view telegram|1l

R182343ZMAR02
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS
SPECIAL EMBASSY PROGRAM
BELGRADE POUCH
DUSHANBE POUCH
KABUL POUCH

UNCLAS STATE 052234 __

33,0081-

VISAS - INFORM CONSULS ,0, , •

E.0.12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS
SUBJECT: REMINDER ON VISA REVOCATION PROCEDURES AND
SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO CORRUPTION

REFS: (A) 9 FAM 41.122 (B) 99 State 122693

(C) 99 State 245040 (D) 01 State 207482

o
1. SUMMARY. Posts are reminded of the following:
•• Posts must carefully follow the law and procedures
governing visa revocations and the confidentiality of visa
records.
-- A consular officer may only revoke a visa if the alien
has been found ineligible under some ground specified in
the law.
-- Corruption is not itself a ground of ineligibility,
although some corrupt individuals may be ineligible under
some existing section of the INA.
-- Visa determinations must be made on an individual,
case-by-case basis. Aliens who are suspected or known to
be ineligible should, on an individual basis, be entered
into the CLASS system. Posts should not draw up separate
lists of aliens targeted for visa refusal or revocation.
- Visa records are confidential. Posts may not disclose
the underlying facts that led to a revocation, and may not
announce visa revocations except in rare circumstances
expressly authorized by the Department.
-- Posts should consult with the Department prior to
revoking visas of government officials or other prominent
individuals and should clear any press statements with CA
and other relevant offices in the Department.
END SUMMARY

1
c view telegram! 1]

CONOFFS MUST CAREFULLY FOLLOW REVOCATION RULES AND MAY NOT

REVOKE A VISA UNLESS SOME INELIGIBILITY APPLIES.

2. Although INA Section 221 (i) authorizes a consular

officer to revoke a visa "at any time, in his discretion,"
that discretion is necessarily limited by Department
regulations. Specifically, 22 CFR (9 FAM) 41.122(a)
allows a consular officer to revoke a nonimmigrant visa
only if the alien is ineligible for the visa
classification or is inadmissible under some ground of
exclusion in INA 212(a) (or in two other very narrow
contexts not relevant here). Consular revocations cannot
be based on suspected ineligibilities or on
ineligibilities that are reserved to Department officials,
such as INA 212(a)(3)(C) or 212(f), and have not been
expressly invoked by an authorized official.

3. The Department has independent authority to revoke

visas, and may do so based on an ineligibility finding or
on "prudential" grounds. This authority is vested in the
Secretary and delegated to CA, where it is generally
exercised by the CA/VO DAS. A prudential revocation is
generally only undertaken when there is substantial
question about the aliens continuing eligibility for a
visa, such that the alien should be required to reapply
for a visa and establish his/her eligibility before a
consular officer.

4. Per 22 CFR (9 FAM) 41.122(b), the consular officer

must, if practicable, notify the alien of the conoffs
intent to revoke and give the alien an opportunity to show
why the visa should not be revoked. This notice must be
made (if practicable) before/before the revocation occurs,
not after the fact.

5. As required by 9 FAM 41.122 N4, posts must consult

with the Department (CA/VO) prior to revoking the visa of
a foreign government official or other prominent
individual, particularly if the revocation is likely to
have foreign policy or law enforcement significance or may
generate media attention. Posts should also note that,
under INA 102 and 9 FAM 41.21(d), foreign government

Page 2
 view telegram|1l
officials qualifying for A or G visa classification are
exempt from most 212(a) grounds of inadmissibility.

6. As stated in Ref B Aldac, the rules and procedures for

revocations must be carefully adhered to. Failure to base
a revocation on a ground specified by regulation, or
failure to follow the prior notice or other requirements
of the law, is not only unauthorized but could have
adverse consequences for the Departments broader legal
and policy interests.

CORRUPTION IS NOT AN INELIGIBILITY PER SE BUT IT COULD BE

ASSOCIATED WITH A VALID GROUND OF INELIGIBILITY.

