Monthly Archives: February 2014

Countries From Which It’s Hardest to Get a Visitor (B-2) Visa to the U.S.

jigsaw in blue with five missing piecesThe U.S. Department of State (DOS) recently released statistics showing what percentage of applicants from various countries have been denied tourist or visitor visas in 2013 and earlier years. In some cases, the refusal rate isn’t just high, it’s overwhelming — that is, a majority of applicants get a “No” answer.

You might as well not even try applying for a visitor visa if you’re from Micronesia or Serbia and Montenegro. The refusal rate in those locations is 100%. Yes, you read that right — everyone who asks for a visa is apparently refused. Or perhaps the few who are approved are statistically insignificant (though they should really break out the champagne).

Also high on the refusal list are Somalia (65.8%), Djibouti (62.6%), (Afghanistan (62.7%), Ghana (61.8%), Laos (61.4%), Cuba (61.1%), Liberia (59%), Tajikistan (53.7%), Burundi (52.7%), and Mauritania (50%). (Hey, are the consular officers just flipping coins in Mauritania?)

Looking over this list, a certain pattern emerges. The countries with high refusal rates also have difficult civil or economic situations, as a result of which many people may be looking for a way out — in other words, bringing the kids to Disneyland is probably the last thing on their minds or within their budgets. And the U.S. government must, by law, deny visitor visas to anyone who looks as though their real intention is to make the U.S. their permanent home.

For more on the eligibility criteria for a U.S. visitor visa, see “Visiting the U.S. for Business, Pleasure, or Medical Treatment.”

“Anchor Babies” in the News: The Pregnancy Path to U.S. Citizenship

asianbabyEvery law seems to have unintended consequences. The original intent of granting citizenship to every baby born on U.S. soil (done within the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) was to avoid creating an underclass, particularly among people who were brought to the U.S. as slaves.

(Congress was responding to the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which the U.S.  Supreme Court denied citizenship rights to freed slaves.)

Now, however, a cottage industry has seemingly developed to assist people from outside the U.S. — particularly from Asia — to come here on temporary visas in order to give birth to new little U.S. citizens.

The price tag for such “maternity hotel” services tends toward the tens of thousands of dollars. The fee covers travel and visa arrangements, medical care, and more. (See, for instance, “Giving birth in U.S. to get babies citizenship draws suspicion” and “In suburbs of L.A., a cottage industry of birth tourism” and “Chinese birth tourism booms in Southern California.”)

One such service reportedly advertises, “We guarantee that each baby can obtain a U.S. passport and related documents.” That’s not a hard guarantee to make, given the Constitutional backing!

Some of the reasons expectant parents give for wanting to give birth in the U.S. have immediate or short-term utility. For example, interviewees from China mentioned goals such as as circumventing that country’s one-child restrictions, or wanting to ensure that their child will be able to study in the U.S. or have the protection of the U.S. government in times of difficulty.

Other reasons, however, are remarkably long-term in scope. The families are creating an “anchor” for future U.S. immigration — and it’s one that can’t help them until the child turns 21.

To be clear, having a child who is a U.S. citizen does NOT provide any immediate rights to live or gain status in the United States. Only a U.S. citizen who is age 21 or over can petition his or her parents for U.S. lawful permanent residence (a green card). That application process alone will likely take at least a year.

What’s more, if the little citizens’ parents were to take a chance and attempt to remain in the U.S. illegally for the requisite 21 years, they’d become “inadmissible” — that is, ineligible for a green card — based on their history of unlawful presence here. (In fact, the “birth tourism” agencies likely warn the parents of this, since reports have it that they fly home soon after the births.)

There’s nothing in U.S. immigration law that expressly forbids birth tourism. Arguments could be made that the parents are committing visa fraud by claiming to enter as “tourists.” Still, even if the immigration enforcement authorities push this point, a finding that the parents’ committed visa fraud won’t negate the children’s status as citizens. (It will, however, make the parents inadmissible and unable to receive any U.S. visa or green card in the future.)

Whatever one might think of the practice of birth tourism, we’ve got to admire that level of long-term planning!

