Why Aren’t U.S. Visa Interviews by Videoconference?

4 responses to “Why Aren’t U.S. Visa Interviews by Videoconference?”

1. 

   J.C.

   November 5, 2013

   How do they capture fingerprints on a videoconference interview? Or assure the validity of the applicant’s passport?

   Reply
   1. 

      Gary Chodorow

      November 5, 2013

      The basic proposals for videoconferencing involve creating perhaps 100 “videoconferencing visa application centers” (VVACs) throughout China. Biometrics (digital fingerprinting and photographs to be run through the State Department’s existing facial recognition system) would also be taken there. The VVACs would be staffed by State Department-approved contractors. The person who takes biometrics must, apparently, be a “cleared American employee.” Such contractors already perform biometrics collection for some U.S. consular posts (e.g., Mexico). The consular officers, sitting at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate, would then do the interviews by video.

      Passports would need to be forwarded by mail to the U.S. Embassy or Consulate for the visa to be stamped inside, so any check for a forged or altered passport would be done then.

      The VVACs would be funded from user fees, just as consular operations are now. I’d guess that they’d be cheaper that the current setup since land, construction, and security are so expensive at consular posts. Figures from 2012 showed that visa applications were profitable for the U.S. Government: the USD 140 (now USD 160) visa application fee not only covered visa operations but also earned significant income deposited into the State Department’s general funds and the U.S. Treasury. By facilitating the visa application process, VVACs would probably encourage more applicants and income from visa application fees.

      As an attorney, my main concerns about videoconference interviews are:

      (a) would the lack of face-to-face contact negatively impact the accuracy of credibility findings by officers? Consular officers’ visa training focuses on how to judge the credibility of applicants, and distance may impair their judgment; and

      (b) would the regulations be written so as to allow attorneys to be present in the VVAC to represent clients? Many consular posts currently restrict attorney access based on the rationale that the cramped space at consular facilities requires limiting access to applicants only.

      Reply
2. 

   stephen russell

   November 4, 2014

   Gary,
   I was searching on Google for info on videoconferencing visas and came across your comments above. Thanks so very much for your very helpful and accurate commentary.

   This email is to simply update you on my continuing efforts to have CA reconsider its opposition to videoconferencing interviews. This opposition was highlighted in Michele Bond’s testimony before Congress in June.

   I have studied the transcript of Michele’s testimony at the Hearing on Travel Facilitation held June 26, 2014 to explore flaws in her argument. She believes video interviews pose security risks. a loss of efficiency and a threat to system integrity. Each of these points is refutable. Nevertheless her preference, which CA supports, is for expansion of the interview waiver program and Visa Waiver Program.

   To fully realize our inbound visitor potential I continue to hope that Consular Affairs will yield to the logic of video interviews as the only solution that can “localize” the mandatory interview process. All the other steps CA proposes leave millions of prospective visitors with a huge barrier, namely the requirement that they must travel to a consulate location for their in person interview. China remains the most compelling example of this problem given that there are only 5 cities out of 160 cities with more than 1 million population with a U.S. consulate or U.S. embassy that conduct visa interviews.

   Chinese citizens from 155 of the other million plus population cities are forced to take time off to travel, up to 1000 miles, to a consulate city for a 3 minute U.S. visa interview. Given all the destination choices the Chinese now have Chinese leisure travelers go elsewhere. This is not an insignificant number of lost visitors. Per the latest statistics from the China Tourism Academy:
   The number of outbound tourists is expected to reach over 116 million in the later part of 2014
   This is a year on year growth rate of 18.2%. Outbound tourism spending is set to reach a massive $155 billion which is a year on year growth of 20%

   Over 3.7 million Japanese visited the U.S. in 2013 versus 1.8 million from China. Japanese visitors represent 2.8% of Japan’s population. A similar visitor percentage of the population from China would mean 35 million Chinese visiting the U.S. A more achievable goal would be 5% of current outbound travelers which would be close to 6 million visitors per year.

   The solution that CA is pressing for, namely expansion of CA’s interview waiver program (IWP), will make a small difference but totally fails to address the need to localize interviews. In 2013 CA issued 9.2 million non immigrant visas but only 4.1% of these were issued without an interview (380,000). Even if this number doubles the impact is small when compared the growth achieved by localizing the interview process.

   CA also supports expanding the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) which now has 38 countries with the addition of Chile. The problem is that the explosive growth in international tourism is not departing from VWP countries but rather from non-VWP countries like China, India and Brazil. So until these countries achieve VWP status the only program CA has to address demand from these non-VWP countries is the interview waiver program.

   Per CA the expansion targets for the IWP are as follows:
   1. citizens of VWP countries applying for other types of visas such as student or work visas;
   2. continuing students moving to a higher level of education;
   3. non-U.S. citizen Global Entry and NEXUS trusted travel program members
   4. holders of visas in other categories such as students and workers who wish to travel for tourism and business.

   Waiving visa interviews for people that fall into these four categories is a worthwhile goal but is a trivial number in terms of the millions who are turned off from visiting the U.S. due to our failure to localize the mandatory interview process. The only way to address this issue is with videoconferencing visa interviews.

   The same response can apply to the proposal to expand the validity of a visa to 5 or 10 years. This will definitely grow travel to the U.S. but the localization issue remains. Even if you can get a 10 year visa you still have to travel to a consulate city for an interview to get this visa. While a business traveler with a need to travel regularly to the U.S. will benefit from this extended validity, a prospective leisure travelers will continue to compare how easy it is to get to the U.S. compared to other countries competing for their business versus prioritizing validity. Given our failure to localize the interview process, we lose.

   We need CA to fully understand how important it is to “localize” the interview process. We can do this with the existing approved GSS contractors without adding consulates or increasing CA’s budget. The videoconferencing visa interview program is totally self funding.

   Hope this information can help you make the argument for videoconferencing video interviews. I welcome your feedback.

   Reply
   1. 

      Gary Chodorow

      November 4, 2014

      Stephen,

      Thanks so much for helpful the update and analysis.

      Reply