immigration debate - family rejected for tourist visa

[Rwlaird 18]

There can never be.... can't be a solution.... such negativity. I don't usually use such words much in my vocabulary.

I'm all for caning!

[CC90 90]

There can never be.... can't be a solution.... such negativity. I don't usually use such words much in my vocabulary.

There is no way for the system to work 100% so that people with genuine intentions can always come while those with malicious intentions are refused. To think that there is a way for this to happen is naive.

My parents-in-law are in the exact same position yours are. I'm living the same problem.

The fact of the matter is that, given the history of immigrant patterns and fraud patterns, the DOS is probably using close to the most efficient system it can.

Even if they make the change you describe, it is VERY unlikely to change the DOS regulations; it is too subtle. You said yourself that agencies have wide discretion to interpret; it's seriously doubtful it will get any more liberal by making such a change.

The change of wording in law that I suggest should result in elimination of the requirement to show strong ties to your home country.

Are you kidding? While I also disagree that it would result in that change, this is the single most effective measure to prevent illegal immigration. If you have good reasons to return, it becomes rather unlikely that NIVs will be abused. You can complain all you want, but it does work. It can't be perfect.

The agency could require the applicant to show a return ticket.

Return ticket inspection happens at the border; not at the visa application. What happens if your visa is denied? Unless you bought a refundable ticket (unlikely), you won't get it back. The visa application process does not give any consideration to plane/travel tickets, positive or negative. That isn't the point of the visa application process.

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.

If you had any legal education whatsoever, you would realize that this type of system will almost instantly be declared unconstitutional and no prosecution would ever be successful. You can't be held responsible for someone else's crimes/torts. You can't expect a person to monitor every single movement of those they "sponsor." Period. That can't change unless the constitution is amended at a fundamental level.

as improved verification of employment eligibility.

Yes, this is something I actually agree with you on. Unless employers are required to use E-verify, it simply won't be effective. I think it's only a matter of time, though.

The other "tracking systems" that you vaguely allude to are only going to be effective if the federal government further imposes on state's rights. The federal government, by design, is in a really tough position when making this type of policy. You seem to think that they have the authority/ability to do anything; they don't.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

One of the concerns I haven't yet seen addressed in this discussion is the other side of system abuse - employees of the Consulate or Embassy who abuse their position of power and instead of reviewing the documentation presented and making an honest assessment of its proof of 'ties', habitually say no because that is the easiest route for them to take - or if they are local non American employees who themselves cannot afford to visit the US, and so get a sort of power buzz by abusing their positions and saying no because they can. The facts or the strength of the documentation have nothing to do with the decisions. I have heard over and over and over of cases where the Consulate/embassy staff do not even bother to review the presented documentation and have made up their minds even before the interview. This is an abuse of the process. No decisions should be made prior to the interview and serious consideration should be given to the circumstances and the proof of ties to the applicant's homeland. The US isn't the only country that suffers from this sort of abuse in their overseas consulates. When I worked for the Member of Parliament while still in Canada we had to deal with similar instances of abuse. We were able to get certain 'foreign employees' who had obviously abused their authority one time too many investigated and while we were never told the details, we did know that some of the foreign consulates did some long overdue housecleaning. While Consulate staff rotate through the overseas appointments, local staff don't and their familiarity and occasionally bitterness at not being able to benefit from their positions in more definite ways, can definitely be used to deny legitimate visas that, if reviewed objectively, would have been granted.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Kathryn41

[Boiler 46,123]

There can never be.... can't be a solution.... such negativity. I don't usually use such words much in my vocabulary.

I'm all for caning!

There are solutions for most things, whether there is the Political will to do what would be needed seems so unlikely to be beyond comprehension.

[Rwlaird 18]

There is no way for the system to work 100% so that people with genuine intentions can always come while those with malicious intentions are refused. To think that there is a way for this to happen is naive.

My parents-in-law are in the exact same position yours are. I'm living the same problem.

The fact of the matter is that, given the history of immigrant patterns and fraud patterns, the DOS is probably using close to the most efficient system it can.

