What You Need to Know About ‘Continuous Vetting’ for U.S. Visa Holders

A State Department Statement on Thursday has brought to light a constant threat looming over the stability of every visa holder. All holders of valid U.S. visas would be subject to ‘Continuous vetting’ starting last Tuesday. Yet the full impact and the far-reaching consequences of this decision are little understood.

The official spokesperson revealed almost no details about how this vetting will be conducted. It was also absolutely vague whether the pronouncement would endanger an abrupt culling of travel rights, documents, or cause other bureaucratic red tape.

As one of the ethical EB-1A consultants, we have been alerted by this flurry of news. We are trying our best to bestow some clarity amidst confusion and chaos. Here is our point-by-point breakdown of how the ‘Continuous vetting’ can change the visa landscape.

The absolute authority to revoke visas

The U.S. administration has the absolute power to revoke a visa, empowered by section 1201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It explicitly states that the Secretary of State has an unlimited authority to revoke a visa at absolutely any point in time. However, the State Department can’t act arbitrarily. They have strict guidelines for when their officers can revoke previously issued travel documents. The guidelines exemplify cases where it can act on the basis of ‘derogatory information’ provided by another U.S. government agency.

It is also known to regularly revoke visas for reasons like ‘indicators of overstays, criminal activities, threats to public safety’, among others. Let’s take a closer look at how this authority can work in tandem with the newly introduced ‘Continuous vetting’.

What is the nature and scope of ‘Continuous vetting’?

Vetting is actually a screening process. The dictionaries have defined vet as ‘make a careful and critical examination of (something)’. Usually, the vetting of visitors looking to enter the U.S. has been solely done by the consular officers at U.S. embassies abroad or at the ports of entry. The screenings will survey the applicants’ backgrounds to look for illegitimate and criminal activities, as well as personal and financial records. The latter is to ensure that the individual can afford the trip and comply with the required financial norm.

In the traditional format, once a person gets the visa sanctioned and is staying in the United States, they would not need any additional vetting. The exception to this rule may apply if the person is involved in criminal charges or other illicit activities. If a crime or transgression is committed, it is termed an ‘Infraction’ and dealt with revocation, deportation, and other legal steps.

So, how is continuous vetting likely to be conducted?

However, the nature of ‘vetting’ has changed with the introduction of ‘Continuous vetting’. During the first term of President Trump, the Citizenship and Immigration Services has sketched a detailed plan for an automated system that would constantly screen the visa holders from the time of their initial petition, and extending until they become naturalized U.S. citizens. However, not all visa holders or tourists seek to attain this category.

Though the State Department has not confirmed that such a system is currently surveilling the visa holders, most speculations are hinting at its existence. Experts have voiced concerns that such a system could scrape data from everything from law enforcement databases to social media accounts. They can use all this information to further intensify the level of screening. If they identify any infraction, it may lead to a potential revocation of your visa. However, the nature of ‘Infraction’ is neither clearly defined nor delineated.

What is considered an infraction?

Traditionally, an infraction used to include aggravated felonies like murder, assault, and rape, as well as lesser crimes like drunk driving, possession of drugs, etc.

Now the definition has become less clear and more blurry. Several critics and human rights activists have pointed out that certain political ideologies (though lawful) could be adequate grounds for visa revocations. A recent crackdown on students’ visas has testified to such volatility. Moreover, yet another policy reinforcing the notion of ‘Good moral character’ as a part of visa screening has added more fog to the question of ‘Infraction’.

In general, anti-U.S. behaviours that seek to offset traditional and local norms could lead to the revocation of the visa. It is clear that USCIS is looking at a broader definition of ‘Infraction’ that takes into account both written and unwritten law.

If you are an EB-1A visa aspirant or aiming for the green card, you need to be acutely aware of all these shifts and transformations in the visa landscape. This will not only help you proactively prepare but also reduce your chances of revocation. If you need any personalised suggestions, don’t hesitate to reach out to us.