Insight and Analysis

By Jesica Lindgren

Increasingly, foreign nationals who want to visit the U.S. temporarily – for business, to visit an ill relative, or for vacation – are unable to secure a U.S. visa. In some cases, their visa request is denied; in others, their existing visa is revoked. The applicant is typically seeking a B-1 (for business) and/or B-2 (for pleasure, tourism and / or medical treatment). And in the context of recent U.S. sanctions on Russians and Venezuelans, foreign nationals must also be aware of the political climate in which the U.S. visa process sits. This article presents a few key lessons stemming from our experience with clients encountering temporary U.S. visitor visa issues, with a more comprehensive note attached.

From the outset, applicants should be aware that the U.S. government views granting a visa as a privilege, not a right. Consular officers in U.S. embassies and consulates exercise broad discretion during the visa process. Though seemingly obvious, the applicant needs to follow the procedures, step-by-step, to ensure the application is presented properly and supported with necessary documentation. For example, failure to appear for an interview does not make a good impression.

The predominant reason for being denied a visa is that an applicant does not document the reasons to return to his or her home country after the intended U.S. visit. Unless shown otherwise, the consular official at the local U.S. embassy or consulate will presume that the applicant intends to permanently remain in the U.S. By including essential documents to support the reasons for both the applicant’s intended visit to the U.S. and obligations and responsibilities at home afterwards, the applicant is making the review process easier for the consular official. Relatedly, an applicant also needs to demonstrate that he/she has the financial means to travel to and from the U.S. without seeking public assistance during his/her visit.

In addition, many B-1 and B-2 (or combined) visa applications are denied because the applicant failed to prove with documentation that he or she has a valid reason to enter the U.S. temporarily. For example, if the applicant wants to visit a critically ill relative, include a doctor’s note concerning the relative’s health condition. If the applicant wants to attend a business conference, include the conference program and confirmation of the applicant’s participation.

A common mistake is looking to appeal the consular decision if the visa is denied or revoked. The only way to “appeal” a visa rejection or revocation is to reapply. By reapplying and including only essential supporting documents, the consular official will see that the applicant is following the process properly and this will likely improve his/her chances of success.

Also, in some cases, the prior decision letter will reference a reason for the rejection or denial. When reapplying, the applicant should specifically address any reference made in the decision letter.

Sometimes applicants are “surprised” by a visa denial or revocation. Before applying for a visa, applicants should look closely at their presence on the web and on social media to see what public information is available about them. A simple Google search of the applicant’s name is the best place to start. The consular official will likely be doing the same. If there is any misinformation out there, the applicant should address it head on in the application and attach supporting documents to counter any rumors.

Once granted a temporary U.S. visitor visa, applicants should be aware that they still can be turned away at the U.S. port of entry, most often at the airport. For example, if the applicant arrives with a flashy business entourage yet the purported purpose of the B-2 visa is to visit a terminally ill parent, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent may refuse to let the person enter. The CBP agent has the authority to turn someone away if the applicant’s story does not match the stated reason for the visa.

Lastly, the applicant must leave the U.S. before his / her visa expires. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as a medical emergency landing the person in the hospital, overstaying a visa is a serious strike against the person, which can result in a visa revocation or deportation.

Applicants who successfully abide by the terms of their visitor visas also build credibility and increase their likelihood of being granted future visas. Whenever an applicant applies for a visa, the consular official will access the U.S. State Department’s Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) database and see that the person has previously been granted a visa and successfully honored the terms – i.e., complied with the purpose of visit, did not seek public assistance, and returned to the home country without overstaying. Every time the applicant successfully abides by the process throughout the stay, his / her credibility is enhanced in the U.S. visa processing system.

Subsequently, if the applicant wants to live and work permanently in the U.S., he / she can apply for a “green card” (lawful permanent resident or LPR). All of the prior visits will be evaluated as part of the process. However, if the applicant was previously granted a green card and then let it lapse, or the person had denounced affiliation with the U.S., the reasons for not maintaining the green card will need to be explained clearly the next time the applicant applies for a temporary visitor visa. If the consular official reviewing the visa application sees willful disrespect for the visa process, that does not bode well for the applicant.

These are just some of the key lessons we have learned while supporting clients successfully applying for a temporary U.S. visitor visa. Please contact us if you need assistance with this process. We can provide you with an initial consultation to address your specific circumstances.

Barbara Shailor recently joined Blue Star Strategies as a Special Advisor. Prior to that she was the Special Representative for International Labor Affairs at the Department of State from 2010-2014. To better introduce her to the Blue Star community we conducted a brief interview on the current state of international labor rights and the impact on US foreign policy with a particular focus on upcoming trade negotiations, the role of multi-lateral organizations, and where the US can have an impact.

