Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing, well I told folks I would do a video in the aftermath of some of the interviews that we have started seeing go through at the US Embassy here in Thailand with regard to applications for Fiancé(e) Visas. I have not actually yet processed or had any clients process on the Marriage Visa side so that's why this pertains only to K-1s at the moment. 

Yeah, I have got to say, the whole situation is sub-optimal let me put it that way. One case that I have going through is a K-1; it's been ongoing for almost 6 years now. It pertained to an I-601 Waiver which was approved and then the case came back here to the Embassy to go ahead and deal with Visa issuance. She went to the interview and it came back admin. processing, Administrative Processing. I have done videos on Administrative Processing in the past. It's this catch-all category than in my opinion is not overly legitimate in terms of policy, especially in light of an approved I-601 waiver that took years to process and these are people acting in good faith. It's a person, it's an American who has been shown that they would suffer an extreme hardship if their loved one is not able to come to them in America, and yet here we see the Embassy dragging their feet based on an admin. processing finding.

Meanwhile, I had another case processed which involved the third country national from Myanmar, which that's its own issue, and apparently this Administration is having issues with Myanmar nationals even getting visas to begin with. We're still trying to work that through from that issue. But on top of it, they issued this handout which again pertained to this Trump Visa ban, visa pause where they are basically citing the public charge rule that they think folks are going to use these visas to come in and get on welfare in the United States, but they're not citing any facts. We have documented that the sponsor for the person can support them. 

And I have got to be honest, in 18 years of assisting primarily foreign men, American men getting their, but not always. I've done all sorts of cases, but primarily American men trying to get their fiancé(e) or wife to the United States. In 18 years, I've never even heard of any of my clients going on any kind of welfare. Primarily, if the relationship breaks apart, usually the Thai national comes back to Thailand; that's what happens in the vast majority of cases. And even where they don't, they usually end up working or doing something in America or finding somebody else and moving on with their lives. They're not just running over to the United States to get on welfare benefits. It's kind of ridiculous. 

On top of that, they don't cite any articulable reason for the denial. There's no legal ground of inadmissibility; there's no fact-finding that there's something deficient in terms of public charge that it falls below the requisite thresholds associated with either 125% of the federal poverty guidelines in terms of income, or the requisite amount of money that would be five times whatever shortfall of that is in terms of assets. They are not citing that; they just give this handout with a bunch of gobbledygook talking about the 221-g and the Public Charge Rule without even giving any articulable reasons for denial. I think that that's wrong, procedurally and legally. And I have got to be honest with you, I'm starting to seriously consider things like writs of mandamus possibly if it might prove to be necessary to get an actual decision and not just a bunch of gobbledygook coming at the end of an interview, which has no, at the end of the day articulable legal reason for denying a Visa. And they are not even necessarily doing that, they're just citing 221g which is a refusal pending further evidence and then they just sort of create this sort of circular reasoning cul-de-sac and just say, "well, it operates as a denial even though it's a refusal, and then Public Charge Rule - they just sort of say that - but without citing any direct deficiency in terms of the Public Charge Rule. They just say Public Charge Rule. It's like word vomit, it's ridiculous. 

Now again, I don't know exactly how this is playing out in terms of, I'm working these cases through now and trying my best to try to get these clients sorted out, but I've got a couple of them that are pretty darned irate, and quite frankly they should be. This is getting ridiculous here especially the one that's got a Waiver. I mean that thing, they've been operating in good faith from the get go, have gone through every part of the process correctly. They have had to go through the I-601 process; we had to do a huge RFE in the I-601 process because that's what they do as a matter of course now. We responded to that; we got it approved. And then now we're sitting around in admin. processing, which is basically another meaningless bureaucratise buzz-word term. I'm not wanting to get hyperbolically angry right now because I do understand that the folks at the Embassy are dealing with these policies that are emanating from D.C. which that's its own analysis as to sort of the reasonableness of some of these policies. 

But you know, my biggest concern with the Trump Administration - going all the way back into their first Administration - why don't you pass some laws? Stop doing this. Stop just cutting through the regulatory fabric that has worked, that stems from actual laws and then coming up with this sort of sophistry/chicanery kind of thinking and logic to create this sort of circular reasoning so that people just give up, because that's what it looks to me like. It's not based on articulable rules, laws and policies. It's just kind of word vomit and then you have just got to deal with it. I don't think that that's good policy and frankly I don't think it's a good thing for America to be treating its allies, the citizenry of their ally who are seeking visas to the United States in good faith, I don't really think it's good policy to treat them like this. I mean people go through this whole process just to be sort of told, eh, just to be giving word vomit and no real reason, articulable reason for legally saying why somebody shouldn't get a Visa or should get a Visa. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me especially in light of affirmative waivers being issued in a matter. I mean at what point are you just making it up as you go along, acting arbitrarily and capriciously, and arguably acting in contravention of promulgated Immigration Law.