Consulate officer splains his job

[Greg.D.]

Visa officers aren’t racist — they’re just enforcing the law

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/22/visa-officers-arent-racist-theyre-just-enforcing-law/?utm_term=.daecccc7524d

 

Not sure he's being straight up here:

 

 

I still remember the first time I refused a visa for someone seeking lifesaving assistance. The applicant, admitting that she did not have the money for medical treatment or any plan to leave the United States once she got there, nevertheless wanted a visa for chemotherapy. Having survived bone and lung cancer myself, I was beyond sympathetic. She had already been refused three times, she said, and I was her last chance. Yet I had to say no. She had been clear that, if given a visa, she did not intend to return to her home country. It was the first of many difficult decisions I made. I said no to families escaping violence and poverty. I said no to survivors of war. I said no to 90-year-old grandmothers and to 3-year-olds whose parents wanted to take them to Disney World. Across four countries and four continents, I said no to tens of thousands of people in the name of the laws of the United States.

 

Note here, it seems he gets to determine what the facts are, maybe fill in some, too:

 

None of us denied visas to movie actors or cancer patients because we were inherently cruel or political, or had axes to grind. Many individuals who come for visa interviews are sympathetic, but the facts of many of their cases indicated that if they got a visa, they almost certainly would never leave the United States. Congress has tasked consular officers specifically with determining which applicants have strong enough ties to their home country to compel their return.

 

[Randy W]

Sigh!

We’re glad you’re enjoying

The Washington Post.

 

 

 

Please send MONEY to read more, although it MAY have originally come from the Carroll County Times of Westminster, MD (for free).

 

 

Visa officers aren't racist — they're just enforcing the law

 

 

 

. . .

consular officers are not permitted, because of privacy regulations, to explain the legal or factual basis for their decision. . . .

Perhaps being a consular officer is far too much power for one individual. The State Department is a predominantly white institution, whose officers are tasked with making judgments about predominantly brown and poor applicants. That often made me uncomfortable, and I left the Foreign Service, in part, because of it. But for the officers who remain, there are many categories of visas, but sympathy visas and "feel good story" visas are not among them. Perhaps they should be, but that is for members of Congress to decide. Until then, consular officers must enforce the law as written.

 

It IS the applicants responsibility to make their own case.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Greg.D.]

He is misleading, conflating known and accepted terms like the word "facts" with his subjective mind reading. The give away is when he says ".. they almost certainly ..."

 

You get rejected to serve on a jury for claiming to have such mind-reading and fact-conjuring abilities. Of course the visa applicant must make his/her own case, but how to account for what is in the mind of a clever consulate officer? Oh, I know: hire a retired consular officer as your immigration attorney.

[Allon]

I can't say that I don't understand the consular agent's position. 60% (from TV news, so it's not totally reliable) of illegal aliens come from visas that are overstayed.

 

But given the stories as Greg has shown, they are a heartless bunch if the facts show a hardship and they still turn the visa down on the guise of following the law. They can follow the law and still approve the visa.

 

We had to hire an attorney as we were treated very unfair in her hearing. I was ready to take them to court and they finally relented. So yes, I would hire a former consulate official as my attorney.