If your visa is denied, you may be confused and frustrated. And consular officers may be unwilling or unable to properly explain the grounds for refusal and your options for overcoming the refusal. How can an attorney help?
Visa processing at U.S. embassies and consulates is a subspecialty within immigration law which is critically important but often neglected even by immigration lawyers. Lawyers may shy away from visa processing for several reasons. Consular officers have nearly absolute authority to make decisions as they see fit, while applicants have no right to administrative appeal, and lawyers have no right to be present at the consular interview. But clients are best served by lawyers with expertise in consular processing. Our firm uses opportunities that exist under law to present visa applications as persuasively as possible to consular officials and to obtain review of visa denials to the extent allowed by law.
Schedule a consultation with an immigration lawyer in Beijing, Shenyang, Shanghai, or Los Angeles; or by phone, Skype, WeChat, or FaceTime. Our goal is to become your trusted legal adviser.
This article begins by explaining the grounds for visa refusals and the related notification which the consular officer should provide. Then, the article discusses requests for reconsideration or resubmission applications, supervisorial review at the consular post, advisory opinions from the Visa Office, judicial review, waivers, and other strategies for overcoming refusals.
1. Visa Refusals
An applicant whose visa has been refused needs to understand precisely why. The strategy for challenging the denial will depend on the particular denial grounds. With certain exceptions, consular officer should notify the applicant orally and in writing of the grounds of refusal. If the consular officer has not done so—or the applicant has not understood—the lawyer’s role may be to inquire further with the consular officer about the grounds of refusal.
1.1 Grounds for Refusal
An applicant whom the consular officer has determined falls within the “grounds of inadmissibility” will be refused a visa under a subsection of “212(a).” These grounds of inadmissibility are a set of rules prohibiting the admission to the U.S. of certain classes of persons for crimes, medical reasons, security, because they would likely become public charges, for prior immigration violations, and other miscellaneous grounds. There are exceptions and waivers available to many of the grounds.
Section 214(b) of the Act requires consular officers to “presume” that certain nonimmigrant visa applicants are immigrants unless they prove to the officer’s satisfaction that they meet each of the requirements for a particular nonimmigrant visa. This applies to applicants for B1/B2 (visitor for business or pleasure), F-1 (student), and J-1 (exchange visitor) visas, among others. The 214(b) ground for refusal does not apply to H-1, L-1, or immigrant visa applicants. Consular posts often issue boilerplate refusal notices citing 214(b) as the basis for denial. The most common basis for issuance of a 214(b) letter is that the applicant failed to prove an unabandoned foreign residence or nonimmigrant intent. There is no waiver of this ground of ineligibility. This ground of ineligibility is not permanent, meaning that the fact that a visa applicant was unable to establish nonimmigrant status at one time would not preclude the applicant from subsequently qualifying for a visa by showing a change in circumstances. For more about proving nonimmigrant intent, see http://lawandborder.com/proving-nonimmigrant-intent/ .
An application will be subject to a “quasi-refusal” under INA § 221(g) if a final determination is deferred by the consular officer. An applicant who has been refused under 221(g) need not complete a new visa application form or pay the visa application fee again, if less than one year has elapsed since the latest refusal. (If the delay is due to U.S. Government action, there is no time limit). When the reason for the deferral has been addressed, the visa application form is to be retrieved from the post’s files, the new information noted, and the visa either issued or refused. Specific reasons for deferral include:
- Suspension of Action on Petition: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has exclusive authority to adjudicate visa petitions. So in a case where the nonimmigrant or immigrant visa application is based on an underlying petition approved by USCIS, the consular officer may suspend action and return the petition, with a report of the facts, for reconsideration by USCIS if the officer knows or has reason to believe that approval of the petition was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or other unlawful means, or that the beneficiary is not entitled, for some other reason, to the status approved. Once the petition is returned by the consular officer, any consular actions on the case would be frozen. The documents to be returned to the USCIS include the original petition along with all supporting documents. Upon receiving these materials, the USCIS adjudications officer may issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke requiring the petitioner to re-establish eligibility for the benefit sought. USCIS must have “good and sufficient cause” in order to revoke an approved petition. If USCIS decides to reaffirm the approval of the petition, the visa application should be immediately resubmitted with the consulate for visa approval. This process can take several months or longer. Filing a new petition with USCIS may be a faster option.
