| Each year, American Citizens travel abroad and meet | | | | In some instances, the US Citizen counterpart is |
| the love of their life. Unfortunately, it can be a time | | | | resident in the Kingdom of Thailand. In these scenarios, |
| consuming process to take a loved one back to the | | | | overcoming the legal presumption of immigrant intent |
| United States of America. The following article looks at | | | | may be easier as the Consular Officer may view the |
| the United States Immigration issues connected with a | | | | American's residency in the Kingdom of Thailand as a |
| US Tourist visa application submitted on behalf of a | | | | strong mitigating factor that would make the Thai |
| Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand. | | | | applicant return. That being said, these adjudications |
| The United States Tourist Visa can be a difficult travel | | | | are essentially based upon the Officer's discretion as |
| document to obtain for the wife, husband, fiance, | | | | well as the unique set of facts in each case and |
| girlfriend, boyfriend, or significant other of a United | | | | therefore any hypothesizing about a Consular Officer's |
| States Citizen. So Americans become exasperated or | | | | probable decisions would be an exercise in mere |
| upset by the fact that United States tourist visa | | | | speculation. |
| applications are often denied by the Consular Officers | | | | For those interested in taking a Thai loved one back to |
| at the United States Embassy in Bangkok or the | | | | the United States to reside, the US Tourist Visa is not |
| United States Consulate-General in Chiang Mai. In most | | | | the correct travel document for this purpose. Even still, |
| cases, once the applicant (or the applicant's sponsor) is | | | | US Citizens should look to the K-1 visa, the K-3 visa, or |
| advised regarding the relevant law, the reason for | | | | the immigrant marriage visas (CR-1 or IR-1) as a lawful |
| application denial is almost self-evident. | | | | method of bringing a Thai loved one to the USA. |
| The American Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) | | | | A word of caution: to those who would use |
| delineates clear rules about how Consular Officers | | | | dishonesty or subterfuge to obtain desired immigration |
| should view visa applications and applicants. Pursuant | | | | benefits be warned that use of such tactics would |
| to section 214(b) of the INA, a Consular Officer must | | | | likely result in unforeseen complications as the Consular |
| presume that all applicants for non-immigrant visas are, | | | | Officers at US Embassies and Consulates abroad are |
| in reality, intending immigrants. To be more specific, in | | | | highly skilled at detecting misrepresentations and a |
| the case of United States tourist visa applications the | | | | material misrepresentation of fact in a visa application |
| Consular Officers are required to presume that | | | | could lead to a finding that the applicant is inadmissible |
| anyone applying for a Tourist visa is, in fact, an | | | | to the United States. Further, it is becoming more and |
| undisclosed immigrant. The officer must be completely | | | | more obvious that Customs and Border Protection |
| convinced that an applicant is not an undisclosed | | | | (CBP) Officers are on the lookout for those using B2 |
| intending immigrant in order for the statutory | | | | tourist visas to immigrate to the United States of |
| presumption under section 214(b) to be overcome. In | | | | America through subterfuge. If a CBP officer finds that |
| cases where a Thai applicant has an American | | | | one is an undisclosed immigrant they can place the |
| boyfriend, fiance, or husband the presumption of | | | | traveler in expedited removal proceedings. After |
| immigrant intent is not easily overcome which leads to | | | | removal, the traveler would be barred from reentering |
| a situation in which the tourist visa applicant will likely be | | | | the USA for a statutorily prescribed period of time. |
| denied. | | | | |