are not his. Similarly, an affidavit of support from a non-relative submitted as a part of a student visa application may elicit a 214(b) finding because the officer may question the intention of the sponsor.
Spouses/Children of F-1 Student. It is not uncommon for spouses and children to be denied where 214(b) is an issue, such as spouses and children of students who are located in the United States.
Intent to visit the US to give birth in B status. The attraction for foreigners is obvious: to secure US citizenship for their soon-to-be-born child. But applying for a visa to travel to the US with the primary purpose to give birth in order to obtain US citizenship for the baby is no longer permitted. However, if they have a medically complicated pregnancy and have arranged for specialized medical care in the United States because such specialized care is not available in or near the country where the applicant resides, then this is permissible.
Applicant previously gave birth in the US on a B visa. If at the time of the initial application the applicant was not pregnant and during the course of the validity of the visa gave birth in the US, this could still trigger a 214(b) decision. If the applicant was pregnant at the time of the previous application and was not honest in disclosing the reason for going to the US, this may be held against the applicant upon subsequent application in the form of a 214(b) denial and/or a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation finding. This is particularly true if the applicant did not pay the hospital bills. In one case, it was only after 15 years, eight 214(b) refusals, and a donation to the hospital that delivered the baby that an applicant was able to obtain a visa. Findings of material misrepresentation and the imposition of a permanent bar are quite frequent in this area.
Suspicious-looking invitations. Inviting parties with little or no connection to the applicant may arouse suspicion about the legitimacy of the trip. Invitations in very general language or in poor English may also trigger a 214(b) finding. Inviting parties or invitations certified by notaries in the post’s “black list” will also lead to a 214(b) (or 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) finding. Knowledge of a bogus support letter, for example, will be imputed to the applicant and usually lead to a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) decision.
Real estate ownership in the US. Those who own real estate in the US may be viewed as a heightened risk to stay in the US.
2-time participants in the Summer Work Travel Program. They may have difficulty obtaining a visa to visit friends because they are perceived as already having established ties to the United States.
Elderly applicants. They may be viewed as more likely to become a public charge or tempted to retire in the US.
“Hostage” situation. A family member may be denied if traveling together with the rest of the family. For example, a college student who applied together with his parents to attend his K-1 sister’s wedding in the United States was denied a visa — “held hostage” in his home country — while his parents were issued visas.
Pending immigrant applications to another country. If an individual is in the process of immigrating to another Western country, for example, Canada, and applies for a visitor visa, he may be deemed to be a danger of remaining in the US.
Mistakes in the DS-160/Travel Agent-Consultant. This often happens when one hires a travel agent or consultant. They complete the form carelessly. For example, if the agent indicated mistakenly in the DS-160 that the applicant had traveled to a hostile country or erroneously checked one of the boxes to the security questions “yes”, this could lead the consul to enter a 214(b) decision.
Nonimmigrant waiver approved, but 214(b) invoked. There can be a situation when the applicant overcomes his 214(b) burden, the consul recommends a waiver, CBP grants the waiver, but the consul denies the visa under 214(b). While strange, this can arise where a consular policy changed or new information became available about the applicant during the pendency of the waiver process. Notwithstanding the CBP approval, the consul may then deny the visa under 214(b) — at the very end of the process.

The elasticity of Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is truly a unique phenomenon in immigration law. As noted, many of these reasons are not valid reasons, and in fact, are specifically prohibited by Department of State regulations. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the consular officer’s rationale for the refusal, and when appropriate, challenge it. Failure to do so — silence — is viewed as agreement with the decision.

As can be seen, every denial is specific to that individual’s circumstances. To see how we have helped individuals avoid 214(b) refusals or overcome 214(b) denials, please visit the Case Studies section. Please contact us to discuss your situation.