- Additional evidence is required: The application will be refused if it appears to the officer that the documentary evidence doesn’t prove eligibility for a visa. In this case, the Consulate will provide a refusal sheet. The applicant may be required to submit additional documents. The applicant has up to a year to submit the documents. Once the Consulate receives the additional documents, the consular officer should review them and adjudicate the case.
- Withdrawal of the application: If an applicant withdraws a visa application while it is pending adjudication, the case should not be deleted but should be refused 221(g) with case notes indicating why the action was taken.
- Administrative Processing: If the officer has reason to believe that the applicant is ineligible for a visa under any provision of law, the officer will begin an investigation or request an advisory opinion from the State Department in Washington, DC. The 221(g) refusal letter will state that “administrative processing” is necessary. Examples of circumstances when an advisory opinion will be requested from Washington include certain cases where the applicant may have access in the U.S. to sensitive technologies, where a question exists regarding the interpretation or application of law or regulation, or where the applicant may be inadmissible for membership in a communist or totalitarian party.
- Family Member Case Deferred Because Principal Applicant Denied: When a principal applicant is denied, derivative family members should be refused under section 221(g) because they can only accompany or follow to join the principal, not precede the principal to the U.S.
An applicant will be considered to have “overcome” a 221(g) refusal where the applicant been issued the visa upon presenting additional requested evidence or upon completion of administrative processing.
1.2 Notification of the Grounds of Refusal
Once a visa application has been properly submitted, a consular officer must either approve or refuse the visa. A visa can be refused only upon a ground specifically set out in the law or regulations. The officer should notify the applicant of the refusal.
Contents of the Notification
The consular officer is required to provide timely notice of the decision to an applicant when a visa is denied. The notice should
- be provided orally and in writing;
- “list the specific provisions of law” under which the [applicant] is inadmissible;”
- state the factual basis for the refusal; and
- state, if applicable, that the refusal was based on a finding of inadmissibility made by the Department of Homeland Security.
Exceptions to the Notification Requirement
The requirement to notify the applicant of the grounds of refusal is subject to the following statutory exceptions:
- Crime-related reasons for refusal: The requirement does not apply to a person found inadmissible for crime-related reasons.
- Security-related reasons for refusal: The requirement does not apply to a person found inadmissible for security-related reasons. An applicant refused a visa for security grounds will not be told the reasons for refusal, but instead only be given a reference to the applicable statutory or regulatory section.
- Waiver by Secretary of State: The Secretary personally may waive the requirement for an individual or class of inadmissible persons.
Despite those statutory exceptions, the Department of State still expects that written notices will still be provided to the applicant unless the consular officer has received specific approval from the Department not to provide a notice in a specific case or group of cases. The Attorney General has mandated that “an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally. I strongly encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information.” When posts explain the basis for refusal, certain information is not releasable by the consular post:
- Classified information is not releasable.
- Law enforcement sensitive / sensitive but unclassified (SBU): This term refers to information the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings, would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, would disclose techniques, procedures, or guidelines for investigations or prosecutions, or could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual’s life or physical safety.
- Obtained from other government agencies: The consulate may not disclose information obtained from another government agency without the approval of that agency.
- Third-party information: Information originating with third parties is confidential.
2. Reconsideration or Resubmission of Applications
In all immigrant visa cases, the applicant has one year after refusal to request reconsideration and need not file a new application or pay a new application fee. If more than one year has elapsed, reapplication is required. The Motion to Reconsider should be professionally presented, and include all relevant legal arguments and documentary evidence. For nonimmigrant visa refusals–except INA §221(g) refusals—the only way to obtain “reconsideration” is to complete a new visa application form and resubmit the application.
