Consular Processing

Consular processing is an alternate process for an individual outside the United States (or who is in the United States but is ineligible to adjust status) to obtain a visa abroad and enter the United States as a permanent resident.

Direct Consular Filing (DCF)

A U.S.C. spouse who resides outside of the United States can file an I-130 from outside of the United States, which is known as Direct Consular Filing. Direct Consular Filing allows eligible candidates to speed up the process in which a beneficiary will be allowed to enter the United States. This can then result in an expedited process for obtaining a green card (permanent residency).

Returning Residents and the SB-1 Visa

Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) are advised to limit their stays overseas to periods shorter than 12 months in order to maintain their Permanent Residence status in the United States. LPRs that wish to stay overseas for a period greater than one year and less than two years are required to have a valid re-entry permit. Without a re-entry permit, the person may be denied entry into the U.S. But what about an LPR that traveled overseas, with the intention of returning to the U.S. and maintaining their resident status, and could not return within the two-year period for reasons beyond his/her control?

Symbols and Coding used by DHS, DOS and other agencies on immigration documents

The following is a table of the most common codes used on the Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card (Green Card). These codes make it easier for immigration officials to determine whether the alien presenting the document is eligible for a given public benefit. The codes do not determine state funding for federal benefits. In family-based cases where the LPR requires a sponsor, this code is only part of the process for determining whether the LPR in question is eligible for a public benefit.

Visa Refusals and Avenues to Respond

Visa applicants must apply to obtain a visa at the appropriate U.S. consulate. Consular officers may refuse a visa if it believes that the applicant is ineligible for his or her visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Visa refusals may be issued on account of an applicant being ineligible under sections 212(a) [inadmissibility], 214(b) [failure by nonimmigrant visa applicant to establish nonimmigrant intent], or 221(g) [failure to fully complete visa application or provide all supporting documentation] of the INA. This article will use the statutes, regulations, and the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) to explain the grounds on which consular officers may refuse a visa. We will explain different options available to visa applicants depending on the legal or regulatory ground(s) underlying the refusal.

Updated National Benefit Center Form Processing Times

On January 12, 2016, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released its updated processing times for the National Benefits Center. The chart provides average processing times for various immigration forms that are handled by the National Benefits Center based on the processing timeframe as of November 30, 2015.

Visa Overstays and INA 222g

If a nonimmigrant overstays the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General, or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or an Immigration Judge finds that he or she violated nonimmigrant status, the nonimmigrant's visa will be rendered void. With limited exceptions, an alien who overstayed a nonimmigrant visa may only be readmitted to the United States after applying for a new visa at a consular office in his or her country of nationality.

Visa Revocations

The Department of State (DOS) has the authority to revoke a nonimmigrant visa or an immigrant visa at any time while the visa holder is outside of the United States. The DOS’s authority derives from statute and is developed in both DOS regulations and the DOS Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) for consular officers. Additionally, DOS may provisionally revoke a visa while it considers information relating to whether the visa-holder is eligible for the visa. If a visa is revoked, it will be cancelled by DOS. In this article, we will look at the applicable statutes, regulations, and agency guidance to explain visa revocations.

Consular Post Prudential Visa Revocations for Driving Under the Influence

In general, a Consular Post may not revoke the visa of a nonimmigrant who has either been admitted into the United States or has commenced an uninterrupted journey to the United States. For the Department of State (DOS) to revoke a visa in the case, the revocation must go through DOS’s Visa Office of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination. However, the current version of DOS’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) allows the Consular Post that issued a nonimmigrant visa to, under certain circumstances; prudentially revoke the visa of an alien who has been convicted within the previous 5 years of driving under the influence (DUI) or a related offense. In this article, we will examine the FAM’s policies on prudential visa revocations for DUI arrests or convictions and recent comments by the DOS addressing the FAM guidance.

Visa Interview Waivers and Drop Box Submissions

Most nonimmigrant visa applicants are required to appear at their U.S. Embassy or Consulate for a visa interview. There are limited exceptions to the interview requirement found in 22 C.F.R. 41.102(b) for diplomats and those seeking to renew certain nonimmigrant visas. The Foreign Affairs Manual expands on the regulations in the form of the Interview Waiver Program. In this article, we will examine the regulations and agency guidance to see the rules for when a nonimmigrant visa applicant is eligible to make a “drop box” submission to renew a nonimmigrant visa in lieu of appearing for an interview.

