Tourist Visa Denial Stories

[TM92 527]

1 hour ago, NuestraUnion said:

There are two extreme views on how immigration should be; 1) heavily restrictions and limitations on immigrants and 2) 100% open borders with no vetting process in place. To be honest, neither one of those views are a viable solution.

NK (aka the hermit kingdom) uses #1

Edited November 28, 2018 by TM92

[Crazy Cat 39,207]

7 hours ago, Ahegao said:

9/11 was a tragedy and the lax regulations were part of the cause of it, but it doesn't mean blanket Travel Bans are the solution. Besides government surveillance and watchdog groups have more capabilities and tools now more than ever before. I do believe we can find a fair middle ground here. It just takes time and work: things the US government isn't willing to put much effort to.

What "blanket travel bans" ?   I think you're watching too much MSNBC.

[MacUK 983]

4 hours ago, JE57 said:

My suggestion,  set up a sponsored single entry tourist visa such that the visitor would be sponsored such that a bond is posted such that if they don't leave when they are supposed to that the sponsor has to pay extreme amounts of money

I would personally disagree with this, if only because I believe there's already too much in the world that the wealthy can just throw money at while your average person misses out.

 

My own opinion which I've shared on many of the hundreds of threads about this subject.

I think there are two options, the first would be to end all paths to residency from non-immigrant visas. Or at least put an end to complete forgiveness when these so called "tourists" completely ignore U.S. laws and overstay for years or even decades, taking jobs away from legal residents. I believe harsher penalties and the knowledge that you will never be able to live openly without fear of deportation would deter people from considering such a life, therefore lessening the requirements for presumption of immigrant intent.

If this isn't possible then another option would be to have a secondary tourist visa category, a B1/2(a) perhaps. This would be for people who have been refused a regular tourist visa and would have far more stringent restrictions, perhaps only for one specific trip with a specific time frame. So you'd apply for the visa for a certain date, for say 2 weeks and that would be what is stamped in your passport. Then, after your trip, you'd have a set period to report back to the embassy in your home country to show that you have abided by the conditions. There would also be zero options for AoS on this more restrictive visa.

I don't know if such drastic changes to AoS could ever be possible though.

 

Nothing could ever completely stop tourist visa abuse, but making life more difficult for those who do it would deter many who might consider it.

[Crazy Cat 39,207]

I suggest you look into the fact that tourist visas are sometimes used to skirt the immigration system by allowing people(coming into the US via a B2) to adjust status.......eliminating that would a helpful reform.

Edited November 28, 2018 by missileman

[geowrian 22,335]

4 hours ago, JE57 said:

If you really want to talk about how to potentially reform the tourist visa process I think you need to consider a policy beyond the current requirement to prove that there is no immigrant intent.  There are many relatives of US citizens that would love to visit the USA that have no demonstrable compelling reason to leave the USA.  If Trump gets his way and ends so called Chain migration than many of these individuals will have no way to ever visit so Grandparents won't have the opportunity to visit new born babies sisters, brothers, parents, adult children of US legal immigrants may never have the chance to visit their relatives in the USA and get a view of where they live.  This is justified under the current system as they are,, depending on country of citizenship, deemed to be likely to overstay or immigrate illegally.  The solution of making it less stringent would presumably only result in more illegal immigrants.  So if you want reforms you need to propose a way that the potential visitor can overcome the stay illegally presumption.   My suggestion,  set up a sponsored single entry tourist visa such that the visitor would be sponsored such that a bond is posted such that if they don't leave when they are supposed to that the sponsor has to pay extreme amounts of money and that the visitor remains deport able and the expenses of doing so are also covered by the Bond.   More people get to visit,  the costs of deportation are covered and there is less incentive to come illegally if you know you can visit legally.   When I think of REFORM this is what comes to mind not revisiting who is accepted or denied.

A couple thoughts...

• Any changes to chain migration (very unlikely to occur IMO...especially with the change in control of the House) would not impact the ability to visit family members. Chain migration only impacts immigrants, not visitors.
• The sponsored visit plan is interesting. However:
  • It basically lets you "buy" your way into the US. Yeah, you would lose a bond but for some people that's worth it....especially if they plan to illegally work in the US.
  • A sponsor has no means to enforce the individual leaving the US on time.
  • Pay-to-play...if you aren't well off, your family can't visit?
• There's been talk of a a short-term (~3 year?) visa for parents that sort of follows the sponsorship design.

