Blog

For many families pursuing lawful immigration to the United States, the approval of a petition by USCIS should mark a significant step forward. Instead, it often signals the beginning of a frustrating and opaque chapter at the National Visa Center (NVC), a centralized State Department agency responsible for pre-processing immigrant visa cases. While the NVC’s stated mission is to facilitate the visa process, its inefficiencies often turn it into a bottleneck that causes months—and sometimes years—of needless delays, confusion, and hardship.

One such example is a case where an American citizen had her immigration case for her husband pending with the National Visa Center for 2 years. After USCIS approved the I-130 petition, the case was forwarded to the NVC for consular processing. She paid all the required fees and uploaded supporting documentation; she expected the process to move forward. Instead, nothing happened. There was no confirmation of document completeness, no communication, and no progress. Efforts to seek clarification were met with generic responses or no answers at all. USCIS had already transferred the case to NVC; the embassy had not received the case from NVC. The NVC, which should have been reviewing the documentation submitted and preparing the case for interview scheduling, essentially allowed the file to gather dust.

If there is any better indicator of Trump’s Fortress America policies – deterring and discouraging legal visitors, students, workers, entrepreneurs, and immigrants – one need only look at the most recent visa developments:

1. There will be no more visa interview waiver for those applicants for visas under the age of 14 and over 79. So young kids, including babies, will have to accompany their parents to interviews. For those over 79, there is an exception: if they are applying within 12 months of the prior visa’s expiration. Otherwise, 80, 90 and older visa applicants will need to travel to the embassies and consulates to convince a consul that they really do not plan to overstay their visas.

The US used to be a welcoming country, opening its arms to tourists, business visitors, investors, executives, managers, creatives, and professionals such as scientists, mathematicians, and IT and business specialists. Not anymore. The mantra of this Administration? “A visa is a privilege, not a right.” But while each country of course has the right to determine who may enter, each country also has laws to define who may enter and who may not. Those immigration laws are to be complied with, not ignored, twisted, and run over by the whims and caprices of an Administration Run Amok.

In a previous post, we explored how poor documentation and weak evidence can sink K-1 fiancé and I-130 spousal visa cases. But even couples who believe they’ve submitted everything required often get blindsided during the visa interview—especially when their answers don’t line up. Inconsistent testimony is one of the most common reasons a consular officer begins to suspect fraud.

It may seem like a small thing to forget a date or get nervous in front of an officer, but when a petitioner says they met at a friend’s party in Lagos in January and the beneficiary claims they met on a dating app in May, this contradiction immediately casts doubt on the relationship. The “how we met” story is foundational. If the couple can’t agree on something so basic, the officer may start to suspect that the relationship is more transactional than romantic.

Another key issue is the first in-person meeting. This is especially critical in K-1 visa cases, where U.S. immigration law requires the couple to have met physically within the past two years. If the petitioner claims they met in 2022 and the beneficiary says 2023, or if there’s no proof like passport stamps, hotel receipts, or photos to back it up, the officer may suspect misrepresentation. In serious cases, this could lead to a refusal under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i), a permanent ground of inadmissibility for fraud.

For years, applicants seeking nonimmigrant waivers under section 212(d)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act could rely on one reassuring truth: once a waiver was granted, renewing it in the future was usually a formality. As long as the applicant abided by the terms of the visa—no unlawful work, no overstaying, no protracted stays, no criminal violations— the U.S. Department of State (DOS) would routinely recommend approval of subsequent waivers without revisiting the entire case from scratch.

That changed in February.

In a quiet but significant policy shift, the Department of State announced that it will no longer defer to prior nonimmigrant waiver approvals when evaluating new applications after the original waiver expires (typically after five years). In plain terms: even if you were approved before and abided by the terms and conditions of the visa, your next waiver request will be treated as a brand-new application. There is no longer any presumption of consistency or continuity.