re: "Marginally More Serious Fare"

The Diplogeek ("FSO Geekery") shared some of his life on "the line."

Money quote(s):

"So I’m aware that I don’t talk about the nitty-gritty of work all that often on this blog, beyond things like the vast numbers of applicants showing up in our waiting room and the fact that I work with a very cool group of people (well, cool in that slightly Type A, geeky way unique to quiz bowl teams and the Foreign Service). Part of this is because in all honesty, barring a uniquely awesome/not-remotely-awesome applicant, most days are kind of the same; I go to work, check my e-mail, sit at an interviewing window and interview people until there are no more people left to interview. The next day, I do it again. That’s not to hate on the job, by the way; it’s way more intellectually taxing than I would have initially thought. But short of detailing the stories of individual applicants, there’s not a ton to tell, and I’m not going to delve into particular applicants here because really, would I want some visa officer at the… I don’t know, Turkmeni Embassy laughing on the (very public) internets at my loser-ness? Probably not."

DG is a good (albeit new) officer. He's conscientious, self (and publicly) aware, and clearly maximizing the opportunities of his current assignment. He may go far in the (consular) business.

"(A)ccording to the law, we couldn’t issue. The applicant was understandably devastated and wept in the window for a good ten minutes. The whole thing was pretty horrible, and not what I would call one of my proudest moments, despite having followed the law, which is, after all, my job. This is, as one of my coworkers put it, why we get paid the big bucks."

This part sucks. Crying at the window. The U.S. does not, so far as I'm aware, intentionally hire heartless automatons to be vice consuls. Quite the opposite. But, as I've noted previously, we implement the law as it's written, not as we'd necessarily have written it ourselves. That is, indeed, why we get "paid the big bucks."

(An aside: in the current economy, the salary and benefits package for an FSO, at least when contrasted against unemployment benefits, may appear to be "big bucks." It's also, like all government salaries, currently frozen. And I haven't heard anybody on this side of the payroll actually complain about that. We all have family and friends who are not federal employees and we get it.

For actual "big bucks," however, one would do well to complete one's probationary period, be promoted into the mid-grade ranks, and, eventually, "cross the threshold" into the Senior Foreign Service.)

I used to tell my vice consuls, when they were a little depressed from having to deliver bad news like DG did, that they should expect to have someone cry at least once a week; and that at "visa mill" posts that would be daily. (More experienced officers will quickly learn about "crocodile tears.")

I also used to tell my vice consuls, when disappointed visa applicants threatened to complain to their supervisors, that dealing with complaints was part of my responsibility, why I got the "big bucks" and that if they were doing their jobs and applying immigration law correctly they didn't need to worry.

(Of course, if they weren't doing their jobs and were applying immigration law incorrectly, that was also my responsibility.)

Every visa refusal (plus a percentage of mostly randomly-selected issuances) gets reviewed by a more senior consular official. Daily. Them's the rules. Part of a consular managers job is to train line officers how to write their case notes so that it's clear to the reviewing official exactly what led them to make the refusal/issue decision they reached. If there's an error of law or if there's some additional or overlooked information about a decision that the manager thinks the adjudicator should consider, then the manager brings that to the line officer's attention. Ideally, it's a daily series of what I like to call "learnable moments."

(I find the term "teachable moment" to be annoying in the extreme.)

"(E)ven if I’m refusing someone a visa or telling them that I can’t give them what they want very badly, I can at least do so in a compassionate and respectful way. When you’re interviewing upwards of a hundred and fifty people a day, it’s easy to lose sight of that, I think, and get impatient and frustrated.

Anyway, that’s me processing. Clearly, it’s a good thing that it’s my visa adjudication that’s bringing in the (alleged) big bucks and not my Torah scholarship. And I promise more cheerful content next time, but I do think it’s worthwhile for anyone reading this who’s thinking of joining the Foreign Service to understand what it can mean, sometimes, agreeing to uphold these laws and interests of ours. Most of the time, the law and my feelings on a particular case coincide, but when they don’t, it can be a difficult thing to rationalize."

It's important to be professional in dealing with the public, even when "the public" is just one single individual on the other side of a bullet-resistant interview/transaction window. After all, on our side of the transaction window, we're the U.S. Embassy, the "G," in all its awful majesty. So courtesy is essential. Even when you're delivering bad news, you deliver it sincerely and respectfully.

(6/26)

re: "The Margins of the Upper Limits"

Sass and Sweet ("In Search of a Better Exchange Rate... Observations about life as a Diplomat.") has finished her consular assignment.

Money quote(s):

"I *love* Visa work. I find it fascinating. I enjoy the contact with different people from different walks of life. One of my co-workers self-refers to himself as a "rules based life form". I get that. I like doing a job where I can "interpret the law"."