Drop-Box Visa Renewal Applications in Russia

Department of State (DOS) regulations allow for limited waivers of the nonimmigrant visa interview requirement for applicants who seek renewal of certain nonimmigrant visas within 12 months of expiration. In 2012, the DOS also began the Interview Waiver Program, which allowed for applicants seeking renewal of certain nonimmigrant visas later than 12 months but within 48 months. In order to take advantage of the Interview Waiver Program, the applicant must make what is called a “drop-box” submission. In this article, we will examine the process for making a drop-box submission when applying to renew a nonimmigrant visa in Russia.

Pony-Express Document Drop-Off Locations in Russia

The U.S. Mission in Russia provides a list of Pony Express document drop-off locations. These are used for visa renewal applicants in Russia or for when the U.S. Mission in Russia requests additional documents in a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa application. This article provides a list of Pony Express document drop-off locations.

Case Law on the Abandonment of Permanent Resident Status

If a lawful permanent resident (LPR) is found to have abandoned his or her permanent residency, he or she will be subject to loss of status. An LPR who is charged with having abandoned his or her status will be subject to removal proceedings if he or she is present in the United States on account of having been allowed entry as an LPR. In this article, we will discuss relevant administrative and judicial precedent regarding the abandonment of LPR status.

DOS Rules for Abandonment of Permanent Residency

In order for a lawful permanent resident (LPR) to maintain his or her permanent resident status, he or she must retain the intent to live in the United States. An LPR may depart the United States temporarily and retain his or her LPR status; however, an LPR who departs the United States must retain the intention to reside in the United States for the entirety of his or her temporary trip abroad. If it is found that a departure was not temporary, the alien’s LPR status will be considered to have been “abandoned.” The abandonment of LPR status results in the loss of status and leaves the alien subject to removal from the United States. In this article, we will discuss the concept of “abandonment” of LPR status and the rules regarding abandonment found in the pertinent statutes, regulations, and in the Department of State’s (DOS’s) Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) (with a focus on the DOS criteria).

Eligibility to Receive a Second Immigrant Visa While on LPR Status

In certain circumstances, an alien who is a lawful permanent resident (LPR) may be able to receive another immigrant visa for a different preference category. An LPR may only receive another immigrant visa in a different preference category through consular processing. An LPR may benefit from this for purpose of conferring derivative status (rather than filing a family-sponsored petition in the second preference category). Additionally, an LPR may benefit from an immigrant visa in a different preference category if the basis on which he or she obtained LPR status would be detrimental in traveling to a specific country. In this article, we will examine the relevant guidance from the DHS, DOS, and DOL on the ability of an LPR to receive another immigrant visa in a different preference category.

Maintaining Permanent Resident Status as a Commuter LPR

A lawful permanent resident (LPR) may be permitted to live in Canada or Mexico and commute to the United States for work while maintaining LPR status. In this article, we will example the relevant statutes, regulations, and administrative and judicial guidance on the maintenance of LPR status for commuter LPRs from Canada or Mexico.

Termination of Immigrant Visa Registration

Under certain circumstances, the Department of State (DOS) has the authority to terminate an immigrant visa registration and revoke the underlying immigrant visa petition. In general, the termination of immigrant visa registration will occur when an applicant with an approved immigrant visa petition fails to follow through by making an application for an immigrant visa within one year of receiving notice that an immigrant visa number is available, or when the applicant fails to attempt to overcome the ground(s) for a visa refusal in a timely manner. In this article, we will examine the applicable statutes, regulations, agency guidance, and judicial precedent regarding the termination of immigrant visa registration.

Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation)

On August 31, 2016, the United States and Citizenship Services published a new form called the Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation). The purpose of this new form is to allow a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who either lost his or her Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card (“Green Card”) or had it stolen or destroyed while abroad to procure documentation to reenter the United States. In this article, we will examine the uses for the Form I-131A, guidance from the form instructions, and provide general information on the subject.

