Tourist Visa Denied to Son --- cannot understand it

[DaveE 178]

I think everything depends of individual case, because My mother filled petition /FB1/for me oct 2005 and 2008 CO approved me 10 years B1/B2 visa. When CO approved my 10 years visa I had expired 5 years visa approved 2003. Also my daughter was approved 5 years B1/B2 visa in 2010, also my girlfriend was approved 10 years B1/B2 visa in 2009. We have visited US together 2010 and 2011.

Bulgaria is being considered as a Visa Waiver Program country. Not lots of folks from Bulgaria wanting to jump ship and illegally stay in the states. No comparison with Thailand, Philippines, and other third world countries. Basic rule of thumb in my opinion is the poorer the country, the harder to get a visa.

Proposal to add Bulgaria to the VWP program: Proposed VWP additions

Edited September 13, 2012 by DaveE

[aaron2020 11,651]

It is possible to get a visitor visa with a pending immigration petition.

In the OP's stepson's case, we don't know what information was provided and what was said at the interview. We don't know what happened.

The basis premise of a visitor visa is that the applicant is presumed to have the intent to immigrate. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate that he does not have the intent to immigrate. It is not up to the CO to show that the applicant is likely to overstay if a visa is granted. So, it is up to the applicant to provide proof that he will return home after a brief visit to the US.

The OP's stepson can certainly try again for a visitor visa. However, his current circumstances are not enough to convince this one CO that the stepson does not have the intention to immigrate if the visitor visa is granted.

The OP has stated that his stepson has his own business and money in the bank. We don't know what type of business - vending in the streets or a business where others are employed. We don't know how much money he has. Money can be moved to the US by family and friends. Walking away from a small business may not be a big deal.

We don't know if the stepson has ever traveled internationally. We don't know if he is considered well off or not in Thailand.

The OP seems more focus on the particular law that was the basis of denying the visitor visa, appealing the denial, what the CO has the power to do, and reciprocal visitor visa policies than address his stepson's lack of ties to Thailand in the eyes of the CO.

My advice is less focus should be paid to US visitor visa policy and the CO's power over visitor visas. The focus should be on improving the stepson's ties to Thailand to satisfy the US Embassy.

The game can only be played one way; the US Embassy's way. Trying to fight the power is useless when it comes to a foreign national seeking the privilege of a visitor visa. The CO at the US Embassy has ultimate authority. It's easier and better IMHO to do what they want if possible rather than try to fight and appeal.

Edited September 13, 2012 by aaron2020

[#100 1]

You're absolutely right.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Other reports on this forum is that Thailand is very strict on this issue and will flat-out deny a tourist visa when an immigrant petition is pending. It's their policy, not law, strictly speaking.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Harpa Timsah

[Noah Lot 391]

My wife and I are Americans living in Northern Thailand, and we go back to the US on visits. We want to take my son in law, who could help my wife because she now has a physical handicap and needs assistance, plus he would like to see America. My son in law owns his own business generating an income, has a wife and lives with her, has money in the bank --- he is also an adult (31 yrs), responsible and has no reason to stay in the US. Almost 4 years ago, we applied for him to get a green card in the US as an adult son of US citizens (my step son, my wife's real son). That is still in process, and we have been told it will take about 8 years (4-5 more years) before he will get that green card.

So my son goes to the Chiang Mai, Thailand, consulate to apply for a B-2 Tourist visa --- has all his documents and everything is A.O.K. The consulate interviewer said he would qualify on the basis of everything, EXCEPT he says the law says you cannot get a tourist visa if you have a residence visa (green card) pending. He quotes and puts in writing that my son is denied because of section 214(b) in the Immigration code.

I have tried to find that law, and I cannot find it anywhere. That section 214(b) says nothing about unable to qualify because he has a green card application pending. I check the regulations about green cards, and it says nothing about not being able to get a tourist visa during the process. I have scanned as much of the US laws regarding visas I can find and have found nothing. To me, it seems like this consulate officer just made it up.

