Integrity Legal

K1 visas are a topic frequently discussed on this web log as they are a rather popular travel document for those American Citizens who have a foreign fiancee living outside of the United States of America. That said, in a recently filed complaint before the Federal District Court of Oregon an American Citizen, Dzu Cong Tran, asked for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a writ of mandamus in connection with his previously filed I-129f petition on behalf of his Vietnamese fiancee. To quote the opening of the complaint:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Nearly three years ago, the former United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Ombudsman Mr. Prakash Khatri issued recommendations to Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and USCIS regarding necessary changes to the standards and
processes for re-adjudication of petitions returned by consular offices for revocation or revalidation, due to systemic nationwide failures of the system. Two years ago, Jonathan R. Scharfen, former Acting Director of USCIS under the Bush Administration responded to the USCIS Ombudsman’s recommendations, implementing only some of those recommendations and specifically rejecting others. This class action lawsuit involves some of the recommendations of the USCIS Ombudsman which were rejected by defendants, in addition to other issues.

Through the contradictory and unlawful practices of each defendant agency, plaintiff and class members have been aggrieved by agency action and inaction, have suffered agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, have been subjected to arbitrary, capricious and unlawful denials and file transfers, have been deprived of due process of law and had visa issuance and petition approval denied or unreasonably withheld contrary to constitutional right, contrary to procedure required by law, and contrary to the limitations of statutory jurisdiction and authority. Thousands of families across the country and around the
world have been separated due to a colossal sparring match between the defendant agencies, and because of internal dissent within each agency.

Specifically, Plaintiff Dzu Cong Tran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, challenges (a) defendant U.S. State Department’s (State Department’s) policies and procedures for processing and returning approved petitions to defendant U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with a recommendation that the petition be revoked; and (b) defendant USCIS’ policies and procedures for revoking, denying or terminating petitions returned to it by defendant State Department. Plaintiff respectfully petitions this Court for injunctive, declaratory and mandamus relief to: (a) compel State Department to schedule a
visa interview within a reasonable period from the date that State Department’s National Visa Center receives an approved I-129F petition for fiancé(e) from USCIS; (b) compel State Department to issue a K-1 visa to the fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen or notify the petitioner and beneficiary that the petition will be returned to DHS/USCIS within reasonable period following interview; (c) compel State Department to provide a reasonable period during which a petitioner and beneficiary may rebut consular findings before the petition is returned to DHS/USCIS; (d) compel State Department to return petitions to DHS/USCIS only where substantial evidence
exists that fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility would lead to denial, and not where it is merely suspected; and to provide a written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return that are not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant; (e)compel State Department to render a final decision to approve the K-1 visa or return a petition to
DHS/USCIS within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of all necessary documents from the petitioner and beneficiary, and to accomplish delivery of the petition to State Department’s National Visa Center within such period; (f) declare that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5), which purports to limit the validity of a K-1 fiancé(e) petition (Form I-129F) to four months, is ultra vires and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (g) following such declaration, enjoin DHS/USCIS from limiting the validity period of any approved fiancé(e) petition; (h) declare that the Foreign Affairs Manual, at 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1, which purports to establish the materiality of an alleged misrepresentation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), merely based upon DHS/USCIS summary revocation of the petition is ultra vires and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (i) issue a permanent injunction barring the State Department from placing a marker, called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in a visa beneficiary’s record, and deeming the DHS/USCIS revocation of the petition as automatically establishing the permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility; (j) compel DHS/USCIS to issue a notice to petitioner within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from receipt of the returned petition from the State Department, providing petitioner with the legal and factual basis for the consular recommendation that is not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant; (k) compel DHS/USCIS to provide petitioner the opportunity to submit evidence to rebut the consular recommendation within a reasonable period of time; (l) compel DHS/USCIS, in the case of a reaffirmation of approval, to deliver the reaffirmed petition to the State Department within a reasonable period of time, and compel State Department to issue the K-1 visa within a reasonable period of time following reaffirmation; (m) compel DHS/USCIS, in the case of a denial, to issue a decision within a reasonable period of time, and to advise petitioner of the right to appeal the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office.

