Blog

7 years ago we published a blog about the 12 reasons for a visa revocation. But since then, like the top reasons for a 214(b) refusal, the list of reasons for a visa revocation has grown substantially. Now, we are at 20 reasons – and a close parsing of our new article shows that the actual number is much greater. Why? The overall number of visa revocations has more than doubled in the last year alone – to 80,000. Our phone is ringing off the hook as more and more people are directly and indirectly impacted. For those in the US with revoked visas – primarily, talented F-1 students and H-1B professionals - they are experiencing legal limbo, walking a legal highwire, unable to plan their futures or the futures of their families. How did this happen?

The list continues to grow. When we wrote the original article for the Consular Handbook of the American Immigration Lawyers Association nearly 15 years ago, we named the 25 Top Reasons for a 214(b) Denial. That list later expanded to 34. Now, it stands at 42.

Much of this is attributable to Trump and consular supervisors worldwide. Rather than going through Congress to legislate new legal bases for denying visas, they have shoehorned new types of and pretexts for visa denials into Section 214(b): “anti-American” social media postings; “pro-Palestinian” statements made by F-1 students; any type of encounter with law enforcement, no matter how long ago it took place, even when the individual received numerous visas after the incident; nationality-based; profession-based; alleged vague or non-qualifying job descriptions for TN applicants; imagined immigrant intent doubts for E-2, J-1, and O-1 applicants. All visa adjudications are supposed to be governed by a reasonable person-decisionmaker standard, but that has not stopped them. And so the list keeps growing longer and longer. By the end of Trump’s term, we have little doubt that the list will expand beyond 50.

Just when you thought that “Trump’s Team” had exhausted its creativity for denying visas, they came up with a new “rationale.” On November 6, 2025, the Department of State Department instructed their consular officers to deny both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas based on a wide range of medical conditions, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, and mental health conditions. The legal basis? Section 212(a)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows a consular officer to deny a visa to anyone who after entering the United States is “likely at any time to become a public charge.”

In the past only immigrant visa applicants underwent medical examinations. And those examinations were limited in scope to the most serious of medical problems and transmissible diseases. The idea was to ensure that the immigrant visa applicant was not a danger to Americans and would not become a public charge, i.e., using taxpayer money for medical treatment. Now, nearly all visa applicants can be subjected to a comprehensive consular assessment: in light of this applicant’s health and age, is it likely that they will incur medical costs in the US? If so, in light of the applicant’s finances, education, employment prospects, English ability, age, and family situation, how will they pay for those expenses?

A jack-in-the box is a toy that, when opened, springs a figure – usually a clown – out of the box suddenly. This figure has come to mind a lot lately as more and more visa applicants learn for the first time that they have been permanently barred from the United States based on some government database red flag. Often, the applicants have nothing in their background to indicate any visa problems and have been traveling to the US for years. So when the consul springs Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation, 212(a)(3)(A)(i) unlawful activity, 212(a)(6)(E) smuggling, or 212(a)(2)(C)(i) trafficking finding on the applicant, the applicant is left with shock, confusion, and a permanent bar – and sometimes without the possibility of a waiver.

The good news is that these flags are often correctable mistakes. Sometimes the consul will point the finger at USCIS as the source of the finding of inadmissibility – particularly in 212(a)(6)(C)(i) decisions. But USCIS never made such a decision – or if it did, did not tell the petitioner. Perhaps USCIS denied a work (e.g., H-1B, L-1, O-1) or immigrant (e.g., spousal, parental, and family immigration, EB-1A, EB-2 National Interest Waiver, EB-3, EB-5) petition, but not on grounds related to fraud or a willful, material misrepresentation. Before denying a petition, it will almost always issue a Request for Evidence or a Notice of Intent to Deny. By law, USCIS is supposed to confront the petitioner with “derogatory information” that can lead to a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) decision. Sometimes after receiving a response to the RFE or NOID, USCIS will withdraw an allegation of misrepresentation that was contained in the RFE or NOID. When making a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) final decision, USCIS is required to indicate that in its decision.

Webster’s defines “going rogue” as “to behave in an independent or uncontrolled way that is not authorized, normal, or expected.” “Isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable” are other synonyms associated with rogue. But what happens when “going rogue” begins to happen so often that it becomes normalized, part of the status quo, almost expected? Well, that does not mean that such action is lawful. In the context of applying for a visa or entering the US, you have rights to ensure that “rogue” misconduct by a US consular officer of CBP inspector does not turn your life upside down.

To be clear, sometimes consular or customs interrogations are indeed warranted; for example, when there are legitimate concerns about illegal work, OPT violations, H-1B violations, fraud, misrepresentations, drug use, Wilberforce Act violations, or human smuggling. But other times, these visa and airport interviews are little more than fishing expeditions based on some nebulous suspicions or profiling. Sometimes, the consuls or airport inspectors conducting these interviews are new, inexperienced, incompetent, lack supervision, or simply on a “power trip.”