Latest update March 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Aug 23, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
I have noticed that a debate has started up in the letter pages of another newspaper concerning the methods used by the consular section of the United States Embassy in Guyana, in determining whether someone has sufficient ties to return to Guyana upon the expiration of his or her stay in that country.
From this perspective, this is a misinformed debate.
The Consular Section of the embassy is not required to determine whether they feel that someone has sufficient ties, be these economic or family. It is the applicant who has to overcome the legal presumption that he or she is an intended immigrant.
All applicants for non-immigrant visas, or what is known as visitors’ visas, are presumed to be intended immigrants.
Thus the burden is on the applicant to overcome this presumption, i.e., to satisfy the consulate that he or she will return. In so doing, ties -whether economic or family – is only one of many considerations.
And it is precisely because many applicants presume that they only need to show that they have ties to Guyana; ties that would predispose towards them returning home at the end of their stay that has led to the mistaken belief in local quarters that a good bank statement and some property is a sure recipe to receiving a non-immigrant visa. Unfortunately overcoming the legal presumption of an intended immigrant is not so simple.
I have argued before in these columns that the decision that the consular section took some time ago to not look at supporting documentation is flawed. But I must explain on what basis I believe it is flawed.
I have argued that if there is an automatic presumption that an applicant for a non-immigrant visa is an intended immigrant, then that applicant cannot be reasonably expected to overcome this legal presumption without having the corresponding opportunity to show that he or she is not an intended immigrant.
The applicant can argue that he or she is being denied the opportunity to do this by not being allowed to present supporting documents, something that I consider a fair argument.
I still believe that this decision of the embassy to not allow applicants the chance to provide documentation in support of his or her application is wrong, and perhaps not consistent with US law. However, I have not seen a single immigration lawyer file a challenge to it.
That being said let me however say that the United States government is not like some governments we know who operate in a slapdash manner.
Any such decision, especially after criticisms from the Peeper, would have gone through various stages of review, and advice would have been sought both before and after implementation.
More importantly also, such a significant departure from traditional practice would have only been undertaken after a careful examination of immigration patterns.
I believe that as part of this analysis, the United States would have conducted a study of those who had applied for visas over the years.
From this they would have examined just how many were approved and how many were denied. For each of these groupings, they would have categorized certain key variables. They would then have examined each category to see what patterns emerged.
For those that were granted visas, they would have asked themselves what were the critical variables that allowed for the granting of those visas.
They would have also examined just how many of those that were granted visas came back to Guyana, i.e., they would have established what factors predisposed towards someone being granted a visa returning to Guyana.
I believe that out of this process, the US immigration authorities, as is done by most immigration authorities the world over, would have built a profile of what are some of the things that they need to consider.
And I believe that in the case of Guyana, that profile, supported by the statistical analysis, established that really supporting documents would no longer be necessary in granting immigration visas.
This decision in itself should serve as a guide as to just what the authorities are considering as critical factors in someone overcoming the presumption of being an intended immigrant.
Some will say, however, that this system is not fair, since persons who have no intention of going of immigrating permanently can be denied visas because they are not given the chance of proving strong economic (financial) and family ties to Guyana. No immigration system should be judged in this manner.
In any system there will be persons who had no intention of staying overseas who will be denied, just as how there have been thousands who have made things more difficult for their fellow citizens by abusing the system and not returning to Guyana having obtained a visa No immigration policy is unbiased.
There are always preferred categories when it comes to the categories of immigrants that will be allowed into a country.
In designing a system to conform to policy and law, the consular sections have to be judged on the overall results of their actions, not on a case by case basis.
Listen to the man that is throwing Guyanese bright future away
Mar 19, 2024
Kaieteur Sports – The Dennis DeoRoop-trained horse, Stolen Money, dominated the field to claim victory in the feature event at the Kennard’s Memorial Turf Club, Bush Lot East Berbice on...Kaieteur News – The government has embarked on an ambitious infrastructure development spree. It has initiated major... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – In 2024, a series of general elections in Latin American countries, including... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]