jan22

Under Section 222(f) of the INA, visa records are “inviolable” (confidential) and are protected from disclosure.  Section (b)(3) of the FOIA exempts information from disclosure when it is protected by other federal statutes — which visa records are.  (Scroll down to the “Please note” paragraph in item 7 on the State Dept FOIA site: https://foia.state.gov/Request/Guide.aspx#FreedomofInformationActFOIAFOIAExemptions.)
 
The only response to a visa FOIA request will be a copy of what you submitted and a copy of anything that was provided to the applicant at the interview.  You will not get a copy of the officer’s case notes.  
 
BTW, the exemption from release also would apply if the officer’s notes are based on another agency’s information (e.g., information from law enforcement sources).  That information would be exempt from release by the State Dept even without the confidentiality of the visa record.  They do not “own” the information and cannot determine if it should be released or not — that decision rests with the agency/entity that created the information. 

Even though the leaflet is 2013 doesn’t mean it isn’t accurate information.  This has been an established part of the re-entry permit process since at least the early 1990’s and is still a part of the process.  
 
If, however unlikely it would be, the re-entry permit is denied, the individual would go through the same process discussed here many times — return to the US, be interviewed at the POE, explain the absence (and, in this case, show the I-131 receipt), and get admitted to the US.  The worst case scenario would be a referral to an immigration judge.

Even though the leaflet is 2013 doesn’t mean it isn’t accurate information.  This has been an established part of the re-entry permit process since at least the early 1990’s and is still a part of the process.  
 
If, however unlikely it would be, the re-entry permit is denied, the individual would go through the same process discussed here many times — return to the US, be interviewed at the POE, explain the absence (and, in this case, show the I-131 receipt), and get admitted to the US.  The worst case scenario would be a referral to an immigration judge.

This is not accurate.  There is an established process where, after biometrics, you can leave the US and, on your application form, request to pick up the issued permit at the Embassy/Consulate nearest you.  This process would not exist if you weren’t supposed to leave until the permit is issued.  It is described in USCIS literature at: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/B5en.pdf.

Even though the leaflet is 2013 doesn’t mean it isn’t accurate information.  This has been an established part of the re-entry permit process since at least the early 1990’s and is still a part of the process.  
 
If, however unlikely it would be, the re-entry permit is denied, the individual would go through the same process discussed here many times — return to the US, be interviewed at the POE, explain the absence (and, in this case, show the I-131 receipt), and get admitted to the US.  The worst case scenario would be a referral to an immigration judge.

This is not accurate.  There is an established process where, after biometrics, you can leave the US and, on your application form, request to pick up the issued permit at the Embassy/Consulate nearest you.  This process would not exist if you weren’t supposed to leave until the permit is issued.  It is described in USCIS literature at: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/B5en.pdf.

Not mentioning your name achieves nothing — except raising doubt with the interviewing officer.  The officer has access to, and will likely review, the previous recent application.  If you suddenly disappear from the application, the officer will assume she is trying to conceal information (which, of course, is exactly right). 
 
And, a return ticket is not proof that she will leave the US at all.  It’s only proof that a ticket was purchased.  For example, many (most?) immigrant visa recipients purchase round-trip tickets when moving to the US to live — its cheaper.  She will not be asked about or have a chance to to show her ticket.  What the officer will be looking for is whatever aspect of her life she has that will ensure she has to leave the US and return to it — family, job, education, culture, etc.

Not mentioning your name achieves nothing — except raising doubt with the interviewing officer.  The officer has access to, and will likely review, the previous recent application.  If you suddenly disappear from the application, the officer will assume she is trying to conceal information (which, of course, is exactly right). 
 
And, a return ticket is not proof that she will leave the US at all.  It’s only proof that a ticket was purchased.  For example, many (most?) immigrant visa recipients purchase round-trip tickets when moving to the US to live — its cheaper.  She will not be asked about or have a chance to to show her ticket.  What the officer will be looking for is whatever aspect of her life she has that will ensure she has to leave the US and return to it — family, job, education, culture, etc.

Not mentioning your name achieves nothing — except raising doubt with the interviewing officer.  The officer has access to, and will likely review, the previous recent application.  If you suddenly disappear from the application, the officer will assume she is trying to conceal information (which, of course, is exactly right). 
 
And, a return ticket is not proof that she will leave the US at all.  It’s only proof that a ticket was purchased.  For example, many (most?) immigrant visa recipients purchase round-trip tickets when moving to the US to live — its cheaper.  She will not be asked about or have a chance to to show her ticket.  What the officer will be looking for is whatever aspect of her life she has that will ensure she has to leave the US and return to it — family, job, education, culture, etc.

Not mentioning your name achieves nothing — except raising doubt with the interviewing officer.  The officer has access to, and will likely review, the previous recent application.  If you suddenly disappear from the application, the officer will assume she is trying to conceal information (which, of course, is exactly right). 
 
And, a return ticket is not proof that she will leave the US at all.  It’s only proof that a ticket was purchased.  For example, many (most?) immigrant visa recipients purchase round-trip tickets when moving to the US to live — its cheaper.  She will not be asked about or have a chance to to show her ticket.  What the officer will be looking for is whatever aspect of her life she has that will ensure she has to leave the US and return to it — family, job, education, culture, etc.

