Posts tagged “214(b)”

This myth has been going around for years — no doubt perpetuated by representatives of 2nd passport programs. A national of Country X has US visa problems — because of a criminal incident 20 years ago making him inadmissible to the US. He decides to obtain a passport from a European Union country by making a very substantial investment. Because he has been told that nationals of his new country are eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) — a program that allows for travel as a tourist or business visitor to the US for up to 90 days without a visa, with no visa interview required — he is under the impression that he should qualify too. Until he reads the fine print — or consults with a US immigration lawyer. Before boarding a flight to the US without a visa, citizens of VWP countries pre-register with the US…

The Department of State does not publish separate statistics for student visa denials, but judging by the number of phone calls we have been recently receiving from rejected students on Section 214(b) grounds, it appears that the Culture of No has adversely impacted potential students as well. In particular, consular attention — and denials — has been riveted to certain categories of students, including: 1) those older than the age of 25; 2) those planning to attend community college in the US; 3) those from economically distressed or provincial areas of the home country; 4) “eternal” students; 5) those with planned majors at the US university deemed to be of less practical value; 6) those with significant gaps in their work history; 7) those who previously dropped out of school; and 8) financial sponsors who are not immediate relatives. Consuls have very little time to conduct a student visa interview,…

The statistics stun — even the most callous observer. In just two years, the number of individuals denied immigrant visas under the public charge section of the law (Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) has increased more than 12 times! Alien smuggling (Section 212(a)(6)(E)) findings doubled for immigrant visa applicants over the past year. Misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) decisions for these applicants increased by more than 25%. 214(b) denials for those applying for nonimmigrant visas — more than 2.7 million — also edged upwards. The Department of State’s statistics table lists more than 50 visa ineligibility grounds. But one is hard pressed to remember such a radical increase in denials for a single ineligibility as with the public charge provision over the past two years. Incredibly, this massive increase is not a result of any changes in or amendments to the law itself. This would take congressional action. Rather,…

Every day, we receive e-mails such as these: “Hello, I was denied a Returning Resident Visa. Can you help?” “Good day. I have traveled to the US 10 times over the past 5 years and never had a problem. When I tried to board the plane to the US last week, I was told that my visa was revoked. Can you assist?” “Last summer I was barred from entering the US for five years. What are my options?” Not to be macabre, but imagine that you were diagnosed with cancer, and on the Internet, you look up the names of some cancer doctors, and you sent them e-mails, asking whether they can help you? What would the doctor respond? Similarly, when it comes to US visas, the only way to truly assess a case is by having a detailed discussion — about your personal circumstances, about what was indicated in…

Most people understand that if they are arrested, it is possible that their visas will be revoked. DUIs, drug possession, domestic violence, shoplifting — these are just some of the situations in which individuals with valid visas have their visas revoked. But what is less known — and understood — is that the Department of State has the ability to revoke visas for any reason in which eligibility is questioned. In other words, the inquiry into whether an individual qualifies for a visa does not stop at the time of issuance; it is a process that can be — and often is — reactivated at any time after issuance. In fact, we are seeing more revocations for non-criminal issues than criminal problems. So what leads to this re-examination of an individual’s eligibility? The trigger points for such a “verification reactivation” are numerous. For example, consular officers conduct validation studies, checking…

You have rights. Yes, if you have been denied a visa, you have rights. The Department of State’s Customer Statement lists only some of those rights, as follow: We promise to you, the visa applicant, that: We will treat you with dignity and respect, even if we are unable to grant you a visa. We will treat you as an individual and your case as unique. We will remember that, to you, a visa interview may be a new or intimidating experience and that you may be nervous. We will use the limited time available for the interview to get as full a picture as possible of your travel plans and intentions. We will use our available resources to fairly assist all applicants to get appointments to allow travel in time for business, study, and other important obligations. We will post detailed and accurate information on visa requirements and application…

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…

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…

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 -…

The story was not unusual. Ekaterina arrived in the US on a B-1 visa. She became acquainted with an incompetent lawyer, one who did not charge for an initial consultation. The lawyer, more interested in making a sale because he could not live on free consultations, told her that she could qualify for L-1 status. They then signed a legal services agreement and Ekaterina made a substantial payment. The lawyer and Ekaterina began preparing to file the L-1 petition. The lawyer opened an American company; Ekaterina opened a corporate bank account and placed funds on the account; and on behalf of the company, Ekaterina leased an office, paying rent for three months in advance. After this, the lawyer filed the L-1 petition for her to change her status. After USCIS sent a Request for Evidence, the lawyer prepared a response. Unfortunately for Ekaterina, the response was inadequate, and USCIS denied…

Attached are our memorandum and exhibits addressed to the Office of Inspector General at the Department of State regarding the Summer Work and Travel Program scandal at the US Embassy in Moscow: Memo — swtletter0001; Exhibits — swtexhibits0001

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/us-embassy-slams-door-on-student-workers/478125.html

We recently published this article on Immigration Lawyers Weekly — ilw.com — http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?1215-Article-7-Interviews-1-Visa-by-Kenneth-White The recent headline in one of Russia’s leading daily newspapers sounded so welcoming: “America Invites You to Visit." In the extensive accompanying article and interview, the Chief of the Nonimmigrant Visa Unit at the US Embassy in Moscow, Bill Bistransky, praises the natural wonders of the United States and touts the ease of receiving a visa to the United States for “legitimate” visitors.[1] If only it were so. We have previously chronicled how the Embassy in Moscow regularly punishes Russian babushki who stay “too long” in the US;[2] impermissibly readjudicates already-approved USCIS employment petitions, stymying the plans of Russian entrepreneurs and professionals to work in the United States;[3] and doubled its visa refusal rate.[4] But what is remarkable is the continued disconnect between the Embassy’s public relations campaign and the real world experiences of everyday visa applicants. Take the case of Irina….

Rarely have I had the opportunity to see three consular posts so clearly juxtaposed as I have over the past two weeks in dealing with Tashkent, Moscow, and Jakarta. The experience only reinforces the notion that it is the decisionmakers and consular managers who drive visa policy, not the other way around. Tashkent has come a long way since we filed a Complaint with the Department of State Office of Inspector General in 2008. Tashkent is a post with numerous challenges, including fraud, Lottery intermediaries extorting money from Lottery winners, visa overstays, and operating in a relatively poor country. David Mico, the Consul from 2010 to 2012, was a very good manager who kept an open mind in reviewing visa applications and decisions. He was not afraid to correct a mistake made by a consular officer. His replacement, Otto Westhassel, has followed this tradition by re-opening visa decisions when convincing…

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…” The Who, “Won’t Get Fooled Again” We have dedicated the last six blog entries to the worsening visa policy of the United States Embassy in Moscow towards Russians. This policy has taken various forms: doubling of the refusal rate, while the refusal rates in other countries, such as Brazil, have gone down significantly; making scurrilous allegations against Russians; not giving Russians the ability to respond to allegations; denying visas to babushkas for spending prolonged periods of time in the US; issuing one-year visas instead of the required two-year visas; charging new application fees for repeat “interviews” in which decisions have been preordained; short-circuiting the return of students to the United States; impermissibly readjudicating approved employment petitions. The implementation of these changes can bae pinpointed to the arrival of Richard Beer as Consul General in the fall of 2009 and the departure…