Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing, well we are discussing section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the overall US Immigration System right now, the sort of state of play. 

As I have discussed in other videos, Trump back in January, Trump's Administration, placed a “pause” on Immigrant Spouse Visas. On top of that, there are current restrictions, especially pertaining to travel from Myanmar that we are seeing, so Myanmar nationals are having trouble across the board securing visas to the United States, basically stemming from sanctions associated with the current state of their government and things over in Myanmar; I don't want to get too deep into that. But long story short, we are seeing 221(g)'s issued in ways, especially through this Embassy here in Bangkok, issued in ways that we have never really seen them issued before. 

Now in the past - especially through this post - a 221(g) was effectively a refusal pending further documentation, and depending on the specific case, it may continue to be. So we continue to see situations where we are issued 221(g)s that can be rectified. In those circumstances, basically we are dealing with them as we always have - we basically give them whatever they want, whatever is in furtherance to the case - and on we go. We get the visa approved. Primarily, as I've discussed in other videos, we're seeing visas issued in the K-1 Fiancé(e) category only again due to this pause. 

Now, as I have discussed in other videos, this Immigrant Spousal Visa pause is basically stating that hey. we currently are retooling our framework for ascertaining whether or not someone is going to be a public charge in the United States i.e. whether or not someone is going to go on welfare in the United States, and they are basically issuing 221(g)s that say, “until such time as we have retooled that framework, we are basically refusing the Visa”. Now here's the rub. With a 221(g), it tends to be valid for a year at a time. Now there may be ways to get some sort of re-adjudication to happen, another 221(g) to be issued and the case to continue, albeit in sort of a suspended state, but the case continues to be alive. My big question at this point is, is this Administration utilizing the 221(g) in order to just effectively run out the clock. I may make a thumbnail in this video of a of a quarterback from football basically taking a knee on a football and basically running out the clock. That's my question. Is 221(g) being used run out the clock on these cases? I am not sure yet. We have only recently been issued 221(g)s in connection with this recent Pause where we have seen them, they will issue a handout that says, "hey, we're retooling our Public Charge analysis, and until such time as we have a new mechanism for determining that, we are not issuing the Visa", but in theory it can be issued later. The question is will it, or is this all just essentially a form of gamesmanship being perpetrated on good-faith applicants for visas to the United States, and they have no intention of ultimately issuing visas associated with these cases? 

Again, why Thailand was even put on the list for the pause to my mind makes no sense either, especially in light of the fact Thailand is the United States' oldest ally in East Asia; we have never been a high fraud post out here in Thailand, and on top of that, the volume of Thais that even go to the United States is really, really small compared to other nationalities, especially Vietnam and the Philippines; I mean it's infinitesimally small compared to some of those jurisdictions. Korea comes to mind too, and don't even get me started on China. But meanwhile, Thailand is taking kind of a drubbing in terms of Immigration Policy. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

That said, the point of this video is yeah, the 221(g) is being used in certain cases differently than how we have seen it operate in the past. It remains to be seen how this plays out, so we will certainly be keeping folks updated on this channel as the situation evolves.