The United States of America’s immigration apparatus is complex and multifaceted. This is due to the fact that two Departments have a role in the Immigration process and within each of those Departments there are multiple government agencies with different roles at differing phases of the process. For example, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), respectively, have jurisdiction over adjudication of visa petitions and inspection of aliens upon admission to the United States. In the interim, the Department of State, through the National Visa Center and each US Embassy or US Consulate abroad, is tasked with adjudicating visa applications and making determinations regarding an individual applicant’s admissibility to the USA. In the vast majority of cases involving a US visa denial the applicant will be provided written notice of the denial along with factual and legal reasons for the denial. Amongst many other things, the aforementioned complaint alleged that the:

State Department issued the [visa] denial based on mere suspicion and failed to provide a written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return that was not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant.

When a US visa application is denied, the Consular Officer issuing the denial should provide a written notice of denial based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law. The complaint, in essence, would seem to be alleging that the Officer at the US Consulate in HCMC did not provide a legally sufficient basis for denial.  Of further interest within the complaint was the following allegation:

State Department, in its denial, stated that, “[i]f USCIS revokes the petition, beneficiary will become ineligible for a visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act.” INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), is a permanent bar to admissibility for misrepresentation. Pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1, State Department placed a marker, called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in Ms. Pham’s records, and will deem USCIS revocation of the petition as automatically establishing the permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility.

This is an interesting phenomenon. As the US Immigration system becomes more sophisticated Department of State refusals seem to be evermore problematic for those who may later seek admission to the United States. For example, in another post on this blog it was noted that those with a previously issued 221(g) denial from a US Embassy or US Consulate may be denied benefits under the visa waiver program pursuant regulations related to the Electronic System For Travel Authorization (ESTA). As ESTA is under the jurisdiction of the USCBP and since that agency considers 221g refusals to be denials, while the Department of State continues to refer to them as refusals, the issuance of 221g could lead to an otherwise admissible individual being deemed inadmissible to the United States. This author has never personally dealt with a situation in which a Consular Officer has denied a US visa without a factual or legal basis. Hopefully, this case will help ascertain the exact nature of visa refusals at Consulates and Embassies overseas. Bearing that in mind, the decision in a case such as this could have major ramifications upon Consular Processing procedures at virtually every US Consular Post abroad.

For further information related to the US fiance visa please see: K1 visa.

Tags: ESTA, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Denial, US Consulate, US Embassy, us visa denial, USCBP, USCIS, Visa Waiver Program, writ of mandamus
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, National Visa Center, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCBP, USCIS | 4 Comments »

For information in English please see: US Visa Thailand.

การถูกปฏิเสธวีซ่าไม่ใช่สิ่งที่คนที่กำลังศึกษาข้อมูลเพื่อขอวีซ่าอยากจะนึกถึง อย่างไรก็ตามการที่วีซ่าถูกปฏิเสธเกิดขึ้นและหากเราทำความเข้าใจเหตุผลของการถูกปฏิเสธ ก็อาจจะทำให้ผู้ที่คิดจะอพยพเข้าเมืองทำการตัดสินใจโดยอ้างอิงข้อมูลว่าจะต้องมีวิธีการในการเข้าเมืองอย่างไร

เมื่อพูดถึงการเข้าเมืองโดยเหตุผลทางครอบครัว การประเมินที่ผิดพลาดก็มักจะเกี่ยวข้องกับการยื่นขอวีซ่าท่องเที่ยว ตัวอย่างเช่น หากว่าบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกันมีคู่หมั้นชาวไทยและเขาต้องการช่วยขอวีซ่าท่องเที่ยวให้กับเธอ วีซ่าก็มักจะถูกปฏิเสธ เรื่องที่ไม่ได้เกิดจากอคติใดๆของเจ้าหน้าที่กงสุลอเมริกัน แต่ว่ามันมีเหตุมาจากกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองอเมริกัน

น่าจะดีที่สุดหากจะยกเอาประโยคพื้นๆจากเว็บไซติกระทรวงต่างประเทศสหรัฐมาให้อ่านกัน

“มาตรา 214(b) เป็นส่วนหนึ่งของพระราชบัญญัติคนเข้าเมืองและสัญชาติ” กล่าวว่า

“บุคคลต่างด้าวทุกคนให้สันนิษฐานไว้ก่อนว่าจะเป็นผู้อพยพ จนกว่าผู้นั้นสามารถแสดงให้พอใจแก่เจ้าหน้าที่กงสุล ในเวลาที่ยื่นคำขอเข้าเมือง ว่าบุคคลผู้นั้นสามารถได้รับสถานภาพผู้เข้าเมืองไม่อพยพ”

ในอันที่จะมีคุณสมบัติในการออกวีซ่าท่องเที่ยวหรือวีซ่านักเรียนให้ ผู้ขอจะต้องมีคุณสมบัติตรงตามมาตรา 101(a)(15)(B) หรือ (F)แห่งพระราชบัญญัติคนเข้าเมืองและสัญชาติ การไม่สามารถแสดงคุณสมบัติดังกล่าวได้จะทำให้มีเหตุในการปฏิเสธวีซ่าตามมาตรา 214(b) เหตุผลพื้นฐานของการปฏิเสธตามมาตรานี้เกี่ยวกับคุณสมบัติที่ว่านักท่องเที่ยวหรือนักเรียนนักศึกษาผู้นั้นต้องมีถิ่นที่อยู่ในต่างประเทศซึ่งไม่มีเจตนาละทิ้ง ผู้ขอวีซ่าสามารถพิสูจน์การมีอยู่ของถิ่นที่อยู่นั้นโดยการแสดงความเชื่อมโยงที่บีบบังคับให้ต้องออกจากประเทศสหรัฐเมื่อสิ้นสุดระยะเวลา กฎหมายกำหนดให้เป็นภาระการพิสูจน์ของผู้ยื่นขอวีซ่า”

การเอาชนะข้อสันนิษฐานว่าจะอพยพมักจะเป็นอุปสรรคขนาดใหญ่แต่การปฏิเสธวีซ่าภายใต้มาตรานี้เพิ่งจะแพร่หลายหลังจากเหตุการณ์ 11 กันยายน หลังจากเหตุการณ์ 11 กันยายน มีการเปลี่ยนแปลงกระบวนการหลายๆอย่างในการขอวีซ่าไม่อพยพ การเปลี่ยนแปลงที่เห็นได้ชัดคือผู้ขอวีซ่าท่องเที่ยวจะต้องถูกสัมภาษณ์ต่อหน้าเจ้าหน้าที่ การเปลี่ยนแปลงข้อนี้ รวมถึงมาตรการตรวจสอบเพื่อความปลอดภัยที่เพิ่มขึ้นทำให้วีซ่าท่องเที่ยวถูกปฏิเสธมากขึ้น ในหลายๆกรณีการปฏิเสธตามมาตรา 214b เกิดจากการที่ผู้ขอวีซ่าไม่สามารถแสดงให้เห็นว่าจะกลับมายังประเทศแม่ได้ หรืออย่างน้อยที่สุดจะออกจากสหรัฐอเมริกา

เมื่อผู้ขอวีซ่าเป็นคนรักของบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกัน โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งเมื่อบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกันนั้นพำนักอยู่ในสหรัฐอเมริกา ก็เป็นไปได้อยากที่จะมีการอนุมัติวีซ่าท่องเที่ยวให้นอกจากว่าผู้ขอจะสามารถแสดง ความเกี่ยวโยงที่แข็งแรง ต่อประเทศแม่ให้ประจักษ์ อย่างไรก็ตามเพื่อไม่ให้เสียเวลาและทรัพยากร น่าจะเป็นการดีกว่าที่คู่รักจะขอวีซ่า K1 หรือ K3 วีซ่า K1 เป็นวีซ่าชั่วคราวที่ให้คุณอยู่ในสหรัฐอเมริกาได้เป็นการชั่วคราว แต่เปิดช่องว่างภายใต้ทฤษฎีเจตนามากกว่าหนึ่ง เพื่อเปิดโอกาสให้ปรับเปลี่ยนสถานภาพเป็นผู้ถือกรีนการ์ดอเมริกา

Tags: 214(b), K-1, K-3, K1, K3, US Immigration and Nationality Act, us visa denial, US Visa Denial Thailand, US Visa Thailand
Posted in US Visa Thailand, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

Visa denial is generally something that most bi-national couples do not wish to discuss, but it is something that should be researched by the prospective visa petitioner as legal grounds of inadmissibility and the I-601 waiver process could be relevant to an individual couple’s Immigration petition and visa application.