[dentsflogged 352]

11 hours ago, Ahegao said:

Hello. For my Leadership Class Final Project, I am conducting research on United States Visa policy reform and I will need as many case studies as possible. Personal anecdotes or hearsays from friends or family are fine. Being detailed with your accounts will be very much appreciated. Thanks!

It's been a while since I was in college, but I seem to recall that all research tasks were required to be based on verifiable studies, statistics, evidence or other things that can be referenced.  "I got told this by some person on the internet" wasn't allowed, and for good reason.

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

7 hours ago, Ahegao said:

Perhaps I sounded a bit too naive with that. I personally have had experienced with being denied entry in the US before so feelings of frustration got the better of me. Still, I do think the system still leaves much more room for improvement, especially in regards to the way they screen and monitor applicants during processing.

If you want to do proper research you need to base it on more than personal experience and (totally unverifiable) anecdotes from the internet. Make sure you do the real research work on what the visa process actually entails from a US DoS angle, etc. Have you discussed your intended methodological approach with your teacher? Even for high school this approach sounds flimsy to be honest. In college it would be unacceptable for sure.

[TM92 527]

7 minutes ago, missileman said:

people(coming into the US visa a B2) to adjust status

*B-2 OR VWP travelers that are immediate relatives of US citizens: https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume7-PartB-Chapter8.html

[debbiedoo 2,339]

8 hours ago, Ahegao said:

Perhaps I sounded a bit too naive with that. I personally have had experienced with being denied entry in the US before so feelings of frustration got the better of me. Still, I do think the system still leaves much more room for improvement, especially in regards to the way they screen and monitor applicants during processing.

so youre not coming at this from a non biased standpoint.

 

Lesson #1 of research papers: don't have a preconceived opinion.

 

VWP countries have nothing to do with whether or not they are political ALLIES, but more to do with their overall economic standing, overall education system and quality of life. Approval or denial for VWP status would be based on a multitude of factors, many I'm sure, we are not even aware of.

 

The list of VWP countries SHOULD be limited. It is a PRIVILEGE and should only be grated to those with lower rates of denial, lower rates of fraud, lower rates of overstays. You know, ones who typically play by the rules...

 

Thats not to say that good people with ZERO intent to adjust or simply stay, get denied for visas. They certainly do. But they can blame that on their country's reputation and past performance in those areas.

[Celie 793]

11 hours ago, Ahegao said:

Thank you very much for the information and advice. I know my research isn't perfect yet (it is in the research phase after all) and I know that compared to you all, that I'm not as well versed on immigration procedures, but still learning is a process. I'll definitely use your input for my findings.

 

 

 

 

I love your idea and think you're definitely on to something. I agree with @gsdc23 that some countries no matter how much proof of ties you have to your country, they've reached a denial decision almost as soon as you reach the window. My fiance (before we applied for the K1) applied to visit me for the holidays. We had an itinerary set up, he had a booked return flight, a job letter, a school letter from the Dean explaining he was on his last semester and HAD to return for his exams so he can receive his degree, etc. He has no criminal records, no misuse of visas in the past, he has traveled to other "first world" countries before (proof that he has visited a stable country and has gone back home), and he had no history of applying for a US visa. They didn't look at any of his paperwork. At all. Not even asked for it. They asked him where are you going, how long for, and why and denied him outright. The system doesn't make sense no matter how much people want it to make sense. I'm sure at some point or maybe wayyyy higher in ranks, the process has a reason to be, but I think as it trickles down into action, a lot of it becomes either stricter or just gray area and ends up with unfortunate results.

Edited November 28, 2018 by cduran

[Celie 793]

1 hour ago, MacUK said:

I would personally disagree with this, if only because I believe there's already too much in the world that the wealthy can just throw money at while your average person misses out.

 

My own opinion which I've shared on many of the hundreds of threads about this subject.

I think there are two options, the first would be to end all paths to residency from non-immigrant visas. Or at least put an end to complete forgiveness when these so called "tourists" completely ignore U.S. laws and overstay for years or even decades, taking jobs away from legal residents. I believe harsher penalties and the knowledge that you will never be able to live openly without fear of deportation would deter people from considering such a life, therefore lessening the requirements for presumption of immigrant intent.

