Integrity Legal

Periodically, the administration of this web log post the estimated processing times from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). It should be noted that the following processing time estimates are exxactly that: estimates. Some petitions may process more quickly while other petitions may proccess more slowly. To quote directly from the USCIS official website:

It should be also noted that although these USCIS estimated processing times can provide a general framework for understanding the time frames for petition adjudication by USCIS, these estimates do not necessarily reflect the estimated time frame for the entire US visa process especially if the unique circumstances of a given case requires Consular Processing of a US visa application at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For a married couple seeking an IR1 visa or a CR1 Visa for a foreign spouse of US Citizen the process begins at the USCIS where the initial petition will be adjudicated. Assuming USCIS approves the initial petition, then the petition will be forwarded to the National Visa Center (NVC). NVC will require certain documents before forwarding the application to a US Embassy or Consulate abroad where a foreign spouse must undergo an interview prior to the Consular Officer making a decision regarding visa issuance. In some cases, the Consular Officer may approve the visa application at the interview. Meanwhile, in some circumstances, the officer may deny the application (especially where a ground of inadmissibility is found to exist in the case and under such circumstances the applicant must be granted an I-601 waiver, or something similar, prior to the application receiving further favorable treatment). In some cases, the officer may simply find that some further evidence of the relationship or documentation pertaining to the foreign national is lacking and will thereby deny the application pursuant to section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under these circumstances, the 221(G) denial may be overcome by presenting further evidence to the Consular Officer and upon their finding that the relevant requirements have been met the application may be approved.

As one can infer from the above example, the USCIS estimateed  processing times may not accurately reflect the total time it may take to obtain a US visa since the process is sometimes more complex than simple USCIS petition approval.

Tags: 221g, American Consulate, American Embassy, American Fiance Visa, American Fiancee Visa, American Marriage Visa, American Visa, American Visa Process, Consular Processing, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, EB-1 visa, EB-2 Visa, EB-3 Visa, EB-5 Visa, EB1 visa, EB2 Visa, EB3 Visa, EB5 Visa, Immigration and Nationality Act, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K-2 Visa, K-3 Visa, K1 Visa, K2 Visa, K3 Visa, L-1 visa, L1 Visa, National Visa Center, NVC, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Fiance Visa, US Fiancee Visa, US Marriage Visa, US Visa, US Visa Process, USA Consulate, USA Embassy, USA Fiance Visa, usa fiancee visa, USA Marriage Visa, USA Visa, USA visa process, USCIS, USCIS Processing, USCIS Processing Time, USCIS Processing Times
Posted in CR1 Visa, EB-1 Visa, EB-2 Visa, EB-3 Visa, EB-4 Visa, EB5 Visa, F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, I-601 Waiver, IR1 Visa, J1 visa, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, same sex visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention, via the website MetroWeekly.com, that the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, has vacated a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which applied controversial section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) in a recent case. To quote directly from a PDF copy of AG Holder’s order as posted to the aforementioned website:

Pursuant to my authority set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I order that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) in this case applying Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, be vacated, and that this matter be referred to me for review.

In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited to: 1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a “spouse” under New Jersey law; 2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a “spouse” under the Immigration and Nationality Act; 3) what, if any, impact the timing of respondent’s civil union should have on his request for that discretionary relief; and 4) whether, if he had a “qualifying relative,” the respondent would be able to satisfy the exceptional and unusual hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.

Those reading this posting are encouraged to read the article on Metroweekly.com posted by Chris Geidner regarding these issues as this blogger found that posting to be very insightful.

For those who are not familiar with this issue it should be noted that the current provisions of DOMA preclude accordance of federal benefits to those who have entered into a same sex relationship. This preclusion even overrides State prerogatives regarding marriage as, in an immigration context, the language of DOMA precludes recognition of even a same sex marriage solemnized and/or legalized in a sovereign American State. Currently, there is some legislation, such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) or the Respect for Marriage Act, pending before the American Federal legislature which would seek to remove the current restrictions being imposed upon the LGBT community.

