immigration debate - family rejected for tourist visa

[Rwlaird 18]

I sent the following letter to my congressman and senators and you should too. If you’re not sure how to contact your members of congress you can look up his/her website through house.gov and senate.gov (or write to me and I’ll gladly help you).

Amendment to Section 214(b) of the INA

According to information easily found with a quick internet search Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the number one reason for nonimmigrant visa denials. It is referred to as "failure to establish entitlement to nonimmigrant status," or more commonly, "presumption of immigrant intent" because the majority of 214(b) denials are applied to intending immigrants.

This issue has affected my family personally and I ask for Congressman XXXXX’s help in amending the law during the current immigration debate.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) states under Section 214b that: “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... “ The State Department is implementing this section of the law in a manner that unnecessarily results in denials of applications for a tourist visas who have no interest or intention of living in the U.S. on a permanent basis but, in our case, merely want to visit family members for a short temporary period.

With consensus seeming to emerge for an improved system of tracking of visitors to verify their exit the restrictive language concerning the nonimmigrant visa application process should no longer be necessary.

Section 214(b) currently reads as follows:

(b) Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) .

It should be amended to read as follows (new language is underlined and some existing language is deleted).

(b) Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) who applies for a nonimmigrant visa shall be required to present information and evidence to the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, verifying that he intends to travel to the U.S. for a temporary period and return home according to the terms of his visa.

That is just my suggestion of how to amend the law. I would not claim to be an expert on immigration law and have no professional experience in that regard. However, I have learned a lot more than I wanted to know about immigration law through personal experience.

I would be glad to discuss this in more detail at any time.

Thank you!

Name

Address

Somecity, State Zip

phone

[Rwlaird 18]

I guess ( L ) automatically makes a heart. That should be corrected.

I sent the following letter to my congressman and senators and you should too. If you’re not sure how to contact your members of congress you can look up his/her website through house.gov and senate.gov (or write to me and I’ll gladly help you).

Amendment to Section 214(b) of the INA

According to information easily found with a quick internet search Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the number one reason for nonimmigrant visa denials. It is referred to as "failure to establish entitlement to nonimmigrant status," or more commonly, "presumption of immigrant intent" because the majority of 214(b) denials are applied to intending immigrants.

This issue has affected my family personally and I ask for Congressman XXXXX’s help in amending the law during the current immigration debate.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) states under Section 214b that: “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... “ The State Department is implementing this section of the law in a manner that unnecessarily results in denials of applications for a tourist visas who have no interest or intention of living in the U.S. on a permanent basis but, in our case, merely want to visit family members for a short temporary period.

With consensus seeming to emerge for an improved system of tracking of visitors to verify their exit the restrictive language concerning the nonimmigrant visa application process should no longer be necessary.

Section 214(b) currently reads as follows:

(b) Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph ( L ) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) .

It should be amended to read as follows (new language is underlined and some existing language is deleted).

(b) Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph ( L ) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) who applies for a nonimmigrant visa shall be required to present information and evidence to the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, verifying that he intends to travel to the U.S. for a temporary period and return home according to the terms of his visa.

That is just my suggestion of how to amend the law. I would not claim to be an expert on immigration law and have no professional experience in that regard. However, I have learned a lot more than I wanted to know about immigration law through personal experience.

I would be glad to discuss this in more detail at any time.

Thank you!

Name

Address

Somecity, State Zip

phone

[Merrytooth 5,748]

You should read this thread

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/434352-i-am-a-green-card-holder-my-minor-kids-on-b2-visa/

It is because of blatant abusers of tourist Visas, that make the process so much more difficult for others.

[Rwlaird 18]

Additional details that I provided in an earlier letter. Maybe you should include such details about your situation.

While most of the focus in the immigration debate seems to be on those who are living in this country illegally Congress needs to not forget to address a very important issue affecting families who have never broken our laws and have no intention of breaking our laws but merely want to have the ability for family members to visit this country temporarily. Many such families are precluded that ability by our current visa policy, or at least the administration of the law by the State Department.

Case in point: my family. My wife is from Ukraine and her parents still live there. We go to visit them often but there are times when we are unable to visit there and would like for them to visit here such as last fall when my wife gave birth to our first child. Obviously, my wife could not travel when she was about to give birth.