That is kind of cool. There's the law. 8 U.S.C. The INA. There's the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). Plus Department cables providing explanatory guidance.

But "at the end of the day," it's just you, your understanding of the laws and regulations, the visa applicant, and your assessment of how that person's (and you should never forget that applicant's personhood and individual dignity) unique situation and purpose of travel. So it comes down to exercising your powers of judgment.

Sass goes on to provide some humorous indicators.

"You know you're on your home stretch when....

1.) Every time you ask someone why they are travelling to the US and to explain their plans - and they answer: "to travel" - you begin to imagine having a red button next to your desk which, when pushed, opens up a shoot below the applicant leading to a shark pond.

2.) Every time you ask someone about their previous refusal they answer: "not enough document" - you begin to imagine a red button next to your desk which, when pushed, opens up a shoot below the applicant leading to a shark pond.

3.) Every time you ask someone to describe the work they do they answer: "business" - you begin to imagine... well, you get the idea.

4.) Every time the "interpreter" refuses to interpret because they think the question is dumb - you begin to imagine ......

5.) Every time someone says "that [crime] shouldn't count, I'm only going to Vegas..."

6.) Every time someone says ...

Ok, I'll stop now - I think I've reached the burn out point and it's time for a break. Plus, I'm committed to following and obeying the law - I suppose "dropping people into shark pits" is probably outside the bounds of the law.

I will absolutely miss Visas. Probably. Maybe. Someday. (Oh, I will - they are in my blood....) - but not for a while."

We used to say that it's a good thing the bullet-resistant windows work both ways.

re: "Making a Difference"

No Double Standards at Muttering Behind the Hardline ("A Slightly Off-Kilter Take on the Profound, the Profane, the Sacred, and the Absurd") shares the feeling.

Money quote(s):

"I've told you before that the reason I enjoy consular work is because it offers me on a daily basis the opportunity to make a profound difference in someone's life.

I've also probably mentioned that managing an office doesn't offer quite the same level of gratification.

But this week, I was a part of something extraordinary.

You see, I was working on the Libya Task Force when the ferry from Tripoli arrived in Malta, and when the charter flight from Mitiga Air Base in Libya took off with the last of our American staff on board.

It was a long shift, let me tell you."

There's a saying in consular work, that we touch people's lives. Let me tell you, moments like this are why we're in this business.

"I will never forget the feeling of utter relief at hearing Polaschik tell us that the plane was wheels up. There were tears in that Operations Center at that moment. I saw others wiping their eyes, even as I was wiping my own.

As many shitty days as there are in this career -- and let's not bullshit here; there are too many -- every once in awhile you have one day that makes it all worthwhile."

The very first "task force" I was involved with was an evacuation.

As I told my supervisor at the time, this was exactly why I chose consular work. It makes all the days of grinding through visa interviews worthwhile.

re: "A few weeks on the job"

DiploJournal ("Trial lawyer, sports photographer, and newly sworn-in Foreign Service Officer...") shares his impressions of "the line."

Money quote(s):

"In consular training, the constant refrain is that consular officers (or ConOffs in State-speak) have the best stories. They are not wrong. I have the pleasure of interviewing about 30 people a day who are seeking to come to the United States for just about every reason you can imagine. Students coming to study. Specialized workers coming for a dream job. International corporate executives being transferred to a US office. Seamen needing to dock at US ports. Caregivers looking to travel with families on vacation. Circus acrobats getting the call to join the big show. And Disneyland. Lots of people who want to visit Disneyland."

"It is no secret that many officers dread doing their requisite consular tour. Some posts can get very monotonous due to the number of applicants and the ubiquity of a common scenario. Some posts in Mexico, the Philippines, and India will see hundreds of applicants — all with the same story — seeking a visa. Plowing through 120 applicants per officer per day in these posts can no doubt be difficult."

&

"Many are routine interviews with very obvious outcomes, either positive or negative for the applicant. Other interviews, however, can result in shock, laughter, confusion, crying, and anger. That was all just last week. I’ve certainly had periods of time in which I’ve worked many more hours than I do here. By the end of the week, however, I find myself just wrung out. It’s tiring, but often gratifying, work"

TT - AIT requires face-to-face interviews for kids' US visas

From my archive of press clippings:

Taipei Times

AIT requires face-to-face interviews for kids' US visas


By Jenny W. hsu

STAFF REPORTER


Saturday, Jun 20, 2009, Page 2

“Too often, we have found instances where people who were not Taiwan citizens have been able to obtain genuine Taiwan passports.”— Stephen Young, AIT director

Starting on July 1, Taiwanese passport holders under the age of 14 will require a face-to-face interview with a US immigration officer when applying for a US visa, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) said.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The announcement was posted on the official AIT Web site yesterday, but the AIT was reluctant to comment on whether the policy change was in response to human trafficking arrests made last month.

