State Dep’t Updates Social Media Vetting Standards

On June 18, a State Department media note stated that F (academic student), J (exchange visitor), and M (vocational student) applicants will be subject to heightened social media vetting standards. These standards, described below, are helpful guidance for understanding how all U.S. immigration agencies are reviewing foreign nationals’ social media and other “online presence.” According to the State Department’s media note:

We use all available information in our visa screening and vetting to identify visa applicants who are inadmissible to the United States, including those who pose a threat to U.S. national security.  Under new guidance, we will conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online presence….

Every visa adjudication is a national security decision.  The United States must be vigilant during the visa issuance process to ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests, and that all applicants credibly establish their eligibility for the visa sought, including that they intend to engage in activities consistent with the terms for their admission.

A State Department cable, dated June 18, 2025, lays out more detailed standards:

• Ineligibility for criminal activity under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(2): “you [the consular officer] might discover in local media that an applicant had been arrested and charged with a serious crime … that he did not disclose on his application.
• Ineligibility for engaging (or planning to engage) in terrorist activities, being a member or representative of a terrorist organization, endorsing or espousing terrorist activity, or persuading others to do so, receiving military training from a terrorist organization, or is the spouse or child of such person, within the meaning of INA § 212(a)(3)(B). This includes providing material support or funds to a terrorist organization. For example, “you might discover on social media that an applicant endorsed Hamas or its activities that he did not disclose on this application.”
• Past status violations: INA § 214(b) requires nonimmigrant visa applicants, except H-1B and L applicants, to show credibly that all activities in which he is expected to engage in while in the United States are consistent with the specific requirements of his visa classification. That is, if you are not completely satisfied (1) that the applicant is credible and (2) that, during his time in the United States, the applicant will engage only in activities consistent with his nonimmigrant visa status, you should refuse the visa under INA 214(b).” For example, an officer may discover evidence online that an applicant has “worked illegally while in the United States previously, thus seriously undermining their credibility in subsequent visa applications.”
• History of political activism: for applicants who demonstrate a history of political activism, especially when it is associated with violence or with the views and activities described above, you must consider the likelihood they would continue such activity in the United States and, if so, whether such activity is consistent with the nonimmigrant visa classification they seek. As Secretary Rubio has said, we do not seek to import activists who will disrupt and undermine scholarly activity at U.S. universities.
• Opposition to the U.S. government: A person may be ineligible under INA 212(a)(3)(A)(iii) if they seek to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in any activity, a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the U.S. government by force, violence, or other unlawful means (9 FAM 302.5-5).
• Other illegal activities: a person may be ineligible under lNA § 212(a)(3)(A)(ii), where is traveling solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in any unlawful activity.
• Foreign policy concerns: Even if the individual does not appear to be ineligible for a visa for other reasons, their entry to the U.S. or proposed activities may lead to “potentially serious foreign policy consequences or compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest,” making them inadmissible under § 212(a)(3). Examples include expressing support for or perpetrating unlawful anti-Semitic harassment or violence, or other expression of “hostile attitudes” toward the “citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.” In my opinion, the cable’s requirement to screen for “hostility” to the “citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States” is wildly vague and may free speech protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also, U.S. immigration agencies may have difficulty accurately interpreting social media content due to their inability to detect sarcasm and context, and due to language barriers.

Other issues that U.S. immigration authorities may screen for, although not specifically mentioned in the State Department cable, include:

• In spousal immigration cases, the government may check social media to see if petitioners and beneficiaries are in a good faith relationship or are attempting to deceive USCIS about their relationship.
• For employment-based immigration cases, the government may check to see if employees are working in accordance with the terms of their visa. Imagine if Henry, an H-1B visa holder, is directly employed by Company A but assigned to work on a project for Company A’s client, Company B. Henry posts on LinkedIn that he is working at Company B, even though he is supervised and paid by Company A. This could trigger a fraud investigation, as this information appears to contradict the terms of the H-1B. See Maxine D. Bailey, Immigration is Watching, California Lawyer (Dec. 2011).
• For cases where work experience needs to be proved, the government may look for contradictory information.
• The government will look for marijuana or drug paraphernalia-related or sexually explicit photos or messages.

What should you do?

• Please review both your own social media history as well as what others have posted about you online.
• Employers should caution employees to make sure their employment information on social media websites is accurate and consistent with petitions they filed with USCIS.
• Let our firm know if any potentially damaging information is found.
• Be cautious about accepting “friends” on any site where you post private information.
• Be careful about affiliations with groups that may propagate antisemitic or pro-terrorist rhetoric.
• For students, carefully study your school’s policies on speech and protect before engaging in political activities.
• In some cases, it may be helpful to delete potentially harmful posts, or even to delete an account entirely. But be aware that the government may still be able to access such data.