My wife’s parents have no interest in living here permanently or even for an extended period. They have jobs and are comfortable and accustomed to their way of life there. They would only like to visit for a short period from time to time and tried to make that abundantly clear in the application process. My in-laws provided documentation demonstrating strong ties to their home country in the form of employment and ownership of property, in line with guidance on the State Department website. After the initial rejection they applied again for the second time since it seemed that the consular officer erroneously denied their applications with no good reason during a rushed interview in which he didn’t review the documentation that they had brought with them to the interview (even though a “Visa Policy Telegram” issued by the State Department in 2004 --http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_2173.html -- stated that “Proper adjudication requires the consular officer to assess the credibility of the applicant and his/her evidence submitted to support the application.”). My mother-in-law applied alone on the third attempt so that at least one grandparent could visit during the birth of their granddaughter and my wife, as most women, would have liked to have her mother there when her daughter was born. We couldn’t imagine a stronger tie to her home country than her husband of many years staying back at home. But still – another curt rejection!

Through some research I have learned that applicants in their situation are often refused visas based on criteria that isn’t stated by the State Department such as whether they have other dependent children at home or whether they have ever visited other countries. I learned this through information published by an immigration attorney – not from any official State Department source. Having to go to a private attorney to understand the practices of such an opaque government agency is a frustrating issue in itself. Since my in-laws fit that description (their only child is living in the US and they have never been outside Ukraine) I am guessing that could be the basis for their visa refusal. But I do not know that. The vague rejection letter from the State Department never gives a specific reason. Applicants with pure intentions shouldn’t be limited by such factors which are beyond their control and really should be irrelevant.

Let me be clear: I fully understand that the State Department is unable (or unwilling) to revisit what they consider to be a closed case and re-examine a situation which may involve admitting to mistakes on their part. However, I want to ensure that my in-laws are granted a visa on their next application attempt.

This not only affects my wife’s parents who are citizens of another country but it acutely affects me, an American citizen. I am very frustrated with the current situation and implore you to help ensure that it is resolved soon. Until my in-laws are able to get a visa to visit the U.S. every time our family wants to see each other I will always have to pack up our family of four and buy multiple plane tickets to visit Ukraine (in addition to the fatigue of travel) instead of them being able to visit here.

I am glad to see the discussion of visa enforcement and the creation of a workable entry/exit system. I truly hope that this very long overdue practice would help to alleviate the inclination to reject applicants based on weak suspicion regarding intent for visa overstay which results in rejection of visas for people like my in-laws who never have and never intend to break the law. But I ask for your assistance to help ensure that this really makes a difference.

Improved visa enforcement should be helpful but changes may still be needed to Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. My in-always were rejected on the basis that they were “unable to convince the consular officer that their economic and social ties to Ukraine are sufficient to compel their return to Ukraine after a temporary, lawful stay in the United States.”

Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act seems to gives the agency broad legal authority to make subjective decisions without dictating the exact terms of the application process. It is reasonable to conclude that congressional intent in granting the agency such broad legal authority presumed that the agency would manage the application process in a respectful and dignified manner which allows applicants an adequate opportunity to present their case but that doesn’t seem to be how the agency is carrying out the law.

This section of the law 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 a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status . . . “ While the law does not dictate the specific procedure to “ . . . establishe(s) to the satisfaction of the consular officer . . . that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status” but the agency seems to be interpreting and implementing that in an overly strict manner. Congress should give very careful consideration to changes in this section of law regarding the “presumption of immigrant intent” and have a thorough dialogue with the agency regarding what it will take to ensure that applicants like my in-laws who make a very reasonable attempt to prove their ties to their home country – their “nonimmigrant status” – are not precluded from being granted a visa.

Thank you for your consideration of my questions and my views. I would be glad to discuss this in more detail at any time.

[Rwlaird 18]

I fully understand that abuse of tourist visas is a problem. However, with an improved tracking system, as is included in the legislation currently being debated in Congress, those who overstay can be more easily tracked and deported.

[aaron2020 11,651]

I fully understand that abuse of tourist visas is a problem. However, with an improved tracking system, as is included in the legislation currently being debated in Congress, those who overstay can be more easily tracked and deported.