The ring, headed by Taiwanese and Chinese “snakeheads,” used personal information from Taiwanese Aboriginal children under age 14 but used pictures of underage Chinese girls to apply for Republic of China passports.

The passports were then used to obtain a US visa.

The victims often ended up working in brothels or sweatshops upon arriving in the US, Taiwan’s National Immigration Agency said."

&

"Persons above age 79 are still exempt from the interview process. When asked if the policy change was in response to the recent human trafficking case, AIT spokesman Thomas Hodges yesterday declined to give a direct answer, but referred to comments made by AIT Director Stephen Young.

Asked about the possibility of including Taiwan in the US’ visa-waiver program last December, Young said: “Too often, we have found instances where people who were not Taiwan citizens have been able to obtain genuine Taiwan passports.” "

re: "Visa Interview Pet Peeves"

NoDoubleStandards at Calling a Spade a Spade ("Rants of a Foreign Service Officer on the things that matter to you -- and matter to you not at all") shared a great little list.

I can vouch for every single peeve cited.

re: "The Battle for the Heart and Soul of Consular"

Thanks to The Hegemonist (" touching on international relations, foreign policy, and diplomacy") for the quote and the link.

Because it bears repeating, here's what he liked:

"There are vanishingly few exceptions to the interview requirement nowadays, and it’ll be important to hold that line when, as will inevitably occur, someone promotes the idea that it’s a waste of resources to interview all those applicants. Don’t fall into that trap."

re: "Funny to read this"

Thanks to Bureaucrat at Adventures in Bureaucracy ("Personal comments, opinions and observations from someone stuck inside the Capital Beltway.") for the quote and the link.

re: "The Art of the Visa Adjudication"

NoDoubleStandards at Calling a Spade a Spade ("Rants of a Foreign Service Officer on the things that matter to you -- and matter to you not at all") provides some insights into visa interviewing.

Money quote(s):

"I've heard consular officers deny they profile visa applicants; then, when they describe exactly how they adjudicate, you're left with the impression that profiling is exactly what they're doing."

"I don't ask a single question I don't already know the answer to. Why? Credibility. I don't care how much an applicant makes, how often he's traveled or what kind of dirt he has under his fingernails. My sole concern is this: is the applicant in front of me going to return to his country of residence when he says he will."

This is true, but only in terms of overcoming the presumption of being an intending immigrant, "two-fourteen-bee" in other words (referring to Section 214b of the Immigration and Nationality Act). There are lots (and lots) of other grounds for visa ineligibility, ranging from everything from being a public charge to having committed crimes of moral turpitude, but this is far and away the most common grounds for visa refusal.

"The vast majority of documents provided aren't material to the adjudication, in any case. If I make a show of reviewing the documents before rendering my decision, it's because I'm heading off an inquiry at the pass: "The officer didn't even look at my documents.""

If a document can be forged (and just about any document can be forged), it has been forged. Or be genuine but chock-full-o' false and misleading information, because the issuing authority was bought or otherwise corrupted.

"How can any human being make an accurate snap judgment in two minutes? You wouldn't think it was possible, but it is. I wish I had a dollar for every time I refused an applicant who earned a great salary and demonstrated a sound travel history, and I was later provided with derogatory information. Why did I refuse these guys? Primarily ambiguity regarding purpose of travel. I don't give a damn what you make or where you've been. Post 9/11, if you can't tell me EXACTLY what you'll be doing in the U.S., I won't issue you a visa. I don't have that luxury."

&

"(W)hen you look at the percentages, I and my colleagues are good, very good at what we do. This is why post-9/11 discussions over removing the visa function from State and giving it to DHS were so misguided. You can't replace experience. You simply can't. Good consular officers develop these skills over years and thousands of interviews; you can't teach these skills, to a large extent, through classroom simulations. They have to be developed through experience. And let me suggest this: if you could teach it in a classroom, it would be much easier for terrorists to break it down."

The obvious objection to the immediately above is the 9/11 hijackers. Bear in mind that prior to 9/11, not every visa applicant was required to have an interview with an adjudicating officer. That has changed. There are vanishingly few exceptions to the interview requirement nowadays, and it'll be important to hold that line when, as will inevitably occur, someone promotes the idea that it's a waste of resources to interview all those applicants.

Don't fall into that trap.

re: "Immigration Reform with the Stroke of a Pen"

Angelo at Nation of Immigrators ("A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system") has some suggestions for immigration reform.

I hate the following:

"Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, could declare that all visa interviews by American consular officers would be video-recorded. This would help in two important ways. The federal government would capture biometric data on every interviewed applicant, thereby improving national security, and every consular officer (knowing that the interview could be viewed by superiors in Washington and by Congress) would have a (now-nonexistent) inducement to be fair in posing questions and allowing answers. "