Horror Story About Seven-Minute Immigration Hearings Isn’t the Whole Story

Breaking pointThe Washington Post‘s recent article, “In a crowded immigration court, seven minutes to decide a family’s future,” exposes one of the many weaknesses of the U.S. immigration system: Undocumented and other immigrants caught violating the immigration laws receive no free legal representation (unless a sympathetic attorney steps in pro bono), have little idea of what their legal rights might be, and enter a system where little individual attention is possible before they’re, in many cases, escorted away.

The Immigration Judge profiled in the article, Lawrence Burman of Virginia, had 26 cases on his morning hearing docket, or an average of seven minutes in which to make a decision on each case.

The results of such a system can be tragic. Let’s say, for example, that the person arrives at one of these hearings with no attorney, doesn’t realize that the bad experiences he fled from in his own country amount to persecution that might qualify him for asylum, and thus fails to convey this to the judge or attorney (assuming he’s even lucky enough to find an attorney serving pro bono and able to understand the person’s language).

If the judge has no more than seven minutes to talk with such a person — and if the person misguidedly fills up the time assuring the judge that he loves this country and works hard and would do well if allowed to stay (common errors, which usually get the immigrant nowhere) — it could be all to easy for the judge to order the person to depart the United States.

But let’s make one thing about the system clear: It is possible for immigrants facing deportation to have a full, private hearing before an immigration judge that lasts more than seven minutes. It’s a matter of knowing the procedural steps and what to ask for. What the article seems to have been describing was merely step one, the so-called “master calendar” hearing.

At a master calendar hearing, many people arrive all at once, and the judge decides which of them seem to have enough of a legal case for staying in the U.S. to be worth calendaring for a full, “merits” hearing. The merits hearing can last for hours, and be continued to future dates, with opportunities for testimony by the noncitizen as well as witnesses, introduction of documents and exhibits, and so on.

Many people won’t have any case for staying in the U.S. at all — they are undocumented, and have no immediate family connections, no grounds upon which to request asylum or “cancellation of removal,” and no other plausible defense to deportation.

But many will have some legal basis upon which to request either the long-term right to stay in the U.S., or at least “prosecutorial discretion” (meaning that the U.S. government agrees that the person is a low enforcement priority because of U.S. family ties and other equities, and will leave him or her alone for the moment). And they may not even know it. The judge will try to elicit such information, but as the article shows, has little time in which to do so.

The more that people called into removal proceedings can do to research their rights and find an attorney in advance, the lower the chance that their seven minutes will be wasted and lead to a hasty order of deportation.

The Justin Bieber Immigration Chronicles, Continued

If I blog about Justin Bieber for the third time in a row, does that make me a “Belieber?” (Nah, I still can’t hum a thing he’s recorded, sorry.)

But he’s become the world’s best object lesson regarding U.S. immigration law and policy.

drug dogIn his latest kerfuffle, reported on by CNN, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials searched his private plane, interviewed him for “several hours,” and brought in the trusty drug-sniffing dogs before letting him back into the U.S. from his recent trip to Canada.

(CBP are the same folks who meet you at the airport or border, examine your passport or other entry documents, and ask whether you’re bringing in any drugs, snakes, explosives, and so on before they hopefully wave you in).

Their reason for spending so many time on Bieber? To get autographs for their kids, of course! Oh, no, the officials say that they’d “detected an odor of marijuana after [the plane] landed in New Jersey.”

Uh oh, the dreaded weed. Maybe they’re getting into the spirit of the “let’s deport Justin” movement, because had drugs been found, that plus his earlier admission of having been smoking marijuana might very well be enough to have him removed from the U.S. as a drug abuser. (See my earlier blog, “Justin Bieber “Stuck in the Moment” of a Pending Removal Proceeding?“)

But either their sniffers were overactive that day or the Bieber entourage does a really, really good job of hiding its dope, because nothing was found. Justin was allowed into the U.S., with nary a stain on his record. That means he doesn’t get to join my list of  “International Celebrities Denied U.S. Entry Visas.” (Then again, by the pilot’s description, they may have simply smoked it all.)