3. Supervisorial Review at the Consular Post
For nonimmigrant visa applications, the regulations provide that all denials should be reviewed by a supervisor. The Foreign Affairs Manual somewhat contradictorily states that as many refusals as practical, but not fewer than 20%, should be reviewed. The review should take place “without delay; that is, on the day of the refusal or as soon as it is administratively possible,” but state that if the applicant has indicated a desire to submit additional evidence, review may be “deferred for not more than 120 days.” For immigrant visa applications, the review must take place “on the day of the refusal or as soon thereafter as is administratively possible (no later than 30 days after the refusal, in any event).” There is no time limit for how long a case requiring additional evidence may be deferred before the review is initiated. The supervisor who reviews the visa refusal has three options: (1) affirm the denial; (2) request an advisory opinion from the State Department; or (3) assume responsibility and readjudicate the case. The supervisor cannot reverse an INA § 214(b) refusal (failure to establish nonimmigrant intent) without re-interviewing the applicant. The lawyer’s job is to act quickly and professionally in an attempt to persuade the supervisor of the wisdom of re-interviewing the applicant or re-adjudicating the case.
4. Advisory Opinion from the Visa Office
If the lawyer believes the refusing visa officer or the chief consular officer made a mistake of law in refusing an application, the lawyer should consider seeking an advisory opinion from the Advisory Opinions Division (AOD) of the State Department’s Visa Office. The AOD will not review assertions that the consular officer made a mistake of fact. All advisory opinion requests are routed through the Office of Public and Diplomatic Liaison, Public Inquiries Division. The Public Inquiries Division reviews all requests to determine whether they involve legal questions. If the request involves a legal question, the Public Inquiries Division will obtain the record from the consulate and forward it along with the inquiry to AOD. Attorneys generally receive at least an interim response within 15 days. The response will not be the actual advisory opinion issued to the consular post but instead a summary of that opinion. Advisory opinions on interpretations of law are binding on consular officers, but consular officers have exclusive legal authority to apply the law to the facts.
5. Judicial Review
The Supreme Court has developed a doctrine of “consular nonreviewability,” which dictates that that courts generally have no power to review decisions of consular officers. The principle justification for this doctrine of “consular nonreviewability” is the corollary principal of “plenary power,” which holds that the Constitution grants Congress and the President extremely broad power of the admission and exclusion of noncitizens, which leaves little power for the courts. There are a few limited exceptions where court challenges have been allowed. One line of cases, beginning with the 1972 Kleindienst v. Mandel decision, assumes or holds that there is an exception to consular nonreviewability in cases where denial of the noncitizen’s visa impacts a U.S. citizen’s fundamental rights, requiring that the State Department provide a “facially legitimate and bona fide” explanation for denial of a visa. The citizen’s rights which give rise to this review may include First Amendment rights to hear even unpopular perspectives from noncitizens invited to speak and liberty rights to live with noncitizen relatives in the U.S. In another line of cases, the courts may see fit to intervene where the consular officer has failed to issue any decision on an application. In Patel v. Reno, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is mandamus jurisdiction to compel a consular officer to make a decision on a visa application. In that case, the wife and children of a naturalized U.S. citizen were the beneficiaries of an approved immigrant petition that was forwarded to the U.S. consulate. The consular officer, suspecting that the U.S. citizen husband was naturalized under false pretenses by marrying an American citizen while still being married to his wife in India, returned the immigrant petition back to the INS for further investigation and suspended action on the visa applications. It its decision, the Court acknowledged that “[n]ormally a consular official’s discretionary decision to grant or deny a visa petition is not subject to judicial review. However, when the suit challenges the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision taken with in the consul’s discretion, jurisdiction exists.”