DOS Releases New Reciprocity Fee Schedule for South Africa

On November 21, 2016, the Department of State (DOS) revised the reciprocity schedule for South Africa. The new reciprocity fee schedule for South Africa is effective immediately. The new reciprocity fee schedule for South Africa will reduce the fees for each nonimmigrant visa category listed “commensurate to those imposed by the Government of the Republic of South Africa on U.S. Citizens. The new reciprocity fee schedule for South Africa in fact eliminates fees entirely across a range of nonimmigrant visa categories. All visa validities for South African nationals remain unchanged in the new reciprocity schedule for South Africa.

Suspension of Visa Interview Waiver Program Under President Trump's March 6, 2017 Travel Order

On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” (“Travel Order”). This Executive Order revokes and replaces an Executive Order of the same name issued by President Trump on January 27, 2017. In this article, we will examine the portion of the Travel Order that indefinitely suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program.

DOS Cables on Implementation of President Trump's March 6 Travel Order (Effective Immediately)

On March 23, 2017, Reuters obtained four Department of State (DOS) cables relating to the implementation of visa interview procedures stemming from President Donald Trump’s March 6 Executive Order 13780 titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (“Travel Order”), and an associated Presidential Memorandum. In this article, we will examine the changes detailed in the DOS cables that will take effect immediately (provisions that are unaffected by the ongoing litigation regarding the Travel Order).

DOS Proposal for Enhanced Vetting of Certain Visa Applicants

On May 4, 2017, the United States Department of State (DOS) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) titled “Notice of Information Collection Under OMB Emergency Review: Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants.” In the Notice, the DOS submitted an information collection request for a limited subset of consular processing cases to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seeking approval in accordance with the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The FR Notice is open for public comment until May 18, 2017. If the OBM grants emergency approval by May 18, 2017, such emergency approval will only be valid for 180 days. In this post, we will examine the request and what it may mean if OMB grants emergency approval.

Trump Memorandum Adjusts Effective Date of Executive Order 13780

On June 14, 2017, President Donald Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum titled “Effective Date in Executive Order 13780” to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence. President Trump issued Executive Order 13780, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” on March 6, 2017. Certain provisions of the Executive Order were enjoined before it could take effect. Due to the suspension of entry and suspension of refugee travel provisions having been blocked, the suspensions were slated to expire without ever having gone into effect. In the Presidential Memorandum, President Trump took the position that the enjoined provisions of sections 2, 3, 6, and 12(c) of Executive Order 13780 were “delayed or tolled” until the injunctions are lifted or stayed. President Trump then declared that the effective date of each enjoined provision is now the date on which the injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to each enjoined provision. He added that the Presidential Memorandum “should be construed to amend the Executive Order” to the extent necessary.

SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Travel Order ("Travel Ban") Case and Narrows Injunction

The case concerns challenges to President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13780, issued on March 6, 2017. Multiple provisions of the Executive Order had been enjoined by Federal District Courts, and the injunctions were mostly upheld by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. The two provisions primarily at issue before the Supreme Court were the temporary suspension of entry of nationals of six countries and the temporary suspension of refugee travel. The Court granted the Government’s petition for certiorari in the cases, meaning that it will hear oral arguments next October and presumably decide the cases next term. The Trump Administration also requested a stay of the injunctions. The Supreme Court granted the request for the stay, in part, holding that the injunction no longer applies to individuals who lack a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. In this article, we will examine the Court's opinion as well as the concurring/dissenting opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Statements from Pres Trump, DOS, DHS, and DOJ on IRAP v. Trump Decision

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. ___ (2017). The decision concerned the so-called “travel ban” included in President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order 13780 titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” In short, the Court agreed to hear the challenge to the Executive Order during the court’s next term (likely in October), but it also narrowed significantly the lower court injunctions against the Executive Order’s suspension of entry of nationals of six countries and the suspension of refugee travel. In this article, we will examine the early responses to the ruling from the Trump Administration for clues on what may be the next steps regarding the implementation and enforcement of the non-enjoined provisions of the Executive Order.

President Trump Does Away With Nonimmigrant Visa Applicant Interview Target

On June 21, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13802, titled “Amending Executive Order 13597.” Former President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13597, titled “Establishing Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness,” on January 19, 2012. The now-stricken section 2(b)(ii) of Executive Order 13579 directed the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to develop an implementation plan to “ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within 3 weeks of receipt of application, recognizing that resource and security considerations and the need to ensure provision of consular services to U.S. citizens may dictate specific exceptions.”

Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Narrowed Injunction Against Executive Order 13780

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed parts of President Donald Trump’s March 6, 2017, Executive Order 13780 titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign terrorist Entry Into the United States” – which had been enjoined by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits – to take effect. The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii adopted a more expansive reading of the injunction than did the government. The Supreme Court sided with the government in part while the case is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DHS and DOS Implementation of Travel Executive Order After Supreme Court Decision

On June 29, 2017, the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued documents regarding their implementation of sections of Executive Order 13780 relating to the suspension of entry of nationals of six countries and the suspension of refugee travel (colloquially called the “Travel Ban”). The restrictions took effect at 8:00 P.M. EDT on June 29, 2017, subsequent to the Supreme Court of the United States lifting parts of the lower court injunctions against those sections of Executive Order 13780 in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. ___ (2017). In this article, we will examine the relevant DOS and DHS guidance and explain what it means going forward.

U.S. Mission in Russia Announces Suspensions and Delays for NIV Processing in Russia

On August 21, 2017, the U.S. Department of State’s Mission to Russia announced that effective August 23, 2017, it would suspend all nonimmigrant visa operations across Russia. Beginning on September 1, 2017, operations will resume in Moscow but will remain suspended at U.S. Consulates. The move comes in response to the recent decision of the Russian government to impose a cap on U.S. diplomatic personnel in Russia. In this article, we will examine what the news means through the DOS fact sheet on the issue.

Visa Sanctions Triggered Against Four Countries Deemed Deficient in Accepting Return of Nationals

On August 22, 2017, Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had exercised its authority under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to trigger visa sanctions against four countries found to be recalcitrant in accepting the return of their nationals. In accord with the statute, the DHS notified the U.S. Department of State (DOS), which will have responsibility for imposing the visa sanctions.

Visa Sanctions Imposed Against Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson exercised their authority under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to impose visa sanctions under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act against Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.

Background and Policy Changes in Sep 24, 2017 Presidential Proclamation on Vetting ("Travel Ban")

On September 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” President Trump’s proclamation follows his March 6, 2017 Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” and more specifically following up on the sections of the Executive Order dealing with the suspension of entry of nationals of six countries and provisions for enhanced vetting of visa applicants. The proclamation explains the results of the Executive Order 13780 regarding the imposition of new enhanced vetting procedures and provides for further improvement to vetting going forward. The proclamation restricts the entry of nationals of eight countries indefinitely, with the specific restrictions varying from country to country. In this article, we will examine the purpose of the proclamation and the new vetting procedures it establishes.

Applying for Boarding Foil Abroad as LPR with the Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation)

In 2016, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a new form titled the Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation). The Form I-131A allows certain lawful permanent residents abroad who have lost their permanent resident card or other authorization to reenter the United States to apply for a transportation letter or boarding foil to give to an airline in order to return to the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may, in its discretion, also issue a travel document that has a validity period of 30 days. In this article, we will examine the use of the Form I-131A, who is eligible, when the Form I-131A is appropriate, and the effect of having a Form I-131A application approved.

DOS Suspends Visa Processing at U.S. Embassy in Havana and USCIS Suspends Operations at Havana Field Office

On September 29, 2017, the DOS withdrew all non-essential staff from the U.S. Embassy in Havana. As a result, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) suspended almost all visa processing at U.S. Embassy Havana. On December 22, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) suspended operations at its field office in Havana, also as a result of the DOS draw-down. In this article, we will examine what this means for Cubans seeking visas through consular processing or filing forms with the USCIS.

Trump Memo on National Vetting Center and New Vetting Policies

On February 6, 2018, President Donald Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum – 9 (NSPM-9), titled “Organizing the Use of Federal Government Information in Support of the National Vetting Enterprise.”. In NSPM-9, President Trump directed the establishment of a National Vetting Governance Board and a National Vetting Center to aid in immigration enforcement and border security. In this post, we will examine NSPM-9 and what its’ implementation may mean going forward.