My personal opinion is that the consulate has an agenda of denial. Their goal is to get as many applicants as possible, paying $160, give them a matter of minutes (like two or three), and then deny them. It must be a good maker for the US government.

For an American to visit Thailand, they don't need a visa at all. Just pop into the airport of other immigration point with a US passport and 30 days is automatically given.

I wrote to the consulate myself with this question, but they don't even respond. They promise to get back to me in 48 hours but that is like a joke.

So my question to this forum is: does anyone know about this regulation? Where is it in US laws and codes? And any suggestions of how I can get the visa granters to be more reasonable and fair?

You cannot appeal their decision nor somehow convince them to be more reasonable and 'fair' (I imagine 'fair' means granting a visa to your son)...the COs abide by the Immigration & Nationality Act, and under section 214b, it states that every applicant seeking a tourist visa (and some other categories of nonimmigrant visas) are PRESUMED to be going to the US to remain permanently...thus the interview does NOT begin in a neutral mode, but instead the applicant is presumed 'guilty' of something they have yet to do...in addition, you mentioned that said SIL wants to 'help' your wife, which suggests work, which suggests the proposed visit is not one of a week or two, but more prolonged, which then begs the question of how he can leave his 'business' and also is he in the business of home health care? (doubt it).

With a pending immigrant visa, he has something called 'dual intent'...in which he wants to immigrate but supposedly doesn't want to immigrate...a difficult thing to convince a CO is true.

Your personal opinion about fee collection overlooks the enormous cost of doing business overseas in a consulate...what you are not aware of is the virtually all of the costs of running a consulate overseas is borne by those same application fees...no taxpayer dollars are at work.

Now of course, if you know our laws so much better than our consular corps, and fully believe you know more about the entire process than they do, by all means drop them a letter explaining your bona fides...how knows...they might hire you as the Chief Consular Officer.....

Another poster made the valid point of the level of illegal immigration/overstays by Americans going to Thailand versus the number of Thais who 'forget to come back' to their country after entering the US...that ratio is off the charts (Thais staying versus Americans)...hence the ever present difficulties many Thai citizens have obtaining visas...but rather than castigate the COs, think instead of all those thousands of Thai citizens who abused the visa privilege....they are to blame.

[Darnell 8,479]

noah - that rocks - the missive you wrote. Cause it's the reality of a tourist visa.

I truly wish most folk would read the tourist section on an embassy web site - as it covers this stuff in layman's language [pressuposed with immigrant intent] that ANYONE (mostly) can understand.

[ExpatChiangMai 0]

"(You)overlook the enormous cost of doing business overseas in a consulate...what you are not aware of is the virtually all of the costs of running a consulate overseas is borne by those same application fees...no taxpayer dollars are at work."

No taxpayer dollars used to run a consulate? And the entire consulate operation is supported by the large visa fees?

That would come as a shock to most Americans, especially when the US State department is spending many billions to support overseas consulates. For 2013, the budget is $6.5 Billion for the civilians working at embassies and consulates, another $1.4 Billion for security personnel at consulates and another $4.5 Billion to American support staff and other costs for running the consulates. All that is paid for by the enormous tax burden on US citizens. But if as you say, the high fees the consulate charges for one minute rejections of people wanting to visit the US is so essential for their income, it would explain why they always push for everyone to re-submit (and repay) to go through the process all over again.

"Now of course, if you know our laws so much better than our consular corps, and fully believe you know more about the entire process than they do, by all means drop them a letter explaining your bona fides...how knows...they might hire you as the Chief Consular Officer....."

You really are over the top in your arrogant attitude, and dripping with sarcasm. It is an American tradition to voice protest where there seems to be unfairness. You sarcastic remark reflects an attitude of just shut up and comply. "If you could do better --- you do the job...." If we all just had this kind of thinkiing, we would still be saying Yes Sir to the descendents of King George III. To you, Mr. Arrogant, I say that I am not an authority on the law, but that does not preclude that I should shut up and obey. When I see wrong, it is wrong for me to do nothing.

