RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION SIGN-ON LETTER- PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME OF
YOUR ORGANIZATION AND YOUR NAME AND TITLE (FOR IDENTIFICATION
PURPOSES ONLY) BY E-MAIL TO: Kathy Borresen at <kborresen@uscsvd.org>.
June 1, 2013
Hon. John Kerry
Secretary of State of the United States
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Secretary of State Kerry:
We want to bring to your attention a problem that affects the religious freedom of
religious organizations when U.S. consulates abroad deny visas for their members and family
members to visit the United States temporarily for religious purposes. We believe that too many
visa denials are unwarranted and there is little that an organization can do to reverse a badly
rendered decision.
Overview
More than ever before, religious organizations in the U.S. are international in their
membership and scope of their religious missions. Thus, many churches, synagogues, mosques,
religious institutes and other religious denominations and organizations rely on their adherents’
freedom to travel internationally to promote their missions, engage in communion with their coreligionists, and exercise a full range of peaceful religious activity. To accomplish this, U.S.
religious denominations and organizations often invite persons from other countries to visit the
U.S. to participate in religious worship, gatherings, ceremonies, meetings and other religious
events. Having someone’s foreign born family member at a significant life event, such as an
ordination, investiture or other vows ceremony, is an integral part of a religious occasion, as it
marks a unique transition for both the member and his or her family. Oftentimes a religious
event is the culmination of years of hard work and study by a foreign student of religion who has
diligently applied him or herself and maintained legal status in the U.S. throughout. In other
cases, the ability to have members of a religious denomination or institution visit for religious
meetings or worship is a core religious function. When a consular officer refuses to issue a
visitor visa to a U.S. religious organization’s member or his or her family members, the absence
can seriously impact and impede the fulfillment of the religious organization’s function.
Law-abiding religious organizations are, as a group, very patriotic members of U.S.
society. They understand the need to screen applicants for visas. They generally will not invite
persons who are not already connected to them or their members, nor would they invite persons
to join them for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. As citizens and participants of a
democracy founded on bedrock of religious liberty, we would not expect the U.S. Government to
place unreasonable obstacles in the way of temporary visits to the U.S. to participate in religious
events with us. But the current system for evaluating applicants for visitor visas erects such
barriers by marginalizing the religious needs of the organization, its member and family
members who seek to attend religious functions in the U.S. Section 214(b) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, which places the burden to prove an applicant’s “nonimmigrant intent” is
too often used by consular officers as an excuse to ignore the facts and evidence presented, and
to rationalize a policy of not determining the credibility of an invitation by a U.S. religious
organization to a foreign born person to join it for a temporary religious purpose.
The importance of visa issuance when the purpose of an applicant’s visit is for verifiably
religious reasons
A visa denial burdens a religious organization’s ability to worship or function in a
manner that is free of government interference. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pub. L.
No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42
U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA). RFRA states: “Government shall not substantially
burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general
applicability,” unless doing so is in furtherance of a compelling government interest. Even with
a compelling interest, in order to meet RFRA’s standards, a Government imposed burden must
be imposed using the least restrictive means. While we recognize that screening all visa
applicants, and denying visas to those who do not satisfy a consular officer of their intentions,
furthers a compelling government interest, we do not think that the current screening process is
the least restrictive way to evaluate eligibility of a visa applicant who is supported by a bona fide
U.S. religious organizations and intends to visit the U.S. for a religious meeting or occasion.
How the current visa application process affects certain religious applicants
A visitor to the U.S. must have a legitimate temporary purpose for wanting to come to the
U.S. and an intention to depart the U.S. at the end of the visit. The U.S. consulate accepts
applications for visitor visas. Often, a responsible religious organization that understands the
necessity for thorough screening of visa applicants may provide the visa applicant with an
invitation letter to explain the temporary and religious purpose for the invitee’s travel, and
further describe any financial undertaking or other commitments that the religious organization
will take to ensure that the invitee does not need to work in the U.S., will not become a public
charge, and will depart the U.S. as and when required. This is intended to assist the religious