DOS 90-Day Rule for Presumption of Misrepresentation

The Department of State (DOS) previously had the “30/60 day rule,” where it would presume that a nonimmigrant that acted in a matter inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 30 days of of acquiring such status had made a material misrepresentation in applying for a visa, entry, or other immigration benefit. On September 1, 2017, the DOS replaced the 30/60 day rule with a new “90 day rule,” which extends the presumption of material misrepresentation out to 90 days. In this article, we will examine the purpose of the 90 day rule, how it works in practice, and how the rule may be relied upon as a guide by the Department of Homeland Security.

President Trump Removes Chad from "Travel Ban" Effective April 13, 2018

On September 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued his Presidential Proclamation 9645 (Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats). In the Proclamation 9645, President Trump placed restrictions on the entry of certain nationals from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. On April 10, 2018, President Trump lifted the previously imposed entry restrictions and limitations on nationals of Chad, while leaving them in place for nationals of the other seven countries as set forth on September 24, 2017.

Review of AILA/DOS Q&A from April 12, 2018

On April 12, 2018, the Department of State (DOS) published questions and answers from an outreach event that it hosted with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) State Department Liaison Committee. The DOS provided answers to pressing questions about its policies and procedures from ALIA. In this post, we will review some of the most interesting information gleaned from the question and answer session along with analysis in a non-comprehensive manner. To make it easier for you to find the information that you are looking for, we have organized the topics into a table of contents.

Presidential Proclamation 9645 Restrictions on Entry for Nationals of Certain Countries ("Travel Ban")

On September 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” President Trump’s proclamation follows his March 6, 2017 Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” and more specifically following its sections on the suspension of entry of nationals of six countries and provisions for enhanced vetting of visa applicants. In addition to describing new vetting procedures and setting forth processes for continuing to develop vetting procedures, the proclamation suspends to varying degrees the entry of nationals of eight countries. As of April 13, 2018, the restrictions apply to seven of the original eight countries. In this article, we will examine the provisions of the proclamation suspending the entry of certain nationals of eight countries, discuss who is subject, and explain the waiver provisions and other exemptions.

Trump v. Hawaii (Majority Opinion): Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump Administration in "Travel Ban" Case

On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Trump v. Hawaii, —- S.Ct. —— (2018). In its decision, the Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017), wherein the Ninth Circuit enjoined the entry restrictions against nationals of eight countries in President Trump’s September 24, 2017, Presidential Proclamation 9645 (commonly called the “travel ban”). By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court concluded that the President had acted within his statutory authority under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in issuing the suspension of entry provisions in the Proclamation, and it held that the entry restrictions did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In reviewing the constitutional claim, the Court applied rational basis scrutiny due to the fact that those affected were foreign nationals outside of the United States. In this article, we will carefully review the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii.

DHS/DOS Impose 243(d) Visa Sanctions Against and Burma and Laos

On July 10, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in coordination with the Department of State (DOS), announced visa sanctions against Burma and Laos due to their lack of cooperation in accepting the return of their nationals ordered removed from the United States. In this post, we will examine the process behind imposing the sanctions and their limited scope.

Use of Bone Age Testing by DOS and USCIS

In U.S. Department of State (DOS) cable 98-State-096341, reprinted in 75 No. 24 Interpreter Releases 883 (June 29, 1998), the DOS provided guidance to consular officers “as to whether they can use bone age testing to determine whether [visa] applicants are eligible for derivative status as children under the age of 21.” The DOS concluded that bone age testing was, at that time, “insufficiently proven or reliable to be the sole determinant of an applicant’s eligibility for derivative status.” Although the cable was issued in 1998, the DOS has not issued contradictory guidance since. In this article, we will examine the 1998 DOS cable on bone age testing and other related issues, including limited information on the USCIS's view of the issue.

DOS Guidance for Consular Officials on New or Amended H1B Petitions and Worksite Change (Under Matter of Simeio Solutions)

On November 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) issued Cable 15 STATE 13442, titled “New Guidance on H-1B Adjudications Involving Changes in Place of Employment.” The DOS Cable provides guidance to DOS officers on the interpretation of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy Memorandum (PM)-602-0120 (Jul. 21, 2015), which provided guidance on implementing the precedential decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015). The decision clarified that where an H1B employer moves an H1B employee to a new worksite in a location requiring the certification of a new Labor Condition Application (LCA), the employer must file a new or amended H1B petition with the USCIS. In this article, we will focus on the guidance in the DOS Cable for consular officers.