For nonimmigrant visa applicants, INA § 212(d)(3) allows for waivers of most grounds of inadmissibility. For immigrant visa applicants, there are waivers of the health-related grounds of inadmissibility, inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation, false claims to U.S. citizenship, criminal grounds of inadmissibility, the J-1 foreign residence requirement, the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility, communist or totalitarian party membership or affiliation, etc. This article will briefly address nonimmigrant visa waivers, immigrant visa waivers for fraud or misrepresentation, and waivers for unlawful presence.
6.1 Section 212(d)(3) Nonimmigrant Visa Waivers
An individual denied a visa under almost any ground of inadmissibility of INA § 212(a) (with the exception of security grounds) can be granted a waiver as a matter of discretion under INA § 212(d)(3). This waiver is a “powerful tool to address some extremely rigid immigration restrictions.” The waiver procedure requires obtaining a recommendation by the consular officer and an approval by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Admissibility Review Office (ARO). The requirements for the waiver are that: (a) the ground of inadmissibility must be one that can be waived under INA § 212(d)(3); (b) the applicant meets the requirements for the particular nonimmigrant visa, including the nonimmigrant intent requirement, if applicable; and (c) the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The decision whether to grant a waiver as a matter of discretion is based on the totality of the facts. In particular, the following three factors are relevant: recency and seriousness of the activity or condition causing the inadmissibility; the reasons for the proposed travel to the U.S.; and the positive or negative effect, if any, of the planned travel on U.S. public interests. There is no required form for the waiver application. The contents of the waiver application typically include, but are not limited to,
- A legal memorandum and index of exhibits from the lawyer.
- The applicant’s detailed declaration explaining his or her need to come to the United States and the need for a waiver. The letter should furnish the facts behind the grounds of ineligibility, the date of intended arrival and length of stay in the United States, and the number of intended entries.
- Letters of reference from individuals who know the applicant and can attest to his or her good character, contributions to the community, and reputation in the community (e.g., former employers, colleagues, and other individuals).
- If inadmissible on criminal grounds, the applicant must provide certified copies of his or her criminal record (arrest report, information or indictment, disposition and sentencing documents). It is also advisable to submit evidence of reform and rehabilitation, such as therapy, employment, education, community involvement, and treatment or counseling.
- In appropriate cases, a psychological evaluation.
If ARO approves the waiver, the consular post will issue the visa, which will contain an annotation that it has been issued pursuant to section 212(d)(3). The visa will not be valid for a period longer than the waiver.
6.2 Immigrant Visa Waivers for Fraud or Misrepresentation
An applicant denied an immigrant visa for fraud or misrepresentation may be eligible for a waiver under INA § 212(i). To qualify for the waiver, the applicant must establish that his or her U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent would suffer extreme hardship if the applicant were denied admission. (The waiver is not available based on extreme hardship to the applicant’s child.) In addition to the equities presented and the extreme hardship to the family member, USCIS may consider the seriousness of the fraud or misrepresentation. The factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the applicant were denied admission include: the presence of permanent resident or U.S. citizen family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. A waiver application is filed with USCIS on Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, and should include the following, among other things:
- check or money order for the filing fee (currently $585);
- documents to establish the relationship with the qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident relative(s);
- documents to establish extreme hardship. Each case must be analyzed individually to determine what hardship factors exits and how to document them. This may include declarations from the applicant, the affected family members, and others who are familiar with the family, evidence of any health-related issues; evidence of the financial status of the family; evidence of education issues for the children; and a psychological evaluation, in appropriate cases; and
- documents to support a favorable exercise of discretion by the adjudicator. The more serious the fraud or misrepresentation necessitating the waiver, the more positive factors will be required to balance out the negative factors and support a favorable exercise of discretion. Positive factors can include the applicant’s rehabilitation, positive attributes, service to the community, and dedication to his or her family. These can be demonstrated by declarations and letters from persons having knowledge about the applicant.
If USCIS approves the waiver, the consulate will schedule another interview for final adjudication of the visa application. If USCIS denies a waiver application, the applicant can file an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days of the decision. No judicial review is available.
