Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing US Tourist Visas. I felt like making this - I've done videos about now they are not going to be doing residence issuance in the United States effectively, although I expect they probably will be, but Trump's trying to say that "no not going to do that anymore." On top of that, we've got the Immigrant Visa "pause" as it pertains to Thailand, as well as Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar out here, so in this region, effectively, we are not seeing any Immigrant Spouse Visas.

There remains the possibility of utilizing a K-1 Visa - I've seen one issued recently - we have got others processing; they're considered Non-immigrant Visas. On top of that, I'm not so sure that this rule regarding non-issuance of Green Cards by USCIS that Trump's Administration is trying to impose is going to work when it comes to the K-1 especially. I have to imagine a Court when it interprets the INA and sees the provisions on the K-1 specifically and the Life Act and the provisions regarding the K-3 Marriage Visa I think as well, they are going to say, "no, these were specifically designed for people to come to the United States - in the case of the K-1, be there for 90 days - and then apply for their Permanent Residence and wait out their Permanent Residence, their adjustment, in the United States, married to their spouse as the law intended. That's what the law states in the INA - that's the raw law - that's not this "oh, we came up with magical interpretations and created new regulations albeit without Notice and Comment from anybody, we just sort of snapped our fingers and did whatever." Yes, there are powers of the President to do a lot with Immigration, but there are clear laws that Congress has promulgated especially as it pertains to the Fiancé(e) and the Marriage Visa in the K-1 and K-3 categories.

That said, the point of this video is talking about yet another obstacle to somebody who is trying to just bring a loved one to the United States if only temporarily in a Tourist Visa context and that is section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I recently received an email from a viewer who basically wanted to relay to me the experience that their loved one, their significant other, girlfriend whatever you want to call it had, when applying for a Tourist Visa because I think it's important to point out. It's almost perfunctory the way that the Embassy treats people that are applying for Tourist Visas if they believe 214(b) applies. 

That said, quoting directly from a recent email and hats off to this person: “Ben, I'm an American woman - actually that's why I pointed out this email, because actually it doesn't even pertain to like a girlfriend or a significant other of an American citizen. This is sort of more even of a third-party sort of analysis. That said let me quote this again. "I'm an American woman married to Thai. I wanted my Thai niece to travel with me to the USA for just 2 weeks. She's 46 years old, has worked in a very well-paid career organizing concerts etc. for let's say a very big company. (I'm going to redact the company) in Bangkok for 20 plus years. So with that job she has travelled around Asia extensively. When she went for a visa interview Wednesday, they did not ask her any questions pertaining to" - I think what this person means is - "to what they want with respect to strong ties to Thailand". Nothing about finances or travel outside of Thailand or family here. Not only does she have a well-paid job with lots of travel, she owns property. They did not ask her one question about any of this, or who she would be staying with which was to be with my family not any of hers. All they were interested in was if she has family in the USA. So almost 6,000 Baht for a terrible interview and of course no appeal. Just give us another 6,000 Baht and maybe we will think about it. So a simple Tourist Visa is denied. I am really disgusted. (and I'm going to leave it anonymous).” That said, no questions about who she was staying with. All they were interested in was if she had family in the USA. 

As I have discussed in other videos, section 214(b) of the Immigration Act creates the impetus on the part of the Consular Officer that they have to be satisfied that the applicant shows sufficient strong ties to their home country or a third country outside the United States, and weak ties to the United States. Family ties to a family member in the United States can be construed as a sufficiently strong tie to mitigate the notion of it being a weak tie and therefore can lead to a denial. Now how they do the denials in these things where they just kind of throw it back at and say, "hey 214(b)”, without a lot of explanation, in my opinion it could be done better, let's put it that way. But that said, the law does say what it says in Section 214(b) and there is also the Doctrine of Consular Absolutism or Consular Non-reviewability which basically means the Adjudicating Officer's fact-finding cannot be overturned; it's not subject to any oversight or appeal. 

Unfortunately in this case, the mere fact that there is a relationship with some level of an American, some kind of an American, family or otherwise - clearly there are some family connections - led to the denial, and we see this in other cases involving girlfriend or boyfriend, significant others, even spouses of Americans because the relationship itself mitigates against the notion that there are weak ties to the United States.

Which then begs the question, does the system want to give any visas at this point? I mean they're not issuing Residence in the United States; we have got a pause on Immigrant Spouse Visas; I'm seeing all kinds of administrative processing even on fully waived, fully approved cases associated with K-1 Fiancé(e) Visas. I have seen K-1's Fiancé(e) Visas issued recently; this past April, I've seen it happen. That said, it seems to be increasingly the exception more than the rule. Then on top of it, now Trump's Administration is saying you have to self-deport instead of adjust status which is clearly not in line with the statute regarding both the K-1 and the K-3; again, I get into that in other videos. But the question posed at the end of this video from me, at least for the administration is, I mean what is the US Immigration bureaucracy even doing now? I mean what are people doing? If they're just perfunctorily denying Non-immigrant cases, they're not doing anything and they're just saying, "hey we're not issuing on Immigrant Spousal Visas because 221(g) and we are retooling our framework on analyzing whether or not someone is subject to the Public Charge Rule, so that's basically just "we are denying that", and now we're not even wanting to really issue Residence in the United States.” Again, I agreed with Mr. Trump when he came into office and cracked down especially on the open border, and I think what Tom Homan has done has been laudable in many, many ways. But again, legal immigration is a different thing and also, there are laws on these things, especially as it pertains to the K-1, and to flout that in furtherance of just "well we don't want anybody" doesn't make a lot of sense to me and to my mind it undermines the rule of law. 

That said, 214(b) does say what it says. Tourist Visas are going to continue I expect to be as difficult as they've ever been to obtain. Meanwhile, we've got to deal with new difficulties in the Immigrant and Non-immigrant Spousal and Fiancé(e) Visa cases. That said, it remains to be seen how this plays out so we will certainly be keeping folks updated on this channel as the situation evolves.