immigration debate - family rejected for tourist visa

[Boiler 46,123]

With the right donation........

[Harsh_77 718]

With the right donation......

lol yes possible.

[Harsh_77 718]

OP - You can be thankful to ppl like this. Check out the thread they are the coz why most legit tourist / student have to face hard time.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/435631-on-f1-visa-and-got-married-after-arrival-the-us/#entry6291119

[Rwlaird 18]

If someone is interested in immigration issues, as evidenced by their participation in an immigration discussion forum, yet unaware of the fact that the U.S. Congress is currently debating legislation to make changes to our immigration laws even though this issue is being prominently discussed in news outlets then I would consider them to be uniformed. I’m perplexed how that would cause anyone to consider me arrogant.

I wouldn’t expect everyone to agree with my views. If this issue hasn’t affected your family personally then you might not have the same perspective as those of us who have been affected.

The point regarding the change I suggest “not changing anything,” I would say that is debatable. If you look closely at my original post I am suggesting that the words regarding immigrant intent be removed. From my research I would say that removing the language “shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer” significantly changes the tone of the law while preserving significant protections against admission for those who cannot present evidence verifying that their trip will be only temporary. Removing this language should allow the agency to take a more straightforward approach to applicants instead of being hung up by vague and baseless suspicions. Correspondence that I have received from the agency cites this language regarding “presumption of immigrant intent” as tying their hands and requiring them to reject applicants on the basis of vague suspicion.

Without digressing into a discussion about what specifically can be done to amend our laws through language in bills passed by Congress I would just say that I am not advocating for action to solely benefit our family on an individual basis. One might observe that the suggested amendment does not say “Mr. and Mrs. Stateyourname from Ukraine” will be granted visas.

What I am advocating is for an appropriate change to a problematic policy that has negatively affected many well intentioned families. If your name has been affected, as ours has, you may have an acute understanding and be interested in registering that with your elected representatives in Congress – thus the original point of this post.

[Boiler 46,123]

I was refused a B2 visa.

I disagree with your conclusion regarding your wording.

I disagree with your understanding of the regulations. Whilst it is true that Congress has given permission to the Executive to admit Aliens they also have given them a wide range of discretion. Obviously the discretion is widely exercised jusding by the number of visitors to the US.

[Rwlaird 18]

I was refused a B2 visa.

I disagree with your conclusion regarding your wording.

I disagree with your understanding of the regulations. Whilst it is true that Congress has given permission to the Executive to admit Aliens they also have given them a wide range of discretion. Obviously the discretion is widely exercised jusding by the number of visitors to the US.

Since you seem to have some experience I would appreciate knowing more about why you disagree and what ideas you have to improve the situation. I totally agree that Congress has given the agency wide discretion. While I would love for the agency's discretion to be circumvented and their decision overturned in our individual case I fully understand that is unrealistic and would not be prudent from a public policy perspective. I do not expect that the change in language I am advocating to result in a dramatic change in the process. A dramatic change is probably not appropriate but an incremental tweak should be all that is needed to make a difference. The "presumption of immigrant intent" language seems to create a standard that is just a little too high - guilty until proven innocent... Of course I fully realize that there is still considerable potential for the agency to continue to make mistakes but I have no idea how to achieve substantial improvement (short of contracting the process out to a private company like Fedex).

Thanks!

[Harsh_77 718]

Since you seem to have some experience I would appreciate knowing more about why you disagree and what ideas you have to improve the situation. I totally agree that Congress has given the agency wide discretion. While I would love for the agency's discretion to be circumvented and their decision overturned in our individual case I fully understand that is unrealistic and would not be prudent from a public policy perspective. I do not expect that the change in language I am advocating to result in a dramatic change in the process. A dramatic change is probably not appropriate but an incremental tweak should be all that is needed to make a difference. The "presumption of immigrant intent" language seems to create a standard that is just a little too high - guilty until proven innocent... Of course I fully realize that there is still considerable potential for the agency to continue to make mistakes but I have no idea how to achieve substantial improvement (short of contracting the process out to a private company like Fedex).

Thanks!

Innocent until proven guilty is only applicable in criminal case not all federal branches go by it, if one is involved with IRS they would know burden of proof is not on govt.

Same way based on number and historical data all applicant are assumed to have immigrant intent and burden is on them to prove they are not planning to immigrate.

