You can’t water-board fiancées at the US embassy!

There has been much undeserved criticism and condemnation hurled at USCIS and consular officers over issuing a fiancée (K – 1) visa to the female terrorist in the San Bernardino shootings. I would like to offer my defense of those officers, as I do not believe the USCIS and consular officers should be faulted. However, I believe the actions of the terrorist couple are horrible and indefensible.

First, the primary purpose of the vetting or investigative process for K – 1 visas is simply to determine if it is a bona fide/love relationship – not to determine if an applicant is a terrorist. There are many other governmental agencies whose primary functions are to monitor and root out terrorism, including the CIA, FBI, NSA, Armed Forces, to name a few. Apparently, none of these other agencies found anything in this couple’s background, such that there were no negative entries in our government’s computer database. Are we expecting USCIS or consular officers to take over the functions of these other agencies?

Second, there has been much criticism leveled against USCIS and consular offices on whether there was enough evidence in this couple’s file to establish  they had “met in person,” as required by the K – 1 regulations. According to one Congressman, there was insufficient evidence. Again, the “meet in person” requirement deals with whether or not the relationship is bona fide, and does not, in any way, provide any indication that either party is a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. In fact, the regulations provide that a couple does not necessarily need to meet in person if it would cause hardship or because of religious prohibitions. In this case, their file indicated the husband obtained a special visa to Saudi Arabia to attend the Hajj (pilgrimage) in Mecca, and his fiancée was also there at the same time. He even produced that Saudi visa. The Husband claimed they met in person at her relative’s house on October 3, 2013. Therefore, there was evidence of the petitioner meeting the fiancée while attending a holy pilgrimage, so why would there be suspicions of them lying about the in-person meeting?

Third, there was extensive/overwhelming evidence this was a bona fide relationship.  She entered the US, they married within 90 days, she filed for adjustment of status, they went through another interview in the US, with finger printing and security background checks, and even had a child together. That appears to me to have been a bona fide, good faith relationship for K – 1 purposes.

Fourth, after the San Bernardino massacre, it was discovered that before she entered the US, the female terrorist posted private messages on Facebook under a pseudonym (false name) to friends, expressing her support for ISIS. However, at the time she applied for her visa, it was not our government’s policy to check applicants’ social media, e-mails, text messages, Twitter accounts, or the like in adjudicating petitions or visa applications. Can you imagine the time and resources that would now have to be expended by USCIS and the State Department to scour all of the social media accounts, whether for fiancée visas or even for a visitor visa? Moreover, there probably would have been an uproar over privacy concerns had this shooting not occurred, and it was discovered the government was going through visa applicants’ social media content.

Fifth, if USCIS and consular officers will now be required to conduct the extensive background investigations (that their critics are demanding), then the processing time for visas (whether K – 1 or even visitor’s visas) could take a year or more. Should we also investigate the background of the petitioner’s and beneficiary’s relatives? What if a fiancée has a brother who posted a pro–ISIS message on his Facebook account? Should her visa be denied? What about the increased cost for visas? It would cost thousands upon thousands of dollars in extra petition and visa fees for this type of intensive background investigation for visa applicants. And once they enter the US, should we make all aliens report monthly or quarterly with ICE or FBI, and have their e-mails and social media constantly monitored?

Finally, when applying for a fiancée visa, the applicant must provide NBI/police clearance, police certificates from all foreign countries where they have lived for at least six months, their name and fingerprints are run through several criminal databases, all of which came up with no “hits” for the female terrorist. In addition, questionnaires applicants fill out in connection with their visa interview ask if they are coming to the US to “engage in terrorist activities,” if they are a member “of a terrorist organization,” and if they intend to provide “support to terrorists or terrorist organizations.”

Of course, they are going to answer “no” to these questions. And there was nothing in this couple’s background that even the CIA, FBI, NSA, or other of our governmental agencies (specifically tasked with the job of monitoring terrorists), could discover or input into USCIS or consular officer’s computers. Therefore, it would seem the only way we could have uncovered their terrorist background in a reasonably timely fashion would have been to water board her at the US embassy (or at her adjustment interview). But bear in mind that there was a known terrorist who was water boarded over 80 times by seasoned interrogators, who could still not extract valuable information from him.

In conclusion, in hindsight, this K – 1 visa should not have been issued, but unless we equip USCIS and consular officers with crystal balls, time machines, or water boards, they cannot be blamed for the holes in our system.

WEBSITE: www.gurfinkel.com

Follow us on Facebook.com/GurfinkelLaw and Twitter @GurfinkelLaw

Four offices to serve you:  PHILIPPINES: 8940258 or 8940239; LOS ANGELES; SAN FRANCISCO; NEW YORK: TOLL FREE NUMBER: 1-866-GURFINKEL (1-866-487-3465).