Visa Photos

[Phil & Ningning]

I found this AP story a few minutes ago. Beware.

 

PITTSBURGH - Imagine being denied a passport for, of all things, your teeth. It could happen, but not because they're crooked. Under new rules for visa photographs that began this summer, the State Department doesn't want to see them at all, according to a story published in Sunday's Pittsburgh-Post Gazette.

 

 

 

The new guidelines permit people to smile for passport and visa pictures but frown on toothy smiles, which apparently are classified as unusual or unnatural expressions.

 

"The subject's expression should be neutral (non-smiling) with both eyes open, and mouth closed. A smile with a closed jaw is allowed but is not preferred," according to the guidelines.

 

So why does the State Department frown on smiles?

 

Smiling "distorts other facial features, for example your eyes, so you're supposed to have a neutral expression. ... The most neutral face is the most desirable standard for any type of identification," said Angela Aggeler, spokeswoman for the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, which handles travel-document guidelines.

 

A photograph of a person's face is considered the international standard for a "biometric" or physical identifier by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations (news - web sites) agency that sets international aviation safety standards. Last year, the organization announced standards for machine-readable passports which would include physical characteristics that computers could use to confirm people's identities.

 

"To allow for best possible comparison, if you smile or blink your eyes or turn your head, there would be fewer comparison points. So when you go to the counter, you will look at the camera in neutral face to offer the best comparison to the matching points on the picture in the passport," said Denis Chagnon, a spokesman for the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal.

 

Some photo shops and even immigration attorneys say they were blindsided by the prohibition against flashing pearly whites.

 

Mark Knapp, an immigration attorney with Reed Smith in Pittsburgh, said he knew about some of the other new guidelines for photographs but not the no-teeth rule. Knapp said he learned about the new guidelines from a colleague whose client's photo was rejected because of a toothy smile.

 

"You can't make this stuff up, honestly," Knapp said.

 

"What is interesting is the idea that you can't smile anymore and that they're rejecting photos. The idea that you can't smile is what most immigration lawyers find absurd," Knapp said.

 

Janet Stewart, who works at a downtown Pittsburgh photo shop, said she learned about the guideline the first day it went into effect because she had a photograph rejected.

 

"I'm the only photographer that says, 'Don't smile,'" she said.

[Guest Gene]

What will they come up with next?????? Good God!

[ed and ying]

I agree with Gene. The rule is the until someone, somewhere decides the rule is different. Too bad, there is no communication of the new "rule" ! You just find out the hard way!!

Ed

[Maui & China]

What if I just turn around, bend over, and show them my good side.

[kfman]

Just as long as your smiling when you show them...

[wolffjw]

Well, as much as I hate to say it, the rule makes sense, however, they should ensure widespread dissemination of any new rules like this, and really, this should have been done long ago. I suppose the responsibility is on the photographer to know of changes in rules, and I might even suggest that changes to rules should be broadcasted several months before going into effect and that there should be some amount of tolerance, especially for those visa applications near the time of the rule change.

 

The bottom line comes down to the photographer knowing the latest rules. The alternative is for the government to do all photographs themselves. Now we surely wouldn't want that!

[lele]

Well, as much as I hate to say it, the rule makes sense, however, they should ensure widespread dissemination of any new rules like this, and really, this should have been done long ago.  I suppose the responsibility is on the photographer to know of changes in rules, and I might even suggest that changes to rules should be broadcasted several months before going into effect and that there should be some amount of tolerance, especially for those visa applications near the time of the rule change.

 

The bottom line comes down to the photographer knowing the latest rules.  The alternative is for the government to do all photographs themselves.  Now we surely wouldn't want that!   

The sad thing is that the government *did* list the rules 30 days before they went into effect, as is mandated by law.

 

There is this *huge* document called the federal register. All rules must be placed in there before they can become law. However, most lawyers I know do not even have the time to read and digest the entire thing.

 

What I did was just carefully read the website at the DoS and asked the photographer to take the photos to the specifications that I found there. They were confused, but listened, and in the end, it worked out to be ok (some nations for visas require a litany of things for the photos, and it seems that the US may be one of them).

[mari]

I just couldn't stop laughing after I read this thread, especially after Jon's idea. I guess this is what happens when you do the things in the most correct way and expect the system to respond in such way and all you get is the same response always: "name check still pending". Makes you want to show them your best smile........