Blog

I am often contacted by those refused visas under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and asked: “How can this be? I have great ties to my country. Married, kids, a good job. How can they say I don’t have enough ties?” Unfortunately, many do not understand that “ties” are only a part of the 214(b) equation; another factor considered by consular officers is whether the purpose of the trip to the US corresponds to the type of visa applied for. A gentleman recently contacted me about B-1 business visa refusals under 214(b). His problem was not that he lacked ties to his home country, but that he planned to work in the United States on the visa. It sounded like he received bad advice from an incompetent attorney, and then “dug his own grave” by attempting to obtain the visa under varying pretexts. His case was sympathetic…

Every day in my practice I encounter erroneous information and false facts. With a view towards dispelling this misinformation, I am introducing a series of blogs to discuss some of the most popular visa myths. I hope the reader finds the information insightful, and welcome your feedback.

In our previous blog, we highlighted the worldwide B visa refusal rates. But those DOS published rates do not convey the entire picture. As any politician knows, when making any tally, the actual number is not important, but how one determines that number that is. The Department of State is no different. The Department of State publishes adjusted refusal rates. The actual refusal rates are not published. In all likelihood the actual refusal rate is higher, and perhaps in some circumstances, substantially so. So how does the DOS “adjust” its statistics? It does so by only counting the last consular action on a particular applicant in a fiscal year. For example, if a businessman applied for a visa and was denied two times in 2015, and on his third attempt, he receives a visa in 2015, only the issuance will be counted; the two refusals will not be counted. If…

The Department of State recently published its 2015 refusal statistics for B visas. Several countries exceed the 60% mark: Syria, Gambia, Federated States of Micronesia, Mauritania, Liberia, Laos, Haiti, Somalia, Guinea-Bissau, Ghana, Cuba, and Afghanistan. Among the most populous countries, the refusal rates greatly vary: China — 10.03%; India — 23.78%; Indonesia — 8.71%; Bangladesh — 59.96%; Pakistan — 40.4%; Nigeria — 32.56%; Russia — 10.24%; Philippines — 27.96%; Turkey — 13.88%; and Ukraine — 34.03%. These 2015 refusal rates represent an increase over 2014 for most of these populous countries: for example, the refusal rate for India jumped nearly 4%; in Turkey — more than 6%; in Ukraine — more than 6%; the Philippines — more than 3%; in Pakistan — more than 2%; in Russia — more than 2%; and China — 1%. While on the surface these percentage increases may not seem significant, for these countries -…

Previously, USCIS overseas offices had responsibility for reviewing I-601 immigrant waiver applications. This led to inconsistent adjudications among various overseas offices and extreme variations in processing times. We first discussed the patent unfairness of this system on this blog back in November 2011. To remedy these problems, in June 2012 USCIS centralized the processing of I-601 waivers at the Nebraska Service Center in the United States. The impact can now be seen, and should give those who had been previously denied by a USCIS overseas office hope. As noted in our 2011 blog, the approval rates at certain USCIS overseas offices were dismal at best. For example, in Accra, Ghana, which had jurisdiction and reviewed waiver applications from numerous countries in Africa, its approval rate in 2010 was 22%. The Rome USCIS Office had an approval rate of 25%. Moscow and Athens hovered around 40%. Contrast that with the approval…