Even if they make the change you describe, it is VERY unlikely to change the DOS regulations; it is too subtle. You said yourself that agencies have wide discretion to interpret; it's seriously doubtful it will get any more liberal by making such a change.

Are you kidding? While I also disagree that it would result in that change, this is the single most effective measure to prevent illegal immigration. If you have good reasons to return, it becomes rather unlikely that NIVs will be abused. You can complain all you want, but it does work. It can't be perfect.

Return ticket inspection happens at the border; not at the visa application. What happens if your visa is denied? Unless you bought a refundable ticket (unlikely), you won't get it back. The visa application process does not give any consideration to plane/travel tickets, positive or negative. That isn't the point of the visa application process.

If you had any legal education whatsoever, you would realize that this type of system will almost instantly be declared unconstitutional and no prosecution would ever be successful. You can't be held responsible for someone else's crimes/torts. You can't expect a person to monitor every single movement of those they "sponsor." Period. That can't change unless the constitution is amended at a fundamental level.

Yes, this is something I actually agree with you on. Unless employers are required to use E-verify, it simply won't be effective. I think it's only a matter of time, though.

The other "tracking systems" that you vaguely allude to are only going to be effective if the federal government further imposes on state's rights. The federal government, by design, is in a really tough position when making this type of policy. You seem to think that they have the authority/ability to do anything; they don't.

You make good points. I appreciate the dialogue.

The change in law that I drafted is only a suggestion that I thought was worth sharing. If you would prefer stronger language then you certainly have every right to communicate that to the lawmakers who have been elected to represent you in the U.S. Congress. I never meant to imply that the change in law that I suggested would result in a 100 percent accurate process of evaluating applicants. But I think that the removable of the language regarding the presumption of immigrant intent would be an improvement. I say that because more than once I have seen correspondence from the State Department which cites that language as a considerably high standard for applicants to prove convince consular officers about their intent. I intentionally kept the draft subtle so that it would be reasonable and realistic and thus have a better chance or acceptance. Sometimes a subtle and incremental change is all that is needed to make a substantial difference.

Regarding strong ties – good catch – my mistake, a simple typo – I meant to say that it should NOT… result in elimination of the requirement for strong ties. I support that and my in-laws demonstrated strong ties in the form of employment and ownership of property.

I just can’t accept that the current system is the most efficient and the best we can do. There has to be a better way. I would support additional requirements to on applicants in situations like my family to verify the short term nature of the trip and their return. We could certainly get creative in crafting such appropriate requirements.

There are solutions for most things, whether there is the Political will to do what would be needed seems so unlikely to be beyond comprehension.

Anyone who would think that achieving meaningful solutions to our immigration issues will be easy or simple would certainly be naïve. I’m under no such illusions. If you would concentrate your efforts on communicating a constructive idea to your elected representatives instead of arguing with me we would be that much closer to achieving something.

[Rwlaird 18]

One of the concerns I haven't yet seen addressed in this discussion is the other side of system abuse - employees of the Consulate or Embassy who abuse their position of power and instead of reviewing the documentation presented and making an honest assessment of its proof of 'ties', habitually say no because that is the easiest route for them to take - or if they are local non American employees who themselves cannot afford to visit the US, and so get a sort of power buzz by abusing their positions and saying no because they can. The facts or the strength of the documentation have nothing to do with the decisions. I have heard over and over and over of cases where the Consulate/embassy staff do not even bother to review the presented documentation and have made up their minds even before the interview. This is an abuse of the process. No decisions should be made prior to the interview and serious consideration should be given to the circumstances and the proof of ties to the applicant's homeland. The US isn't the only country that suffers from this sort of abuse in their overseas consulates. When I worked for the Member of Parliament while still in Canada we had to deal with similar instances of abuse. We were able to get certain 'foreign employees' who had obviously abused their authority one time too many investigated and while we were never told the details, we did know that some of the foreign consulates did some long overdue housecleaning. While Consulate staff rotate through the overseas appointments, local staff don't and their familiarity and occasionally bitterness at not being able to benefit from their positions in more definite ways, can definitely be used to deny legitimate visas that, if reviewed objectively, would have been granted.

