In essence, we are talking about the so-called “refuseniks”, whose “black list” has been defined for themselves by the US immigration authorities. Since there are quite many legally established grounds for such prohibitions, today we will focus only on those that, in our opinion, occur more often than others – something like a blitz introduction to typical mistakes of an unprepared visa applicant.
The legally established grounds for permanent refusals and bans on entry to America are divided into 10 groups, which, in turn, have detailed categories and subcategories with unambiguous interpretation. Despite the sometimes seemingly purely subjective approach of consular department employees, in the process of considering visa applications, all refusals without exception have some, albeit formal, motivated basis. And until the reason for the refusal is determined and the related problem is resolved or clarified, the ban on obtaining a visa will, so to speak, be activated.
Among the most common reasons for refusals, I would like to highlight the following:
1). grounds of a medical nature;
2). grounds in one way or another related to illegal (most often criminal) activity;
3). fraud and the provision of facts that significantly distort reality.
Among the grounds of the first group, I would like to highlight:
a) Infectious diseases that pose a serious danger to others: chancroid, gonorrhea, granuloma inguinale, HIV infection (not necessarily having progressed to AIDS), infectious leprosy, lymphogranuloma venereum, syphilis in the infectious stage, and open tuberculosis.
b) Failure to provide appropriate certificates of vaccination. Among the diseases recommended for preventive vaccination are mumps, measles, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, influenza, and hepatitis B.
c) Officially established physical and mental disorders and diseases (including those suffered in the past), as well as their consequences: behavior that could or may threaten the applicant and/or others. These diseases may manifest in persons with pronounced psychopathic behavior, with mental retardation, in the mentally ill, and even alcoholics.
d) Persons who abuse drugs. It is interesting to note that this subcategory has recently undergone some legal refinement. If 5-6 years ago it included only persons physically dependent on narcotic substances (i.e., pronounced drug addicts), now it even includes persons who have used drugs more than once during the last five years. Evidence of abuse may be, for example, the detention of a driver in a state of drug intoxication.
The grounds of a criminal nature (group of grounds No. 2) include:
a) Any proven offenses related to drugs. Due to the growing year-by-year trend toward tightening measures to combat drug trafficking in the United States, applicants may be subject not only to cases of proven intentional illegal activity, but also to cases where the applicant, say, was detained on suspicion of transporting or handing over even small amounts of narcotic substances. The fact of proving intent to commit such offenses in this case, as a rule, is not taken into consideration – the visa will most likely be refused.
b) Any proven intentional criminal acts for which the person has been officially convicted. Of course, the severity of the committed crime is taken into consideration. However, there are frequent cases of refusals to persons who have been prosecuted even for petty theft or fraud. On the other hand, for example, committing a fatal traffic accident does not fall under the acts of this group if it is proven that the offense was committed through negligence or carelessness.
c) Persons who have engaged in or are currently involved in prostitution and related types of illegal activity.
In the last, third group of grounds, I would like to highlight:
a) Deception or other fraudulent actions aimed at obtaining permission to enter the United States through deliberate distortion of facts, as well as the provision of unreliable information. Such actions are especially common. Due to the forced necessity of proving the applicant's interest in subsequently returning to their homeland, some provide deliberately false information in the hope of convincing the visa department of this. Most often, applicants indicate a family status that does not correspond to reality (for example, “married” instead of “single”), the presence of children who do not exist, etc. There are also those who, having previously filed a case for immigration to the United States, deliberately “forget” about the latter in an application for a guest or business visa. As it seems to us, such actions are not only illegal but also inadvisable – camouflaged information will sooner or later come to light. And then all efforts may be in vain – most likely, the applicant will be put on a long “black list”.
b) Actions that facilitate the illegal entry of foreigners into the United States, or so-called smuggling of foreigners. The range of acts of this kind of offense is very wide. It is not at all necessary that the suspect commit actions exclusively from selfish motives, as, for example, in the case of a sham marriage, or that they themselves be the object of such “smuggling”. Offenses may include passive actions, as well as advice and consultations on issues and techniques of illegal entry and stay in the United States.
c) Any other intentional actions that facilitate the production of documents for illegal entry, the use of forgeries and other people's documents, the concealment of title documentation, as well as other “creativity”, including quasi-consulting services that ultimately mislead the US authorities – primarily the State Department and the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service).
Because violations on the basis of the third group are especially frequent, the practice of American embassies has formed an actual presumption of guilt regarding applications that arouse at least a small degree of suspicion. Moreover, today there are frequent cases when applicants are deprived of the right to enter America for a long time due to the Americans receiving any defamatory information about them even from unofficial sources. Unfortunately, in this connection, there are frequent cases when individual "well-wishers" in the person of former spouses, business partners and other "informed sources" report to the embassy some information or even "suspicions" about the involvement of certain applicants in types of activity or association with other persons that are not welcomed by the American authorities. If in such cases the immigration officer considers such a source worthy of trust, bury your dream of America.
Sometimes such situations reach the point of complete absurdity. In our memory there have been several such cases. In one of them, the ex-wife of one of the business emigrants reported to the immigration authorities about his allegedly existing connections with criminal structures in his homeland. As a result, this businessman was barred from entering the United States, and his new business partners in America (by the way, native Americans) were subjected to repeated interrogations by FBI officers. Not surprisingly, his business in the USA soon came to naught.
In another case, one of the American partners of a Russian applicant for a business visa started a court case with the tax authorities. Since this Russian businessman was a co-owner of his business, the latter was denied entry to the United States. The logic of the American authorities was simple: since the American entrepreneur deliberately carried out operations to minimize his taxable profit in the United States (he was suspected of concealing income using offshore structures), as a result of which the American treasury did not receive quite definite funds, the Russian was attributed involvement in a tax offense. The question of intent for such involvement was not even initially considered.
In both cases, we represented the interests of these hapless applicants. Fortunately, both ultimately realized their plans. The question of how optimistically they viewed their business future in the USA after all these ups and downs deserves a separate story.
Stanislav GRAFSKY,
attorney at law firm
"White & Associates".