In a recent report from the Congressional Research service (distributed by AILA) the issue of visa denial was discussed as the report looked at the reasons for denial and the overall trends in inadmissibility findings:

“Most LPR [Lawful Permanent Residence] petitioners who were excluded on §212(a) grounds from FY1994 through FY2004 were rejected because the Department of State (DOS) determined that the aliens were inadmissible as likely public charges. By FY2004, the proportion of public charge exclusions had fallen but remained the top basis for denial. The lack of proper labor certification was another leading ground for exclusion from FY1994 through FY2004. By FY2008, however, illegal presence and previous orders of removal from the United States was the leading ground.”

The finding of a “public charge” grounds of inadmissibility is related to the affidavit of support. A finding that an alien is likely to be a “public charge” stems from a finding that the sponsor does not have the requisite income and assets necessary to support the alien for whom benefits are being sought. The report goes further to note that Comprehensive Immigration Reform may tackle some of the issues associated with the trends in visa application denials:

“Legislation aimed at comprehensive immigration reform may take a fresh look at the grounds for excluding foreign nationals enacted over the past two decades. Expanding the grounds for inadmissibility, conversely, might be part of the legislative agenda among those who support more restrictive immigration reform policies.”

It is interesting to note that the Immigration system may become more stringent or more lax depending upon the mood of legislators with regard to the issue of immigration. That being said, a more detailed look at the current trends provides insight into the dynamics of the system as a whole:

“[M]ost LPR petitioners who were excluded on §212(a) grounds in FY1996 and FY2000 were rejected because the DOS determined that the aliens were inadmissible as likely public charges. In FY2004, the proportion of public charge exclusions had fallen, but remained the top basis for denial. The lack of proper labor certification was another leading ground for exclusion in FY1996, FY2000, FY2004, and FY2008. By FY2008, however, illegal presence and previous orders of removal from the United States had become the leading ground.”

It is interesting to note that unlawful presence and previous removal had become the leading grounds of inadmissibility cited by the year 2008. This would seem to support the anecdotal evidence and personal experience of this author as more and more prospective entrants to the US seem to be placed in expedited removal proceedings with greater frequency. Also, there seems to be an increasing trend of increasingly zealous enforcement of Immigration law in the USA as illegal aliens are placed in removal proceedings more frequently.

For further information about visa denial please see: K1 visa. For general information about US Immigration from Thailand please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: deportation, Deported, expedited removal, removal, us visa denial, US Visa Denial Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

As this author has discussed in previous blog posts, one major reason for US visa denial is based upon a finding that a legal grounds of inadmissibility exists in a given case. One legal grounds of inadmissibility is based upon a finding by the Consular Officer that the applicant committed a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT). That being said, at times it can be difficult to determine whether or not an individual’s prior actions would be considered a crime involving moral turpitude. The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) provides some insight into what types of crimes are considered to be crimes involving moral turpitude, the following are excerpts from the FAM:

“9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-1 Crimes Committed Against
Property
(CT:VISA-1318; 09-24-2009)
a. Most crimes committed against property that involve moral turpitude
include the element of fraud. The act of fraud involves moral turpitude
whether it is aimed against individuals or government. Fraud generally
involves:
(1) Making false representation;
(2) Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator;
(3) Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded;
(4) An intent to defraud; and
(5) The actual act of committing fraud”

Property Crimes are not the only activities that can be construed as crimes involving moral turpitude as criminal actions which violate or undermine governmental authority are also considered to be CIMT:

“9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-2 Crimes Committed Against
Governmental Authority
(CT:VISA-1318; 09-24-2009)
a. Crimes committed against governmental authority which fall within the
definition of moral turpitude include:
(1) Bribery;
(2) Counterfeiting;
(3) Fraud against revenue or other government functions;
(4) Mail fraud;
(5) Perjury;
(6) Harboring a fugitive from justice (with guilty knowledge); and
(7) Tax evasion (willful).”