I absolutely agree!! -- "I have heard over and over and over of cases where the Consulate/embassy staff do not even bother to review the presented documentation and have made up their minds even before the interview. This is an abuse of the process." -- It is not only an abuse of the system but contrary to stated policy. From one of my letters to the State Dept:

Applicants should not be denied based on a quick cursory review and weak suspicion regarding their intent. Each time [my in-laws] attempted to present documentation to the consular officer during the interview regarding their employment and ownership of property in their home country of Ukraine they were told “I do not need to see that” and were quickly denied. That is preposterous and contrary to stated State Department procedure! A Visa Policy Telegram in 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_2173.html) stated that “Proper adjudication requires the consular officer to assess the credibility of the applicant and his/her evidence submitted to support the application.” The clear implication of this policy telegram is that the consular officer should allow the applicant an opportunity to submit whatever evidence that they may have before abruptly concluding the interview. It seems that the consular officer failed to perform a proper adjudication since he did not allow the applicants an opportunity to submit evidence that they were holding in their hands. If a consular officer has a “belief” regarding an applicant’s intent it should be incumbent on the officer to perform a reasonable amount of due diligence during the interview process to probe and more fully understand the applicant’s intent. When [my mother-in-law] asked the consular officer for a specific reason for her denial at the end of the interview he merely smiled and said “no.” Very disrespectful!!

[Rwlaird 18]

Why do I think that such a "subtle" change in law could make a difference? Here is a paragraph lifted directly from a response that I received from the Deputy Consul General at the U.S. embassy in Kiev:

However, I must emphasize that the burden is on the applicant to convince the consular officer that the applicant’s family, economic, and social ties to a foreign country are sufficiently strong to compel the applicant to depart the United States at the conclusion of a temporary visit. The law contains a presumption of immigrant intent. The consular officer is also obligated to deny the visa application if the officer believes the purpose of travel is not permissible under the requested visa category. Simply stated, Mr. and Mrs. [my in-laws] were unable to convince a second consular officer that their economic and social ties to Ukraine are sufficient to compel their return to Ukraine after a temporary, lawful stay in the United States. Therefore, that officer was also obligated under the INA to deny Mr. and Mrs. [in-law]’s nonimmigrant visa applications.

[Rwlaird 18]

One of the concerns I haven't yet seen addressed in this discussion is the other side of system abuse - employees of the Consulate or Embassy who abuse their position of power and instead of reviewing the documentation presented and making an honest assessment of its proof of 'ties', habitually say no because that is the easiest route for them to take - or if they are local non American employees who themselves cannot afford to visit the US, and so get a sort of power buzz by abusing their positions and saying no because they can. The facts or the strength of the documentation have nothing to do with the decisions. I have heard over and over and over of cases where the Consulate/embassy staff do not even bother to review the presented documentation and have made up their minds even before the interview. This is an abuse of the process. No decisions should be made prior to the interview and serious consideration should be given to the circumstances and the proof of ties to the applicant's homeland. The US isn't the only country that suffers from this sort of abuse in their overseas consulates. When I worked for the Member of Parliament while still in Canada we had to deal with similar instances of abuse. We were able to get certain 'foreign employees' who had obviously abused their authority one time too many investigated and while we were never told the details, we did know that some of the foreign consulates did some long overdue housecleaning. While Consulate staff rotate through the overseas appointments, local staff don't and their familiarity and occasionally bitterness at not being able to benefit from their positions in more definite ways, can definitely be used to deny legitimate visas that, if reviewed objectively, would have been granted.

You'll love this. Here is another excerpt from direct correspondence with the embassy in Kiev in response to my questions:

How can an applicant ensure that he/she is allowed to submit evidence to support the application if the consular officer conducts the interview in a rushed fashion without allowing the applicant an opportunity to speak up and present documents?

Limited staffing resources and high demand for interviews make it impossible for consular officers to conduct lengthy and relaxed interviews. Consular officers examine each case individually and determine whether the applicant qualifies for a visa under U.S. law and regulations. The visa application is designed to provide consular officers with a tremendous amount of information pertinent to the applicant’s qualification for a visa. The officers also collect information from passports. When completing the application, visa applicants affirm that information provided on the visa application is true, so consular officers rarely need to discuss or reconfirm this information during the interview. Consular officers generally trust that the information provided during the interview is correct unless the information is suspect or inconsistent. Very rarely, officers request and review supporting documents to clarify points raised during the interview. In the vast majority of interviews, consular officers do not accept or review supporting documents.