7. Posts are reminded that there is no visa ineligibility

for corruption, per se. However, there are some grounds
of ineligibility related to criminal activity that may
come into play in cases involving corrupt officials.

o
8. For example, as described in Ref D, recently enacted
INA 212(a)(2)(l) (aka "21") renders inadmissible any alien
who the consular officer has reason to believe has engaged
in money laundering as defined in 18 USC 1956 or 1957.
This new ineligibility generally requires proof that the
alien engaged in a financial transaction using funds from
certain specified unlawful activities. The 21
ineligibility may also require proof of a U.S. nexus. If
a post intends to pursue a refusal or revocation on this
ground, Ref D requires that the case be submitted for an
advisory opinion to CA/VO/L/A, which in turn consults with
the Justice Department. (Per 9 FAM 40.23 N1.2, drug money
laundering has long been a ground of ineligibility under
pre-existing (and less complex) INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), and
2C1 findings generally do not require an advisory opinion
from VO or consultation with DoJ. Because 2C1 findings
are less complex and less resource-intensive than 21
findings, cases involving drug money laundering should
normally be processed locally at post under 2C1, rather
than 21. Additional resources should only be expended to
pursue a 21 ineligibility if the case involves non-drug
money laundering and there is either no evidence of drug
money laundering or the evidence of drug money laundering
is not sufficient for a 2C1 finding.)

Page 3
 view telegram! 1]

9. Other possible grounds of ineligibility related to

illegal activity include:
•• 212(a)(2)(A) • crime of moral turpitude or controlled
substance violation (these grounds require a conviction or
an admission 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)-prostitution
•- 212{a)(3)(B) • terrorism and assisting terrorism
(which requires an SAO and a report to Congress)
•• 212(a)(3)(C) • foreign policy ground refusal (which
requires an SAO, a determination by the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, or Under Secretary for Political Affairs, and a
report to Congress).

PLEASE USE STANDARD PROCEDURES, INCLUDING CLASS ENTRIES,

RATHER THAN DRAWING UP AD HOC LISTS OF TARGETED ALIENS.

o 10. Visa determinations must be made on an individual,

case-by-case basis, after careful consideration of the
specific facts. If an alien is found ineligible in the
context of an application or revocation, the alien must be
added to the CLASS lookout system under the appropriate
code(s). If the alien has not applied for a visa and does
not have a currently valid visa that could be revoked but
post has derogatory information that could lead to an
ineligibility finding, then the aliens name should be
entered in CLASS under the appropriate "P" (quasi) lookout
code(s).

11. Posts should not draw up separate, ad hoc lists of

aliens targeted for refusal or revocation, as such a
practice is not consistent with the procedures and
requirements noted above and risks improperly politicizing
the adjudication process. Such lists are of little
utility, as posts cannot adjudicate cases in groups, nor
can the Department issue advisory opinions on a list of
names. In addition, unlike CLASS, ad hoc lists would not
be available to other posts where the aliens might apply,
and such lists raise issues as to proper filing and
retention and could present complicated issues if the

Page 4
 view telegram! 1]
Department were to receive a request to produce such
lists.

PLEASE ADHERE SCRUPULOUSLY TO VISA CONFIDENTIALITY RULES

12. Visa eligibility is generally a private matter

between the alien and the U.S. government, and INA 222{f)
requires that visa records be kept confidential and used
only as specified therein. In general, visa revocations
may not be announced to the public, and the underlying
details of the case may not be disclosed.

13. There are limited exceptions to the general rule

prohibiting release of visa information. Most notably, we
may release visa information for purposes of U.S. law
enforcement. In addition, if the alien or some other
third party discloses the revocation, we can confirm the
revocation, on an if-asked basis only, and, if asked, we
can also cite the section of the law under which the visa

o was revoked. However, we may not publicly discuss the

facts underlying the revocation.

14. The confidentiality rules can be very complex. To

avoid violating these rules, it is critical that visa
matters not be publicly discussed unless that discussion
is cleared in advance by CA and other appropriate bureaus.

15. If posts have any questions concerning the foregoing,

please contact CA/VO/LJA (and, for press guidance, CA/P).
POWELL

PageS