Posts tagged “Visa Refusal”

One critical tool in challenging errant visa decisions of consular officers is through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). While the FOIA process with the Department of State is extremely limited in visa cases, sometimes consular officers rely on inaccurate information contained in US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) files or improperly make visa decisions based on materials contained in those files. In such cases, FOIA requests can be extremely helpful. Lawyers can assist in three aspects of Freedom of Information Act requests: 1) properly formulating and lodging requests; 2) filing lawsuits when FOIA processing is delayed; and 3) assisting in appeals of government responses to FOIA requests. The proper formulation of a request can mean the difference between a process that can take 3 months or 12 or more…

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…

Sometimes, it doesn’t make sense. When a potential client contacts us regarding a decision by a consular officer, we try to understand, first of all, why was the decision made? What caused the consular officer to make the decision he or she did? Often, we can understand the position of the consular officer; while we may not always agree with that position and in fact challenge the position, we at least can identify the problem. But sometimes, we are confounded. Take for example the situation of J. J contacted us after he had been turned around at the border by Customs and Border Protection. The CBP protocol memorializing J’s request to enter the US was clear: it said that J needed a different type of visa. He had previously been a student in the US, and he needed to obtain a visitor visa in order to return to the US…

Mssrs. R, Y, K, K, and D each submitted entries for the DV–2018 Lottery during the registration period in the fall of 2016. They each had been divorced by an Uzbek court before the Lottery, so they indicated in their entries that they were divorced. Each of them was selected as a winner. After attending their interviews and presenting the court decisions as evidence of their divorce, they were advised by consular staff that they were being refused immigrant visas because they had not picked up their divorce certificates from the local registration office prior to submission of their entries: as a result, in the eyes of the Embassy, they were not officially divorced when they completed their Lottery entries. While the Uzbek law on divorce is ambiguous, it has been in effect since 2011. What is beyond dispute is that the issuance of a court decision renders the couple…

The case of Mr. B is illustrative of the consular tyranny prevailing in Tashkent and how Mr. Deeb has apparently impacted Department of State decisionmakers in formulating visa policy. Mr. B. has a high school diploma and thereby satisfies the Diversity Visa education requirements.[1] He is of Tajik background and grew up in Uzbekistan, where he learned the Uzbek language. Yet, when he attended his interview at the US Embassy in Tashkent, the consul tested not his knowledge of the Uzbek or Tajik languages, but his English- and Russian-language capabilities in violation of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual: (b) A DV refusal must be based on evidence that the alien did not in fact obtain the required degree and not on your assessment of the alien’s knowledge level. You may not administer an exam, either oral or written, to test an applicant’s basic knowledge in order to determine whether…

As background, some information about the Diversity Lottery is in order. The State Department administers the Diversity Lottery program, which allows for individuals from low-immigration countries with a high-school education or its equivalent or certain work experience to qualify to immigrate to the United States.[1] Every year, more than 10 million individuals from all over the world participate, with approximately 100,000 selected to pursue the 50,000 visas available. The popularity of the Diversity Lottery extends to the citizens of Uzbekistan, a poor, predominantly Muslim country in Central Asia. The annual Lottery is held in three stages: 1) a registration period, in which individuals submit their entries (in the fall); 2) selection and notification of the winners (spring); and 3) visa interviews/adjustment of status process (starting on October 1), at which time nonrefundable processing fees are paid. For selectees processing overseas, they must receive immigrant visas by September 30, or before…

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…

Over the past couple of years, we have seen a dramatic surge in the number of visa revocations. Every day our office is contacted by individuals who have had the misfortune of having their visas revoked, so we thought this would be a good opportunity to catalog the most prolific reasons for visa revocations. This blog is not about the Trump Travel Ban and the more than 100,000 visas revoked under it. It also is not about the revocation of visas at US airports upon arrival, nor consular recommendations to revoke USCIS approvals of employment petitions. Rather, it is about the tens of thousands of visa revocations initiated by the Department of State and consular officers around the world every year. This article will list the 12 most “popular” reasons for visa revocations. These visa revocations are triggered by new material information which crops up after the original issuance, calling…

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…

The granting of parole was recently in the news. As discussed elsewhere on this site, parole is the “last chance” after other visa options have been exhausted. A sympathetic case was the recent approval for a team of girls from Afghanistan to participate in a robotics competition in the United States. Their B visa applications had been denied twice by the US Embassy in Kabul. An outcry ensued, with the President apparently intervening. DHS then issued the special parole permission for all of the girls and their coach to enter the US to compete. More details can be found in this Washington Post story. A stranger situation revolves around the case of the Russian lawyer caught up in the election collusion scandal. Apparently, she had been denied US visas, but eventually was granted parole so that she could attend court hearings in the US on behalf of a client. The…

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…

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…

Via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, I was able to obtain visa statistics (221gMoscowstats0001) for the US Embassy in Moscow. Russian visa applicants are no exception to the epidemic of 221(g) decisions around the world. From 2007–2012, the number of Russian B visa applicants at the US Embassy in Moscow subject to 221(g) more than tripled. Students and employees of US companies also had their applications increasingly scrutinized: the number of students and H applicants subject to delays more than doubled, and the number of L visa applicants encountering 221(g) increased more than eightfold! The good news is that the overwhelming majority of Russian applicants subject to Section 221(g) receive their visas. However, the spike in the number of 221(g) delays and bureaucratic hurdles encountered by Russian visa applicants contradicts the public Embassy pronouncements about facilitating travel to the US. If you are the subject of a substantial 221(g) delay,…