The FAM also goes on to note the various activities that may not be considered CIMT. However, it is incumbent upon the adjudicating officer to examine the facts of a given case and make a decision as to whether the underlying actions that gave rise to a criminal conviction in fact constitutes a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude for purposes of visa issuance. If the officer decides that a CIMT was committed, then the visa application will likely be denied. Under the doctrine of Consular NonReviewability (also known as Consular Absolutism) this decision is not subject to appeal. However, the applicant make be able to overcome the visa denial by applying for, and obtaining, an I-601 waiver.

Of interest to some may be the recent Circuit Court decision which held:

“An order of removal from the United States was entered against Petitioner Armando Alvarez-Reynaga based on his felony conviction for receipt of a stolen vehicle in violation of section 496d(a) of the California Penal Code. His petition for review presents the questions of whether a conviction under that statute qualifies categorically as a conviction for an aggravated felony, and whether it qualifies categorically as a crime involving moral turpitude. We conclude that it qualifies as the first, but not the second. We deny the petition for review.”

As the law continues to evolve, so to does the definition of CIMT and the activities that are considered to be covered by the CIMT provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

For more information about US Visas from the Kingdom of Thailand please see: US Visa Thailand.

(Readers should be advised that the above does not constitute a full analysis of CIMT issues. Each application has its own unique set of facts and those facts must be analyzed on an individual basis in order to form a professional opinion.)

Tags: 601 Waiver, American Immigration Thailand, American Visa Thailand, CIMT, Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, FAM, Foreign Affairs Manual, I-601 Waiver, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility, US Family Visa, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, us visa denial, US Visa Denial Thailand, US Visa Denied, US Visa Denied Thailand, US Visa Thailand, Waiver
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

In cases where a US visa application is denied it may be possible to remedy the visa denial by applying for a waiver if the denial was based upon a legal grounds of inadmissibility. This type of waiver is called an I-601 waiver. At one time, if a United States visa applicant was infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), then they would be denied a visa visa based upon this factor alone, if no other issues existed that called for a denial. However, recently the United States Immigration authorities have changed this rule. To quote a document promulgated by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

“[I]nfection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is no longer a ground of inadmissibility. If you have the HIV infection, you are no longer inadmissible to the United States, and are no longer required to file Form I-601 because of your HIV infection. As part of the revisions to Form I-601, any reference to HIV infection in the form and the instructions were removed.”

This is not the only rule change that has been recently promulgated as the filing instructions themselves have recently changed in order to more accurately reflect the proper filing locations as well as other regulatory modifications.

“In addition, USCIS… announced that there are revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility. The change of filing location is part of an overall effort to transition the intake of benefit forms from USCIS local offices and Service Centers to USCIS Lockbox facilities. By centralizing form and fee intake to a Lockbox environment, USCIS can provide customers with more efficient and effective initial processing of applications and fees.”

The “lockbox” method is currently employed when processing immigrant visa applications such as the IR-1 visa and the CR-1 visa. This allows USCIS to streamline the application process as all applications are submitted to one location. K1 visa applications as well as K3 marriage visa applications are submitted directly to the USCIS Service Center with appropriate jurisdiction.

In situations where an I-601 waiver application is submitted overseas, the application is usually submitted at the US Embassy or US Consulate where the visa is denied. This allows the Consular Officer to make a recommendation regarding the waiver application. Those interested in US visa waivers should note that only licensed United States attorneys or accredited representatives are allowed to represent clients before both the United States Embassy and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). That being said, only an attorney is entitled to charge fees for such services as accredited representatives are usually not-for-profit agencies who only charge a nominal fee (if anything) when assisting immigrants. Those who are not licensed to represent clients is US Immigration matters cannot charge a fee to represent clients in Immigration proceedings pursuant to US law.  For more information please click here.

For more information about American visas and the remedies available upon application denial please see: US Visa Denial.