visitor to satisfy the legal requirements for the visa.
But such an effort of the religious organization to provide relevant information is
commonly either ignored or dismissed by the U.S. consular officer. According to the consulate,
third-party invitation letters cannot be trusted because visa applicants can and do overstay their
visitor status in spite of an U.S. based organization’s assurances. The exclusive focus of the
consular officer is on whether the applicant has shown “compelling ties” to their country, which
typically consist of close family members, such as a spouse and children who will stay behind, or
highly remunerative employment and extensive ownership of property. That the intended visit
would further a religious event is considered to be irrelevant.
But the “compelling ties” test highlights a number of fundamental problems. Many
religious visitors lack financial resources and many do not have extensive or compelling family
circumstances in their home country. That the consular officer may not see compelling ties does
not undermine the applicant’s intent to come to the U.S. for a legitimate and verifiable temporary
religious visit. The “compelling ties” test operates to the particular detriment of some members
of religious orders who have taken vows of chastity and poverty, or who otherwise have chosen
to identify with the poor out of religious principle and faith. In one recent case, the U.S.
consulate in Ho Chi Minh City denied a visitor visa to a Catholic nun who serves as a religious
superior for her religious order. She sought to attend her brother’s vows ceremony in the U.S.
Despite her very responsible position, she had no financial resources of her own and of course
did not have a husband or children to return to, so the consular officer was not persuaded that she
had strong enough ties to Vietnam. In other cases, the consular officers deny visas after
subjecting the applicant to a pop quiz about their religion, asking questions that not even many
degreed theologians could answer. We have collected examples of some recent denials that we
attach to this letter.
A visa interview typically lasts 2 minutes, if that. Consular officers will hardly ever do
anything to verify information that is provided to them. Many times, applicants are not
interviewed at all, but rather are handed a denial letter as soon as they are called. Often the
consular officer does not take the time to listen to or understand an applicant’s explanations, will
not review documents, and has made the decision in advance of the interview. Sometimes,
family members apply together, such as an elderly parent and accompanying son or daughter, but
receive different results. The officer usually will not provide a meaningful explanation for the
denial. A visa refusal is often the basis for future visa refusals. Reapplying for the visa costs
hundreds of dollars which can be prohibitively expensive. There is no formal process to review
a denial. The impression is that the process favors the wealthy and the married. With no appeal
available, the initial denial usually stands as a virtual blacklist for years to come.
Proposed solutions of the undersigned religious organizations
A visa denial is often frustrating and bewildering to the religious organization that knows
the applicant and his or her intentions, and has accepted financial and legal responsibility for him
or her during the visit. The difficulty with contacting a consulate and the uncertainty in having
the applicant reapply means that the religious occasion usually passes without them, or the
religious meeting does not take place as planned. The religious organization is left with the
impression that its voice was not heard or believed, and that the consular officials did very little
if anything to confirm the legitimate religious purpose of the proposed visit or to take that into
account in the decision.
Because of this situation, the undersigned propose that the State Department clarify its
procedures to provide for a process that is more in keeping with the interests of religious liberty.
Where a responsible U.S. religious organization extends a verifiable invitation to a member of its
denomination or a family member, the consulate should consider credible assurances to be prima
facie evidence showing eligibility for the visa. The U.S. Government should thereafter deny a
religious visitor intending to engage in a legitimate temporary visit to the U.S. only if it is in
possession of information that negates or calls into question an intention to come to the U.S.
temporarily for a religious visit, or the ability to comply with the visa’s limitations. Where there
is no certainty one way or the other, consulates should utilize the process for requiring a
departure bond that is provided for in the Foreign Affairs Manual Section 41.11. While this is
disfavored normally, it should be favored as a less intrusive means of impacting a religious
function, and should be preferred over denying what is a documented case of a legitimate
religious visit. Consulates should also not utilize religious quizzes that are usually inappropriate,
arrogant, and often ignorant of how members of religious denominations may be sincere in their
religious affiliation without being experts in the theology or history of the denomination.
We propose specifically that, before denying a visitor visa to someone intending to come
to the U.S. for a religious visit, the consular officer should do the following:

Verify the bona fides of an invitation and the organization that has provided it to the
applicant;

Where appropriate or necessary, contact responsible officers of a denomination with
knowledge of the event and offers of room, board, travel or other support;

Where it appears the religious organization has the ability to support the visitor and
provide reasonable assurances of his or her departure from the U.S., accept such
assurances in the absence of information directly to the contrary and issue the visa;

Where the consular officer is uncertain of the applicant’s or religious organization’s
ability to comply with a temporary visit, require the posting of a departure bond in an
amount reasonably calculated to ensure the visa applicant’s timely departure after the end
of the religious visit.
In addition, the Department of State should provide guidance to consular officers of the
importance of religious visits under U.S. law and instruct them to not deny visas merely for lack
of family members or extensive property holdings. It should emphasize that an invitation letter
from a reliable U.S. religious organization may satisfy the applicant’s responsibility to
demonstrate his or her intent to visit the U.S. temporarily, and to leave the U.S. after the religious
event even in the absence of extensive economic or family ties. Guidance should also provide
that social and religious ties to one’s home country, or a documented intention to depart the U.S.
to a third country may also be sufficient to issue the visa. Where there is evidence of a legitimate
religious purpose or event in the U.S., and no evidence that the applicant intends to violate the
terms of his or her proposed religious visit, the consular officers should opt to issue the visa upon
reasonable assurances of support and monitoring by an inviting religious organization.
Thank you very much for your attention to these concerns. We invite a discussion with
you and others in the Department of State’s Visa Office and Office of International Religious
Freedom to address the points in this letter. We would appreciate receiving a response at your
earliest opportunity.
Respectfully submitted,
NAMES OF ORGANIZATIONS. Location and Contact Person’s name and title:
Society of the Divine Word, Chicago Province, Techny, Illinois. Contact: Rev. Thomas
Ascheman, SVD, Provincial
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WISHING TO SIGN ON TO THIS, PLEASE NOTIFY Kathy
Borresen at the Society of the Divine Word, Chicago Province by email at:
kborresen@uscsvd.org no later than June 1, 2013. Please distribute this widely to other
organizations you may know, regardless of religious denomination.
Attachment:
EXAMPLES OF RELIGIOUS VISITOR VISA DENIALS- additional details available on
request

April 2013- Catholic nun who will graduate this year invited her father in Vietnam to the
graduation. The father is poor and unemployed, but had evidence of financial support for
the trip and of the religious graduation ceremony. The consular officer turned him down
after 2 minutes, handing him a prepared denial letter. The officer would not look at the
invitation, would not let him explain the importance of attending her graduation. The
religious sister in the U.S. reports that her father was treated without dignity.

February 2013- A Catholic order of religious women reports that its most recent refusal
was for one of its Sisters from Kenya, who is living and ministering in Uganda. It wanted
her to attend a meeting of its order in the U.S. from April 4-8, 2013. She brought her
religious congregation identification card, the congregation directory listing her name,
and a letter from the Superior General of the congregation, but the consular officer in
Nairobi did not look at any of them. She reported that that the officer asked her five
questions about Catholicism which she answered. The interviewer then asked her the
name of the last Pope to resign, 600 years ago. She did not know the answer and the visa
was denied. The Sister reapplied and with the help of a U.S. Senator’s office. She was
rescheduled for an interview on March 12th. The Superior General sent an email to the
embassy prior to the interview. She states that the interviewing officer again did not look
at any of her documents. The officer asked her one question: Where is the Mount of
Olives? She was unable to answer and the visa was again denied.