How would you like to pay for this system?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to stop visa abusers from getting them in rhe first place and keep them out of the US rather than let everyone in and then spend tons of money on tracking down the abusers, building new facilities to process and pay to deport (fly) them back home?

I mean a thousand visa denials (the cost of a 1000 rejection notices a) is vastly cheaper than teaching down one visa abusers from your track and deport system.

Also, the current track and deport system doesn't exactly catch all those here illegally. All 11,000,000 people.

What you are proposing is too costly and doesn't work.

Sorry, but I can't support your petition/idea because I reapectfully disagree.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I do understand where you're coming from, we all do, but I don't think amending this particular law is the way to go.

Personally I believe the ability to AOS within the US should be removed. There is no immigrant risk if you can't adjust status while in the US. There is always going to be the risk that someone will overstay and try and live here illegally.

Tracking system of entry and exit is pointless. They've (illegals) already found ways around that system.

Honestly I would write to your congressman/senator about help getting a visitor visa for your in-laws, rather than trying to amend the law. But, how do you prove they don't have immigrant intent? You can't. Their child is in the US, their grandchild is in the US.

It might be simpler for her to become a citizen and file for her parents. Once her parents are here then they can return and give up their GC's in favour of visitor visas. This shows they don't have intent and I believe many people had been forced to go this path to prove that there is no immigrant intent, after all, why would someone give up a GC if they had immigrant intent?

[stevie b 141]

I do understand where you're coming from, we all do, but I don't think amending this particular law is the way to go.

Personally I believe the ability to AOS within the US should be removed. There is no immigrant risk if you can't adjust status while in the US. There is always going to be the risk that someone will overstay and try and live here illegally.

Tracking system of entry and exit is pointless. They've (illegals) already found ways around that system.

Honestly I would write to your congressman/senator about help getting a visitor visa for your in-laws, rather than trying to amend the law. But, how do you prove they don't have immigrant intent? You can't. Their child is in the US, their grandchild is in the US.

It might be simpler for her to become a citizen and file for her parents. Once her parents are here then they can return and give up their GC's in favour of visitor visas. This shows they don't have intent and I believe many people had been forced to go this path to prove that there is no immigrant intent, after all, why would someone give up a GC if they had immigrant intent?

government appointed workers and representatives have no influence over the embassy and their decisions .. it is a separation of duties to eliminate influence.. which would be interpreted in most cases as objective influence... representatives and senators can help with immigration cases, but this is not an immigration case.. it is for a tourist visa

[Harsh_77 716]

I fully understand that abuse of tourist visas is a problem. However, with an improved tracking system, as is included in the legislation currently being debated in Congress, those who overstay can be more easily tracked and deported.

Do you know how much does it cost to track and deport an individual, how many hurdles are there in deporting an illegal?

Even with advance tracking its very difficult simple example once illegal immigrant enters the country he can destroy his passport and it would upto US authorities at that point to prove what's nationality this person belongs and if that country would accept him or not.

Definately can understand your frustration with your wife's parents not being able to get the tourist visa but not all tourist visa applicant have been truthful and have blatantly abused the system.

If you really would like to make it easier for tourist to get visa, ask your congressman to amend the law on these things.

1. No adj of status from B1/2

2. No medical coverage for B1/2 (They need to purchase their own insurance before the enter the country)

3. No citizenship to kids born to illegals or on B1/2.

Hopefully things like this would prevent abuse of B1/2.

[Rwlaird 18]

Thank you, Aaron, for your questions. I appreciate an opportunity to have a dialogue with you on this issue and clarify some legitimate concerns that you raised.

You raise a good point regarding cost. First I would say that the current system is not cheaper for families like ours when it involves an application fee plus the hassle and expense of my in-laws taking an overnight train from their city in southern Ukraine to the capital of Kiev for an interview only to be rejected three times. What you seem to be saying is that because of the abuse in the system and the cost of enforcement we should just ignore families who want to visit each other.

