t5 b65 gao visa docs 6 of 6 fdr- mar 02 dos cable- visa revocation and corruption 857

8/14/2019 T5 B65 GAO Visa Docs 6 of 6 Fdr- Mar 02 DOS Cable- Visa Revocation and Corruption 857

1/5

view telegram|1lR 1 8 2 3 4 3 Z M A R 0 2FM S E C S T A T E W A S H D CT O A L L DIPLOMAT IC A N D C O N S U L A R P O S T SSPECIAL E M B A S S Y P R O G R A MB E L G R A D E P O U C HD U S H A N B E P O U C HK A B U L P O U C HUNCLAS S T A T E 0 5 2 2 3 4 __33,0081-VISAS - INFORM CONSULSE.0 .12958: N /ATAG S: CVISSUBJECT: REMINDER O N V I S A R E V O C A T I O N P R O C E D U R E S AN DS U B S T A N T I V E R E Q U I R E M E N T S A S T H E Y R E L A T E T O C O R R U P T I O NR E F S : (A) 9 FAM 41.122 (B) 99 State 122693(C ) 99 State 245040 (D) 01 State 2074821. S UM M AR Y. Posts are reminded of the following: Posts must carefully follow the law and proceduresgoverning visa revocations and the confidentiality of visarecords.-- A consular officer may on ly rev ok e a visa if the alienh a s been fou nd ineligible under some ground spe cified inthe law.- - Corruption is not itself a ground of ineligibility,although some co rrupt individuals may be ineligible undersome existing s ection of the INA .-- Visa determinations must be made on an individual,c a s e - b y - c a s e basis. Al iens wh o are suspected or known tob e ineligible shou ld, on an individual basis, be enteredinto the C L A S S system. Posts should not draw up separatelists of aliens targeted fo r visa refusal or revocation.- Visa records are confidential. Posts may not disclosethe underlying f acts that led to a revocation, and may notannounce visa revocations exce pt in rare circums tancesexpressly authorized by the Department.-- Posts should cons ult with the Department prior torevoking visas of government officials or other prominentindividuals and s hould clear any press statements with C Aand other relevant offices in the Department.E N D S U M M A R Y

1

,0, ,


2/5

view telegram! 1]

C O N O F F S M U S T C A R E F U L L Y F O L L O W R E V O C A T I O N R U L E S A N D M A Y N O TR E V O K E A VI SA U NLESS SO M E INEL I G IB I L ITY APPL I ES .

2. Although INA Sect ion 2 2 1 (i ) authorizes a cons ularofficer to revoke a visa "at any t ime, in his discretion,"that discretion is necessarily limited by Departmentregulations. Specifical ly, 22 CFR (9 FAM ) 41.122(a )allow s a con sular officer to revoke a nonimmigrant visaonly if the alien is ineligible for the visaclassification or is inadmissible under some ground ofexclusion in INA 212(a) (or in two other very narrowcontexts not relevant here). Consular revocat ions cannotb e based on suspected ineligibilities or onineligibilities that are reserved to Department officials,such as INA 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( C ) or 212( f ) , an d have not beenexpressly invoked by an authorized off icial .3. The Department has independent authority to revokevisas, and may do so based on an ineligibility finding oro n "prudential" grounds. This authority is vested in theSecretary and delegated to CA , where it is generallyexercised by the C A / V O D A S . A prudential revocat ion isgenerally only undertaken when there is substantialquestion about th e aliens continuing eligibility fo r avisa, such that th e alien should be required to reapplyfo r a visa an d establish his/her eligibility before aconsular off icer.4 . Per 22 CFR (9 FAM) 41.122(b) , the consular off icermust, if practicable, notify th e alien of the c o n o f f sintent to revok e and give the alien an opportunity to showwhy the visa should not be revoked. This notice must bemade (if pract icable) be fore/before th e revocation occurs,not after th e fact .5. As required by 9 FAM 41 .122 N 4, posts must consultwith the D epartment ( C A / V O ) prior to revoking the visa ofa foreign government official or other prominentindividual, particularly if the revocation is likely tohave foreign policy or law enforcement significance or maygenerate media attention. Posts should also no te that,under IN A 102 a nd 9 FAM 41.21(d), foreign government

Page 2


3/5

view telegram|1lofficials qualifying for A or G visa classification areexem pt from most 212(a) grounds of inadmissibility.6. As stated in Ref B A ldac, the rules an d procedures forrevocations must be carefully adhered to . Failure to basea revocation on a ground spe cified by regulation, orfailure to follow the prior notice or other requirementso f the law, is not only un authorized bu t could haveadverse consequences for the Departments broader legaland policy interests.

C O R R U P T I O N I S NOT AN INELIG IBILITY PER SE BUT I T C O U L D BEA S S O C I A T E D W I T H A V A L I D G R O U N D O F INELIG IBILITY.