6.3 Immigrant Visa Waivers for Unlawful Presence
The three- and ten-year bars on admissibility for persons previously unlawfully present in the United may be waived for an immigrant visa applicant if USCIS determines that refusing admission to the applicant would result in extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent. (The waiver is not available based on extreme hardship to a child.) The standard application procedure is similar to that described above for the waiver of fraud or misrepresentation. But since March 4, 2013, there has been an alternative procedure for certain immigrant visa applicants who are immediate relatives (spouses, children and parents) of U.S. citizens. They can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States for their consular interview. This new process was developed to shorten the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States. The new process also gives applicants considering leaving the U.S. to apply for the visa abroad some confidence they will qualify for the waiver and visa. Most recently, on July 14, 2015, USCIS has proposed expanding eligibility for provisional waivers of the unlawful presence bars to all applicants who are statutorily eligible and applying for an immigrant visa. This would include applicants who are immediate relatives of permanent residents. This proposal has not yet been implemented.
7. Other Strategies
7.1 National Visa Center Inquiry
There are other ways for a lawyer to contact the State Department to question a consular officer’s action or inaction. The National Visa Center (NVC) answers telephone requests for general information about nonimmigrant and immigrant visas cases. If action (for example, administrative processing) appears to be taking too long, a telephone call to the NVC may trigger an e-mail from NVC to the post inquiring about the status of the case. This is not a method to question or challenge a visa refusal.
7.2 AILA-Visa Office Liaison
The American Immigration Lawyers Association schedules regular meetings with the Visa Office. Lawyers may submit problems, issues, and complaints to the chair of the AILA/VO Liaison Committee.
7.3 Humanitarian Parole
Humanitarian parole is an extraordinary measure, used sparingly to bring someone, who otherwise would not be admissible to the United States, for a temporary period of time due to urgent circumstances or a compelling emergency. USCIS may grant parole temporarily if there are urgent humanitarian reasons or if there is a significant public benefit. The period of parole will correspond with the length of the emergency or humanitarian situation. Requests for initial humanitarian parole can only be accepted for individuals who are currently outside the United States, though once granted, the parolee may request an extension from within the United States. The decision to grant humanitarian parole is discretionary. Parole is not an immigration benefit akin to a visa or green card, nor can it be used to circumvent normal visa processes and timelines. Parolees are not authorized to work in the United States and must depart the U.S. on or before the expiration of parole as indicated on Form I-94, Departure Record. Supporting documentation to be filed with USCIS includes, among other things, evidence of the urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit justifying the parole and an explanation as to why the applicant cannot obtain a visa.
If your visa is denied, you may be confused and frustrated. But there may be strategies available to overcome the denial. A lawyer with expertise in consular processing may be able to assist in pursuing reconsideration or resubmission of an application, supervisorial review at the consular post, an advisory opinion, judicial review, a waiver, or other strategies. Contact our law firm to schedule a consultation.
