Transcript of the above video: 

So, the Visa pause from Trump and the ramifications associated therewith are kind of the biggest news at least in our office at the moment with regard to US Immigration matters. Most notably, as I have talked about for the past roughly three months or so, back in December I was trying to set interviews for visa interview with presumptive under the old sort of process. They weren't allowing us to schedule anything prior to April and then after we got a few things scheduled, in January they came out with what Trump initially called the Visa ban, then it got called a Visa pause. But basically, I've now seen a couple of cases starting to process through after interview and basically people are being given a proforma sheet regarding 221(g) or they are being told the case is in administrative processing, which is kind of a non-answer; it's just sitting there, which I'll get into here in a moment. 

That said, people have been sending me correspondence, they've asked me on the phone, where does he get this Authority from, and actually on this one - unlike with a lot of things that I've seen done inside the Immigration apparatus, especially since Trump's first term - and my biggest issue in all of this is this administration had two years of ostensibly a Republican Congress - therefore a Congress of the same Party as the President - for both the first half of first their first term and presumably, and I think that there's some evidence to suggest that they'll probably lose this in the midterms, but it's not a foregone conclusion, but we have at least had it the first half of this Administration that the Republicans have been in charge. Trump has been credible. One thing that was always a critique of Obama was that Republicans would not do an Immigration deal with him because there was lack of credibility that he would follow through on the enforcement side, because things like the Dhaka thing and there was just a feeling politically that they couldn't come to some kind of common ground because they couldn't trust him to actually enforce. Well, I don't think there's any question that Mr. Trump will enforce things, as we're seeing with the Visa ban, as we have even seen with the border, and I was highly critical of American Border policy. Trump plugged that up; I do have to give credit where credit is due on that. 

What I'm saying though is there has been a lot of stuff that's happened administratively to change the immigration process, but they have never gone through the process of actually changing the law, which in my opinion, would be a far better remedy than doing what they're doing. If they want to stop some of the problems in Immigration, let's change the law. Promulgate a new law. The last time we did it on this topic was the Eisenhower Administration. I mean the Thai Immigration Act is from 1979. I mean the INA is from back in like the’ 50s basically, so we are kind of due for an overhaul on the legal framework for US immigration matters. I don't think there's any question about that, but again people have asked me where he gets the Authority for this. And actually, and going over here to Wikipedia under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 212(f): Text - As codified in 8 U.S.C 1182(f), the section reads, in part: 

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United states, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." So, yeah there's clearly authority for him to do this. 

Meanwhile, people have asked me, and what we have been seeing; I had two cases processed before the Songkran holiday; we closed the office for Songkran; I'm now back, we will start seeing some more cases process through, I'll be able to add some more nuance to this analysis. But two of them, one of them was actually a waiver case that 6 years been pending. We dealt with the underlying Visa, it got denied, the waiver was filed, it processed, it got approved and then through the lack or lack thereof of the draw, that case came up for a new interview right when this policy was coming into effect. And in my opinion, somebody that has been waiting around for 6 years, has followed all the appropriate protocols, has been approved for an I-601 waiver, it stands to reason that there has been enough affirmative action on that case that that case should probably go through; just pursuant to basic rules of due process of law. That said, on that case it was noted that it was in "administrative processing" which is sort of bureaucratic non-speak for a black hole, for lack of a better term, because again in that case, what are you processing, what's administratively important to get further clarity on. Whatever ground of inadmissibility existed, has been waived and that finding was made by you, so what are we doing at the end of the day? That being said, again there is the power to suspend visas - the President has that capability - but they are issuing 221g documentation in another case we had processed, it did have to do with a Third Country National here in Thailand, but again it was just sort of summarily dismissed under 221(g) citing the current Visa pause which brings up the big question on State Department's Website, that's Travel.State.Gov under the subsection: What does a Visa refusal on the section 221(g) mean?

Quote: "A Visa refusal under section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) means the applicant did not establish eligibility for a visa to the satisfaction of the Consular Officer, as is required under U.S. Law, specifically Section 291 of the INA. When an applicant is refused under 221g, it means the Consular Officer determined that the applicant was not eligible for a visa after completing and executing the visa application and any required interview. It is possible that the Consular Officer will reconsider a visa application refused under 221(g) at a later date, based on additional information or upon the resolution of administrative processing, and determine that the applicant is eligible. When a Consular Officer refuses a case on the 221(g), she or he will convey to the applicant whether the applicant is required to provide any further documentation or information, or whether the case requires additional administrative processing.

Can a refusal on the 221(g) be overturned?

Quoting further: “Yes. If an applicant was refused under 221g and the Consular Officer specifically told the applicant to provide documents or information, the applicant should provide a complete response as soon as possible. A Consular Officer will request additional information when she or he believes the information is relevant to establishing that an applicant is eligible for the Visa sought. If the Consular Officer refuses a visa, but requests additional information, an applicant has one year from the date the Visa was refused to submit the additional information. Otherwise, if an applicant does not provide your required additional information within one year, the applicant will have to reapply for the Visa and pay another application fee. If an application was refused and a Consular Officer indicates administrative processing is required, processing times can vary based on individual circumstances. If an applicant situation presents a unique hardship, please inform the Consular Section where the visa application was made." 