It remains to be seen whether same sex visa benefits will be accorded the same sex partners engaged in a bi-national relationship, but one thing is clear: there is momentum gathering behind the cause of LGBT equal rights as American authorities would seem to be taking notice of the legitimate grievances of those who have, for too long, been denied their rights to equal protection under the law. Meanwhile, this blogger finds it likely that there will eventually be some sort of decision regarding the accordance of Full Faith and Credit to those legal marriages solemnized and/or legalized by those States which currently license such unions. As of the time of this writing, however, such remedies remain to be seen and the assurances that they will manifest themselves sometime in the future is likely cold comfort to those who are separated from their loved ones now.

For related information please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Tags: 1 U.S.C. § 7, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), AG Holder, Attorney General Eric Holder, BIA, Board of Immigration Appeals, Civil Union, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Immigration and Nationality Act, LGBT civil union, lgbt immigration, LGBT marriage, LGBT partner, lgbt visa, qualifying relative, removal, Respect for Marriage Act, Same Sex Marriage, same-sex partnership, Section 3 DOMA, uafa, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

There was a recent story on the Telegraph.co.uk website entitled, “Boy, 9, has Disney World trip ruined after US Immigration rules him a threat” it was reported that a 9 year old child was denied a US tourist visa to the United States. To quote directly from the article:

They said there was a risk he would not leave the US at the end of his holiday and refused his application under Section 214 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This blogger noticed in the title of the original article that the use of the term “US Immigration” may have been somewhat opaque as the visa application was likely filed with a US Consulate under the jurisdiction of the United States Embassy in the United Kingdom and not the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in the USA. That said, the article describes the visa application of a child in the United Kingdom and the denial of the application. The child’s parents were attempting to surprise him with a trip to Disney World in the US State of Florida. To quote further directly from the article itself:

Micah [the proposed beneficiary of the US B-2 Visa sought] was born in Britain and has lived in Middlesex all his life with his mum Claudia Lewis.

He holds a South African passport because his grandparents Kathy and Edward, who have lived and worked in Britain since 1990, only got him a South African passport.

They are originally from South Africa.

A letter from Micah’s primary school was included in his visa application confirming he attended the school.

But the US Embassy’s rejection letter to Micah said: “Because you either did not demonstrate strong ties outside the United States or were not able to demonstrate that your intended activities in the US would be consistent with the visa status, you are ineligible.”

His grandmother Kathy, from Brixton, South London, said: “It was going to be a total surprise. He would have loved it.

This blogger highly recommends that those interested in this heartfelt story go to the Telegraph website and read further.

Section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act is a provision which creates a legal presumption in the eyes of adjudicating Consular Officers at every US Mission abroad (US Embassy, US Consulate, American Institute, Visa Units, etc.) that an applicant for a United States visa is actually an undisclosed intending immigrant. Overcoming this presumption often occurs when a Consular Officer feels that, as opposed to the factual citing from the denial noted above, the applicant has shown “strong ties” to their country of origin, or another country abroad, and, simultaneously, “weak ties” to the United States.

In another section of the aforementioned article the author noted that the couple had spent a considerable sum of money purchasing plane tickets in anticipation of the proposed holiday in the USA. As noted in previous postings on this blog, it is not generally prudent in visa application proceedings to assume a particular outcome as issuance of United States travel documents to foreign nationals is not considered a foregone conclusion nor a “formality”. The circumstances mentioned above are unfortunate as they were unexpected and costly (in both monetary and emotional terms). Those foreign nationals wishing to travel to the United States should not make irrevocable travel arrangements until such time as a US visa has been issued and remitted to the applicant.

That said, the one major factor that could materially alter the outcome of another visa application in a case such as this: a UK Passport. As noted in the section quoted above from the US Embassy the applicant did not show “strong ties” to the UK or another country abroad. If the child always lived in the UK, but never possessed a UK passport and, as noted in the above cited section; never lived in South Africa, but was attempting to use a South African passport to travel to the US, then could it be inferred that the child’s ties to either country were attenuated? Possibly, and without knowing further about details, that may very well have been the reason for denial. However, as all cases are adjudicated based upon the unique facts under the circumstances any analysis of the aforementioned denial is merely an exercise in speculation.