Blue Star: Jason Furman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors was recently asked about the impact of trade deals on labor standards and he replied that the deals are an opportunity to insist on stronger standards and said, “We’d rather trade with them and have higher labor standards than not.”  Do you agree with this statement? 

Barbara: Furman expresses the hope, if not the reality. Working people across the world have an enormous stake in a global system of rules that ends the race to the bottom in environmental protections, consumer protections and labor standards. By including the protection of workers abroad, we are helping ensure that trade driven growth is inclusive and broad based. Working people will only assume the risks of continued trade integration if they have the confidence that this system will work for them.

Blue Star: How can the U.S. work with other allies–say in Western Europe–to enable the creation of stronger global labor standards and enforcement? 

Barbara: Like the US, the European democracies have an enormous stake in global rules that lift standards across the world rather than undermine them at home.  Our European partners should join the U.S. in championing a stronger social contract as part of trade accords, and in working to enforce those standards. This has taken place, often in reaction to extreme outrages. For example, after the 2013 Rana Plaza tragedy in Bangladesh where over a thousand workers were killed, successful efforts to move forward on labor legislation and the protection of workers were closely coordinated with the European Union and the ILO in particular. The challenge is to move this agenda broadly and proactively, not simply in reaction to tragedies that attract international attention.

Blue Star: Can the U.S. lead by example on labor standards? For example by creating stronger protections for migrant workers, raising the minimum wage, assisting victims of labor trafficking etc? 

Barbara: We should be leading by example. Companies and countries are discovering that a corner has been turned, here–and abroad. Several states and cities have lifted the minimum wage above the federal level. Major employers have started to follow. There is a growing recognition that extreme inequality needs to be addressed with concrete proposals in order to create a more robust economy with a broad middle class. We are taking steps on immigration reform. We closely monitor labor trafficking in an annual report on trafficking understanding that there are over 230 million migrant workers that are vulnerable to exploitation.

Blue Star: What sort of international cooperation is necessary in terms of labor and what role can multilateral organization’s play? 

Barbara: The ILO was founded in the aftermath of WWI when the economies of the world were devastated by the war, on the realization that stable peace can only be established if it is based upon social justice. Today, the United States partnership is almost a century old and the ILO continues championing “decent work” standards that are grounded on basic human rights.

After WWII, economic alliances and institutions were created–the IMF, World Bank, and the OECD–multilaterally and remain important institutions that affect working people around the world.  Now, there is an increasing recognition that economic prosperity is threatened by extreme inequality. The challenge is for those institutions to adjust  their programs to address this new realization. 

Blue Star: Given your experience, what advice would you give to policy-makers today who are working to spread greater respect for labor rights around the world?

Barbara:  I think the biggest challenge for policy-makers is to understand that the current system cannot be sustained. The extreme inequality that we see across the world, the financial crises, the pressure on working people, is generating greater and greater instability. Policy makers have to get ahead of this, not simply wait for the next crisis. Companies are adjusting their business models; countries need to change their economic policies; global institutions will need to redefine their rules. 

Already the first steps have been taken. Significant developments of the past 20 years include attaching labor chapters to trade agreements, making labor rights a criterion in areas of trade and investment, and progress in bringing women workers into the formal economy. When labor standards are effectively enforced you see inequality decline and governments better able to meet the expectations of their own people. Policy-makers must see the rights of working people not as adversarial issue with trading partners and the business community but an opportunity to create positive outcomes. 

Blue Star: Lastly-what do you think about the opening in Myanmar and its potential impact on workers?

Barbara: The whole discussion surrounding the opening up Myanmar politically and economically can have reinforcing benefits. Some thought Myanmar would be an economic free for all.  But democratic leaders within Myanmar joined with the labor community, NGOs, the ILO and eventually U.S. and European governments to push for reforms. Labor laws are being created and the people of Myanmar are yearning for a more open society. A little over two years ago Myanmar’s practice of forced labor still existed. In early negotiations the Myanmar government was asked to recognize the ILO Convention on Forced Labor and to establish a clear legal basis for the government to end this practice. All trading partners and multinational companies doing business there have a responsibility to take measures to ensure the effective eradication of forced labor throughout the country. Myanmar’s future course is still contested. But there is some hope that the opening will protect its workers, not simply exploit them.

