US TOURIST VISA

ben

Active Member
#11
The problem is Trump.

Most americans have much bigger hearts.
This is simply not true.
US authorities have traditionally not looked at this kind of situation with a kind eye. Trump changed precisely nothing in this respect.

Very sorry for the situation.
I am just evaluating the situation out loud and looking for other factors besides the vindictiveness of the consul.

Prior to being granted an interview, when the lady in question filled out the online questionnaire for her visa application, there was a very important question about any previous overstays.

I wonder how she answered that question. There are 2 possibilities:

1. She may have answered >NO<, meaning to say that she has not overstayed in the past (and hoped that the consular interviewer would not find out). If this is the case, and the consul did find out, then her current visa denial is a result of an attempted misrepresentation (or worse, fraud) rather than vindictiveness of the consul. This is a very unfortunate situation to be in because the person in question may be flagged in the system as "inadmissible to the United States", making it very hard to get US visa in the future.

2. She may have answered >YES<, meaning to say that she has indeed overstayed in the past. The online system would have asked her to give details and she would have typed up the details of her situation. If this is the case, and she did admit on her application that she was at one time unlawfully present in the US, the the interviewing officer applies one of the 2 methods in determining the outcome of her visa application:
(a) If her overstay was for one year or more, then she is barred from reentering the U.S.for ten years from her last date of exit
(b) If her overstay was for less than 180 days, then this will not trigger any bars to her reentry, she is not flagged as inadmissible in the future and may certainly be granted the US tourist visa.

In other words, previous overstay does not result in an automatic denial/rejection. Not being honest about it (and hoping that the consular officer will not find out or care about it) has much harsher consequences. I am hoping that this may help someone who may be in the same situation and is considering applying for the US B1/2 (or other) visa.
This is largely correct. The applicant in question would have run a much better chance of getting the visa had she been upfront about the situation.

I am intimately familiar with a case where someone admitted on the record, to US immigration authorities, to way worse than overstaying (to wit, having worked in the US on a tourist visa), and was returned home with the visa revoked. After several denials, the person in question was subsequently granted a 10-year visa. This was considered to be a small miracle, but the point is this can be done.

The DS-160 application has a crystal-clear, point-blank question: "Have you ever been unlawfully present, overstayed the amount of time granted by an immigration official or NO otherwise violated the terms of a U.S. visa?". Example attached below.
If the answer is "Yes", a space is given to explain. That is where you say what happened, list any mitigating circumstances, say sorry, etc.
Giving an untruthful response, especially in such a clear cut case, is not likely to yield a positive result.

(To be clear, it is not absolutely clear from the OP's account that the applicant didn't mention it, though that is certainly the implication.)

A totally different case: My friend overstayed his tourist visa, remained in the US and a few years later he married a US citizen in California. Then he applied for resident alien status through marriage. At that point he was requested to wait for an outcome from Homeland Security OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. He stayed in Argentina for one or two years waiting for a decision, while his wife was in the USA, running the risk of loosing everything he had left in the USA. Then, while waiting in Buenos Aires, he received a letter saying that he had been "pardoned" and eventually got his green card and returned to the USA. However, they could have turned him down if they wanted to as well.
An immigration application on the basis of a US spouse can beat a lot of problems (though in some cases a US spouse can actually make things worse). And yes, when applying from outside the US you can't enter the country until a decision has been rendered. Had this friend not overstayed, could have applied from within the country (but would be very difficult to leave the US until the case was adjudicated). And again, total candor is non-negotiable. Had the application been made without mention of the overstay, I very much doubt it would have gone anywhere.



1549060532443.png
 
Last edited:

Ries

Registered
#12
Interesting that people believe that government authorities should break their own laws.
Every government, ever, decides which laws to enforce to which degree. 100% enforcement never occurs.
And there is NO US law that says an individual US embassy officer MUST make any particular decision in a visa interview.
My father was actually in the foreign service, a long time ago, and he did this type of Visa interview all day long.
He was given a lot of discretion from his superiors- just like border agents, or traffic cops, he made judgement calls every single day, based on experience and instinct.
But right now, Trump and his pal Stephen Miller have been passing down recomendations, NOT laws, to reject a much higher percentage of applicants.
Unless they are going to work in the kitchen at Mar a Lago- then, they get approved right away.
 