It is generally imprudent to continuously resubmit American visa applications when there has been no material change to the facts of one’s case. However, when circumstances do change materially, then a subsequent application may not be frivolous. In the eyes of the law in many jurisdictions a change in nationality, the acquisition of nationality, the registration of nationality, or the naturalization to a new nationality all come with a host of different legal rights, obligations, and privileges not least of these may be a passport. Perhaps, after acquiring a UK Passport on behalf of the child, if eligible for such a travel document, another visa application would be approved? Better yet, upon acquisition of a UK Passport, the child in the article may be eligible for the visa waiver program, although his previous US visa denial would need to be noted in the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) registration system.

Hopefully those thinking of applying for a US Tourist Visa in the future will take note of the fact that one’s nationality is an important facet of any immigration petition or visa application.

For related information please see: US Visitor Visa.

Tags: American Visa Denial, American Visa Denied, Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, nationality, Naturalization, Section 214(b), Telegraph, US Consulate, US Consulate UK, US Embassy, US Embassy UK, US Immigration, US Visa, us visa denial, US Visa Denied, Visa Unit
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, Legal Opinion, News, Opinion, US Citizenship, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hong Kong, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Macau, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Iraq, US Embassy Islamabad, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Mauritius, US Embassy Mongolia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy New Zealand, US Embassy Pakistan, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

The EB-5 Visa has been a frequently discussed topic on this blog over the past few weeks. This may be mostly due to the fact that the United States dollar has been weakening compared to other currencies in Asia as a result of the United States Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” policy. In the case of Sri Lanka currency fluctuations are less severe against the US dollar when compared to other currencies in Southern Asia. Bearing this in mind, the EB-5 visa still remains an attractive travel document to many who dream of residing in the United States of America.

The EB5 visa was designed as an Immigrant Investor visa for those making a substantial investment in the USA. Those interested in the EB-5 visa should be aware that the minimum investment is 500,000 United States dollars for targeted programs. Meanwhile, so-called “un-targeted” programs require an investment of 1 million dollars. In any case, those thinking about making an investment in the United States in order to qualify for immigration benefits should consult with an American attorney in order to ascertain whether or not an investment qualifies for immigration benefits under the EB-5 program. Monetary investment is not the only requirement which must be met in order to receive immigration benefits as the prospective immigrant must still file an immigration petition as well as a visa application. Both the immigration petition and visa application require that the prospective immigrant adhere to the relevant provisions of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. Therefore, merely having capital to invest in the USA is not necessarily sufficient to obtain EB-5 visa benefits.

There are some individuals who are under the mistaken impression that the United States has a Citizenship by Investment program. In point of fact, the United States of American does not routinely grant Citizenship to those who merely invest money in the USA. However, the EB-5 visa could be viewed as a “path to Citizenship by investment.” This is due to the fact that those who enter the USA on an EB-5 visa and receive Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status may later be eligible to apply for naturalization to United States Citizenship provided the statutorily prescribed physical presence requirement is met along with other criteria.

Some individuals opt to retain the services of an attorney to assist with the EB-5 visa process. This may be prudent as many laypeople are unaccustomed to dealing with the United States Immigration system which can sometimes prove to be both byzantine and complicated. Those seeking an attorney are well advised to check the credentials of anyone claiming expertise in US Immigration matters as only an attorney licensed to practice law in an American jurisdiction is entitled to provide advice, counsel, and representation before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and the Department of State.

For related information please see: EB-5 Visa Sri Lanka.

