I was a US diplomat in India for 2 years and processed tens of thousands of visas. While this change will cause some inconvenience for, e.g., current H-1B visa holders from India who can no longer travel to Canada or Mexio to apply for new visas, in general it makes a lot of sense. I worked at the number one H-1B processing post worldwide. Our post had the expertise to quickly evaluate applications and approve the clearly legitimate ones while scrutinizing the potentially fraudulent ones. We tracked fraud patterns and kept tabs on known-bad petitioners. We could visit petitioner locations on the ground in India. This expertise doesn't exist in Canada or Mexico. Staff at those embassies and consulates would have to consult with us in India, or simply make uninformed decisions. Note also that bona fide residents of a country can still apply in their country of residence.
For a few weeks in India, we had a string of third-country nationals (I won't say which, but it's not hard to find) apply for foreign medical graduate visas. We weren't familiar with the context in country they were coming from. They seemed to be generally good quality applicants and many were approved. It turned out that there was a cheating scandal in that third country, an entire batch of test results had been invalidated, and the embassy located there was refusing their visas, so a few applied in India and were approved, then word got out and more came. We eventually wised up. However, there was really no good reason for these applicants to be travelling from their home country to India for a visa appointment even under normal circumstances (India isn't exactly known for having short visa wait times).
blindfolded_go · 5h ago
Thanks for sharing your experience. Good to get some real-world data in this thread as opposed to the emotional condemnations of this rule change.
steviedotboston · 3h ago
People make two big assumptions about immigration in my experience
1) They think the system should be extremely simple
2) They assume everyone involved is being honest
When the reality is
1) Many people involved are lying to claim immigration benefits they have no right to
2) The system needs to have a level of complexity and difficulty to prevent these people from accessing these benefits
motbus3 · 3h ago
I don't doubt you Stevie, but I wonder if you could share any sources, proofs of data regarding your remark #1 about people lying.
I believe it is happens and I assume there might be a number of drivers for it, but I wonder how big of a problem is it in reality and how much has it been abused.
For example, friends told me the scheme in the UK might be too prone for fraud on the other hand most of the anti immigration topics do not seem to ask it to be fixed but rather stopped.
What is your opinion on that? Do you think immigration is a big source of corruption problem? And how big is it relative to other problems?
My question comes from a point that I question if this is a populist/nationalist act to create a common enemy, literally the Enemy from 1984, rather than actually addressing the root cause of the problems.
I am referring to the UK mostly because I have many friends living and working in the UK and some are British and some others are not.
And it seems weird to me that tackling such issues ( eg of the asylum seekers and the illegal immigration) as root causes of the current economic situation.
Is it going after those folks really make a change on the prospects of the economy or is it addressing emotional needs to feel that someone is in control and that someone will take care of you because they fight the "enemy"?
For example, one of my British folks pointed out, and I did not validate myself, that the cost per asylum seeker is of £40 a week and there about 110.000 people in that situation which would make an expenditure of 4M per week or 200M per year. Which seems quite a large amount of money to deal with humanitarian assistance. And it would represent about 10% of the total expenditure.
Another friend pointes out that UK collects £2.7B in taxes considering Health care, skilled and senior staff workers.
The deficit in the public accountants are rather debatable so I do not have an opinion.
What do you make from it?
ashray · 30m ago
It's well known that people often lie on visa applications and try to immigrate illegally. The US publishes a yearly review of overstayers broken down by country of origin. So you can see where the highest problem areas are. Sometimes this is masked because of way stricter visa issuance policies. So for example, you may not see a super high overstay percentage for India because many folks get rejected at the visa application stage. But still, this gives you a clearer picture of how rampant the lying is and the subsequent "disappearing" in the US.
I can't address your other concerns about economic impact etc. I'm not sure if there is a negative economic impact from this.
maxerickson · 4h ago
Why not disconnect the reviewer from the submission location then?
viceconsole · 4h ago
Because there is a statutory requirement that applicants who require an interview appear personally before a consular officer. So far, the State Department has interpreted this to mean "standing physically in front of".
Having done tens of thousands of visa interviews, I do think the requirement of a physical appearance before an officer is important. I could quickly review a person's travel history by looking through their passports, questioning them about prior trips. A person's travel patterns and visas to other countries can tell you a lot. I could quickly use a UV light or magnifier on educational documents to see if they were genuine. Several times, I overhead conversations from other applicants and officers that were relevant to my applicant (same employer/group) and I would consult with them. There are many other details you notice when doing this in person thousands of times.