7. Posts are reminded that there is no visa ineligibilityfor corruption, per se. How ever, there are some groundso f ineligibility related to criminal activity that maycome into play in case s involving corrupt officials.8. For example, as described in Ref D, recently enactedIN A 212(a)(2)(l) (aka "21") rend ers inadmissible any alienwho th e consular officer has reason to believe has engagedin money laundering as defined in 18 U SC 1956 or 1957.This new ineligibility generally requires proof that thealien engaged in a financial transaction using funds fromcertain specified un lawful activities. T he 2 1ineligibility may also require p roof of a U.S. nexus. Ifa post intends to pursue a refusal or revocation on thisground, R ef D requires that th e case be submitted for anadvisory opinion to C A / V O / L / A , wh ich in turn consults withthe Justice Department. (Per 9 FA M 40.23 N1.2 , drug moneylaundering has long been a ground of ineligibility underpre-existing (and less comp lex) IN A 212(a)(2)(C)(i), an d2C 1 findings generally do not require an advisory opinionfrom V O o r consultation with DoJ. Because 2C 1 findingsare less complex an d less resource-intensive than 2 1findings, c a s e s involving drug money laundering shouldnormally be processed ocally at post under 2C1 , ratherthan 21. Ad ditional re source s should only be expended topursue a 2 1 ineligibility if the case involves non-drugmoney laundering and there is either no evidence of drugmoney laundering or the evidence of drug money launderingis not sufficient for a 2C 1 finding.)

Page 3


4/5

view telegram! 1]9. Other possible grounds of ineligibility related toillegal activity include: 212(a)(2) (A) crime of moral turpitude or controlledsubstance violation (these grounds require a conviction oran adm ission by the alien)- 212(a)(2) (B) multiple criminal convictions 212(a)(2) (C) drug trafficking or aiding trafficking 212(a)(6) (E) smuggling aliens into the U.S. 212(a) (2 ) (D) -prost i tut ion - 212{a)(3) (B) terrorism a n d assisting terrorism(which requires an SAO and a report to Congress) 212(a)(3) (C) foreign policy ground refusal (whichrequires an S A O , a determination by the Se cretary, DeputySecretary, o r Under Secretary fo r Political Affairs, and areport to Congress).

P L E A S E U S E S T A N D A R D P R O C E D U R E S , INCLUDING C L A S S ENTRIES,R A T H E R T H A N D R A W IN G U P AD H O C LISTS O F T A R G E T E D A L I E N S .

10 . Visa determinations must be made on an individual,c a s e - b y - c a s e basis, after careful consideration of thespecific facts. If an alien is found ineligible in thecontext of an application or revoc ation, the alien must beadded to the C L A S S lookout system under the appropriatecode(s). I f the alien has not applied fo r a visa and d o e snot have a currently valid visa that could be revoked butpost has de rogatory information that could lead to anineligibility finding, then th e aliens name should beentered in C L A S S under the appropriate "P" (quasi) lookoutcode(s).11 . Posts should not d raw up separate, ad hoc lists ofaliens targeted for refusal or revocation, as such apractice is not consistent with th e procedures an drequiremen ts noted above and risks improperly politicizingthe adjudication process. Such lists ar e o f littleutility, as posts cannot adjudicate case s in groups, norc a n the Department issue advisory opinions on a list ofnames. In addition, unlike C LA SS , ad hoc l ists w ould notb e available to other posts wh ere th e aliens might apply,an d suc h lists raise issues as to proper filing an dretention an d could present complicated issues if the

Page 4


5/5

view telegram! 1]Department w ere to receive a request to produce suchlists.

P L E A S E A D H E R E S C R U P U L O U S L Y T O VI SA CONF I DENT I AL I TY R U L E S

12. Visa eligibility is generally a private matterbetween th e alien and the U.S. government, an d INA 222{f )requires that visa records be kept confidential and usedonly as specified therein. In general, visa revocationsmay not be announced to the public, and the underlyingdetails of the case may not be disclosed.13 . There are limited except ions to the general ruleprohibiting release of visa information. Mo st notably, w emay release visa information for purpose s of U.S. lawenforcement. In addition, if the alien or some otherthird party discloses th e revocation, w e c a n conf irm th erevoc ation, on an if-asked basis only, and, i f aske d, w eca n also cite th e sect ion of the law under which th e visawas revoked. How ever, we may not publicly d iscuss thefacts underlying th e revocation.14. The confidentiality rules can be ve ry com plex. T oavoid violating these rules, it is critical that visamatters not be publicly discusse d unless that discussionis cleared in advance by CA and other appropriate bureaus.15 . If posts have any questions concerning the foregoing,please contact C A / V O / L J A (and, fo r press guidance, CA/P).P O W E L L

P a g e S

t5 b65 gao visa docs 6 of 6 fdr- mar 02 dos cable- visa revocation and corruption 857

Documents