July 20th-30th, 2007

The global climate is changing, but from where I stand, it looks like it's getting colder, not warmer.

I'm not talking about the weather, I'm talking about the changes we have experienced in obtaining visas for delegates traveling from our sister parish, San Marcos Evangelista in Tierra Nueva 2, Guatemala, to St. Joan of Arc. It's getting a lot colder.

Alba, far right, will be returning on the 2007 delegation

In 2005 we invited six delegates to come and all six were able to get their visas. This year, we invited five of our friends and only two were granted visas to come, Alba and her husband, Juan Carlos. Why? The immigration laws haven't changed. The process, as humiliating as it is, hasn't changed. It still begins with the payment of a non-refundable fee of more than $100 (per person). What has changed is the political climate surrounding the issues of immigration.

The officials in the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala City are interpreting immigration law much more strictly than in the past. U.S. immigration law presumes that all persons applying for non-immigrant (tourist) visas intend to immigrate and they have the burden of proving "strong ties" to their home country as a means of showing that they will in fact honor the visa and return to Guatemala. The usual ways of doing this are 1) not to have any family members, with or without papers, living in the U.S. 2) own substantial property in the home country 3) have a lucrative business in the home country 4) have more than enough money to pay for the intended trip, independent of who will actually pay (the amount kicked around is at least $5000 in the bank, though that is an unofficial figure). This is a tall order for any of the people from Tierra Nueva 2 to fill.

The Embassy and consulate change and/or rotate employees frequently so that they are not tempted by relationships with outsiders coming in for services. They try to eliminate influences. For example, the Sister Parish staff person accompanying the delegates to the Embassy, if known to the interviewer, could influence them to grant the visa based on their knowledge of Sister Parish. Now, it is unlikely that the interviewer will personally know anyone they are interviewing.

Under past policy in the consulate, where visas are considered, U.S. citizens who had a vested interest in helping a certain person or group get a visa were allowed to accompany them inside the consulate and then actually speak on their behalf at the interview. This is what always helped us to secure visas, because the Sister Parish staff person could clearly explain who we are, what we do, why we do it. Now, the Sister Parish staff person can go inside, but nowhere near the interview area. Another change is that, in the past, a delegation could interview as a group. Now each person must go one by one, unless related. This is why Juan Carlos got his visa (he and Alba were at the same window) and she had practiced all her arguments for the two of them ahead of time.

The Embassy states that the average interview duration is three minutes, but people who have been there say it's more like one minute, tops. In many cases, not a single question is asked other than to see the visa application. Some interviewers ask for supporting papers, some do not. These are not comfortable, relaxed interviews in a room with chairs and a table. The applicant stands at a high window that has bullet proof glass and a microphone to allow communication. Most of the people we work with are fairly short, so this puts them at a disadvantage from the start. There are many windows in a row so the sound is terrible. There is no where to sit during the whole process of first waiting outside to go in, then waiting in the ante room, then waiting for fingerprints and finally waiting in the actual interview line. The day our delegates went for their interviews it was raining, so they stood in the rain.

Reading the FAQs for visas that are denied proved insightful. Some of the questions include "why didn't they ask me anything" and "why didn't they look at my papers". The official answers are that the interviewers are highly trained and therefore competent to make a good decision in just a few seconds. Others have different observations. One observed pattern was that if the visa applicant is short and brown, no visa was granted. If the applicant is tall and light, a visa was granted. This betrays an obvious socio-economic prejudice that means even poor people with a legitimate reason to travel and the means to do so (through an invitation with expenses paid) are often not even given the necessary time to explain this, and are therefore denied.

After eight delegates going from Tierra Nueva 1 to Faith Lutheran Church in Fargo were denied, many were told that their letters of invitation simply did not include enough information. Each person had exactly the same letters. So, it was enough info for two of them but not enough for the other eight. The senator in Fargo appealed, and all were denied again. For our delegation, the interviewers at least said that the denial was because the law was very strict. That is, at least, a more honest and accurate answer.

Ross Starkson , with sincere devotion to this project, announced, “Every time I return from Guatemala I feel like I have gained so much.” Ross’s life has pilgrimed him through corporate success and RCIA team mentorship to a focus of learning more about cultural differences and commonalities among the people of Central and South America. Ross has been on several TN2 trips, some with his wife Katharine.

A letter of recommendation from U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar's office to the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala didn't help, either. The reason for the denial of visas to all but two of our invited delegates was confirmed in a letter received from her office after the interviews:

...[the visas] were refused under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). INA Section 214(b) creates a presumption that all applicants for nonimmigrant visas are actually intending immigrants. During the interview, applicants have a burden of overcoming this presumption, usually by showing strong economic, social and professional ties to their home country. Unfortunately, ... [those denied visas] were unable to convince the consular officer that their ties to Guatemala are sufficiently strong to overcome the law's presumption that they are intending immigrants.