On February 10, 2015 several hundred African migrants died off the coast of Italy while seeking refuge in the European country, marking one of the most significant losses of migrants’ lives at sea and simultaneously signaling the challenge the EU faces in coping with huge inflows of refugees. On October 3, 2013, 366 Eritrean nationals died when their vessel sunk close to the shores of Lampedusa (Italy). International public outrage, indignation, and dissent over the deaths, led to an appeal for a new strategy to address the issue. Mare Nostrum, the Italian refugee relocation project,was designed to patrol the Italian coasts and rescue vessels trafficking immigrants across the Mediterranean. While this project has saved the lives of more than 100,000 migrants in just over a year, it has also put an exhausting strain on Italy's finances, costing approximately 9 million Euros per month.

Read more ...

Although Latin America has aspired to democracy for decades, institutions in many countries remain weak, a trend which is brought into high resolution during elections.  The 2014 elections in El Salvador, Bolivia, Venezuela and Brazil were marred by weak democratic and electoral institutions, lack of social inclusion, and corruption.  The upcoming 2015 elections in Guyana, Haiti, Guatemala, and Argentina seem set to contend with the same challenges.

Last November, Guyanese President Donald Ramotar suspended Parliament via a seldom-used Parliamentary mechanism called prorogation in order to avoid a no-confidence vote brought by opposition parties. Brushing off criticism, President Ramotar maintained that the prorogation was an attempt to avoid further political conflict and seek accommodation between his administration and the opposition. After months of suspension, and severe domestic and international pressure, Ramotar finally announced general elections for May 11^th.

Although Ramotar says he is confident that his People’s Progressive Party (PPP-C), which has held power for almost twenty-three years, will win, a new coalition between The Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change parties could create a challenge.  This coalition is supposedly multi-ethnic, unlike the PPP-C which is almost exclusively Indo-Guyanese.  However, the coalition is shaky as both parties insist on retaining their individual identities.  Guyana is a unique case in part because of ethnic identities hold over the political system; the country is 43.4 percent Indo-Guyanese which means that as long as Indo-Guyanese voters remain loyal to the PPP-C the party is guaranteed a strong showing in elections.  If a multi-ethnic coalition succeeds it could symbolize a wider change in the country and an end to PPP-C domination. 

In Haiti, the legacy of dictator Juan-Claude Duvalier lives on in a constitution drafted to prevent the domination of one leader by establishing a system of checks and balances that allows one branch of the government to block the other from amassing too many powers. However, this system has also been used by presidents to prevent the country’s electoral commission from forming, which enables rule by decree. After two and a half years of delayed legislative and municipal elections, Haiti’s Parliament dissolved in January when the terms of many members in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate expired, leaving them without the quorum needed to pass laws. Following weeks of protests and political uncertainty, President Martelly installed a Provisional Electoral Council and promised to hold elections towards the end of May. It is unclear; however, whether the date will hold and whether Haiti will succeed in holding free and fair elections.

In Guatemala general elections should be held in September.  The country suffers from many challenges including corruption, damaged democratic institutions, lack of social inclusion, and high barriers to political entry because wealthy elites make it difficult for new parties and politicians to amass the political and financial capital needed to compete.  Freedom of the press is limited by violence perpetrated against journalists; it is the 10^th most dangerous country in the world to be a journalist according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, which limits the population’s access to information. The judiciary branch is weak, for example when the Attorney General’s office brought genocide charges against former dictator General Efrain Rios Montt the trial was obstructed numerous times, paused for nineteen months, and the prosecuting Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz was forced to step down seven months before her term was due to end.  The country also suffers from one of the highest rates of violence in the world, an average of 101 murders are committed per week, and the perpetrators have corrupted much of the police and judiciary leading to widespread impunity.

In this environment holding a free and fair election is challenging.  This is compounded by long-standing rumors of front-runner Manuel Baldizon’s corruption.  During the 2011 election Baldizon reportedly offered members of congress $61,000 each if they switched to his party.  Although a new party that represents the indigenous population in Guatemala was formed last November, their chances of a successful electoral showing are slim unless a dramatic change occurs. 

Lastly, in Argentina the upcoming elections mark an end to Kirchnerism. Following the death of her husband, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner stepped into the role of president and was later voted into office. Her administration has faced criticism over the years, on issues ranging from the economy to corruption, for example Vice President Amado Boudou was indicted twice in the past year, once for fraud and once for corruption.  However, the most jarring accusation came from Prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who was mysteriously found dead a day before he was due to appear in court to accuse Cristina of attempting to cover up Iran’s role in the deadly 1994 terrorist bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

Though the Kirchner administration has been steadily damaging democratic institutions since taking office, from co-opting the judiciary to trying to silence the press, this episode seems to have shaken the country to its core; over 400,000 Argentines marched in Buenos Aires last week in remembrance of Nisman, and in clear opposition to the President.   How this will impact the October elections remains to be seen.  Daniel Scioli, of the Frente Para la Victoria, who comes from Nestor Kirchner’s administration, was leading in the polls until recently but his ties to the Kirchner’s may damage him.  The other two leading candidates, Sergio Massa and Mauricio Macri come from the opposition; even though Massa also had ties to the Kirchner’s.  Hopefully whoever wins dedicates themselves to rebuilding the countries damaged institutions, economy, and faith in the government.