- Andrew T. Chan, The Lawyer’s Role in Consular Visa Refusals, in The Consular Practice Handbook 167 (2012). ↑
- In the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress does not empower the Secretary of State grant or refuse visas. Those powers are reserved for consular officers. INA § 104(a). This statute has been interpreted by the State Department to mean that there is no administrative appeal of a visa denial. ↑
- Andrew T. Chan, The Lawyer’s Role in Consular Visa Refusals, in The Consular Practice Handbook 167 (2012). The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual provides that each consular post has discretion to establish its own policies regarding the extent to which attorneys may have physical access to the post or attend visa interviews. 9 FAM 40.4 N12.4. ↑
- Andrew T. Chan, The Lawyer’s Role in Consular Visa Refusals, in The Consular Practice Handbook 167, 168 (2012). ↑
- Andrew T. Chan, The Lawyer’s Role in Consular Visa Refusals, in The Consular Practice Handbook 167, 168 (2012). ↑
- See generally INA § 212(a). For more details about the grounds of inadmissibility, see http://lawandborder.com/grounds-of-inadmissibility/ . ↑
- 9 FAM 41.121 N1. ↑
- 9 FAM 41.121 N1. ↑
- 9 FAM 40.6 N1. ↑
- 9 FAM § 41.121 PN 1.3 (Oct. 17, 2008). The Act and the regulations are silent on this. ↑
- 22 C.F.R. § 42.43(a). ↑
- 9 FAM 42.43 PN5. ↑
- INA § 205. ↑
- If, upon review, the USCIS reaffirms the visa petition and returns it to the consular officer but the consular officer still believes that the petition should have been denied and has no new evidence that wasn’t previously considered by USCIS, the consular officer will forward the case to the Department of State Visa Office’s Advisory Opinions Division for review by a third set of eyes. 9 FAM 42.43 N4.1. ↑
- 9 FAM 41.103 N12.6. ↑
- The reason to believe standard requires “facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the applicant is ineligible” for the visa. 9 FAM 40.6. ↑
- 9 FAM Appendix E, 404. ↑
- 9 FAM § 41.121 PN3 (Oct. 17, 2008). ↑
- 9 FAM 40.6 N2.1. ↑
- 9 FAM 40.6 N4.1(a). ↑
- 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a); 9 FAM 41.121 N2.2 (nonimmigrant visas); 9 FAM 42.81(a) (immigrant visas). ↑
- 22 C.F.R. § 40.6; 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a) (nonimmigrant visa refusals); 22 C.F.R. § 41.81(a) (immigrant visa refusals); 9 FAM 40.6; 9 FAM 41.121 N2.2 (nonimmigrant visas); 9 FAM 42.81 N1 (immigrant visas). ↑
- INA § 212(b). See 5 U.S.C. § 555(e). Cf. 5 U.S.C. § 557(c) (for formal adjudications by federal agencies, the notice of the decision should include “findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented in the record.”). ↑
- 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(b) (setting forth the requirement to inform but not specifying how)]; 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-1 (inform nonimmigrant visa applicant orally); 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-2 (inform nonimmigrant visa applicant in writing). 9 FAM 42.81 PN 1.1 (inform immigrant via applicant orally and in writing). ↑
- INA § 212(b)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(b) (immigrant visa refusal procedure); 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-1 (inform nonimmigrant visa applicant orally); 9 FAM 42.81 PN 1.1 (inform immigrant via applicant orally and in writing). ↑
- 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-1 (inform nonimmigrant visa applicant orally). For INA § 212(a) denials to nonimmigrant visa applicants, the written refusal letter need not state the factual basis for the refusal, but to immigrant visa applicants, it should be state. Compare9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-3 with 9 FAM 42.81 PN1.1. For 214(b) denials of nonimmigrant visas, a boilerplate letter should be provided stating either that (a) that the applicant has failed to demonstrate strong ties overseas or (b) that the applicant “did not meet the requirements of the classification” applied for. 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-4. ↑
- 9 FAM 40.6 N3.2. ↑
- INA § 212(b)(3). ↑
- INA § 212(b)(3). ↑
- 9 FAM 40.4 N5.1. ↑
- INA § 212(b)(2). ↑
- See 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.2-2. ↑
- Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. “Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: TheFreedom of Information Act,” March 19, 2009. ↑
- 9 FAM 40.4 N5. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (1) (Documents properly classified as secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy are exempted from disclosure under FOIA.). ↑
- 9 FAM 40.4 N5. ↑
- 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7). ↑
- 9 FAM 40.4 N5, 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.2-1. ↑
- INA § 222(f). A parent may, however, request the records of a minor child. 9 FAM 04.4 N3.2-1. And information in a visa file about a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident may be released to a third party for purposes of protecting the health or safety of the citizen or permanent resident. 9 FAM 40.4 N3.2-2. ↑
- 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(e); 9 FAM 42.81 N4.1. ↑
- 9 FAM 42.81 N4.3. ↑
- See 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.4. ↑
- 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(c). ↑
- 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-7(a). ↑
- 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(c). ↑
- 9 FAM 42.81 PN 1.4. ↑
- 22 C.F.R. § 42.81. ↑