I believe you must be employed by the consular corps, and if so, I would like to remind you that you are paid by me to represent my best interests as an American citizen and taxpayer. Not to lecture others about how consular corp civil service employees are so much better than us regular folk because of the great knowledge you possess.

[ExpatChiangMai 0]

Hey, I feel your pain. I have a step daughter that has been refused so many times that the CO actually told her to quit trying to get a tourist visa. They approved her F2B visa to come live here permanently, but because that demonstrates immigrant intent, they will not even entertain her a tourist visa. This basically means a 12 year wait before she can even visit us. They told my Senator very politely to shut up when he tried to intervene. The basically told him that "they would apply the law", and disapproved her for the third or fourth time.

Google "consular nonreviewability", and you will be shocked. Basically the law says that no court can override the decision of the CO. There are only two exceptions; 1. The CO made a decision he didn't have the authority to make. (The CO obviously has visa granting or denial authority) 2. The CO made a decison without a facially legitimate or bonafide reason.(The CO is instructed by the State Department to determine immigrant intent).

Thank you DaveE for real information. I appreciate it and was indeed shocked by the info available on non-reviewability of decisions made by consular civil servants. After reading some of these reports, I am going to actively participate in trying to make a change. I am a bit surprised at the responses on this forum, and it seems like many originate from consular employees. It seems that the prevailing attitude is that I should just shut up and accept it, because this consulate employee knows so much more than other regular folk like me, and go ahead, re-submit the application, pay the money again, and we might give your case another two minute examination and rejection. Keep paying and keep getting a denial. Many on this forum say it is wrong for me to protest about this, and I say it is wrong to do nothing about this.

Good to hear you got a Senator at least involved with your situation. I will petition my elected representatives, and not let the unelected bureaucrats get me down.

[Boiler 46,125]

Err it is Congress who made the rules that the unelected bureaucrats are applying.

And the applicant in this case does not get to vote in US elections.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

I would like to remind you that you are paid by me to represent my best interests as an American citizen and taxpayer. Not to lecture others about how consular corp civil service employees are so much better than us regular folk because of the great knowledge you possess.

They are paid by US to represent OUR best interests.

Regarding the stepson's Immigrant Visa, you are aware that those Visas are for the purpose of uniting families and require the US Citizen sponsor to be domiciled in the US by the date of intended entry of the Visa holder, right? They are not intended for helping family members move to the US while the US Citizen sponsor lives abroad.

[ExpatChiangMai 0]

Err it is Congress who made the rules that the unelected bureaucrats are applying.

And the applicant in this case does not get to vote in US elections.

Wrong on the first point. No law passed by anyone says that he cannot visit the US on the basis he was turned down. It is the INTERPRETATION of very vague terms by a consulate employee, and it is by judicial decree that we are not allowed to challenge this employee's decision in any way --- a court case, not a law.

Agencies of my government are always making arbitrary decisions --- like the FDA declaring Raw Milk must be banned. But in every case, we can challenge it. We can protest, we can petition our elected representatives and we can take it to court. And people are doing it, with the result being that this FDA ruling is likely to be changed. It seems like only the decision of the consulate officer is arbitrary and cannot be challenged.

And yes, my son cannot vote. Maybe that's why this system is this way, even though it is wrong.

[ExpatChiangMai 0]

They are paid by US to represent OUR best interests.

Yes they are getting paid to do that, and it is my argument that they not doing their job correctly and fairly. Mr. Obama has been stressing that we need easing up on visitors visas to generate money for the US. As much as I disagree with him in most things, in this our President is correct. The consulate employee is not.

I will not go over the details of my son's financial situation, but his income and assets in his homeland are much more than adequate to maintain his home here.

[Noah Lot 391]

Yes they are getting paid to do that, and it is my argument that they not doing their job correctly and fairly. Mr. Obama has been stressing that we need easing up on visitors visas to generate money for the US. As much as I disagree with him in most things, in this our President is correct. The consulate employee is not.