The same religious order reports that it has had other denials for visitor visas overcome
occasionally on reapplication, but only after paying the visa fee again, thereby spending
money that the order could put to better use. It is their experience that the interviewing
officers look only at traditional ties, such as whether the applicant has children, owns
property, is married, etc. The officers do not consider guidance in the Foreign Affairs
Manual that instructs them to also consider social ties. Since its members do not meet
those requirements the visa is often denied. It reports that Nairobi and Kampala are
particularly egregious but it has also had the same difficulties with Lima, Peru. It states
“this is frustrating as it seems there is no way to hold these consular officials accountable
for their behavior, or to convince the government to provide better training for the
officials.”

Spring 2012- father and brother applied for B-2 visas at US Consulate Beijing to come to
their son’s/brother’s perpetual vows ceremony. The brother provided property
documents, authorized leave of absence from employer for only 10 days, bank
statements, evidence of his upcoming wedding, to take place after his return to China.
Father provided marriage certificate, birth certificates of children, property documents,
bank statements, medical documentation that his wife is ill and needs ongoing care. No
other family members were in the U.S. other than the son who maintained lawful F-1
student status in the U.S. His religious order provided a detailed invitation letter assuring
the consulate of its support for the visitors and cooperation in their return after the vows
ceremony. They applied on 2 occasions and both times denied under 214(b).

Spring 2012- sister who is a Roman Catholic nun applied for B-2 visa at US Consulate
Ho Chi Minh City to come for her brother’s perpetual vows ceremony. Provided
evidence that she is owner of property of where she and her religious community live,
evidence that her Superior granted her leave, evidence that she is the Vice-Superior of the
religious order. She had a detailed invitation letter from the U.S. religious organization
assuring the consulate of its support during her visit and cooperation in her return to
Vietnam. Applied on 2 occasions and both times denied for insufficient ties under
214(b). At second interview, she requested to speak to a supervisor and she was informed
that it wouldn’t make a difference because decision already reached and was not allowed
opportunity to speak with supervisor.

Spring 2012- brother applied for NIV through US Consulate Ho Chi Minh City to come
for perpetual vows ceremony. Provided marriage certificate, birth certificates of 3 minor
children, documentation of 2 properties, and business registration of business he owns.
Detailed invitation letter from U.S. religious organization. Denied under 214(b).

Spring 2012- applicant from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was accepted to a 3
week Young Missionary training program in the U.S. for a major Protestant organization
with an established training program, for assignment to engage in a mission in Brazil
focusing on peace and development leadership after the training program. Application
for B-1 visitor visa denied at U.S. consulate in Lusaka (where many citizens of the DRC
are encouraged to apply). Consular officer pointed to the applicant’s applying outside his
own country and lack of employment or family ties in Gambia. Applicant had detailed
invitation letters providing details on the training in the U.S. and assignment in Brazil,
which the consulate rejected.

Spring 2011- Mother and niece applied for NIV through US Consulate Beijing, China to
come for ordination to priesthood ceremony. Mother provided evidence of property
ownership (owned by husband), bank statements, marriage certificate, birth certificate of
4 children living in China, explained husband’s health issues. Niece provided bank
records, leave of absence letter from work authorizing her to accompany her grandmother
on trip. Both denied under 214(b), interviewing officer specifically told them he did not
think they would return to China

Spring 2010- Mother, brother, sister applied through US Consulate in Accra, Ghana to
come for their family member’s ordination to priesthood ceremony. Only the brother was
interviewed- mother was not even allowed opportunity to see Consular officer. Brother
was asked- how do you know [the U.S. religious order]? His response was through his
brother, who is its member. Response: Denied. Brother provided birth certificates for 5
minor children, evidence of home property, bank account, and evidence of involvement
in Catholic Church. Sister had marriage certificate, birth certificates of 2 minor children,
bank account statement, evidence that she is a licensed hairdresser. Mother had
employment records, evidence of her parish work, evidence of 4 children in Ghana-one
of whom she lives with. All three denied under 214(b).