Not mentioning your name achieves nothing — except raising doubt with the interviewing officer.  The officer has access to, and will likely review, the previous recent application.  If you suddenly disappear from the application, the officer will assume she is trying to conceal information (which, of course, is exactly right). 
 
And, a return ticket is not proof that she will leave the US at all.  It’s only proof that a ticket was purchased.  For example, many (most?) immigrant visa recipients purchase round-trip tickets when moving to the US to live — its cheaper.  She will not be asked about or have a chance to to show her ticket.  What the officer will be looking for is whatever aspect of her life she has that will ensure she has to leave the US and return to it — family, job, education, culture, etc.

You beat me to it...LOL....and you explained it better than I....

Not mentioning your name achieves nothing — except raising doubt with the interviewing officer.  The officer has access to, and will likely review, the previous recent application.  If you suddenly disappear from the application, the officer will assume she is trying to conceal information (which, of course, is exactly right). 
 
And, a return ticket is not proof that she will leave the US at all.  It’s only proof that a ticket was purchased.  For example, many (most?) immigrant visa recipients purchase round-trip tickets when moving to the US to live — its cheaper.  She will not be asked about or have a chance to to show her ticket.  What the officer will be looking for is whatever aspect of her life she has that will ensure she has to leave the US and return to it — family, job, education, culture, etc.

A major reason for requiring paper versions of some of the required documentation — birth, death, divorce, arrest records, etc — especially at the interview, is to ensure they have the proper security features and have not been altered.  It’s become way too easy to create high quality fake documentation.

A major reason for requiring paper versions of some of the required documentation — birth, death, divorce, arrest records, etc — especially at the interview, is to ensure they have the proper security features and have not been altered.  It’s become way too easy to create high quality fake documentation.

A major reason for requiring paper versions of some of the required documentation — birth, death, divorce, arrest records, etc — especially at the interview, is to ensure they have the proper security features and have not been altered.  It’s become way too easy to create high quality fake documentation.

A major reason for requiring paper versions of some of the required documentation — birth, death, divorce, arrest records, etc — especially at the interview, is to ensure they have the proper security features and have not been altered.  It’s become way too easy to create high quality fake documentation.

A major reason for requiring paper versions of some of the required documentation — birth, death, divorce, arrest records, etc — especially at the interview, is to ensure they have the proper security features and have not been altered.  It’s become way too easy to create high quality fake documentation.

Did she have a visa for her entries?  Was she admitted to the US at the first entry when she was fingerprinted?  The answers to these questions are needed before it can be determined if there may be a problem or not.

The airport code and the CBP Port of Entry codes are not the same.  “EWR” is the airport code.  As others have correctly stated, however, “NEW” is the Newark Port of Entry code.

The airport code and the CBP Port of Entry codes are not the same.  “EWR” is the airport code.  As others have correctly stated, however, “NEW” is the Newark Port of Entry code.

The “not routinely available” vaccination waiver is not one that the applicant applies for or asks to invoke.  It is a decision of the panel physician that the particular vaccine is not usually available in the country (I.e., a particular vaccine is not routinely administered in the normal vaccine regimen of a country and, therefore, providers do not stock it).  It is not used when there is a vaccine available in the country, but is not necessarily easy to get.  I think it extremely unlikely that a panel physician in Japan would say that a COVID vaccine was not routinely available in Japan (assuming that’s where you are from your profile).

The “not routinely available” vaccination waiver is not one that the applicant applies for or asks to invoke.  It is a decision of the panel physician that the particular vaccine is not usually available in the country (I.e., a particular vaccine is not routinely administered in the normal vaccine regimen of a country and, therefore, providers do not stock it).  It is not used when there is a vaccine available in the country, but is not necessarily easy to get.  I think it extremely unlikely that a panel physician in Japan would say that a COVID vaccine was not routinely available in Japan (assuming that’s where you are from your profile).

The “not routinely available” vaccination waiver is not one that the applicant applies for or asks to invoke.  It is a decision of the panel physician that the particular vaccine is not usually available in the country (I.e., a particular vaccine is not routinely administered in the normal vaccine regimen of a country and, therefore, providers do not stock it).  It is not used when there is a vaccine available in the country, but is not necessarily easy to get.  I think it extremely unlikely that a panel physician in Japan would say that a COVID vaccine was not routinely available in Japan (assuming that’s where you are from your profile).

I’m late coming into this thread as I don’t read this forum often, but am responding, in case the OP or others in similar situations need the information.
 
The OP indicated the possibilities of an ineligibility and, in a prior post mentioned jail time and a +1 year overstay because of it, despite a request to be removed prior to the overstay reaching one year.  
 
I am not sure why the consular officer said it wasn’t administrative process (because it is — maybe just didn’t want you to think it was the “normal” security related issues or it didn’t fit any of the check boxes on the form?).  When she referred to sending it for the lawyer to look at, what she almost assuredly was referring to was having the case reviewed by the lawyers in the Bureau of Consular Affairs and getting an advisory opinion on whether there is one or more ineligibilities in your case.  The officer (and likely her supervisor) want to make sure they get it right and that they are applying the law(s) correctly.  
 
Having this opinion up-front will allow the officer to approve the case if there are no ineligibilities, with confidence that the questions will likely not arise with USCIS at the Port of Entry, as there will be notes about the finding in the consular system.  And, if there are ineligibilities, it will allow her to inform you about any way available to move your case forward (waiver, waiting out the overstay ban, etc).