tariqbutt

Do we have any clarity yet on the fate of the National Interest Exception?

Two questions spring to mind:

• For visa appointments prior to November 8th, are they still being denied if there is no NIE? Or could you have a successful appointment in late October (for example), and get your visa without an NIE on the basis you will travel after November 8th (for an L1/H1B for example)? Or is it black and white that visas will be approved without NIEs from the morning of Nov 8th only, and denied prior to that?
• Can those who already have an NIE travel unvaccinated after November 8th? Or does the new rules end the NIE? (Im vaccinated, but just curious)

postbox134

No one knows for sure how it'll be implemented, but I wouldn't schedule an appointment before Nov right now.

My understanding is that there will be no exception for being unvaccinated after the 8th - if I was I'd get back to the USA ASAP whatever way I could. This will be particularly bad for those from countries with limited access to vaccines.

karenkaren1

im waiting to find out the same thing. My parents just got their visas with NIE but one of them has a medical vaccine exemption (due to prior anaphylactic reactions and they recently had covid). They cant get here until Dec. Awaiting info re exemptions but I have a feeling it could be zero tolerance for unvaccinated

tariqbutt

I know the answer to this now. My colleague just had his appointment for the H1B and he did not have an NIE. They said they can not issue the visa without the NIE but because of the impending rule change they kept his passport and said they will issue the visa after Nov 8th.

destone

So you were right to delay it.

S Folinsky

In other words, he has a visa refusal on his record, but has been informed he will be able to overcome the refusal.

tariqbutt

Oh really? Since they kept his passport, I took it to mean there was no refusal and it was just that the result was pending.
(I might be wrong about that, just my interpretation)

S Folinsky

Take a gander at your prior thread in this forum.

I read your post as saying that your colleague was told they could not issue the visa now due to a lack of a NIE. My description was based upon that understanding.

tariqbutt

Just to clarify my understanding of what we discussed in the previous thread:

• Visa is denied based on lack of NIE
• Passport is returned with no visa
• Applicant schedules new appointment for a later date where they may or may not be successful

And my understanding of what happened to my colleague:

• Visa was delayed (but not denied) due to lack of NIE
• Passport was NOT returned, but rather is currently being held at the embassy pending change in travel ban
• Applicant does not need to schedule a new appointment for a later date.
• Visa will be issued without denial after Nov 8th.

Again I might be wrong about all of the above, just my interpretation.

S Folinsky

Your interpretation is correct as to the PRACTICAL effect of what is happening. But the underlying system is that the interview results in either approval or denial. One or the other. That said, a denial can and is often overcome. I’ve had clients who exited the consulate having been denied only to receive a phone call the next day to bring the passport back for visa issuance. If it happens quick enough, no new written application required. (I forget the time frame before a new application is required).

This not what one would call “user transparent.” But your colleague did have a formal denial but was given advance, albeit informal, notice that his application would be renewed, denial overcome, and visa issued.

Although there is a denial, the practical effect was a delay. To go back to your prior thread, I would describe this as “no downside” to your colleague having presented his application.

tariqbutt

Interesting, thank you for the detailed explanation.

One question I have is in this situation where a denial was "overcome" would you still need to tick yes to the question "have you ever had a visa denied" on your ESTA form?

I guess Im asking for clarity on your “no downside” statement since I know we sometimes differ on opinion there.

S Folinsky

Sorry to say that is not really a "clear" answer. Allow me a story from when I was in practice. (Under very different past versions of US immigration laws).

There used to be a procedure called "stateside criterion" whereby certain non-Canadians in the US could process for immigrant visas at US border consulate. To placate the Canadians, US immigration authorities promised that applicant would be allowed to physically return to the US This process required that the applicant check into local US immigration prior to departure where fingerprints were taken. This procedure was eliminated in the early 80's.

So, 20 years later a Korean who had obtained his immigrant visa in Vancouver applied for US naturalization. Have you ever been arrested? No. At interview they question him three times. Even when confronted with statement that immigration records show an arrest, he continues to say " no." Case denied for misrepresentation.

The voluntary appearance 20 years previous showed in Government records as an "arrest."

Then I get hired. The #2 person in the local immigration district and I went way back and gotten to first name basis. "Jane, do you remember Stateside Criterion?" "Jesus, I was a junior new hire back then!" Jane noted a "training issue" and took care of it.

Point - applicant believed that his encounter was simply part of the lawful procedure and had no idea the computer showed an "arrest."

tariqbutt

Interesting anecdote, and I take your point that it is not a straight forward question to answer .