immigration debate - family rejected for tourist visa

[Noel194 53]

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.”

I feel bad for you and your family but there was obviously something that the embassy officials did not like. The rules state that you get a different interviewer for subsequent visa interviews. I went through a denial with my MIL in 2009. I flew over, attended the second interview with her and she was approved. She is divorced, retired, owned no property and my wife is her only child. Not very strong ties but she was approved and has since gotten a 5 year multi-entry and has been here and back 3 times. As many people have pointed out there is a lot of abuse of the vistitor visa systems so perhaps you should focus your anger towards the people who abuse the system and not the governemnt. Don't you think that if every person who was issued a visitor visa retruned to there home coutry all visas would be approved.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Noel194

[Rwlaird 18]

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.

I never suggested that the burden of proof should be on the US govt. I just suggested that the applicant shouldn't be held to such a ridiculously vague standard. I agree that the applicant should be required to show evidence and make a case regarding the purpose and temporary nature of the trip as well as ties to their home country (all which occurred in our case). The "presumption" seems to have created a standard which results in too many good people being needlessly denied. Trust but verify and enforce.

[Darnell 8,479]

the presumption is there by law.

overcome the presumption or stay in yer country.

that's it, distilled down to the one bit that matters.

[aaron2020 11,651]

I never suggested that the burden of proof should be on the US govt. I just suggested that the applicant shouldn't be held to such a ridiculously vague standard. I agree that the applicant should be required to show evidence and make a case regarding the purpose and temporary nature of the trip as well as ties to their home country (all which occurred in our case). The "presumption" seems to have created a standard which results in too many good people being needlessly denied. Trust but verify and enforce.

"Trust but verify and enforce."

Please elucidate - how would the US verify? So, it will be up to the US to find the information after trusting the applicant with a visa? Or verify, find proof of lying or immigrant intent an then enforce?

Your freakin putting the burden on the US government to prove the applicant lied or has immigrant intent.

-----

How about you trust every stranger who wants to come into your house. You can verify their intent after they enter and if you can't find a lie or evidence that they will not do bad things, it wouldn't matter because you can track them down afterwards and deport them from your house.

I don't let strangers into my house. No freakin way will I give them access or a visa to enter, then track them down, and deport them afrer they do something illegal.

Edited June 22, 2013 by aaron2020

[Noel194 53]

"Trust but verify and enforce."

Please elucidate - how would the US verify? So, it will be up to the US to find the information after trusting the applicant with a visa? Or verify, find proof of lying or immigrant intent an then enforce?

Your freakin putting the burden on the US government to prove the applicant lied or has immigrant intent.

-----

How about you trust every stranger who wants to come into your house. You can verify their intent after they enter and if you can't find a lie or evidence that they will not do bad things, it wouldn't matter because you can track them down afterwards and deport them from your house.

I don't let strangers into my house. No freakin way will I give them access or a visa to enter, then track them down, and deport them afrer they do something illegal.

I agree that the burden can sometimes be diffucult if not impossible to overcome but if numerous people did not abuse the system it would not be so tough. In my town we have 2 public parking garages and when they opened it was "park all day for $1" you simply were asked to put a dollar in a recepticle near the entrance and there was no per space enforcement. Only a hand full of people would pay and the vast majority did not so the city had to put up gates and install a ticket system which now charges by the hour. Unfortunately a lot of bad apples ruin it for the rest of us. Thats life. Everytime I hear someone brag about circumventing the immigration system I thank them for scrrewing it up for the rest of us.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Noel194

[Boiler 46,123]

Amen

[Gosia & Tito 199]

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.

USC should not have to put up with the ####### of the wireless tapping and surveillance recently uncovered, but the fact is they/we do. And yes, the USC has no influence in the visa, however, I was referring to the specific case of a relative (parent, sibling, etc) visiting the spouse (the non-USC); in such cases, perhaps not all but many cases, the visitor is staying with the relative in the US, that is,room and board; if a USC-family (the USC and the non-USC spouse feel very strongly that their relative has honorable intentions, then they should bear partially the responsibility of that burden but putting something on the line that is strong enough (hence the jail time). Might not be perfect, but as I said realities of 2012.

This is because the families don't seem to be able to demonstrate on their own that their intent is not to immigrate.

With vague requirements and the presumption that the visitor is intended to immigrate, plus the real fact that it is in some countries very easy to obtain fake documents, or even worst, real documents misrepreseting facts from a real local governmental office, bank, etc, thanks to a friend or plainly bribing; then you get to what the original post submits, that the system does not work and is unfair to some.

Heck, in fact, a good friend of mine from India, dad is found with cancer while normally livingin India, then the idea of egtting them here to stay came up, so they get a tourist visa knowing well they would be adjusting here, so my friend started the process about 60-70 days after arrival (follwing the 30-60-90 rule that was advised by an attorney; technically, this was fraud, wouldn't you agree?

We are in the same boat as the original post, and perhaps yours; we have an inlaw stuck without a visa, she does not want to stay, just a short visit it's been over 2 years since last contact (personal I mean). I've done the same follow up with officers at the Embassy, and I get similar 'diplomatic' responses, esentially telling me what I know but not providing a specific path to obtain a visa and 'blaming' it on the current regulations.

[Boiler 46,123]

Heck, in fact, a good friend of mine from India, dad is found with cancer while normally living in India, then the idea ofgettingg them here to stay came up, so they get a tourist visa knowing well they would be adjusting here, so my friend started the process about 60-70 days after arrival (following the 30-60-90 rule that was advised by an attorney; technically, this was fraud, wouldn't you agree?

May or may not be, but certainly would not help applicants in India.

More interestingly presumably this guy is loaded to be able to afford to move his Father to the US and pay for Cancer treatment.

There is no such thing as the 30-60-90 day rule. btw.

[Rwlaird 18]

USC should not have to put up with the ####### of the wireless tapping and surveillance recently uncovered, but the fact is they/we do. And yes, the USC has no influence in the visa, however, I was referring to the specific case of a relative (parent, sibling, etc) visiting the spouse (the non-USC); in such cases, perhaps not all but many cases, the visitor is staying with the relative in the US, that is,room and board; if a USC-family (the USC and the non-USC spouse feel very strongly that their relative has honorable intentions, then they should bear partially the responsibility of that burden but putting something on the line that is strong enough (hence the jail time). Might not be perfect, but as I said realities of 2012.

This is because the families don't seem to be able to demonstrate on their own that their intent is not to immigrate.

With vague requirements and the presumption that the visitor is intended to immigrate, plus the real fact that it is in some countries very easy to obtain fake documents, or even worst, real documents misrepreseting facts from a real local governmental office, bank, etc, thanks to a friend or plainly bribing; then you get to what the original post submits, that the system does not work and is unfair to some.

Heck, in fact, a good friend of mine from India, dad is found with cancer while normally livingin India, then the idea of egtting them here to stay came up, so they get a tourist visa knowing well they would be adjusting here, so my friend started the process about 60-70 days after arrival (follwing the 30-60-90 rule that was advised by an attorney; technically, this was fraud, wouldn't you agree?

We are in the same boat as the original post, and perhaps yours; we have an inlaw stuck without a visa, she does not want to stay, just a short visit it's been over 2 years since last contact (personal I mean). I've done the same follow up with officers at the Embassy, and I get similar 'diplomatic' responses, esentially telling me what I know but not providing a specific path to obtain a visa and 'blaming' it on the current regulations.

Very good points! I absolutely agree with the points made by a few people regarding how the abuse and disregard for our immigration laws by so many people can be blamed for the burdensome process that the rest of us have to go through to navigate the system in a lawful manner. We can cry all day about how it isn’t fair but that would solve nothing. The situation created by 11 million people being here illegally increases the degree of difficulty in achieving appropriate policy but it doesn’t mean we should just give up and accept that the current system which precludes well-meaning, lawful people from visiting is the best we can do.

"Trust but verify and enforce."

Please elucidate - how would the US verify? So, it will be up to the US to find the information after trusting the applicant with a visa? Or verify, find proof of lying or immigrant intent an then enforce?

Your freakin putting the burden on the US government to prove the applicant lied or has immigrant intent.

-----

How about you trust every stranger who wants to come into your house. You can verify their intent after they enter and if you can't find a lie or evidence that they will not do bad things, it wouldn't matter because you can track them down afterwards and deport them from your house.

I don't let strangers into my house. No freakin way will I give them access or a visa to enter, then track them down, and deport them afrer they do something illegal.

This rant doesn't hardly justify a response but here we go.

It looks like someone took my words out of context and freakin misconstrued what I wrote.

How would the US verify? Read what I wrote: “the applicant should be required to show evidence and make a case regarding the purpose and temporary nature of the trip as well as ties to their home country.”

verify during the application process – not after they enter

If verification has occurred then they’re not strangers.

[Rwlaird 18]

We keenly understand that there must be high standards to deter those who would come here and overstay their visa. I’m not at all proposing to just open the border to anyone who applies for a tourist visa. Nor am I proposing to shift the burden of proof solely on the U.S. government. I am merely attempting to tweak the process by removing the language regarding the “presumption of immigrant intent.” Applicants should still be required to make a case regarding the intention of their trip. It is probably appropriate for the individual making the decision to have some discretion since it may always require a subjective judgment and every case needs to be approached individually. But the agency seems to be using that language to create an impossible standard for many applicants who have honest intentions. If the agency continues to make decisions based on factors which do not necessarily have a direct bearing on whether the visa applicant will abide by its terms then there will probably always be a lot of good people needlessly rejected. Maybe such an excessively cautious approach is the best way to keep out the dishonest applicants but it seems like a very flawed approach if there will always be so much collateral damage of good people rejected.

The application process is lacking the thorough review that should be required before rejecting an applicant. We know that my in-laws do not want to live here and would not violate the terms of their visa. They tried to demonstrate that but the embassy staff did not do much due diligence before making a rash judgment in their case. As I mentioned, my in-laws presented documents demonstrating ties to their home country in the form of employment and ownership of property. The embassy indicated in correspondence that they do not even usually consider such documents, even though guidance from State Department headquarters directs them to, since they know that “ . . . fraudulent documents … are easy to obtain … are common and do not rely on documents to make visa qualification decisions.” Also, 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.” Basically, they are contending that the embassy staff knows that the applicant is not being truthful since they know what people are like in their country. That is insulting to well-intentioned applicants like my in-laws.

I’m sure not an expert in tactics for interrogating suspects (which is what the applicant is considered since the law directs them to be presumed to have immigrant intent – contrary to the nonimmigrant visa that they are applying for - basically accusing them of being dishonest from the start). But it sure seems like some more appropriate questions could have and should have been asked if they wanted to confirm that my in-laws intended to come here and stay illegally due to one of the factors reported by experienced immigration attorneys (no other dependent children at home, never visited other western countries, average salary, etc.) Sure, anyone with bad intentions could probably lie during such questioning but it seems like a good interviewer could find a way to trip them up or confirm honesty through a pointed discussion of relevant issues at least a little more accurately than by asking such general and simple questions as occurred in our case.

The application and interview process will probably never be perfect but improvements are needed. Improvements in enforcement are needed as well since the current process allows visas for too many people with dishonest intentions while rejecting some good applicants.

[Rwlaird 18]

Today the U.S. Senate is debating the Hoeven/Corker border security amendment. It has a couple of interesting parallels to the issue regarding the tourist visa process. First, it is interesting that it would spend about $45 billion. I’m not sure where that money will come from but increased fees on well-meaning tourist visa applicants would be a way to help fund additional security measures since such applicants should be willing to pay more to cover the cost to the government of additional enforcement resources and help ensure that they abide by the terms of their visa. It is also interesting how there is so much of a focus on linking the two issues of additional enforcement and benefits for immigrants. (From a news story: “Undocumented immigrants would only be allowed to become legal permanent residents once the border beef-up has been put in place and once a nationwide employment verification system and a better entry-exit system at the nation’s airports and seaports have been implemented.”) The idea seems to be that it will be OK to allow the benefit of a path to citizenship for those who came here illegally because we will be ensuring that no more people come here illegally in the future. Under that scenario it would make sense to also allow more well-intentioned visitors since we are more confident that they will be forced to abide by the terms of their visa. I would be a missed opportunity for Congress to claim to have passed comprehensive reform which sets appropriate policy for the future while leaving the tourist visa process unchanged.

[CC90 90]

Good luck with that.

[Boiler 46,123]

We do?

We know that my in-laws do not want to live here and would not violate the terms of their visa.

[Rwlaird 18]

We do?

Yes, we do. We as in our family.

[Harsh_77 718]

Heck, in fact, a good friend of mine from India, dad is found with cancer while normally livingin India, then the idea of egtting them here to stay came up, so they get a tourist visa knowing well they would be adjusting here, so my friend started the process about 60-70 days after arrival (follwing the 30-60-90 rule that was advised by an attorney; technically, this was fraud, wouldn't you agree?

First there is no 30-60-90 rule.. second people like your friend are responsible for making it tough for the rest of them to get visa.

He knowing abused the tourist visa, his father prob got visa for the treatment and he blantantly abused it.

Infact ppl who abuse B1/2 tend to have family and friends here.. in short they have osme ties here in US.

In my very first post, I have put in a suggestion adustion status from B1/2 and VWP should be stopped.