UNCLASSIFIED TELEGRAM March 15, 2001 To: ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS - ROUTINE Origin: VO From: SECSTATE WASHDC (STATE 45943 - ROUTINE) TAGS: CVIS, CMGT Captions: None Subject: FULL-VALIDITY VERSUS LIMITED-VALIDITY NIVS Ref: None _________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary: As a general practice, consular officers should issue full-validity visas to nonimmigrant visa applicants whenever possible. If visa reciprocity schedules call for multiple-entry visas, officers should limit the validity or number of entries of those visas only in exceptional circumstances. Limiting visa validity to less than that called for in the reciprocity schedules opens our posts to charges they are treating applicants from the host country unfairly, and creates additional workload while doing little, if anything, to discourage determined intending immigrants from remaining in the U.S. An officer who suspects an applicant may be an intending immigrant should rely on 214(b) rather than hedging his or her decision with a "trial run" one-entry visa. End summary. 2. Some officers at certain posts employ the practice of issuing less than full-validity visas to their first-time or more marginal NIV recipients. For example, some posts whose reciprocity schedules for their host countries allow them to issue multiple-entry, longer-term visas will nevertheless limit the visas for more questionable applicants to a single-entry. Some officers make issuing a multiple entry, longer-validity visa contingent on the applicant's timely return from his or her first trip to the U.S. 3. Per 9 FA 41.122(b), N2 and N6, posts are encouraged to issue full validity visas, and routine issuance of limited validity visas runs contrary to that policy. Although 22 CFR 41.112(c) gives consular officers the discretion to limit visa validity, number of entries, ports of entry and date of use in "individual cases," 9 FA 41.122(c) makes clear that these limitations should be used very sparingly. Issuing a one-entry, three-month visa to an applicant with questionable intent is tempting as a "middle way" between issuing a longer-term visa and outright refusal, but for several reasons this practice is not a good idea. 4. In the first place, our visa validities and number of entries are based on the principal of reciprocity -- we issue visas to nationals of a given country based on the visa policy of the government of that country towards U.S. citizens. As 9 FA 41.112 N6 indicates, the practice of limiting visa validity of that country's applicants may lead the host government to raise an objection that the U.S. is not according reciprocal treatment to its nationals. This could create the unfortunate situation where the host government may retaliate against our restrictive issuances by imposing more stringent visa validities and number of entries on .S. travelers to that coUntry. 5. In addition, in the long run issuing limited-validity visas may add significantly to posts' workloads. The reapplication rate of applicants with limited visas is significant at many posts. Reapplication and reinterview of these applicants can be a major addition to a busy post's workload. On the other hand, posts which try to streamline processing for these returning applicants by reissuing to them without a second interview are creating a pro forma "rubber stamp" revalidation process which does little to identify applicants whose intent might have changed since their first application. 6. Consular officers are reminded that any applicant wishing to remain in the U.S. can do so on a single-entry visa as easily as on a multiple-entry visa. Some posts might argue that limiting a visa forces the applicant to justify future trips to the U.S. to a consul, thus giving consular officers a chance to stop intending immigrants who were using their first visit to the U.S. as a scouting trip for future immigration. However, INS inspectors at the Ports of Entry have access to an array of tools (such as access to credit records and automobile registration records) for identifying possible intending immigrants. These inspectors are better positioned than most consular officers to identify these repeat visitors who are laying the groundwork for their immigration to the U.S.; they can and often do turn back travelers who are misusing their multiple-entry visas. INS inspectors at the POEs have the power to cancel visas as well, without reference to the Department or to the issuing posts. 7. In general, per 9 FAM 41.122 N6, a consul should restrict a visa to less than full validity only if the consul believes the applicant qualifies as a nonimmigrant for a limited period of time or a limited number of visits. Since determining at the time of the first interview that someone's "intent: is likely to change from that visit to the next, such limitations should be rare. If an interviewing officer is uncertain whether an applicant is a safe risk for a multiple-entry or longer- validity visa and suspects that he or she may ultimately be seeking a way to remain in the U.S., that applicant almost certainly merits 214(b) refusal rather than a "trial run" one-entry visa. POWELL _________________________________________________________________ |