#13
Every government, ever, decides which laws to enforce to which degree. 100% enforcement never occurs.
And there is NO US law that says an individual US embassy officer MUST make any particular decision in a visa interview.
My father was actually in the foreign service, a long time ago, and he did this type of Visa interview all day long.
He was given a lot of discretion from his superiors- just like border agents, or traffic cops, he made judgement calls every single day, based on experience and instinct.
But right now, Trump and his pal Stephen Miller have been passing down recomendations, NOT laws, to reject a much higher percentage of applicants.
Unless they are going to work in the kitchen at Mar a Lago- then, they get approved right away.
I knew a gentleman who worked at the embassy here. He told me that people would always approach him in social settings about getting a visa to the US. He said it was the same story every time. "I am in love with this person...." Or, "I need to feed my family...." He said he heard it so many times, he could repeat it verbatim.

All immigration policy is cold and unfeeling. It has to be. To do otherwise would be to allow people to come and go across borders as they please.

In my opinion, if a person breaks immigration law in a country of which they are not a citizen, they should expect to be deported and never allowed to return. That includes me.

There is an exchange in the movie "Body of Lies." An operative has promised an informant indemnification. However, the operative's boss nixes that promise. The operative says something like, "If we don't help him, they will kill him." The boss says, "He should have thought of that before."

Think carefully about today's actions. They will shape tomorrow's results.
 
Last edited:
#14
In WWII, a California born of Japanese ancestry was caugh up in Tokio at the start of the war against the US. Eventually she was offered a job in Tokio Radio, and began to broadcast messages in English.These were designed to demoralize the US troops, suggesting them to surrender, to go back to their families back home, etc. She was quickly nicknamed The Tokio Rose. At the end the bloody war, she was captured, commdened as a traitor, and send to jail. But eventually, she was released, and then allowed to come back to the US.
If that country could pardon a traitor like the Tokio Rose, they certainly could forgive my niece, whose only "crime" was to form an American family and bring an additional American citizen to this world.
 
#15
In WWII, a California born of Japanese ancestry was caugh up in Tokio at the start of the war against the US. Eventually she was offered a job in Tokio Radio, and began to broadcast messages in English.These were designed to demoralize the US troops, suggesting them to surrender, to go back to their families back home, etc. She was quickly nicknamed The Tokio Rose. At the end the bloody war, she was captured, commdened as a traitor, and send to jail. But eventually, she was released, and then allowed to come back to the US.
If that country could pardon a traitor like the Tokio Rose, they certainly could forgive my niece, whose only "crime" was to form an American family and bring an additional American citizen to this world.
To be able to give a truly informed opinion, I need to know all the facts of the case, namely did you niece tell the truth when asked about whether she ever overstayed a visa? If she was not truthful, I understand why she was turned down for the visa: authorities do not know that she won't overstay the visa again, for she has already done that once and then lied. If she was truthful about the overstay, then I think this new (or not so new) policy is too harsh.
 
Last edited:

ben

Active Member
#16
But right now, Trump and his pal Stephen Miller have been passing down recomendations, NOT laws, to reject a much higher percentage of applicants.
Do you have actual knowledge of such recommendations having come down, particularly in this part of the world?
Everything I have heard points to the situation on the ground being the same now as in the past several years.

To be able to give a truly informed opinion, I need to know all the facts of the case, namely did you niece tell the truth when asked about whether she ever overstayed a visa? If she was not truthful, I understand why she was turned down for the visa: authorities do not know that she won't overstay the visa again, for she has already done that once and then lied. If she was truthful about the overstay, then I think this new (or not so new) policy is too harsh.
Quite right.
An overstay from 1992 should not be the end of the world. As I mentioned, I know of people with far worse getting visas. (The visa application I pasted an excerpt from above, with the language referring to having worked while in the US on a tourist visa, was approved).
Neglecting to mention that overstay on a visa application is quite a bit more relevant, and it is not difficult to understand why such an omission would be viewed seriously.
 
Top