That then begs the question, "What is Administrative processing? Quoting further: “Administrative Processing Information: There are only two possible outcomes for complete and executed visa application (absent a visa sanction against a country under section 243(d) of the INA,” - that doesn't exist for Thailand per se - Quoting further: “The Consular Officer will either issue or refuse the Visa. If a Visa applicant has not established that he or she is eligible for a Visa, the Consular Officer must refuse that application. However, in accordance with Department procedures, a Consular Officer may determine that additional information from sources other than the applicant, may help establish an applicant’s eligibility for a Visa. In such cases, refused Visa applications warrant further administrative processing. Upon completion of the case-specific administrative processing, the Consular officer might conclude that an applicant is now qualified for the visa for which he or she applied. Alternatively, the Officer may conclude that the applicant remains in eligible for a Visa. When administrative processing is required,” - which I've never understood what administrative processing is, so I don't know how it could be required. It's basically vague and just we don't want to issue this now because we want to look into it further ourselves is basically what admin. processing means. - That said, quoting further: “When administrative processing is required, the Consular Officer will inform the applicant at the end of the interview. The duration of the administrative processing will vary based on the individual circumstances of each case. Visa applicants are reminded to apply early for their visas, well in advance of the anticipated travel date." 

Okay, so what does that all mean? What does that all mean practically? Well as I said, I have had a case that has been through the entire waiver process and now it has been stuck in Administrative Processing for reasons I can't explain. I mean I don't know what further clarification for a case that has gone on for 6 years and has undergone and I-601 waiver adjudication - only to be approved by the way - I don't see what further clarification is required under those circumstances, but fine, there is a procedure for putting it in there. 

That said, the whole situation involving the Trump pause is concerning on one level, because while the President does have the authority to suspend visas to any class of immigrants, to any class of travellers to the United States who aren't of US nationality, there just seems something very arbitrary and capricious about all of this in terms of how prior protocols operated, especially when it comes to America's oldest ally in East Asia being subjected to this. Which like right at the beginning, they just added Thailand on to the list of countries, and for the life of me I can't understand why. I mean Thailand has never been unfriendly with the United States, and this isn't a high-fraud post either. There are other jurisdictions in Southeast Asia - I am not going to name them - but they are out there, that are deemed high-fraud posts; Thailand has never been deemed that. 

Now the justification for the suspension of visas, for the so-called pause, is that they are retooling the adjudicative framework by which they assess whether or not someone is going to be a public charge in the United States; whether or not they look like they're going to be a risk of going on to American welfare. That is basically the pretext if you will for this whole thing. So I've seen a case with a 221(g) issued that says, "look this is refused". Now when you understand hey this thing, if the rationale is we're changing the framework for adjudicating public charge, then one would think okay, the 221(g) is issued until such time as they come up with the new framework, and then we refile documentation to show that the person's not a public charge because the problem is in these findings, they're not showing where these people are a public charge. Where is the number off? We know what the framework is for adjudicating public charge; 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines in terms of income that can be demonstrated on income tax or tax certificates, income tax returns or tax statements. Again, that can be easily shown. Okay, they're retooling the framework for how they adjudicate that. Fine. So, in the event that they bring this back online with a new framework for public charge, will these people who have been refused based on 221(g) then be able to remedy that by presenting further documentation? That would seem to be the commonsensical way, unless you factor in that this might all just be a pretext to issue no visas whatsoever. And if that's the case, and they're just sort of riding out the clock on these poor people, and I say "poor people" because I understand. Look, I was very vocal, very, very vocal online and elsewhere about my problems I had seeing the Southern American borders just wide open; it was a travesty frankly, it was an absolute disgrace to just the people of the United States, and I was vocal about that. I understand needing to go after illegal immigrants, illegal aliens as it were, but to just completely stop the Visa system and I would actually have liked this more if he just would have cited 212(f) and said, "look I have the authority to do this; I'm doing it", but it's being done under the pretext at least that "oh we're retooling the framework by which we adjudicate public charge" and then they're basically issuing 221(g)'s. It looks to me like what the hope is on the part of the bureaucracy if you will is, people that receive these 221(g) refusals essentially abandon the case and just say, "well it sounds like I have been denied; Trump says it's denied." In point of fact, there is supposedly at least an implicit way of remedying this presuming that they bring back online the process, we have a new framework for adjudicating public charge, and then one would basically present new documentation per the 221(g) and then deal with further adjudication thereafter. Presumably if one met the criteria, new or otherwise, then the Visa would be issued. But again, I'm starting to really worry that much like many of the other things that have been done in the Immigration apparatus in both of the Trump Administrations, this is just one more pretextual thing that is designed to just be obtuse and to just essentially act as an obstacle for people to obtain visas, legally by the way. And understand, this is the point I'm trying to make. I completely understand folks' passion and desire to enforce Immigration Law when there are tons of people that are just flooding through an open Border. In the case of this situation though, hey, we are talking about people that are lined up, that are going through the process legally. In one case we are talking about somebody that went through over 6 years of processing to bring their foreign fiancé(e) into the United States. I mean what purpose is being served by thwarting that person? I don't really see it, and thwarting those people. These are people that are clearly wanting to operate within the law and live in the United States peacefully and legally. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That being said, we will certainly be keeping folks updated on this channel as the situation evolves.