- 22 CFR § 41.121(c); 9 FAM 41.121 PN2. ↑
- 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.2-8. ↑
- Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65 (2012). ↑
- Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65, 66 (2012). ↑
- See INA § 104(a); Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 428(f) (no private right of action to challenge the decision of a consular officer or other U.S. official or employee to grant or deny a visa). Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65, 69 (2012). ↑
- Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65, 69-70 (2012). ↑
- Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65, 70 (2012). ↑
- Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __ (2015) (Scalia, J., plurality opinion), citing Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 1977. See Consular Non-Reviewability in Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (3d ed. 2013). ↑
- See e.g., Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950) (“[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned,” and that “[w]hen Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens,” it is not only “dealing … with a legislative power” but also “implementing an inherent executive power.”). ↑
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (Where U.S. citizen professors challenged a nonimmigrant visa denial on First Amendment grounds, the Court found the Attorney General’s denial of a nonimmigrant visa waiver to be lawful because it was supported by a “factually legitimate and bona fide reason.”); Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __ (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (assuming that a U.S. citizen spouse’s liberty interest in her husband’s visa application required the State Department to provide a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the visa denial); Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __ (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (opining that a U.S. citizen spouse’s liberty interest in her husband’s visa application required the State Department to provide a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the visa denial); American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115, 123-25 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court had jurisdiction to consider organizations’ First Amendment claim in denial of B visa to an Islamic scholar; court applied Mandel to the consular officer’s threshold decision based upon the applicant’s alleged inadmissibility for providing material support to a terrorist organization); Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2008); U.S. v. Kumpf, 438 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 2006) (rejecting claim that consular nonreviewability precluded review of visa issuance in denaturalization case, where government claimed visa was issued unlawfully under Refugee Relief Act]; Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 n.3 (1st Cir. 1990); City of New York v. Baker, 878 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1051 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d per curiam by an equally divided court, 484 U.S. 1 (1987) (jurisdiction to review denial of visa); American Sociological Ass’n v. Chertoff, 588 F.Supp.2d 166 (D. Mass. 2008) (organizations that extended invitation to professor to speak had a First Amendment claim under Mandel but neither the professor, nor Chertoff were proper parties). ↑
- 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997). ↑
- See also Rivas v. Napolitano, 714 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing exception to consular nonreviewability where consul did not act on request to reconsider under 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(e) for denial of immigrant visa); Mulligan v. Schultz, 848 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1988) (doctrine of “consular nonreviewability” does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction where the plaintiffs do not challenge decision to deny visa, but rather challenge decision not to accept applications for immigrant visas) ↑
- For a list of grounds of inadmissibility and corresponding waivers, see 9 FAM 40.6 Exhibit I. ↑
- The grounds which cannot be waived are espionage or sabotage; seeking to engage in “any other unlawful activity”; unlawful opposition to the U.S. government; seriously adverse foreign policy consequences; Nazi persecution; and genocide. ↑
- Dan Berger, Authorizations for Visa Issuance and Admission as Nonimmigrant Under INA §212(d)(3)(A) (AILA, 2012) ↑
- 9 FAM 40.301 N2. ↑
- See generally 9 FAM 40.301 N3 (July 14, 2005); Matter of Hranka, 16 I. & N. Dec. 491 (BIA 1976). ↑
- INA § 212(i)(1). ↑
- Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), aff’d, Cervantes-Gonzalez v. INS, 244 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001). ↑
- 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2). ↑
- INA § 212(i)(2). ↑
- INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v). ↑
- 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). ↑
- 80 Fed. Reg. 43338 (July 22, 2015). ↑
- http://travel.state.gov/visa/about/how/how_1463.html . ↑
- INA §212(d)(5)(A) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “in his discretion (to) parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission into the United States….” See Memorandum of Agreement between USCIS, CBP and ICE (Sept. 2008) for detail:http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/parole-authority-moa-9-08.pdf . ↑