Tags: 601 Waiver, HIV Waiver, I-601 Waiver, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa Thailand, US Visa Attorney, us visa attorney bangkok, us visa attorney thailand, us visa denial, us visa lawyer, us visa lawyer bangkok, us visa lawyer thailand, US Visa Thailand, US Visa Waiver
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

The United States visa waiver program, not to be confused with an I-601 waiver, allows citizens from certain countries to enter the United States of American without obtaining a visa prior to arrival. In recent years the United States government has implemented ESTA, also known as: the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. ESTA requires that travelers wishing to enter the country on a visa waiver inform the US Immigration authorities prior to arrival so that a pre-screening can be conducted. The United States Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Service is tasked with monitoring those seeking travel clearances using the ESTA system. Recently it has been reported by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) that 221g denials must be reported in the ESTA form, to quote AILA directly:

“CBP recently informed AILA that it, after consultation with the Department of State (DOS), is classifying all §221(g) actions on visa applications as visa “denials.” Thus, Visa Waiver Program (VWP) applicants, who are subject to INA §221(g) refusals, should answer affirmatively in their ESTA applications that they have been denied a visa. This suggestion applies even if the reason for the refusal is due to consular administrative processing. If VWP travelers do not disclose such a “denial” on their ESTA applications or provide an update regarding such “denials,” they may have their ESTA registration rejected or be sent to secondary inspection and potentially refused entry when they apply for admission to the United States.”

This is important to note for those originating from a country participating in the US visa waiver program. For example, if the foreign fiancee of a US Citizen has been issued a 221g with regard to a K1 visa application, then that 221g must be disclosed as a denial on the ESTA form if said fiancee intends to visit the US and the foreign fiancee’s home country participates in this program.

As AILA’s article went on to point out, the Department of State does not even consider 221(g)’s to be outright denials,

Technically, the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) classifies a §221(g) action as a visa “refusal,” but DOS explicitly retains authority to “reactivate” the visa application upon receipt of required documents or completion of a government mandated administrative clearance. See 9 FAM 41.121 N2.4.

This situation is a classic example of two different government agencies taking a differing view of the same situation. The Department of State seems to view 221g refusals as administrative refusals to issue a visa without further documentation while the Department of Homeland Security seems to view such refusals as US visa denials that could be viewed as grounds for denying a person’s subsequent entry into the USA.

This issue will likely not be particularly problematic in the Kingdom of Thailand as Thailand is not a country participating in the visa waiver program, but for others around the world this issue could lead to problems entering the USA.

For those in this situation, it is always advisable to be honest, but it may be possible to explain the situation by answering “yes” to the question: Have you ever been denied a U.S. visa or entry? After answering in the affirmative there should be space to explain. Therefore, the applicant probably should note that the denial was: a 221(g), at the Embassy or Consulate (example: US Embassy Bangkok, US Consulate Chiang Mia, US Embassy Burma, etc.),  and the reason for the “denial” (example: Embassy conducted administrative processing, Consulate requested further documentation, etc).

Tags: 221 (g), 221g, AILA, CBP, Customs and Border Protection, ESTA, I601 Waiver, us visa denial, US visa denials, US Visa Waiver, Visa Waiver, Visa Waiver Program
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, General Legal Information, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, Legal Opinion, US Consulate Chiang Mai, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

For those researching the United States visa process a document called Notice of Action 2 is mentioned many times in relation to spouse and fiance visa applications. This post is a brief description of what Notice of Action 2 is and what it means for a pending application.

When a United States visa application is submitted the first piece of correspondence that arrives from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service  (USCIS) Center is a receipt called Notice of Action 1 (NOA 1). This puts the petitioning party on notice that the application has been received by the USCIS Service Center. There are certain situations where the adjudicating officer decides that more information or evidence needs to be provided before the application can be properly adjudicated. In cases such as this, a Request for Evidence (also known as an RFE) will be issued and sent to the petitioner. However, in most cases, further evidence is not necessary and if the application is approved then Notice of Action 2 is sent to the petitioner. If the application is denied, then a notice will be sent to the petitioner as well.

