re: "Not just visas"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") deconstructs Joel Mowbray's piece in the Washington Times.

Money quote(s):

"(I)ssuing the visa was the appropriate decision. However, even had State revoked the visa the moment his father raised concerns, this would not have affected his ability to get onto the flight because he still had in his passport a visa that looked valid. Airlines don't have access to our visa records for understandable security reasons, and we don't have DHS agents at every overseas airport in the world. So the first place that it could have been noticed that his visa had been revoked would have been at the U.S. border. and his attack occurred long before that."

Which doesn't fit Mr. Mowbray's normal default position of finding State at fault.

"When I took con-gen (the training course for consular officers), I was told that for tourist visas you start at no. All applicants are to be presumed to be intending immigrants until they can prove otherwise."

Under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (as amended), every applicant for a non-immigrant visa (NIV) must be considered to be an intending immigrant (and thus inelible to receive a non-immigrant visa) unless they convince the interviewing consular officer of their qualifications and non-immigrant bona fides. Period.

There are specific categories of NIV where this doesn't apply (such as fiancee visas for persons who're traveling to the U.S. in order to marry their U.S. citizen intended and who will adjust status to Legal Permanent Resident once the ink's dry on their marriage certificate), but for tourism and business travel it's square one.

"I think this is the default position for every officer working the visa window, especially those of us who joined after 9/11. Because no one wants to be part of letting that happen again. We all jumped through a lot of hoops to join the Foreign Service because we love this country and wanted to serve it."

JG - IMMIGRATION CORNER - Filing for my fiancée

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Gleaner


IMMIGRATION CORNER - Filing for my fiancée

Published: Tuesday July 7, 2009

Your articles in Jamaica Gleaner is where I got your information. My name is C.J.; my fiancée is from Ethiopia, and lives and works in Doha, Qatar. I am a US citizen over 32 years, retired from the US Air Force, working in Iraq as a contractor, and my home of record is Miami, Florida. I have known her more than two years. My questions are:

Should I apply for a fiancée visa or get married and file for a resident visa in Qatar?

Which procedure is more feasible, less time consuming? Based on your experience in immigration law, which method is more logical?

- CJ

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"A citizen of the United States is entitled to file a petition for a fiancée visa to bring your fiancée and the fiancée's minor children to the United States.

There are several requirements to obtain approval for this visa. Premier among these requirements are that you must both be free to be married, must have met each other within the last two years - unless there is a cultural prohibition against the meeting, and you and your fiancée plan to be married within 90 days of her arrival in the US. You must show proof that you are legally divorced, if previously married, or proof of your prior spouse's death, if that is the case. "

_____

Dahlia A. Walker-Huntington, Esq. is a Jamaican-American attorney who practices law in Florida in the areas of immigration, family, corporate & personal injury law. She is a mediator, arbitrator and special magistrate in Broward County, Florida. Send your questions and comments to info@walkerhuntington.com or editor@gleanerjm.com