But I do acknowledge your point regarding the cost to the government (and thus all of us taxpaying citizens) to hunt down and deport the criminals. I would not advocate anything to allow people to come here or stay here illegally or to increase the cost of enforcement. There should be a way to solve the issue without the cost being shared by everyone. If you stop thinking like a government bureaucrat and use common sense you could imagine a system where someone like my in-laws who seem to have pure intentions and have attempted to demonstrate such in their application, except for demographic factors beyond their control, could be required to have a U.S. sponsor who would vouch and ensure their return after a temporary lawful stay. Anyone who is deemed to be suspect could also be put into a special category which would require them to report back to the embassy for a follow up interview after their return from their stay in the U.S.

VanessaTony, thank you as well for your thoughts. I haven’t thought of your point regarding AOS in the US but that makes sense and could be another measure to help ensure that only those with appropriate intentions are admitted. I would have no problem with you including that in your letter in support of this issue as it seems to be an appropriate clarification. Thank you in advance. However, the system of applying for a GC multiple years into the future and then giving it up is just impractical and preposterous that many people have been forced to use such a path.

[Rwlaird 18]

Stevie b,

Congress is currently debating changes to our immigration laws.

You may have missed this line in my earlier post:

Let me be clear: I fully understand that the State Department is unable (or unwilling) to revisit what they consider to be a closed case and re-examine a situation which may involve admitting to mistakes on their part. However, I want to ensure that my in-laws are granted a visa on their next application attempt.

[Harsh_77 716]

Thank you, Aaron, for your questions. I appreciate an opportunity to have a dialogue with you on this issue and clarify some legitimate concerns that you raised.

You raise a good point regarding cost. First I would say that the current system is not cheaper for families like ours when it involves an application fee plus the hassle and expense of my in-laws taking an overnight train from their city in southern Ukraine to the capital of Kiev for an interview only to be rejected three times. What you seem to be saying is that because of the abuse in the system and the cost of enforcement we should just ignore families who want to visit each other.

But I do acknowledge your point regarding the cost to the government (and thus all of us taxpaying citizens) to hunt down and deport the criminals. I would not advocate anything to allow people to come here or stay here illegally or to increase the cost of enforcement. There should be a way to solve the issue without the cost being shared by everyone. If you stop thinking like a government bureaucrat and use common sense you could imagine a system where someone like my in-laws who seem to have pure intentions and have attempted to demonstrate such in their application, except for demographic factors beyond their control, could be required to have a U.S. sponsor who would vouch and ensure their return after a temporary lawful stay. Anyone who is deemed to be suspect could also be put into a special category which would require them to report back to the embassy for a follow up interview after their return from their stay in the U.S.

VanessaTony, thank you as well for your thoughts. I haven’t thought of your point regarding AOS in the US but that makes sense and could be another measure to help ensure that only those with appropriate intentions are admitted. I would have no problem with you including that in your letter in support of this issue as it seems to be an appropriate clarification. Thank you in advance. However, the system of applying for a GC multiple years into the future and then giving it up is just impractical and preposterous that many people have been forced to use such a path.

How do you check anyone's intentions?

There are thousands and thousands of ppl who have no intention of living in US while they are in consulate and applying for B1/2.

Once they hit the US soil and pass the POE the intentions change.

[Rwlaird 18]

Mr. Harsh,

Good points. Those issues should all be part of the current debate. I'm only discussing one issue but would agree that those issues that you brought up should also be included in the bill.

[Rwlaird 18]

If "intentions change" then their U.S. sponsor would change from being a lawful citizen to being a criminal subject to pursuit by aggressive IRS agents, wage garnishment, whatever -- whatever penalty is sufficient to preclude abuse. What do you suggest? Thanks.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Rwlaird

[Harsh_77 716]

If "intentions change" then their U.S. sponsor would change from being a lawful citizen to being a criminal subject to pursuit by aggressive IRS agents, wage garnishment, whatever -- whatever penalty is sufficient to preclude abuse. What do you suggest? Thanks.

For B1/2 US sponsor is not requrired, if one can prove that they have enough money to spend in US and they have enough ties home they do not need a US Sponsor.

Unfortunately at most conulate level "Not having a strong ties at home" is the only check point if we ask congress to remove that it would have devasting effect.

I can fully understand your frustration, we are not part of the VWP country and it does take an effort to obtain the visa but you got to look at the bigger picture.

Unfortunately ppl have abused the B1/2 in past and someone else is paying for those now, if you really would want to make some impact than I would say stop supporting all the institution and organization who support illegal immigrant.