Although not extremely common in cases involving visas for the family members of United States Citizens, USCIS denials can occur. Denials are usually the result of a petition that did not go far enough in showing that a bona fide relationship between Petitioner and Beneficiary existed at the time of the filing. Another common reason for denial is that the petitioner applied for the wrong type of visa. A common misconception in Thailand involves customary marriages and their effect upon a couple’s United States Immigration options. In Thailand, if a Thai marriage is not registered at the Civil Registrar’s office (Amphur), then the marriage is not legally binding and not recognized by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service as a basis for receiving US Immigration benefits. Therefore, if a couple who has only been married unofficially submits a petition for an IR1 visa, CR1 visa, or K3 visa then they will be denied because they do not meet the statutory requirements for visa issuance. However, the couple in this situation may be eligible for a K1 visa.

After USCIS issues Notice of Action 2, the petition will be sent to the National Visa Center. In cases involving Immigrant visas, the NVC holds the petition for a fairly long period of time. However, in cases where a K1 visa is being sought, the NVC does not hold the application for a long time. They will usually conduct a Security clearance and forward the file to the US Embassy, in cases involving Thai fiancees they will forward the application to the US Embassy in Bangkok. The United States Consulate General in Chiang Mai does not generally handle US Immigrant visa cases.

Tags: CR1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa Thailand, NOA 2, Notice of Action 2, Thailand Marriage Registration, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, us visa denial, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, US Consulate Chiang Mai, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

Being denied for a visa to the United States of America is certainly not something that people researching the immigration process wish to think about. However, visa denials do occur and by understanding the reasons for denial it may allow prospective immigrants to make more informed decisions regarding their immigration strategy.

When it comes to American Family Immigration a common miscalculation involves applying for a US Tourist Visa on behalf of a foreign loved one. For example, if an American Citizen has a Thai fiancee and he attempts to assist in obtaining a US Tourist Visa for her, it will very likely result in a denial of the visa application. This is not due to some sort of malevolent feeling on the part of the United States Consular Officers, but it is rooted in American Immigration law.

It is probably best to simple quote the US Department of State website:

“Section 214(b) is part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It states:

‘Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status…’

To qualify for a visitor or student visa, an applicant must meet the requirements of sections 101(a)(15)(B) or (F) of the INA respectively. Failure to do so will result in a refusal of a visa under INA 214(b). The most frequent basis for such a refusal concerns the requirement that the prospective visitor or student possess a residence abroad he/she has no intention of abandoning. Applicants prove the existence of such residence by demonstrating that they have ties abroad that would compel them to leave the U.S. at the end of the temporary stay. The law places this burden of proof on the applicant.”

Overcoming the presumption of immigrant intent has always been a somewhat major obstacle, but visa denials under this section of the law became more prevalent after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. After 9/11, there were some changes made in the way that non-immigrant visas were processed. A particularly critical change was the requirement that the applicant for a United States tourist visa be interviewed in person. This requirement, combined with increased scrutiny and heightened security concerns lead to more Tourist visa denials. In many cases, the denials were based upon section 214 (b) because the applicants failed to show that they were going to return to their home country, or, at the very least, leave the USA.

Where the foreign applicant is a loved one of a US Citizen, particularly where the Citizen primarily resides in the USA, it is unlikely that the tourist visa application will be approved unless that applicant can show sufficiently “strong ties,” to their home country. However, to forestall needlessly wasting of time and resources, it may be wise for a couple to look into the prospect of submitting a K1 visa application or seek to obtain a K3 visa. The K1 visa is a travel document which allows a temporary stay in the United States, but leaves room under the Doctrine of Dual Intent to allow for the visa holder to adjust status to US permanent residence.

Tags: 214 b, 214(b), 21b, immigrant intent, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Tourist Visa Denial, Tourist Visa Denied, US Immigration Law, US Tourist Visa, us visa denial, US Visa Denied, US Visa Thailand
Posted in K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

There is some confusion regarding the American State Department’s estimates regarding visa denials from around the world. There are some who are under the mistaken impression that the State Department’s numbers are the definitive source for information regarding waivers of inadmissibility. In fact, any numbers published by the United States Department of State regarding I-601 waivers should be taken with a grain of salt because the American Department of State is not the agency tasked with handling the adjudication of I-601 waiver applications after the a United States Consular Officer at an Embassy or Consulate General has made a finding that a legal ground of inadmissibility exists in a particular Immigration case.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has the authority to grant waivers of inadmissibility under United States Immigration law. Therefore, USCIS’s internal statistics would be the proper government source to consult regarding the number waivers of inadmissibility applied for and ultimately granted. That being said, USCIS does not keep categorical statistics according to the Agenda of the USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting on January 27, 2009:

“Although we track the total number of Forms I-601 processed, USCIS International Operations does not have a system to track the specific grounds of inadmissibility that applicants seek to waive.”