There are also practical matters - if you're trying to do this via video link, how to you authenticate the person on the other end? At the consulate, we fingerprint them and compare them to previously collected biometrics. If you offload this authentication to a contractor site in the US, but I'm in India, is this site open in the middle of the night?
In cases where the applicant qualifies for a waiver of the interview, the State Department actually does (or at least did when I was there) have a substantial program whereby visa applications are largely processed remotely. An applicant would have no hint as to whether or not that happened, though.
maxerickson · 3h ago
Is there a statutory requirement that the consular officer that conducts the interview make a decision without input from other people?
Like it seems hilariously backwards in your example that the cheaters were able to make an end run around the system you praise, when it would be easy to have someone local taking a look at global applications. Or just applications that someone thought were odd.
ashray · 5h ago
This was already the case for almost every other country. Most embassies required you to be resident or a national of the country you are applying in.
So oddly, the US was far more permissive than other locales in this one aspect. All this change does is bring it in line with security practices that other nations already had in place.
Honestly am quite surprised that the US didn’t already have this restriction considering overall it’s one of the toughest countries to get a visa for or even enter with a valid visa.
The US visa vetting procedure is known to be so strict even for tourists that many nations give visa free access to nationals who would otherwise require a visa - just because they hold a valid (or sometimes even expired!) US visa. It’s a highly regarded sticker if you can get one in your passport and seriously ups the power of your passport if it’s a weaker one to start with.
abxyz · 5h ago
Really? Do you have any examples? I’ve had visas around the world (and encountered numerous weird requirements) but never have I been required to apply for a visa from my country of nationality. Even China, which is very restrictive, allows for non-national applications.
(And in fact, in my experience, it is getting easier with online applications becoming more common.)
viceconsole · 5h ago
It's common for countries to require you to apply from your country of nationality or residence, and to prove lawful residence if you're not a national of the country you're applying in. I'm in the middle of a French visa application for my daughter right now, and she must apply in the U.S. where she's a citizen.
ashray · 5h ago
I have several examples and lots of personal experience. I’ve been asked to go back from Mexico, Brazil, and Chile while traveling there and applying for a visa to Peru. Finally the Peruvian embassy in Chile gave me a visa to visit Peru because I accidentally bumped into the assistant consul.
Several more examples but in this day and age you can just ask chat gpt to summarize for you. But if you check visa application requirements for many embassies, they will often say: proof of residence if not a national of the country of application. So that’s the requirement often.
I will add though that I’ve always maintained that this is a soft policy and they will make exceptions in some cases. It is mostly consulates wanting to do as little work as humanly possible. So there can be ways to get around it if you can talk to someone in charge. But usually that’s very difficult with consulates.
I’m pretty sure though in the US’ case now it’s a hard no. So there will be no working around it.
abxyz · 4h ago
Expanding on my previous comment with an example: I obtained a long term residency visa a few months ago. I was in the country at the time and didn’t want to fly 15 hours back to my home country, and the embassy in the neighbouring country only accepts applications from residents, so I flew to another nearby country which does accept non-residents. The country that I have a visa for doesn’t care where the visa is issued, it’s the individual embassies that set their own rules about who they will process applications for. You just have to look through each embassy to find one that accepts you (which will be documented on their website). Except now for the U.S. which is instituting this rule.
abxyz · 5h ago
I think we are talking about different things. I’m talking about a country’s requirements whereas you’re talking about a specific embassy.
An embassy will often have its own requirements based on the locality, whereas the visa requirements are uniform.
The Indian embassy in San Francisco might refuse to process non-resident applications but that doesn’t mean you can only get an Indian visa by going to an embassy in your country of nationality.
abxyz · 4h ago
A third comment: I asked ChatGPT as suggested and it has confirmed that there are Indian embassies around the world that explicitly accept visa applications from tourists, including in the United States. San Francisco is not one of them. May I suggest that you ask ChatGPT too?
throw-the-towel · 5h ago
Schengen works exactly like this. Also Japan I think.
abxyz · 5h ago
I don’t know about Schengen but that’s not correct for Japan. You can get a visa to visit Japan from an embassy in a country you’re not a resident or national of, there’s no requirement for the visa to be issued in your country of nationality (although some embassies may choose not to accept applications from non-residents or non-nationals).
returningfory2 · 3h ago
The Japanese embassy and consulates in the US only accept applications from residents of the US.
> You may apply for a visa at this Consulate if you are currently residing within the area covered by this Consulate.
the_mitsuhiko · 3h ago
Schengen does not work like that. While you are supposed to apply from the country you are a resident in, if you have valid reasons you can apply from any other country. This is also frequently necessary (eg: traveller without fixed residence).
throw-the-towel · 2h ago
Well, just happening to be in a different country is not a "valid reason". Maybe for someone from the West it would be accepted, but not for the rest of us.
