Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
R182343ZMAR02
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS
SPECIAL EMBASSY PROGRAM
BELGRADE POUCH
DUSHANBE POUCH
KABUL POUCH
E.0.12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS
SUBJECT: REMINDER ON VISA REVOCATION PROCEDURES AND
SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO CORRUPTION
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]
Page 2
view telegram|1l
officials qualifying for A or G visa classification are
exempt from most 212(a) grounds of inadmissibility.
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]
Page 4
view telegram! 1]
Department were to receive a request to produce such
lists.
PageS