I will not go over the details of my son's financial situation, but his income and assets in his homeland are much more than adequate to maintain his home here.

You know absolutely nothing about the consular process, interviewing, immigration law, etc....how many individuals have YOU interviewed who were seeking visas to the United States? My guess: ZERO. Yet you proclaim to know more about the entire process and our laws than the people who have been trained and have vast experience in this field compared to you. Do you also tell pilots how to fly a plane? Tell quarterbacks how to throw the football? Maybe dabble in nuclear physics? More likely you stock shelves in a Wal Mart.

No matter what YOU think about the CO's decision, it won't matter. And if you are so incredibly knowledgeable about all aspects of visa law and interviewing, why aren't YOU running a consular section? Why hasn't the State Department sent a car or an airplane to downtown DC and have you take over the Bureau of Consular Affairs? Odd they are missing out on all your self professed talent.....or maybe not.

Consular officers must pass a rigorous test to even join the foreign service....a test that would leave you wondering which end is up.

The 'consular employee' was correct in his or her decision.

[ExpatChiangMai 0]

You know absolutely nothing about the consular process, interviewing, immigration law, etc....how many individuals have YOU interviewed who were seeking visas to the United States? My guess: ZERO. Yet you proclaim to know more about the entire process and our laws than the people who have been trained and have vast experience in this field compared to you. Do you also tell pilots how to fly a plane? Tell quarterbacks how to throw the football? Maybe dabble in nuclear physics? More likely you stock shelves in a Wal Mart.

No matter what YOU think about the CO's decision, it won't matter. And if you are so incredibly knowledgeable about all aspects of visa law and interviewing, why aren't YOU running a consular section? Why hasn't the State Department sent a car or an airplane to downtown DC and have you take over the Bureau of Consular Affairs? Odd they are missing out on all your self professed talent.....or maybe not.

Consular officers must pass a rigorous test to even join the foreign service....a test that would leave you wondering which end is up.

The 'consular employee' was correct in his or her decision.

You are so arrogant. No, I have not interviewed people for visas. I am educated, and to reasonably high level, but my personal details will not be given here. Suffice it to say that my professional experience and educational level is likely to be much higher than a consulate interviewing employee. I could probably expect the same kind of arrogant response from many of our elected and non elected government employees if you question what they do, but when they take the job of a civil servant they should expect to have the people paying their salary (us taxpayers) to question of their decisions, to protest it if necessary and to even seek a third party judicial review if necessary. We do that all the time for every government agency. The consular corp should not have a wall around it where no can question what they do. That is, simply, not the American way.

Bottom line: I don't need to take over a job at the Bureau of Consular Affairs. I am already their employer.

I am going to do my part in trying to make a change in the system. You have re-enforced my determination, so I thank you for that. I will be writing on some internet sites about this, and will be quoting your brilliant remarks.

[Noah Lot 391]

You are so arrogant. No, I have not interviewed people for visas. I am educated, and to reasonably high level, but my personal details will not be given here. Suffice it to say that my professional experience and educational level is likely to be much higher than a consulate interviewing employee. I could probably expect the same kind of arrogant response from many of our elected and non elected government employees if you question what they do, but when they take the job of a civil servant they should expect to have the people paying their salary (us taxpayers) to question of their decisions, to protest it if necessary and to even seek a third party judicial review if necessary. We do that all the time for every government agency. The consular corp should not have a wall around it where no can question what they do. That is, simply, not the American way.

Bottom line: I don't need to take over a job at the Bureau of Consular Affairs. I am already their employer.

I am going to do my part in trying to make a change in the system. You have re-enforced my determination, so I thank you for that. I will be writing on some internet sites about this, and will be quoting your brilliant remarks.

You forgot to thump your chest. I am going to sit back and watch how futile your 'determination' will be....thousands of other self appointed know-it-alls have tried and failed and you are no different. Gosh, I can just imagine how Congress will rush to change our laws once they read your whining remarks on some silly internet site......yea....