[Boiler 46,123]

Since you seem to have some experience I would appreciate knowing more about why you disagree and what ideas you have to improve the situation. I totally agree that Congress has given the agency wide discretion. While I would love for the agency's discretion to be circumvented and their decision overturned in our individual case I fully understand that is unrealistic and would not be prudent from a public policy perspective. I do not expect that the change in language I am advocating to result in a dramatic change in the process. A dramatic change is probably not appropriate but an incremental tweak should be all that is needed to make a difference. The "presumption of immigrant intent" language seems to create a standard that is just a little too high - guilty until proven innocent... Of course I fully realize that there is still considerable potential for the agency to continue to make mistakes but I have no idea how to achieve substantial improvement (short of contracting the process out to a private company like Fedex).

Thanks!

Under the current overall scenario as I have mentioned there is no solution.

Whether our leaders? do anything that will have a positive impact remains to be seen.

[stevie b 141]

I agree with the way the law is now, sorry.

I know all too many people who came here on a tourist visa, consciously knowing the whole time that they were going to stay illegally.

Does it affect people with honest intentions, yes. Does it also prevent millions of intending immigrants from entering the states, yes. What will change? nothing - get over it

I too have been affected by the denial of a tourist visa for my wife.

I know that many individuals have been impacted by the intent to immigrate concept and subsequent denial, but honestly I am sure it has worked the way it was intended to work more often than.

[Rwlaird 18]

No solution??? Get over it??? Where there's a will there's a way. Just accepting the system the way it is without working for improvements is not the way that most Americans think. Again, I agree that those who are going to stay here illegally should not be admitted and I am not advocating anything to prevent the agency from rejecting those who are intending immigrants. There has to be a better way to allow those with good intentions to prove their intentions and be admitted while keeping out those with bas intentions. The current system is not working and improvements are needed. With creative and innovative thinking improvements can be made.

[Harsh_77 718]

No solution??? Get over it??? Where there's a will there's a way. Just accepting the system the way it is without working for improvements is not the way that most Americans think. Again, I agree that those who are going to stay here illegally should not be admitted and I am not advocating anything to prevent the agency from rejecting those who are intending immigrants. There has to be a better way to allow those with good intentions to prove their intentions and be admitted while keeping out those with bas intentions. The current system is not working and improvements are needed. With creative and innovative thinking improvements can be made.

can you suggest a better way for applicant to prove they do not have immigrant intent and they would not be abusing the visa once they land on US soil.

your suggestion was changing the wording of the law - which does not help.

[Rwlaird 18]

I disagree that changing the wording of the law does not help. I wonder how you can make such a definitive statement unless you have experience as a lawyer, lobbyist, or agency official. I contend that changing the wording of the law does help because the law directs the activities of the agency. Agencies create specific regulations and internal policies to implement the law that Congress passes.

The requirement to prove that they "do not have immigrant intent" is exactly what I suggest needs to be eliminated. It creates an inappropriate standard to prove a negative. How can you prove today that you won't commit a crime next year? (Rhetorical question but I think it makes a point.)

I have already suggested a few points to prevent abuse. Appropriate safeguards should remain in place. The change of wording in law that I suggest should result in elimination of the requirement to show strong ties to your home country. That is not in the section of law that I suggest be changed and I am not suggesting that it be eliminated. The applicant should be required to show that their trip is for a temporary period. The specific safeguards are not written into law now. The agency has the discretion to make that determination through regulation and could/should continue to. The agency could require the applicant to show a return ticket. I would be fine with the idea of requiring a U.S. sponsor who would be subjected to an appropriate fine and/or whatever other appropriate penalties that the agency determines are appropriate. Consensus seems to be emerging in the immigration reform bill for an improved tracking system as well as improved verification of employment eligibility. All of that should help to prevent abuse. Again, the agency would continue to have such discretion to implement policies to prevent abuse.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Maybe US needs to copy Singapore strict Immigration Act for overstayers:

"Under the Singapore Immigration Act, the penalties for overstaying (exceeding 90 days) are: a jail term not exceeding six months, and caning not less than three strokes. In cases where caning cannot be administered, the offender will be fined up to $6,000."

Of course, caning is deemed as cruel and inhumane to the liberals.

[Boiler 46,123]

It is the way American Politicians work, do you not follow the news?

[Harsh_77 718]

Op - there can be never a fixed check list as applicant should have x amount in bank and have a car in their name and on and on.

That still does not prove to CO why applicant would not overstay in US and would return back home.

I have personally seen preg woman arguing and fighting with CO in consulate when they were refused B1/2 visa. In such cases should CO be required to prove that applicant has the immigrnat intent? Should that burden be on the US govt to prove the foregin national is going to overstay in US? I don't think so.