 In conclusion, this year is set for some exciting and challenging elections in Latin America which could lead to dramatic changes or enable the continuation of business as usual with government’s that further dissolve democratic institutions.  

The conservative Fidesz Party in Hungary has caused concerns throughout EU and NATO countries since it won a two-thirds super-majority in the Hungarian Parliament in 2010.   The party is militantly nationalistic, and the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been accused of restricting freedom of the press and of speech, and has maintained disconcertingly close ties with Russia.  The super-majority enabled Orban’s government to pass legislation with relative facility, and Fidesz’ loss of a seat in a by-election last Sunday will make this more difficult as they no longer have two-thirds of the seats in Parliament.  In addition, it should prevent the government from changing the country’s constitution. 

Read more ...

By Network Partner James LeGrice of London-based Insight Public Affairs

 A settlement on Iran’s nuclear programme is a far more realistic prospect this year than it was in 2014. With a shared threat from Islamic State, the UK working to reopen its embassy in Tehran, President Obama risking a standoff with Congress over new sanctions, and global investors excitedly predicting an Iranian ‘gold rush’, there are good odds that a deal will be reached by the June deadline, and that Iran will be granted sanctions relief. However, a deal is not a guarantor of peaceful relations and regional stability. It could potentially have the opposite effect, and there are some key factors at play within Iran unrelated to the nuclear issue that western policymakers need to consider.

Read more ...

As Qatar prepares to host the World Cup in 2022, scrutiny from the international community over the country’s labor practices is steadily increasing. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO) and other human rights institutions, the demographics in Qatar have changed to the extent that today an astonishing 94 percent of its workers are migrants, and the numbers are expected to soar following the increased demands on the country’s construction industry. Workers, mostly from East Asia and Africa, migrate to the region hoping to support their families with remittances. However, many of them are deceived into working in terrible conditions for very low wages or in forced labor, while being told that they are being held to pay off the debt they have accumulated from the high costs of travel, housing, and living in expensive societies.

Read more ...

While the 2015 State of the Union Address delivered powerful, memorable messages regarding domestic issues namely on higher education, labor rights, and middle-class economics; President Obama also utilized the opportunity to elucidate the direction his presidency will be taking in foreign policy. President Obama reiterated support for U.S. allies in places like Paris and Pakistan in their battle against Islamist extremism and terrorism, touted the broad coalition the U.S. is leading in Iraq and Syria to degrade and destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and spoke on successes in West Africa in the fight against the Ebola virus. He underlined the strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its allies in the face of Russian aggression, trumpeted the normalization of relations with Cuba, and addressed the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Overall, the messages delivered did not deviate from previous statements and were unsurprising. Perhaps what was surprising; however, was a lack of commentary regarding the legislative branch and how their support (or lack thereof) will affect the visions he set forth.

Read more ...

The recent attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris by Islamic extremists riveted the world’s attention on dangers to the press throughout the world.  Following the attack, Secretary of State John Kerry said freedom of the press is “under siege” globally and called for action, as did most Western leaders.  The attack on Charlie Hebdo, though tragic, should not obscure the fact that diminished freedom of the press has been a trend throughout the world in recent decades.  There are various techniques which governments and non-state actors have used to diminish freedom of the press: violence via beatings, incarceration, or murder; repression via legislation and censorship, and self-censorship by the press due to fear of violence or legal action.

Read more ...

In the wake of the Democrats’ stunning losses in the November midterm elections, President Barack Obama turned, instead, to shoring up his legacy on foreign affairs. Immediately following the elections, the president began a week-long swing through Asia for a series of key summits and bilateral meetings that will have major implications for US trade policy, anti-climate change efforts, and labor rights.

President Obama kicked off the trip with a stop in Beijing for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, which brought together 19 of the 21 members of the economic community. It was the first APEC gathering held in Beijing, and the first that President has attended since 2011.

Stealing the headlines – apart from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s flirtatious overtures to Chinese First Lady Peng Liyuan – was the unexpected climate deal announced between China and the US. Reportedly in the works for nearly a year, the deal was hammered out in secret and included unprecedented commitments from both sides – commitments that may well face domestic opposition in both countries, but especially in the newly Republican US Congress.

In particular, the deal included China’s first ever formal commitment to reach peak carbon levels by 2030.

Read more ...