The Reality

There has been a lot of talk lately about the post 9/11 “culture of ‘no’” in U.S. consulates overseas with regard to visa issuance. The U.S. State Department warns that:

”recent changes in United States visa policy and procedures may increase the amount of time it takes for foreigners who want to visit, to obtain a visa. It is important to apply early!....Changes introduced shortly after September 11, 2001 involve extensive and ongoing review of visa issuing practices as they relate to our national security. For many applicants, a personal appearance interview is required as a standard part of visa processing. Visa applications are now subject to a greater degree of scrutiny than in the past. This can cause longer processing times.”

In fact, it has always been difficult for persons from underdeveloped countries to get visas to enter the United States. The State Department has long been aware that persons from poorer countries face powerful incentives to remain in the U.S. illegally. Recent spectacular mistakes by U.S. consuls have resulted mostly in the tightening of pre-existing rules. The reign of public criticism in the post-9/11 world means that consular officers have even less incentive to say “yes”.

Note well that If your goal is to fool the consulate with some artfully designed pretext for the visa (usually, some kind of “business mission”), you will need Leonardo da Vinci type creativity to succeed. This is because the typical embassy consular officer reviews dozens of cases every day, has seen thousand in his/her career (and draws on the State Department’s experience with millions of such applications), and so has seen every trick in the book.

Honest applicants often create problems for themselves, as well. They often fail to produce sufficient documentary support of their application. Simply put, facts and arguments are meaningless to the consular officer unless they are verified by one or more documents. Again, the consular officer can do absolutely nothing. If the applicant fails to rebut the presumption of immigrant intent, the application will be denied.

Consular officers engage in unofficial “profiling” as well. They develop a sense of the look and manner of an intending immigrant or otherwise untruthful applicant. It’s extraordinary how many (failed) B2 visa applicants describe their interview this way “ I arrived at the window; the Embassy worker looked at me; asked two questions, didn’t even ask to see my documents, and then said ‘denied’”. First impressions can be crucial, and thus preparation can be helpful.

Applicants also often succumb to one of the many B2 visa “pitfalls” that they did not or could not foresee. For example, inviting your Venezuelan mother-in-law to the U.S. to see her newly born grandchild is almost always a fatal mistake. The consular officer will typically deny the visa immediately because the consuls have as one of their primary goals the protection of U.S. jobs. So, grandma is perceived as a threat to paid employment of day care providers already in the U.S. Don’t bother arguing the human element of the grandmother/grandchild relationship. So far as the consul is concerned, it carries little or no weight.

By law consular officers overseas have the final say on all visa cases. The U.S. Department of State has authority to review consular decisions, but this authority is limited to the interpretation of law, and the Department of Sate may not question the consular officer’s determinations of facts. This rule is particularly important in this context because the question at issue in such denials, whether an applicant possesses the required residence abroad, is a factual one. An applicant can influence the consul to change a prior visa denial only through the presentation of new convincing evidence of strong ties.

Further complicating the picture is that foreign service workers are very strongly insulated from criticism. It is almost impossible to get fired if you are a foreign service worker, or even be subject to internal criticism (they can rely almost 100% on their colleagues and superiors “circling the wagons” when a complaint has been received), and this often leads to arrogant and boorish behavior by consular employees. You can expect about the same mentality in an overseas consulate as you would going into your local Department of Motor Vehicles, only worse, because the employees are far from home. But let’s be fair, ask yourself – “would you enjoy such work?”; “how would you feel about the next person who tries to pull the wool over your eyes after seeing it dozens of times every day?”.