Everyone seems to have a story about how a visa was denied, or “refused,” at one of the U.S. consular offices abroad, A relative or friend may have failed to receive a student or visitor visa, Or an immigrant visa, and sometimes the reason for the refusal is not very clear or appears to be unfair or incorrect.
Because of problems with the present visa system, Congress is now considering a bill (H.R.5173) which would allow for the appeal of visa refusals. If passed and signed by the president, the bill would set up a visa review board within the Department of State. Many visa refusals would be appealable to this board. There would, however, be no provision for review of refusals in federal court. In effect, visa refusals still would not be reviewed by a court, but only by the Department. Nevertheless, this could be a significant improvement over the Current situation of very limited review.
According to the State Department, in FY 1990, at all posts, refusals based on a consular officers belief that the applicant would not return amounted to 20% of 7.4 million nonimmigrant visa applications (1.5 million refused, 5.9 million issued). In only 1% of the refusals (149,000 of 1.5 million) was this ground of refusal overcome. For immigrant visas, 158,000 were refused for various reasons at all posts and 437,000 were issued during the same period.
Many believe that the procedure to review refusals of visas is inadequate. Regulations now provide that a person is entitled to be informed as to why the visa was refused, and may ask for review of the refusal by the chief of the post. Unfortunately, in practice neither rule helps much. A statement of reasons for the refusal usually states simply that the applicant failed to show that he or she will return to the home country after the temporary stay in the U.S. ends. While this may be correct technically, it does not show what it was that made the consular officer come to that conclusion. There should at least be a reasonable basis, or some objective fact, to support the visa refusal on this ground, Similarly, a review of the refusal by a superior often is not effective because the decision of the subordinate is simply ratified without showing what the problems were with the application.
For example, at a post in the Caribbean, a young person who wanted to study in the United States was refused an F-1 visa because the consular officer believed that she would not return when her studies were finished. This was done even though she presented a plan for using back home the knowledge gained in the U.S. She also showed that her brothers and parents had been issued visitor visas at the post and still lived on the island after going to the U.S, She presented other facts detailing her close connection with her home country. An interview with the consular officer failed to shed any light on his reasons for his decision. He said simply that he “could tell” from interviewing the applicant through the glass cage that she wouldn’t come back home if she went to the U.S.! He could not (or would not) say whether it was something she said which made him think this, or whether it was mercly the way she looked or the way she acted. As a result, this young person has lost an opportunity to study in the US. and to bring home her knowledge for the benefit of her country,
If H.R.5173 were passed, visa applicants could have a greater chance of reversing arbitrary, unfair or incorrect refusals of visas. The visa system could work more fairly for the benefit of all. Persons interested in this bill should write their congressman to express their views.
Article extracted from this publication >> September 18, 1992