The document that is causing the confusion regarding visa denials can be found at the following url. The first major cause of confusion in this document is the seemingly small number of findings of legal inadmissibility under section 212 (a)(2)(D)(i) for engaging in acts of prostitution or deriving profits from activities that are presumed to be prostitution. According to the table there were only 2 non-immigrant visa waivers granted in 2008 under section 212 (a)(2)(D)(i) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). I find this number difficult to believe as this author has recently discussed the prostitution ground of legal inadmissibility with two highly experienced United States Immigration attorneys and between the two of them, they had applied for and obtained more than 2 non-immigrant visa waivers in 2008. Further, I believe it is highly likely that other prospective US Immigrants and non-immigrants were granted waivers of this ground of inadmissibility because I doubt that only two United States attorneys handled all of the waivers granted under this section of the INA in 2008; particularly if one takes into account not only other immigration attorneys, but I-601 waiver applications filed pro se as well.

For more on US Visas Please See: K-1 Visa or K-3 Visa

(This document is not intended as a source of legal advice, but for educational purposes. For legal advice contact an Attorney. No Lawyer-Client relationship should be deemed to exist between the writer and reader of this blog post.)

Tags: American Visa Thailand, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, us visa denial, US Visa Denied, US Visa Thailand, US Visa Waiver
Posted in US Consulate Chiang Mai, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

Most United States Visas that process through the US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand proceed in an efficient and uneventful manner. The Officers in the US Consular Section have a large caseload and generally do their job in a professional and diligent manner. This being said, some Immigration and visa cases are delayed. The term used in American Immigration circles when a visa application is set aside for further review is: administrative processing.

Administrative Processing and the 221(g)

Technically a 221g denial and request for more evidence could be classified as “administrative processing.” In practice, most cases that are in administrative processing have been red flagged because there is a suspicion of immigration fraud or there is some aspect of the case that the consular officer feels warrants further investigation. In cases such as this the application can be delayed for weeks or months until a final determination is made.

Does Administrative Processing mean a US Visa is Denied?

In some cases administrative processing can occur after a visa application has been denied and needs to be sent back to USCIS to close the case. In the case of a Fiance visa or marriage visa, this would likely only occur upon a factual finding by the consular officer that there is not a bona fide relationship underlying the visa application.  This type of visa denial is very rare in US Family Immigration matters.  However, a Consular officer who is suspicious about a particular visa application could put the case in administrative processing and ask for further documentation. The fraud unit would likely review the application further in order to ascertain the visa application’s merits.

There are other situations where a visa application could go into administrative processing. Of particular note are situations where beneficiaries have been present in the United States previously and have done things that may raise  questions about what they were doing while stateside. A good example would be someone in the United States on a visa without work authorization who was working. This factual scenario would probably cause a case to go into administrative processing because the Consular officers would want to know more details about the applicant’s previous experience in the USA.

Administrative Processing is something many applicants seek to avoid and one of the best methods of doing so is to have a well prepared application. Further, Consular Officers are very well trained when it comes to picking up on cues that an application might be fraudulent. For this reason, we highly recommend that the best way to stay out of administrative processing is to file a bona fide application. Honesty is always the best policy when dealing with the United States Government and the US Embassy Thailand is no exception.

If a case should be denied because the applicant was deemed legally inadmissible, then an I-601 waiver may be sought.

For more information please See K-1 Visa Thailand or K3 Visa Thailand.

Tags: 221g, 221g denial, American Visa Thailand, I-601 Waiver, K-1 Visa Thailand, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, us visa denial, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, Visa Waiver | 1 Comment »