Is it appropriate for the applicant to proactively present such documentation during the interview even if it requires interrupting the hurried questioning from the consular officer?

Consular officers have extensive knowledge of local conditions and match this with information collected from the visa application form, passport, and the applicant’s responses to interview questions. Some visa applicants supply fraudulent documents, which are easy to obtain in Ukraine. Consular officers working here know that fraudulent documents are common and do not rely on documents to make visa qualification decisions. As noted above, it is rare for an officer to accept or review supporting documents.

[Rwlaird 18]

And another quote from a letter sent from the State Dept. to a U.S. Senator who inquired on my behalf: “[my in-laws] were refused under Section 214(b) of the INA. Under this Section of the law, consular officers are obligated to assume that each applicant for a nonimmigrant visa intends to immigrate to the United States and the law places the burden of disproving this assumption on the applicant.”

[Boiler 46,123]

And another quote from a letter sent from the State Dept. to a U.S. Senator who inquired on my behalf: “[my in-laws] were refused under Section 214(b) of the INA. Under this Section of the law, consular officers are obligated to assume that each applicant for a nonimmigrant visa intends to immigrate to the United States and the law places the burden of disproving this assumption on the applicant.”

Not sure how many Countries I have been to, in the 30's, that is how they all operate.

Now they are certain groups like the EU that have modified entry requirements for their group citizens. That has not worked out well.

[Harsh_77 718]

One of the concerns I haven't yet seen addressed in this discussion is the other side of system abuse - employees of the Consulate or Embassy who abuse their position of power and instead of reviewing the documentation presented and making an honest assessment of its proof of 'ties', habitually say no because that is the easiest route for them to take - or if they are local non American employees who themselves cannot afford to visit the US, and so get a sort of power buzz by abusing their positions and saying no because they can. The facts or the strength of the documentation have nothing to do with the decisions. I have heard over and over and over of cases where the Consulate/embassy staff do not even bother to review the presented documentation and have made up their minds even before the interview. This is an abuse of the process. No decisions should be made prior to the interview and serious consideration should be given to the circumstances and the proof of ties to the applicant's homeland. The US isn't the only country that suffers from this sort of abuse in their overseas consulates. When I worked for the Member of Parliament while still in Canada we had to deal with similar instances of abuse. We were able to get certain 'foreign employees' who had obviously abused their authority one time too many investigated and while we were never told the details, we did know that some of the foreign consulates did some long overdue housecleaning. While Consulate staff rotate through the overseas appointments, local staff don't and their familiarity and occasionally bitterness at not being able to benefit from their positions in more definite ways, can definitely be used to deny legitimate visas that, if reviewed objectively, would have been granted.

I don’t agree with your post completely, as far as I know most of the consulates the visa is only approved by the citizen of that country.

Visa are never approved by non-American individual. Most ppl feel their documents are not looked at that is not true either. Most of the COs study the case before they come to the window for the interview. They have made up their mind before they come to window unless the applicant can pursue them otherwise.

Abuse of power does happen but that is not regular, there was a case just few months back I think from related to consulate ( I don’t remember which country it was) but a employee (US national) was caught taking money in exchange of visa.

[Boiler 46,123]

Vietnam?

But of course they do most of the work before the interview, it would be rare for a case to be so balanced that the interview was meaningful.

[Gosia & Tito 199]

Looking at the original wording and your revision I do not see the difference in application.

The current wording says you are deemed to have immigrant intent and you need to show that you do not.

Your one says that you need to show that you will abide by the terms of your visa.

In the end they are the same and it comes down to a judgement call.

The issue that needs to be addressed is making it much harder for abusers once they are in the US, then the gate can be relaxed.

But you have not addressed that issue.

I tend to agree with a comment above: "don't think the immigration system will ever be just/fair or workable in this country". Prior posts advocate for 'honest intentions' should we allowed to egt a visa, other post points to making it hard to abusers to obtain benefits.