Tags: American Immigrant Investor Visa, EB-5 Visa, EB-5 Visa Sri Lanka, EB5 Visa, EB5 Visa Sri Lanka, Immigrant Investor Visa, Immigration and Nationality Act, US Immigrant Investor Visa Sri Lanka, US Immigration, US Immigration Sri Lanka, US Visa, US Visa Sri Lanka
Posted in EB5 Visa, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS | No Comments »

Those who frequently read this blog are likely to note that we frequently discuss issues surrounding Consular processing of US visa applications. In some cases, a visa applicant is refused a visa, but issued what is commonly referred to as a 221(g) form. The term “221g” refers to section 221(g) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. Under this provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a Consular Officer adjudicating a visa application may refuse to issue a visa if the adjudicating Consular officer finds that the application is somehow deficient of documentation. Consular Officers are basically tasked with the responsibility of conducting due diligence regarding a visa applicant’s subjective intentions. Therefore, in a K1 visa interview the Consular Officer may be concerned with the Cambodian applicant’s subjective intentions regarding the K1 visa petitioner.

There is some debate as to the legal ramifications of a 221g especially in the context of the United States Visa Waiver Program. The American visa waiver program allows certain foreign nationals to enter the USA without a visa provided those individuals register on the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). Although Cambodia is not currently a participating country in the Visa Waiver program it should be noted that a 221g refusal issued by a US Consulate or US Embassy abroad should be disclosed in the ESTA system when seeking travel authorization online. Therefore, a 221g refusal is effectively treated as a “denial” by the Department of Homeland Security which should be noted by anyone seeking American immigration benefits at an American Mission abroad since such a development could have an adverse impact upon one options at a later date.

Many are under the mistaken impression that a 221(g) refusal cannot be remedied. In point of fact, this is not the case as some 221g refusals simply require further documentation before a Consular Officer is prepared to make an adjudication in the underlying application. That said, in some cases, a 221g could evolve into a legal finding of inadmissibility which is an outright visa denial. In such cases, a visa applicant may be able to have the legal grounds of inadmissibility waived through use of an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility. That said, such waivers are adjudicated by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service under an “extreme hardship” standard of review. This “extreme hardship” standard can be difficult to overcome for some. In any event, many couples find that the assistance of an American attorney can be beneficial during the US visa process or the I-601 waiver process as such an individual can provide insight into the process and advocate on behalf of the petitioner and beneficiary. Furthermore, some find that an attorney’s assistance can result in smoother overall processing of visa applications as such an individual can foresee issues which may arise in a given case and attempt to deal with such issues before they become a problem.

Receiving a 221g refusal letter after the visa interview can be worrying, but in some cases the issue can be resolved through better understanding of the adjudication process and relevant United States Immigration law. Those who receive a 221g refusal at the US Embassy in Cambodia are likely required to follow up within 1 year of issuance lest the visa application be deemed to have been abandoned.

For related information please see: US Visa Cambodia.

Tags: 221(g) refusal, 221g, 221g Cambodia, 221g denial, American Visa Cambodia, Consular Officer, Consular Processing, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Nationality Act, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Visa Cambodia
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, I-601 Waiver, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K2 Visa, K3 Visa, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

A frequently asked question among American expatriates and tourists overseas is: “Can I bring my foreign girlfriend with me to the United States on a Tourist visa?” In the context of Burma (Myanmar) some Americans may pose the question: “Can I bring my Burmese boyfriend or girlfriend to the United States on a Tourist Visa?” In many cases, the answer to either of these questions is a qualified: No. However, an in depth understanding of the statutory scheme underlying the Consular adjudication of visa applications can provide insight into the reasons for denial of these types of visas when sought by the significant others of United States Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents.

Relatively few people (Americans included) are aware that United States Immigration law imposes a rather stringent statutory presumption that Consular Officers must adhere to when adjudicating non-immigrant visa applications. Under section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act a Consular Officer adjudicating a non-immigrant visa application abroad must refuse to issue the visa if the applicant cannot overcome the presumption that they are intending to immigrate to the United States of America. This creates a sort of “strong ties” vs. “weak ties” analysis whereby the Officer adjudicating the application can only grant the requested visa if the applicant can show sufficient “strong ties” to their home country and “weak ties” to the USA. This presumption is not easily overcome under the best of circumstances, but when an officer takes into account the fact that a non-immigrant visa applicant has an American boyfriend or girlfriend, the presumption could become virtually insurmountable without strong documentation in support of issuance.

