admin

Consular officers permanently bar more visa applicants every year for “alien smuggling” than any other provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act except misrepresentation. In 2012 alone, consular officers invoked the alien smuggling provision of the INA, Section 212(a)(6)(E), more than 6,000 times, an increase of more than 20% from the year before. What are the standards for a finding of alien smuggling, and what categories of people have been subject to this provision of the INA? A consular officer can make an alien smuggling finding if he or she decides that a visa applicant has, at any time, knowingly “encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted or aided…” another alien “to enter or try to enter the United States” in violation of law. The Immigration Act of 1990 abolished the “for gain” requirement, so a consular officer does not need to find that the applicant had a profit motive or received money…

Let’s say you had a run-in with the law a long time ago. As a result, you were convicted of fraud. But it happened so long ago that you do not give much thought to it. So when you applied for a visa a few years back to visit your daughter and her children in the US, you did not indicate the conviction in the visa application form. You received the visa and used it to go to the US several times. You didn’t give much thought to it, until you decided to immigrate with your daughter’s help, and you had to obtain a police certificate. The police certificate indicated the conviction, but you were not worried because you had consulted a lawyer, who told you that although the conviction was for a crime of moral turpitude and did not qualify for the petty offense exception, a waiver was available….

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,…

The phone calls keep coming in to our office. From Australia, South Africa, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Russia, Lebanon, all from US visa holders who have had their visas revoked without explanation.   It appears that the US government has intensified its visa revocation campaign, particularly against Muslims. The problems encountered by Muslims in dealing with US immigration authorities was the topic of a recently published ACLU  report about the discriminatory USCIS Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”). The report highlights how USCIS misidentifies national security concerns; encourages FBI interference and harassment; mandates pretextual denials; and deprives due process of green-card holding applicants, primarily Muslim, during the naturalization process.  These thousands are left in legal limbo for years. If there is one glimmer of hope, it is that these applicants at least are able to wage their battles while in the US, where lawyers, courts, and public opinion can at…

The statistics are stunning. Over the past four years, more than four million visa applications have been temporarily denied under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, that is to say, the Department of State collected tens of millions of dollars from visa applicants, only to put their applications on hold. Year 221(g) findings in Immigrant Visa Cases 221(g) findings in Nonimmigrant Visa Cases Total 2009 273,227 616,284 889,511 2010 286,889 694,620 981,509 2011 312,968 837,477 1,150,445 2012 303,166 806,773 1,109,939 More stunning is the wait time that thousands of visa applicants are subject to. The US Embassy in London publishes on its website a list of nonimmigrant visa cases subject to 221(g) administrative processing and the intake dates of the applications.  As of October 25, 2013, the list encompasses 141 pages and thousands of applicants.  6 individuals have been waiting for four years for action on their applications.  More…

The below article was recently published on the Immigrant Lawyer’s Weekly website – http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?2398-Article-Bait-and-Switch-Department-of-State-Style-by-Kenneth-White Yesterday, we wrote about how USCIS holds out the lure of green cards to foreign entrepreneurs, only to pull back the bait once the businessman has committed untold hours and funds to the development of a business in the United States. The Department of State is no slacker in the bait-and-switch game. It has used the Diversity Green Card Lottery as a means to reap a windfall by holding out the lure of green cards to those selected in the Lottery, only to turn away thousands of applicants after they have paid substantial application fees. The US Embassy in Tashkent is an excellent case study. After the DV Lottery drawing, the selected “winners” submit application forms to the Department of State’s Kentucky Consular Center (“KCC”). The KCC then invites selectees for immigrant visa interviews. At the…

The below article by White & Associates was recently published on the Immigrant Lawyer’s Weekly website – http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?2396-Article-Bait-and-Switch-USCIS-Style-by-Kenneth-White Bait-and-Switch, USCIS – Style1 by  Kenneth White Reader Quiz: What is the difference between these two regulations? Executive capacity means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: ( 1 ) Directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; ( 2 ) Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; ( 3 ) Exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and ( 4 ) Receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Executive capacity means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: (A) Directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; (B) Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; (C) Exercises wide latitude in discretionary…

Attached are our memorandum and exhibits addressed to the Office of Inspector General at the Department of State regarding the Summer Work and Travel Program scandal at the US Embassy in Moscow:  Memo – swtletter0001; Exhibits – swtexhibits0001

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/us-embassy-slams-door-on-student-workers/478125.html  

We recently published this article on Immigration Lawyers Weekly – ilw.com – http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?1215-Article-7-Interviews-1-Visa-by-Kenneth-White   The recent headline in one of Russia’s leading daily newspapers sounded so welcoming: “America Invites You to Visit.” In the extensive accompanying article and interview, the Chief of the Nonimmigrant Visa Unit at the US Embassy in Moscow, Bill Bistransky, praises the natural wonders of the United States and touts the ease of receiving a visa to the United States for “legitimate” visitors.[1] If only it were so. We have previously chronicled how the Embassy in Moscow regularly punishes Russian babushki who stay “too long” in the US;[2] impermissibly readjudicates already-approved USCIS employment petitions, stymying the plans of Russian entrepreneurs and professionals to work in the United States;[3] and doubled its visa refusal rate.[4] But what is remarkable is the continued disconnect between the Embassy’s public relations campaign and the real world experiences of everyday visa applicants. Take the case of Irina….

The Department of State has just published its annual B visa denial statistics. This year,the big news is the marked decline in the rate of denial for Chinese visitor visa (B) applicants – from 12% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012.  This is good news for the Chinese – and the American economy. Other high-volume countries whose citizens were also the beneficiaries of a steep decrease were India and the Philippines, where refusal rates declined from 30.1% to 24.1% and 33.8% to 23.8%, respectively.   Given the usual grouping of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries as rapidly developing economic powers, one may be surprised to learn that US consular officers in Brazil deny Brazilian applicants only 3.2% of the time – a rate nearly 8 times less than India and 3 times less than China and Russia.  Just last year, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano announced that…

Rarely have I had the opportunity to see three consular posts so clearly juxtaposed as I have over the past two weeks in dealing with Tashkent, Moscow, and Jakarta.  The experience only reinforces the notion that it is the decisionmakers and consular managers who drive visa policy, not the other way around. Tashkent has come a long way since we filed a Complaint with the Department of State Office of Inspector General in 2008.  Tashkent is a post with numerous challenges, including fraud, Lottery intermediaries extorting money from Lottery winners, visa overstays, and operating in a relatively poor country.  David Mico, the Consul from 2010 to 2012, was a very good manager who kept an open mind in reviewing visa applications and decisions. He was not afraid to correct a mistake made by a consular officer. His replacement, Otto Westhassel, has followed this tradition by re-opening visa decisions when convincing…

On September 9, the new US-Russia Visa Agreement took effect. The Department of State has pronounced the Agreement to be “historic”. If “historic” means “repeating history”, this is certainly true: Russians will be eligible for three-year US visas – just as they were back in the late 1990s. If the Department means “making history” by putting Russia on a fast track towards waiving visas for Russian citizens, as it has recently done for Brazil, it could not be more mistaken. The subject of visa-free travel between the US and Russia has been raised periodically. In 2011, then-Prime Minister Putin seemingly caught Vice President Biden off guard by broaching the topic of waiving visas for Russians and Americans. Mr. Biden demurred, saying that he was only the Vice President and only the President can make such a decision. Notwithstanding this demurral, the legal spadework had been in place as far back…