What’s playing out at the US Embassy?

(Published in Kaieteur News on August 17, 2008)

DEAR EDITOR,
The U.S. Embassy in Guyana should stop accepting applications for business and tourist non-immigrant visas if the current processing system is maintained.

In the past, an applicant for the abovementioned visas would have had to satisfy Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States, and show that he or she has a permanent residence abroad (meaning in the applicant’s home country) which he/she has no intention of abandoning.

The “ties” to your country were determined by documentation(s) that was submitted and which showed family, social, employment, economic, or other ties to your country.

At present, the system has undergone a dramatic change, and the local embassy now has a group of highly trained visa scrutinizers whose skill set can rival any of the best psychics and clairvoyants the world over.

These scrutinizers, without any form of documented evidence, can reliably identify and accurately tell just by looking at an applicant and asking as many as two questions whether an applicant has ‘strong ties.’ When I first heard of this, I thought it was a big joke.

I subsequently confirmed, to my surprise and consternation, that it was wholly accurate. Is this the best the U.S. Government can do for folks who have to fork over US$131?

At the highest level, this is a discriminatory practice and is based on the assumption that all supporting documents are fraudulent and the Embassy has no way of verifying the authenticity (this is the US Government we are talking about!) of these documents.

What a slap in the face for our commercial banks and Government agencies which are responsible for issuing the documentation.

Even though the embassy’s speculation might be true in some cases, document fraud occurs in every part of the world (the U.S. included) and is not unique to Guyana; so, to abandon the system on the pretext of the impossibility of authenticating supporting documents is artificial. There are better methods of verifying these sorts of documents.

Maybe they might want to consider using one of those U.S. security experts who always come here to lecture us on proper security methods.

When I was issued my Business Visa in 2004 to travel to the U.S., I felt fairly treated and was given the opportunity to present supporting documents to show that I have every intention of returning to Guyana.

I can only speculate on what the outcome would be if I (or my other business colleagues) were to apply for a visa today, or what the outcome would be when I have to renew my current one.

I have to do my best physical performance (or you might call it acting) to convince the Visa Officer that I’m telling the truth.

Otherwise, If I don’t look ‘believable,’ or if I become nervous during the interview, the Visa Officer might interpret that to mean that I’m dishonest and don’t really have the ties I say I have.

This is a most ludicrous and outdated system being employed in this 21st century to conduct serious business. I would expect this sort of stuff from my sons’ kindergarten school, not the U.S. Government.

This is an example of the kinds of nonsensical action(s) and policy/policies that are being employed by U.S. Government agencies that have caused people of the world to question and discount the leadership and moral authority of the USA.

Clinton Urling