Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently sent a cable to some Department of State employees on enhanced screening and social media vetting of visa applicants. Among other things, the cable states that effective immediately, consular officers must refer new or returning student and exchange visitor (F, M, and J) visa applicants to the Fraud Prevention Unit (FPU) for a mandatory social media check if they meet certain criteria:
- An applicant who the officer has reason to believe has openly advocated for a designated foreign terrorist organization;
- An applicant who was previously in the United States in F-1, M-1, or J-1 visa status between October 7, 2023, and August 31, 2024;
- An applicant whose previous SEVIS record was terminated between October 7, 2023, and the present.
The cable states that evidence that an applicant:
…advocates for terrorist activity, or otherwise demonstrates a degree of public approval or public advocacy for terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, may be indicative of ineligibility. [This may be] evident in conduct that bears a hostile attitude toward U.S. citizens or U.S. culture (including government, institutions, or founding principles). Or it may be evident in advocacy or sympathy for foreign terrorist organizations. All of these matters may open lines of inquiry regarding the applicant’s credibility and purpose of travel.
The cable notes that a consular officer’s revocation of a visa “must be based on an actual finding that the individual is ineligible for the visa,” not merely on suspected ineligibility or based on derogatory information that is insufficient to support an ineligibility finding “other than a revocation based on driving under the influence.” If an officer suspects ineligibility, the post should refer the case for further review. Some students on visas or even with green cards have been detained and targeted for removal under INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i), which authorizes the Secretary of State to “personally determine that [an] alien’s presence would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest” even if their statements, associations, and beliefs would be lawful.