Also, "a traveler without a fixed residence" can get a non-immigrant visa for Schengen? I'm sorry but this just is not true if you're not a Westerner.
the_mitsuhiko · 2h ago
> Also, "a traveler without a fixed residence" can get a non-immigrant visa for Schengen? I'm sorry but this just is not true if you're not a Westerner.
If there is no doubt that you will leave and you can sustain yourself: sure.
throw-the-towel · 1h ago
Being abroad is already a huge challenge to proving you're going to leave. You're showing you don't have much tethering you to your country of origin.
Simulacra · 5h ago
Many countries do things radically different than America does in terms of immigration, but it is quite clear over the past 20 years that one major political party in America favors more open immigration than the other. Where it seems most Americans prefer something right in the middle. Legal, but flexible.
FridayoLeary · 3h ago
Europes permissive immigration policies (basically anarchy from my perspective in the UK) are creating an entirely avoidable crisis. I expect a far more closed border policy in the future. International travel will become more complicated as western countries will increasingly try to control who is allowed in. Trumps administration is just 2 to 5 years ahead of everyone else.
andsoitis · 5h ago
Similar to Europe: for Schengen visas, you must apply to the consulate responsible for your country of legal residence.
Thailand has similar restrictions for certain visas.
nathan11 · 5h ago
I believe your link says you must apply at the country you're visiting, or the country you're visiting first. And you must apply at the consulate for the country you are a resident of. So if I was applying to visit France, I could do so from the US embassy in France.
This seems to differ from the new US rule where you must also apply in the country you're a resident of.
throw-the-towel · 5h ago
Why would you apply at the US consulate for a visa to France? That makes no sense no matter how I try to interpret.
The way it works is, if you're applying for a French visa in Mongolia and you're not a Mongolian national, you need to provide your Mongolian residence permit or else your application will be refused outright.
em-bee · 4h ago
you got that mixed up: you would apply at the french embassy in the US. and, that's the key point for schengen: you would not apply at the eg german embassy in the US, even though both would get you the same visa. the US embassy can't give you a schengen visa, and you could not even get to the one in france since you are not there yet. and if you visit multiple countries, it's either the one where you spend most of the time, or the one where you enter the schengen area (this may be different from the country you visit first because you could have a flight transfer inside schengen). at least as far as i know.
HeavenFox · 3h ago
This is a significant problem for Chinese H1B holders, because the visa sticker for Chinese passport is only valid for one year. You can stay for longer, but cannot come back if you leave the U.S. Historically folks have been getting their visa renewed in Canada or Mexico, and this is already a huge annoyance - not only do you have to make a pointless trip, but also appointments in these countries are very hard to get as a Third Country National (TCN).
Sure, most other countries don't allow TCNs to apply for visa, but they also don't require their long term residents to leave the country to renew their visa.
So, the correct solution to this is Domestic Visa Renewal. A pilot program was run last year, but it was limited to Indian H1B holders. Without this program in place, disallowing TCNs is simply cruel.
em-bee · 38m ago
not having Domestic Visa Renewal sounds like the most ridiculous oversight. i get making your first application from home, but renewal should always be in your target country. it's absurd to demand that people travel home once a year to renew their visa.
Anonyneko · 4h ago
Fun for people hailing from the countries where the US embassy is unable to issue visas for various interesting political reasons.
anvuong · 5h ago
This is good. Canada consulate has been swamped with TCN visa appointments for a very long time. And this is the norm for many countries, including the EU.
I think so but it doesn’t really matter. It’s far faster to apply at the border anyway.
mgh2 · 3h ago
Why is this flagged?
jrochkind1 · 5h ago
The idea that someone from Haiti could get to Nassau for a visa interview is not serious.
viceconsole · 5h ago
There's no staff in Haiti to process visas at all, the embassy is on ordered depature. There are staff in Nassau, including people trained in Haitian Creole, and there are many Haitian applicants who apply for visas in Nassau. Where do you think the US should interview Haitian applicants? Also, if someone from Haiti has the resources to travel to the US, they have the resources to travel to Nassau for a visa interview.
throw-the-towel · 5h ago
The Darién Gap was believed to be impassable, now people cross it by the thousands just to get to the US. You're seriously underestimating how motivated and desperate some of these people are.
burnermore · 5h ago
This feel like bad for countries like India initially. But will help make better homegrown solutions. This is good for the world.
wheelerwj · 5h ago
Anything to make it more difficult.
fblp · 5h ago
Also. "Effective immediately". Too bad for the tens of thousands of people who would be in legitimate process for a visa outside their country home country right now. This administrations arrogance and urgency is more important.
