An Inside Look At Consular Processing: Key Visa Updates From Abroad

This past fall, I was invited to speak at AILA's Rome District Chapter (RDC-EMEA) 2025 Fall Conference in Frankfurt, Germany, which provided a timely, on-the-ground view of the rapidly evolving consular processing landscape. The program brought together leading consular processing practitioners who shared real-time trends and strategies amid significant policy and procedural change. It was an honor to be invited to speak on a panel addressing the challenges posed by new visa systems, including best practices for preparing DS-160s aligned with the current and frequently shifting guidance under the Trump Administration.

The conference was a true exchange of practical experience from practitioners around the globe. Several key developments and recurring themes are worth highlighting for visa applicants and sponsoring employers alike.

The Current Consular Processing Environment

• U.S. consular posts are moving away from broad interview waivers and returning to in-person interviews as the default for most visa categories, including many employment-based nonimmigrant visas.
• Officers are relying more heavily on the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and formal policy guidance, with less informal flexibility. This shift is contributing to increased delays, refusals, and requests for additional evidence across posts.

Nonimmigrant Visas and Security‑Driven Use of INA 214(b)

• A policy shift has sharply narrowed eligibility for interview waivers, meaning E, F, H, J, L, O, and similar applicants will attend in-person interviews – even for renewals. . Additionally, all applicants should now apply for their visas at the U.S. Consulates in their home countries or countries of residence. Notably, there remains no clear guidance as to whether family members of different nationalities may apply at the same post as the principal visa applicant.
• While INA 214(b) has long placed the burden on applicants to demonstrate compliance with visa terms and, for most categories, to overcome immigrant intent, current guidance encourages officers to default to 214(b) refusals whenever they are not fully satisfied that an applicant qualifies or will comply, even if another refusal ground could apply.
• In practice, INA 214(b) is now being used broadly as a denial tool across visa categories, including H‑1B and L‑1 cases, particularly where there are concerns about job legitimacy, corporate structure, qualifications, or overall credibility.
• Applications, therefore, must clearly and consistently demonstrate that all planned activities in the United States align with the specific nonimmigrant classification. Vague explanations or inconsistencies can trigger an INA 214(b) refusal.
• Social media and online presence are now explicitly tied to INA 214(b) findings. Officers increasingly review online content, privacy settings, and gaps in digital presence as credibility issues and expect consistency with the DS‑160/DS‑260 and supporting documentation.

Professionals, Students and Exchange Visas: Targeted Vetting

• The Department of State (DOS) has implemented enhanced vetting for F, H, J, and M applicants, including systematic review of online and social media presence and routine use of 221(g) to allow for extended administrative processing.
• Officers are instructed to look for any "derogatory" indicators, such as perceived hostility toward the United States or possible security concerns, which can lead to INA 214(b) refusals, INA 212(a)(3) security-based ineligibilities, or even visa revocations.
• Certain institutions, programs, and nationalities – such as some Chinese students in sensitive technical fields – continue to face heightened scrutiny and an increased risk of both refusals and revocations.

Visa Revocations

• New and revised FAM provisions have expanded tools for prudential and security-driven visa revocations, including mechanisms for rapid revocation at DHS request in high-risk cases.
• These revocations can apply to individuals at a port of entry or already present in the United States, allowing DHS to treat them as lacking a valid visa and to pursue removal in appropriate cases.
• Revocations may occur without any consular interview; often, the first indication is denial of boarding or refusal of admission at the port of entry.
• Because revocation decisions are increasingly linked to dynamic security vetting and DHS referrals, travel planning requires careful risk assessment, with the knowledge that even long-held visas can be cancelled unexpectedly.

212(d)(3)(A) Nonimmigrant Waivers

• The 212(d)(3)(A) waiver remains a critical tool to overcome most inadmissibility grounds under INA 212(a) for temporary visa applicants.
• Consular officers historically gave deference to prior waiver approvals; however, revised guidance 9 FAM 305.4‑3(D) eliminated the prior expectation of "consular consistency." This means officers are no longer expected to defer to earlier 212(d)(3) approvals from the same or other consular posts.
• This shift underscores that prior 212(d)(3) approvals are no longer reliable predictors of future outcomes. In fact, practitioners reported cases where applicants with previous 212(d)(3) waivers are now seeing new visa applications denied under INA 214(b), making the visa applicants ineligible to apply for new 212(d)(3) waivers.

CBP and Port-of-Entry Issues

• Customs and Border Protection (CBP) leadership has emphasized ongoing efforts to integrate new technologies, improve information-sharing, and upgrade facilities at major ports of entry, all within an increasingly enforcement-forward posture under the current administration.

Government Use of AI and Analytics

• USCIS, DOS, and CBP are steadily expanding the use of automated screening tools and data analytics to flag cases for enhanced review based on travel patterns, prior filings, social media and open-source data, and perceived risk indicators.
• While these tools do not replace officer judgment, they materially influence which applications receive heightened scrutiny, deeper questioning, or additional security checks. They can surface issues from prior filings or online activity that the applicant may not anticipate.
• Because automated screening magnifies the impact of inconsistencies, it is increasingly critical that information be accurate and consistent across petitions, DS‑160/DS‑260 forms, past applications, and public online presence.

National Interest Waivers (NIWs)

• Although NIWs are adjudicated by USCIS, discussions at the conference highlighted that adjudicators continue to apply a high evidentiary standard to adjudications, expecting robust, objective evidence of impact rather than broad, generalized statements.
• In the immigrant visa application context, consular officers may still review the underlying NIW approval – scrutinizing admissibility, identity, and consistency between the approved petition and current plans, which can result in delays or 221(g) requests

Key Takeaways

Visa applicants across all categories should now plan for in-person interviews, longer processing times, and the possibility of administrative processing – even when prior visas were issued, as that is not a guarantee of future approval. The reach of INA 214(b) now extends well beyond traditional tourist and student visas; even H‑1B and L‑1 applicants need to be prepared to demonstrate job legitimacy, qualifications, and credibility, including consistency with online activity.

Overall, in the current consular processing environment, careful preparation and documentation, consistent internal filings with public presence, and realistic expectations are more important than ever when planning international travel and long-term immigration strategy. Consulting with an immigration attorney experienced in consular practice is crucial to identifying risks, tailoring case strategy, and navigating evolving policies that can boost the success of both visa issuance and the ability to travel.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.