If this isn't possible then another option would be to have a secondary tourist visa category, a B1/2(a) perhaps. This would be for people who have been refused a regular tourist visa and would have far more stringent restrictions, perhaps only for one specific trip with a specific time frame. So you'd apply for the visa for a certain date, for say 2 weeks and that would be what is stamped in your passport. Then, after your trip, you'd have a set period to report back to the embassy in your home country to show that you have abided by the conditions. There would also be zero options for AoS on this more restrictive visa.

I don't know if such drastic changes to AoS could ever be possible though.

 

Nothing could ever completely stop tourist visa abuse, but making life more difficult for those who do it would deter many who might consider it.

Completely agree!

[Pennycat 880]

Have you first figured out how certain countries wound up on "the list" of countries whose citizens can travel visa-free? That is a massive part of the story and any talk about reforming the tourist visa process has to factor that in. The short version is:  countries whose citizens are refused tourist visas at very low rates for three consecutive years are eligible to be in the visa waiver program (VWP). There are other requirements about data sharing passport security but the major point is the visa refusal rate. The visa refusal rate in turn is heavily influenced by the risk of overstay/ using the tourist visa to immigrate (either illegally or by, if ever eligible through marriage or other family ties, by adjusting status from tourist to resident). This risk is itself in large part measured to the overstays/ illegal immigration of other citizens from that country.

 

Basically, the misdeeds of those who came before factor heavily into the decisions made about those applying now. Two countries (Argentina and Uruguay) have been removed from the program as their citizens were using VWP to immigrate at high rates.

 

One major area to look at is the ability to adjust status from B1/B2 to permanent resident. Unlike many others, I do not  think this should be eliminated entirely (short version: of the 11 million people currently without legal status in the US, about half of them came on B1/B2 visas and now have families and children etc. While NO it is NOT fair to reward them for this, practically speaking there is no reason other than to "be right" to pull 5 million plus otherwise law abiding families apart. I think that AOS on the basis of marriage should be allowed at least some leeway, but not the free-for-all we have now).

 

What I do think should happen is that the ability to adjust status on the basis of marriage from tourist visa should cost 5 or more times more than it does now. The people who are here illegally and have been for some time should/would be happy to pay that to normalize their status and protect their families. The people using it as a shortcut can go right ahead and pay for that convenience, or go home and do the spouse visa like everyone else. I think that it should be a mandatory interview, and that the immigrant should lose the ability to ever get any visa to the US again (meaning: if that marriage falls apart and they somehow lose their residency status/ are deported/ whatever, they've blown that chance).

 

Or, for the real hard-liners, they must go back to their countries and interview for a spouse visa--absolutely no AOS from VWP or tourist visa. Only caveat is that overstays in these cases should be forgiven (no bans for overstays for spouses of US citizens).

[Pennycat 880]

13 hours ago, Ahegao said:

Yes, I am aware, but there are individuals that still get denied entry for whatever arbitrary reason despite showing no intent to immigrate to the US. Those are the ones I would like to hear from.

You've got it on backwards-- you don't have to refrain from showing intent to immigrate to the US. You have to prove intent to leave. Anyone can hide a true intention, what they're looking for is positive proof of intent to leave. 

 

Where making adjustment of status from tourist visas/ VWP helpful impossible (or perhaps extremely expensive with other consequences) would help is here-- anyone with family/ boy/girlfriends in the US etc would have no (or limited) ability to adjust status and therefore have an easier hurdle to clear in terms of proving intent to leave. Can't adjust= can't stay legally. Not everyone will choose to stay illegally. 

[debbiedoo 2,339]

27 minutes ago, Pennycat said:

You've got it on backwards-- you don't have to refrain from showing intent to immigrate to the US. You have to prove intent to leave. Anyone can hide a true intention, what they're looking for is positive proof of intent to leave. 

 

 

exactly. Which is why in the 7 or 8 trips my fiance has made here since filing the K1 in may, he takes a TON of proof that is is GOING back (intent to leave).  The evidence he takes has always been more than enough, but from another country, it probably wouldnt cut it. (and yes, canada gets to play by slightly different rules but they certainly can be denied entrance to the US)

[Everlast 49]

Do not forget your local and school library as a great resource for research material. Hope your research helps policy makers. Thank you.