Blog

So why don’t consular officers wish to give copies of these Voluntary Statements to visa applicants? Maybe because they are not so «voluntary» after all. As explained to me by several visa applicants from India, they do not voluntarily provide these statements. Rather, they are bullied, coerced, and compelled to write the statements. Worse, consular staff dictate the text of the statement under threat of permanent bar from the United States. Even worse, the statements often contain materially erroneous information. One applicant said that US consular staff «threatened me that they will [b]an me from going back to USA if I don’t agree with their version of the story." Another stated: «At the end when she asked me to write down the statement, she especially [sic] dictated the whole thing to me." Not only had this applicant been advised to indicate wrong information in her statement, but the officer attempted…

The first indicator of the questionable nature of these Voluntary Statements are the lengths to which consular officers go to obstruct their disclosure to the visa applicant. As a general rule and enshrined by Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, visa records are considered confidential and not subject to disclosure. However, there is an exception for documentation submitted by the applicant; such documents are subject to disclosure. In the case of the Voluntary Statements in India, the consular officer does not give a copy to the applicant at the conclusion of the interview. This, notwithstanding the draconian visa consequences and criminal liability that the applicant has been exposed to by signing the Voluntary Statement. The consular officer’s “Bible”, the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), makes it abundantly clear that these statements are releasable to the applicant: 2. d. (U) Documents Releasable to Applicant: The documents listed below are deemed…

US embassies and consulates abroad adjudicate more than 13 million visa applications a year, so when changes are made to the rules governing visa decisionmaking, the potential impact can be enormous. That is the case with two recent changes in the Foreign Affairs Manual, the State Department’s guidance to consular officers making visa decisions. The revisions, unfortunately, are not for the better for visa applicants. 90 Day Rule The most important change — with the most severe potential consequences — relates to the pronouncement of a new 90 day rule. This rule supplants the previous 30/60 day guidance. The 90 day rule states that “if an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry," the consul may presume that the “applicant’s representation about engaging in only status-compliant activity were willful misrepresentations of his or her intention in seeking a visa…

As immigration enforcement ramps up, with more scrutiny and rigor exhibited by the government agencies involved (ICE, USCIS, DOS), one should not forget the role played by Customs and Border Patrol. Because they may have a visa, people tend to forget or underestimate the role played by the airport inspectors. Those arriving at an airport are considered “applicants” for entry, and they are only admitted after the CBP inspector makes a decision on admissibility. Just like the other agencies, CBP has also heard the call for more vigorous enforcement of our laws, and is now actively engaged in screening out “undesirables” and visa violators. Now that the government is much more interconnected than it was even 3–5 years ago, this means that the CBP inspector has access to information contained in visa applications and petitions. Another section of our website discusses in more detail the process of expedited removal, but…

As is well-known, most employment and family cases involve a two-step process: 1) the submission of a petition to USCIS for approval; and 2) the completion of a visa interview at a US consulate or embassy outside the United States. So why is it that many lawyers do not provide legal support for the visa interview? This issue has become more acute as consular officers have become more aggressive in questioning the bona fides of the underlying petition. While they are not supposed to readjudicate the approval — substitute their opinion for USCIS’ — they can find “new, material” information to justify the referral of the petition back to USCIS for revocation. This aggressive questioning has become more pronounced since the issuance of the President’s Executive Order to protect US workers. In light of the executive order, the Department of State updated its guidance to consular officers in adjudicating nonimmigrant…