Posts tagged “Consular Officers”

Congratulations to the winners of the DV–2015 Green Card Lottery. Against great odds, you were selected. Now comes the hard part. As you know, selection does not guarantee a visa. 125,514 individuals were selected for DV–2015 (out of 9,388,986 entrants), but only 50,000, including their family members, receive visas. Winners must receive their visas by September 30, 2015 or before the 50,000 quota or 3,500 country quota is exhausted. In general, the lower the case number, the earlier the interview and the better chances of receiving the visa before the elapse of the program. Interviews will commence October 1, 2014. The big difference in DV processing this year is that the selectees and their family members will submit their immigrant visa application online and no paper will be filed with the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC). Each Lottery visa applicant must meet the general requirements for admissibility to the United States….

Many immigrant visa applicants are under the mistaken impression that they are not allowed to challenge a negative visa decision by a consular officer. In fact, every applicant for an immigrant visa has a right to submit a Request for Reconsideration of an immigrant visa denial. While technically this is not an appeal, a Request for Reconsideration does give the applicant the right to submit new evidence or arguments to challenge a visa refusal. A consular officer must review such a formal Request; this is an obligation, one that the consular officer cannot shirk. This obligation is set out in the Department of State’s own regulations, and an appeals court recently confirmed that this is the consular officer’s duty, punching a hole in the armor of the consular nonreviewability doctrine. However, there is a time limit on the submission of the RFR: it must be submitted within one year of…

The phone calls keep coming in to our office. From Australia, South Africa, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Russia, Lebanon, all from US visa holders who have had their visas revoked without explanation. It appears that the US government has intensified its visa revocation campaign, particularly against Muslims. The problems encountered by Muslims in dealing with US immigration authorities was the topic of a recently published ACLU report about the discriminatory USCIS Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”). The report highlights how USCIS misidentifies national security concerns; encourages FBI interference and harassment; mandates pretextual denials; and deprives due process of green-card holding applicants, primarily Muslim, during the naturalization process. These thousands are left in legal limbo for years. If there is one glimmer of hope, it is that these applicants at least are able to wage their battles while in the US, where lawyers, courts, and public opinion can at…

The statistics are stunning. Over the past four years, more than four million visa applications have been temporarily denied under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, that is to say, the Department of State collected tens of millions of dollars from visa applicants, only to put their applications on hold. Year 221(g) findings in Immigrant Visa Cases 221(g) findings in Nonimmigrant Visa Cases Total 2009 273,227 616,284 889,511 2010 286,889 694,620 981,509 2011 312,968 837,477 1,150,445 2012 303,166 806,773 1,109,939 More stunning is the wait time that thousands of visa applicants are subject to. The US Embassy in London publishes on its website a list of nonimmigrant visa cases subject to 221(g) administrative processing and the intake dates of the applications. As of October 25, 2013, the list encompasses 141 pages and thousands of applicants. 6 individuals have been waiting for four years for action on their applications. More…

The below article was recently published on the Immigrant Lawyer’s Weekly website — http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?2398-Article-Bait-and-Switch-Department-of-State-Style-by-Kenneth-White Yesterday, we wrote about how USCIS holds out the lure of green cards to foreign entrepreneurs, only to pull back the bait once the businessman has committed untold hours and funds to the development of a business in the United States. The Department of State is no slacker in the bait-and-switch game. It has used the Diversity Green Card Lottery as a means to reap a windfall by holding out the lure of green cards to those selected in the Lottery, only to turn away thousands of applicants after they have paid substantial application fees. The US Embassy in Tashkent is an excellent case study. After the DV Lottery drawing, the selected “winners” submit application forms to the Department of State’s Kentucky Consular Center (“KCC”). The KCC then invites selectees for immigrant visa interviews. At the…

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…

This is the sixth entry in our blog on negative changes at the US Embassy in Moscow over the past year. Wikipedia defines “kanagaroo court” as “a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all. A kangaroo court’s proceedings deny, hinder or obstruct due process rights in the name of expediency." In reading letters of twice-denied applicants and talking to Russians who have re-applied for a visa after an initial denial, the image of a kanagaroo court comes to mind. While the US Embassy in Moscow promises a fresh look at a visa re-application after a denial, conducted by a different consular officer, it is clear that the second officer is automatically deferring to the first officer. For example, I…

This is the fifth entry of our blog on the negative policy changes taking place at the US Embassy in Moscow over the past year. What babushka does not want to spend time with her grandchildren or help out her daughter in tending to a newly-born child? Well, babushka needs to be careful because she is now under the microscope of the American Embassy in Moscow. Many people are under the impression that as long as they abide by the term of the I-94 form (the form issued by the Customs and Border Patrol upon entry to the United States indicating how long the visitor is entitled to remain in the US), they will not have a problem receiving a new visa. That is not the case. Exhibit A: Russian babushka going to visit her US permanent resident or citizen daughter and grandchildren in the US. The Embassy in Moscow…

This is the second blog in an ongoing series on the negative changes in visa policy of the US Embassy in Moscow. Russian citizens applying for B-1/B-2 (visitor) and certain work visas are entitled to two-year visas. Department of State rules require, with rare exception, that consular officers in Russia issue to Russian applicants in these categories visas valid for two years. The rare exception is justified only when a consular officer believes that an applicant’s personal circumstances may change in the next year. That has not stopped the US Embassy in Moscow from implementing its own policy change. Many first-time Russian applicants over the past year have been unpleasantly surprised to find out that they would receive one-year, “trial run” visas, instead of two-year visas which they requested. In effect, the Embassy has placed these applicants on probation — not trusting them to comply with the terms of their…

Over the past year, the number of complaints we have received regarding the US Embassy in Moscow has increased exponentially. What changed? Over the next month, we will discuss this in more detail on this blog.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0424-white.shtm

One of the first things that I learned in Catholic School is the Ten Commandments. We didn’t so much learn the Commandments as to have them seared into our memory, at our ready recall when the situation called for them. Violating a commandment was cause for soul-searching and a trip to the confessional on the following Saturday. Similarly, the visa applicant should know that consular officers have their own set of “commandments” that they must abide by, those set out in the Customer Service Statement to Visa Applicants (reproduced below verbatim). This Statement specifies some rights to which visa applicants are entitled when applying for a visa (visa applicants are entitled to many more rights than those listed, a topic for a future blog). Notable for their frequency of violation are “Commandments” #1, 2, 4, and 8 (I have added numbers for ease of reference). For example, a consular…

This subject has been gnawing at me for a while. Why is it that other government agencies, including USCIS and Customs and Border Patrol, have complaint procedures and will follow-up on legitimate complaints, but the agency responsible for our image overseas and interacts with thousands of foreigners a day, the Department of State, does not? While admittedly raw, the linked article represents our attempt to structure such a procedure within the context of the visa process. Your feedback is welcomed. http://www.ilw.com/articles/2011,0408-white.shtm

As a follow up to yesterday’s post, refusal rates usually are inversely related to the economic development of a country: the lower the level of economic development, the higher the refusal rate. Most African countries have higher refusal rates than more developed countries, such as China, Russia, and Kazakhstan. But this does not always hold true. An example of this is the refusal rate of the US Embassy in Armenia. While recently lowering its refusal rate, the refusal rate of the Embassy in Yerevan is still at 51%, a level higher than such countries as Bangladesh, Cambodia, Central African Republic, and Burkina Faso. According to the Embassy, this is due to the results of a “validation study," an analysis of how many Armenians overstay their visas or do not return to their home country. The high level of overstays, according to the Embassy, justifies the high refusal rate. As a…