Notes from October 2018 DOS/AILA Question and Answer

On October 18, 2018, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) answered questions from the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA’s) State Department Liaison Committee. Although the answers provided by the DOS do not constitute binding policy, they nevertheless help elucidate many important issues involving the DOS’s role in the immigration system and its current policies. In this post, we will review the most interesting questions and answers from the October 18 meeting.

USCIS to Close Moscow Field Office

On February 5, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it is closing its Moscow Field Office on March 29, 2019. This significant decision continues the drawdown of the U.S. Department of State’s (DOS’s) and USCIS’s immigration processing in Russia. We will discuss what the closure of the Moscow Field Office means going forward in this article.

Discontinuation of Visa Granting Under INA 243(d) Orders

Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows the Secretary of State to impose visa sanctions against countries whose governments deny or unreasonably delay accepting the return of nationals and residents ordered removed to those countries. Under prior regulations, consular officers adjudicating visa applications abroad were required to grant or deny every visa application, including those which could not be approved due to section 243(d) sanctions. The DOS explains that “[t]his [new] rule makes clear that discontinuation of visa granting is an acceptable alternative to issuing or refusing a properly executed visa application…” The new regulations “set[] out procedures for discontinuation of visa issuance when INA 243(d) applies.”

Entry Restrictions for Certain Business Dealings With Iran Metals Sector

On May 8, 2019, President Trump issued an Executive Order which, in part, suspends the entry of aliens who engage in prohibited business dealings with the Iranian metals sector.

DOS Adds Social Media Questions for Visa Applicants

On May 31, 2019, the Department of State (DOS) updated its immigrant and nonimmigrant visa application forms to include a request for social media identifiers and other additional information from the majority of U.S. visa applicants.

All IV Applicants at U.S. Embassy in Kiev to be Tested for Measles Antibodies

Effective August 1, 2019, the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine began blood testing all immigrant visa applicants during their medical examinations for the presence of measles antibodies. This test is required even if the applicant has been previously vaccinated for measles. If the result of the blood test is negative, the applicant will be required to obtain medical clearance in order to travel.

President Trump Proclamation Restricting Entry for Immigrants Who Lack Health Insurance

On October 4, 2019, President Donald Trump published a Presidential Proclamation invoking various sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to restrict the entry of aliens as immigrants who cannot establish that they will not burden the United States healthcare system. The Proclamation is slated to take effect on November 3, 2019. If the Proclamation goes into effect in full, it will likely have a significant effect on the immigrant visa process, raising new burdens for prospective immigrants to gain admission into the United States.

Temporary Suspension of Entry for Recent Visitors to China

On January 31, 2020, President Donald Trump imposed entry restrictions on foreign nationals who have been to China in the 14 days immediately preceding entry into the United States. The restrictions are designed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in the United States. With exceptions for lawful permanent residents and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, most foreign nationals who have been to China within the 14 days immediately preceding their application for admission to the United States will be denied entry. The suspension will persist until it is rescinded by President Trump. In this article, we will examine the temporary entry restrictions on foreign nationals who have been to China.

President Expands "Travel Ban" to Cover Six New Countries

The instant proclamation serves as an update to President Trump’s Presidential Proclamation 9645, wherein he imposed entry restrictions on nationals of seven countries (Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen), commonly known as the “travel ban.” The President’s new proclamation retains the entry restrictions on nationals of the seven countries covered by Proclamation 9645, and adds restrictions to nationals of Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.

Europe Travel Restrictions Due to Coronavirus Outbreak

On March 11, 2020, President Donald Trump suspended the entry of most foreign nationals who were physically present in Europe’s Schengen Area within the 14 days preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States. On March 14, 2020, President Trump imposed identical suspensions of entry on foreign nationals who had been physically present in the United Kingdom, excluding its overseas territories outside of Europe, and Ireland.

Coronavirus Travel Restrictions on Noncitizens Who Were Recently Physically Present in India

President Joe Biden restricted entry of persons who were physically present in India within 14 days prior to their entry or attempted entry.