Unfortunately, in the past there have been instances of couples attempting to utilize the US tourist visa for the purpose of circumventing the relatively long processing times associated with applying for US family immigration benefits. It should be noted that misrepresenting one’s intentions on a visa application could be construed as visa fraud by American authorities. A finding that fraud has occurred could result in civil and criminal sanctions for both the applicant and the American significant other.

Those couples wishing to obtain a family immigration benefit through use of an American fiance visa (K1 visa) or a spousal visa (K3 Visa in limited cases or a classic CR1 Visa or IR1 Visa in the vast majority of cases) should bear in mind that a visa petition should only be brought if the couple has a bona fide relationship. In short: a couple should not get married or file for a fiance visa if they do not have a bona fide relationship. A pretextual relationship, or so-called “marriage of convenience”, should not be used as a basis for submitting an application for a US visa.

For related information please see: US Visa Indonesian Girlfriend or K1 Visa Burma.

Tags: 214(b), B1 visa, B2 Visa, CR1 Visa, F1 Visa, Fiance Visa Burma, Fiance Visa Myanmar, Immigration and Nationality Act, IR1 Visa, J1 visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, marriage of convenience, US Business Visa, US Exchange Visitor Visa, US Fiance Visa, US Marriage Visa, US Tourist Visa, US Tourist Visa Denial, US Tourist Visa Denied, US Tourist Visa Refusal, US Visa Burma, US Visa for Burmese Girlfriend, US Visa Myanmar, visa fraud
Posted in CR1 Visa, IR1 Visa, J1 visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration | Comments Off

Under Section 214b of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a Consular officer can deny a non-immigrant visa (J1, F1, B1, B2) if they believe that the foreign applicant has not overcome the statutory presumption that they are actually an intending immigrant. In some cases, a consular officer may grant a tourist visa application, but the foreign national will be refused entry upon arrival in the United States of America.

How can a foreign national be granted a visa and still be denied entry to the United States? There is a common misconception that visa application approval creates a “right” to enter the United States of America. In fact, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Officers have the discretion to turn away alien nationals if they believe that there is a ground of excludability. If a CBP officer reasonably believes that an ostensible non-immigrant actually has immigrant intent, then they have the right to deny entry and it is further within the officer’s discretion to use expedited deportation to remove the prospective entrant.

The following paraphrases the INA:

According to section 212(a)(7)(A)(i) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any immigrant who, at the time of application for admission:

is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality if such document is required under the INS regulations, or whose visa has been issued without compliance with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act is excludable [from the United States].

A waiver is available under INA §212(k) where the Attorney General is satisfied that the exclusion was not known to, and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence by, the immigrant before the time of departure of the vessel or aircraft from the last port outside the United States and outside foreign contiguous territory or, in the case of an immigrant coming from foreign contiguous territory, before the time of the immigrant’s application for admission.

The powers of CBP officers described above illustrate the reason for seeking a proper visa rather than attempting to circumvent the Immigration rules. For example, there are some Americans who have a Thai loved one and they wish to bring them to the USA for the purpose of marriage and adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence. Generally a K1 visa (also known as a fiancee visa) would be the proper travel document for this purpose. However, some opt to pursue a US Tourist visa because the K1 visa has a processing time of approximately 6-7 months whereas a tourist visa generally takes a few weeks to acquire if the application is approved. Even if the visa application is approved, denial at the port of entry poses the risk of expedited deportation as well as the underlying monetary loss due to the fruitless visa application as well as travel expenses to get to the port of entry and be turned away. Removal from the United States can later be used to bar admission particularly if an Immigration officer finds that the entrant was intentionally misrepresenting themselves. In a situation such as this, the only way to remedy the inadmissibility could be the use of an I601 waiver.

Entry denial does not automatically lead to expedited deportation, the CBP officer has the discretion to allow the prospective entrant to withdraw their request for entry and leave at their own expense, but improper usage of non-immigrant visas does include the inherent risk of removal and those seeking entry to United States of America should bear this in mind when researching US Immigration issues.

Tags: 212, 212a7, American Visa Thailand, I601, Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, intending immigrant, K1 Visa Thailand, US Immigration Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, J1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »