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

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

Introduction

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 [PDF version]. In this post, we will examine the process behind imposing the sanctions and their limited scope.

Background of Sanctions

The visa sanctions were imposed under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ordered consular officials in Burma (U.S. Embassy in Rangoon) and Laos (U.S. Embassy in Vientiane) to impose the section 243(d) visa sanctions after being notified by Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen that the countries had denied or unreasonably delayed accepting their nationals ordered removed from the United States.

Reasoning

Section 243(d) allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to impose visa sanctions on countries that are recalcitrant in accepting the return of their nationals ordered removed.

The DHS and DOS consider this recalcitrance to be a serious issue. Notably, the DHS press release explains that under the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) [PDF version], it must, with limited exceptions, release aliens with final orders of removable after six months of detention when there is no “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”

Because Burma and Laos have been recalcitrant in issuing travel documents for their nationals ordered removed, the press release states that “ICE has been required to release Burmese and Lao nationals into the United States, some with criminal convictions.”

Visa Sanctions on Burma

Starting on July 9, 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Rangoon, Burma, stopped issuing B1 and B2 nonimmigrant visas to current officials at the Director General level and above at the Burmese Ministries of Labor, and Population and Home Affairs. Furthermore, the Embassy in Rangoon also stopped issuing B1 and B2 visas to the immediate family members. However, there are limited exceptions to the visa restrictions.

Visa Sanctions on Laos

Starting on July 9, 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Vientiane, Laos, stopped issuing B1, B2, and B1/B2 nonimmigrant visas to current officials at the Director General level and above at the Lao Ministry of Public Security and to the immediate family members of these officials. Furthermore, the Embassy in Vientiane stopped issuing A3 and G5 nonimmigrant visas to individuals employed by Lao government officials. However, there are limited exceptions to the visa restrictions.

Conclusion

The Trump Administration has made reducing the number of countries that are recalcitrant in accepting the return of their nationals a priority, and, by its account, has made inroads in doing so. On September 13, 2017, we discussed the DOS’s decision to impose section 243(d) visa sanctions on Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Laos [see article].

The visa sanctions imposed against Burma and Laos are relatively narrow in scope, only applying to B1 and B2 visas (and B1/B2, A3, and G5 visas in the case of Laos) issued to a limited subset of nationals from these countries. These sanctions are in line with most of the recent 243(d) sanctions, with the exception of those imposed on Eritrea which applied to the issuance of all B visas.

Those with questions about the applicability of the section 243(d) visa sanctions on Burma, Laos, or any of the other recently sanctioned countries should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance.

Also you can read

Family Based Immigration

Marriage Fraud Old

There are many immigration benefits available to aliens who are married to U.S. citizens. For this reason, aliens in the United States who have accrued at least 180 days of unlawful presence, cannot work due to their lack of status, and face 3 or 10 year or permanent bars of inadmissibility that attach upon departing from the United States, have been known to consider entering into sham marriages solely for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits.

Fixing Misclassification as a Conditional Permanent Resident

We examine how a permanent resident who was misclassified as a conditional permanent resident by USCIS can fix the error.

SIJ Adjudications After Request for Evidence (RFE)

The USCIS updated its guidance on the 180-day period for adjudicating special immigrant juvenile petitions by removing provisions for tolling the 180-day period.

Want to schedule a consultation?

You can schedule a consultation with us on Skype, over the phone, or in person by using our “Online Consultation” form. Our fee is only $260 per up to 45 minutes for all consultations regardless of the topic.

Contact Information

27 Whitehall Street, 5th Fl New York, NY. 10004

Phone: (212) 202-0342

Fax: (212) 964-0440

Attorney Advertising: prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

myattorneyusa.com is owned and operated by The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC (Grinberg & Segal). The content of myattorneyusa.com is copyrighted. Grinberg & Segal is a NYC immigration law firm that consists of highly experienced immigration lawyers licensed to practice state law in New York and New Jersey and U.S. federal law worldwide. Grinberg & Segal’s  New York-based immigration, deportation and removal lawyers represent immigrant clients in all fifty states and before U.S. Consulates anywhere in the world. Grinberg and Segal’s immigration lawyers are highly skilled and experienced in all areas of immigration law and related federal litigation including Writs of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus as well as APA Action in Federal District Courts, Petitions For Review in U.S. Circuit Courts and all administrative appeals Before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the Executive Office for Immigration Review; Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as before Immigration Courts nationwide.