Call me crazy but I see the parallels to the death sentence. I live in TX and the death penalty is actively exercised here; but that has not deterred 100% crimes for which a death sentence is given. Perhaps it has reduced the violent crime some would argue. I can't tell as there are no good stats. On the other hand, is rare to find someone around here that does not own at least one gun, and with the current Cattle Ranchers Law you can shoot someone stepping into your property; sometimes trigger happy people feel entitled to shot first and ask questions later..But I digress; what this has to do with anything? I submit that whatever the penalty or punishment, there will be some that will still "change their mind" after getting a tourist visa. Once we accept that no legislation will stop abusers, maybe we could get somewhere. I also am of the opinion that one chooses to have an international relationship, marriage inclusive with all the benefits and constraints it brings, one of those constraints is the possibility of having visas denied for relatives of the immigrant spouse. It is in many cases no different for a USC moving to the spouse country, Is not widely discussed perhaps because most times is the non-USC who moves into the US. The irony is that is this moving of the non-USC what triggers the denial as it then presumes the parents or siblings are trying to immigrate.

What then could be done?

For one, people needs to be educated in the implications of an international relationship, not only of the possibility that when the petition is in process, a visa might not be granted to the future spouse, all the way to this situation be extended to immediate relatives (parents, siblings, etc).

A bond posted for the visitor might not work, but how about a direct, summary and swift jail term penalty -no appelate court- for the USC who sponsored the visitor? Yes, there will be times when the USC could be blindsighted, but if he/she seems to be confident of the honorable intentions of the visitor, then walk the walk not just talk the talk. Un-American and unjust? Why would a USC have to put up with this #######? Well, realities of the world in 2012.

[Boiler 46,123]

2013

Most visitors, or wannabe visitors, have no US connection, they just come to see the Mouse etc.

[Harsh_77 718]

I tend to agree with a comment above: "don't think the immigration system will ever be just/fair or workable in this country". Prior posts advocate for 'honest intentions' should we allowed to egt a visa, other post points to making it hard to abusers to obtain benefits.

Call me crazy but I see the parallels to the death sentence. I live in TX and the death penalty is actively exercised here; but that has not deterred 100% crimes for which a death sentence is given. Perhaps it has reduced the violent crime some would argue. I can't tell as there are no good stats. On the other hand, is rare to find someone around here that does not own at least one gun, and with the current Cattle Ranchers Law you can shoot someone stepping into your property; sometimes trigger happy people feel entitled to shot first and ask questions later..But I digress; what this has to do with anything? I submit that whatever the penalty or punishment, there will be some that will still "change their mind" after getting a tourist visa. Once we accept that no legislation will stop abusers, maybe we could get somewhere. I also am of the opinion that one chooses to have an international relationship, marriage inclusive with all the benefits and constraints it brings, one of those constraints is the possibility of having visas denied for relatives of the immigrant spouse. It is in many cases no different for a USC moving to the spouse country, Is not widely discussed perhaps because most times is the non-USC who moves into the US. The irony is that is this moving of the non-USC what triggers the denial as it then presumes the parents or siblings are trying to immigrate.

What then could be done?

For one, people needs to be educated in the implications of an international relationship, not only of the possibility that when the petition is in process, a visa might not be granted to the future spouse, all the way to this situation be extended to immediate relatives (parents, siblings, etc).

A bond posted for the visitor might not work, but how about a direct, summary and swift jail term penalty -no appelate court- for the USC who sponsored the visitor? Yes, there will be times when the USC could be blindsighted, but if he/she seems to be confident of the honorable intentions of the visitor, then walk the walk not just talk the talk. Un-American and unjust? Why would a USC have to put up with this #######? Well, realities of the world in 2012.

USC does not have to put up with any #######, USC does not have any influence in if the immediate family gets a tourist visa or not.

Infact the family needs to demonstrate to CO they have enough ties to home country, they have interest in returning back home after visit to US.

What OP suggested was burden must be on US Gov. hence CO to prove the applicant will not return back and most of us on the forum don’t agree with that.

The burden must be on applicant to prove they have interest in home country and they would return home otherwise it would be assumed applicant has immigrant intent.