NONIMMIGRANT VISA CASELOAD VERSUS MAN-HOURS, FISCAL YEARS 1972-75 Note: Caseload-Includes the issuance or refusal of a nonimmigrant visa, a crew list or a border crossing card, or the revalidation of a nonimmigrant visa. Source: Form FS-258, workload report. NONIMMIGRANT VISAS THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1976 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CITIZENSHIP, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Joshua Eilberg [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Eilberg, Holtzman, Dodd, and Fish. Also present: Garner J. Cline, Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsel; Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate counsel. Mr. EILBERG. The subcommittee will come to order, and we would ask Mr. Leonard Walentynowicz, Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Department of State, to return to the witness stand, together with his associates. TESTIMONY OF HON. LEONARD F. WALENTYNOWICZ, ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY JULIO J. ARIAS, DIRECTOR, VISA OFFICE; CORNELIUS SCULLY, CHIEF, REGULATIONS AND LEGISLATION DIVISION, VISA OFFICE; CARL SHEPHERD, CHIEF, ADVISORY OPINION DIVISION, VISA OFFICE; AND PHILIP SHAMWELL, LEGAL ADVISOR'S OFFICE Mr. EILBERG. We had spent yesterday on a discussion of nonimmigrant visas as covered in the statement by Mr. Walentynowicz, and it is the intention of the Chair to try to go through each of the categories, and there was some jumping around in the statement. We would like, as far as possible, to see the matter starting with A, going to B. That would be the simplest. And I believe where we left off yesterday we had requested some information from Mr. Walentynowicz. I believe you have a statement? Mr. WALENTYNOWICZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Of course, we are more than pleased to come back again today, and the people that are here with me are the same people that were here yesterday. I would like to begin by making a preliminary statement in order to clear up some misconceptions that may have occurred during the course of yesterday's testimony and to directly respond to some of the concerns that were expressed. First of all, I would like to make it clear that when we identified a certain practice or set of circumstances as a problem-as we have done (123) in our opening statement-we do not necessarily mean that these are problems about which we can do or are doing nothing. Further, we do not necessarily mean that these problems are caused by intentional abuse by the government or embassy involved. For the most part many of these problems are the result of honest differences or misunderstandings, but nevertheless they are problems which we must and do address ourselves to. Nevertheless, there are instances, mostly involving only the individual, where there is an intentional abuse of our immigration law. Of course, whenever these differences occur, care must be exercised so that the matter is handled sensibly and with appropriate allowance for the competing factors involved. With these thoughts in mind, let me explain in more detail two principal types of problems which we referred to in my opening statement and which are associated with the holders of "A" visas. The first concerns the foreign government requesting visas for people who are entitled to "A" status. This may either be deliberate or through misunderstanding of our visa laws and regulations. For example, when a government requests that the sister and brotherin-law of a diplomat also be granted an "A" visa, this may be a misunderstanding, rather than a deliberate attempt to subvert the law. In many instances the applicant is unaware of the additional requirement that the person has to be a member of the immediate household. There are many examples of this involving many countries, the Philippines being a prime example. However, an explanation of our visa laws usually resolves the matter. On the other hand, when notes from a foreign ministry present deliberately false information in order to obtain a visa for an unqualified person, this amounts to official visa fraud. There are very few examples of such deliberate misrepresentation. There was one case sometime in the past involving the Dominican Republic in which the Embassy refused to issue an A-1 visa to an official about whom the foreign ministry had sent a note. There are similar problems involving A-2 visas which, because of the wide variety of officials covered, are more subject to possible abuse. Records indicate that the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Liberia have requested A-2 type visas for persons who were not entitled to such classification. The other problem concerns "A" classification aliens who fail to maintain status once they are in the United States. This involves. "A" category aliens working in noneducational, cultural, or medical fields, and "A" aliens who abandon their official position once they are in the United States and either seek illegal employment or adjustment of status to permanent resident. Nationals of the following countries have engaged in this type of conduct: Korea, Iran, the Philippines, and the Republic of China for A-1 and A-2 categories, and nearly all of Latin America for A-3 categories. A final problem concerns aliens in the United States in other nonimmigrant visa categories, often out of status, who obtain employment with foreign missions in order to delay or prevent deportation. Missions who hire such illegal aliens include India, Pakistan, Philippines, Nigeria, Republic of China, and many Latin American countries. I should point out that we cannot conclude that these activities present the conscious policy of the governments concerned. That is the statement I would like to make to help qualify what we went over yesterday. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Walentynowicz, you mentioned a number of countries that have been engaged in abuses of our immigration law. What are you doing about it? Mr. WALENTYNOWICZ. Well, I think it is also what we have done about it. As I have indicated, we have problem areas. I would not term all of our problems with these countries as abuses. In fact, as I indicated in my statement, most of these are problems that do not indicate actual intentional abuse. We try to communicate and negotiate with the governments involved and explain to them in a reasonable fashion what our requirements are, and for the most part we are very successful. Mr. EILBERG. Are you saying you are in touch with every government to alert them as to the meaning of our immigration law, definitions that exist in our immigration law? Mr. WALENTYNOWICZ. My understanding is that there is a definite effort by the various parts of the State Department, including the Office of Protocol, our own visa office, and the geographic desks involved, to fully acquaint, in a variety of ways, the governments of the various countries that maintain diplomatic relations with us as to the requirements of our law. I am not saying that we are always successful, but whenever there are problems, we do address ourselves to them and we find that ultimately we do have a satisfactory resolution. Mr. SCULLY. Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment? One point, I think, Mr. Chairman, we don't operate in the sense of trying to send out explanations, circular explanations to all of the embassies. I think the point would be that where we see an embassy that apparently does not understand the requirements in terms of, let us say, requesting, as Mr. Walentynowicz pointed out, diplomatic status for brother and sister-in-law or sister and brother-in-law of a diplomat and it appears that they are not members of this immediate household, they are not dependent members of the immediate household, at that point we then realize that the embassy, the ambassador, doesn't understand that those people don't fit into our definition of this category. So, at that point we then have to make a preliminary explanation to them. But I do not think we would gratuitously go to an embassy and attempt to provide some schematic outline of all of this in the absence of some indication that they actually need the explanation. In many embassies, probably the majority of them, there simply are no questions because the requests for diplomatic visas fit into the category and there are not any questions that any of the cases they are talking about fall outside the category, so we would not feel a need to go to that particular embassy and explain it to them because operationally it would be perfectly obvious that all their requests fit within the category. Mr. EILBERG. Have you thought about the issue that we raised yesterday regarding the names that are in the blue and white books. and those that are not? It was apparent to us that the great bulk of names do not appear in those lists. What category are they in? Who controls those people? Who knows where they are? Who knows whether they are abiding by our Immigration Act or not? Mr. WALENTYNOWICZ. I would like to address myself in several ways to that inquiry. First of all, we were asked to give you some count of 77-314-769 |