NoImmatureAdHom · 5h ago
It explicitly doesn't affect people who already have appointments / who are in process. Read the link.
FirmwareBurner · 3h ago
>Read the link.
You ask too much for HN. HN is set to Orange Man Bad mode.
No comments yet
eterpstra · 5h ago
Can anyone explain a rational political motivation behind this? I realize "less immigrants" is the hand-wavy explanation, but how does this benefit those in charge?
linotype · 5h ago
> Can anyone explain a rational political motivation behind this? I realize "less immigrants" is the hand-wavy explanation, but how does this benefit those in charge?
I recommend you read the link, which in the first few words outlines “non-immigrants” and my summary.
> Adjudicating Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants in Their Country of Residence
mnky9800n · 5h ago
Immigrants don’t apply for non immigrant visas
throw-the-towel · 4h ago
Not defending the US here, but are you saying that overstaying your visa does not exist?
viceconsole · 4h ago
Their point was that this change applies to non-immigrant visas (which in theory are only issued to people who do not intend to immigrate to the US), not immigrant visas.
This might also be tied to the incident with the South Korean nationals in Georgia.
throw-the-towel · 1h ago
(Note: Georgia as in Atlanta, not Tbilisi.)
chillingeffect · 5h ago
It validates xenophobia. In a xenophobic population. This keeps them in charge. That is all. This administration is all about cutting off their nose to spite thir face.
jeffbee · 5h ago
It aligns with their effort to ruin the economic situation of American universities.
efitz · 5h ago
Please refer me to the part of the Constitution that enumerates the responsibility of the US government to preserve the business model of the modern university system?
tzs · 3h ago
Unless you are arguing that government actions should not be criticized unless they are in violation of the Constitution, your comment makes no sense in the context of any comment that is an ancestor of it in the comment tree.
Did you response to the wrong comment or get a little mixed up about the shape of the comments tree or what?
MangoToupe · 4h ago
Or to capitalism itself, for that matter! We could easily become a modern country if we just had the will.
The recourse to the constitution is silly. It has barely any relevance to the country we've become.
tupac_speedrap · 5h ago
Yes, what America needs now is more students working in the grey economy after their student visa expires.
chillingeffect · 5h ago
We either let them in and grow our economy or compete with them.
jeffbee · 5h ago
Right. It is also rather inconsistent to be the guy who says he is working on the trade imbalance, while simultaneously wrecking one of America's biggest export sectors: education, housing for education, and travel for education.
digitaltrees · 5h ago
So a Canadian that wants to visit on a tourist visa has to apply at an embassy?????!!!! Instead of on the airplane right before landing?
Insane. This is going to destroy the tourism industry and collapse business travel.
IncRnd · 5h ago
Canadians don't need a visa to visit the United States for tourism or temporary business travel purposes.
digitaltrees · 1h ago
Got it. Thanks for clarifying
mk12 · 5h ago
Canadians don’t need a visa to visit the US, they are visa-exempt.
anonexpat · 5h ago
This doesn't affect nationals eligible for visa-on-arrival.
digitaltrees · 1h ago
Got it. Thanks. That’s a lot better than first impression.
jmclnx · 5h ago
Do Canadians need to get Visas to visit the US ?
Last time I went to Canada all I needed was a Passport. I do not even remember showing it to the Custom Official. I drove up said hi and they let me through.
As far as I know it was/is the same for Canadians visiting the US. Except the US border people tended to be d**ks, even to US Citizens.
Did that change?
LadyCailin · 5h ago
Canadians do not need a visa to enter the US. And many countries are covered under the Visa Waiver Program, such as many European countries. So no, this does not affect Canadians.
For a few weeks in India, we had a string of third-country nationals (I won't say which, but it's not hard to find) apply for foreign medical graduate visas. We weren't familiar with the context in country they were coming from. They seemed to be generally good quality applicants and many were approved. It turned out that there was a cheating scandal in that third country, an entire batch of test results had been invalidated, and the embassy located there was refusing their visas, so a few applied in India and were approved, then word got out and more came. We eventually wised up. However, there was really no good reason for these applicants to be travelling from their home country to India for a visa appointment even under normal circumstances (India isn't exactly known for having short visa wait times).
1) They think the system should be extremely simple 2) They assume everyone involved is being honest
When the reality is
1) Many people involved are lying to claim immigration benefits they have no right to 2) The system needs to have a level of complexity and difficulty to prevent these people from accessing these benefits
I believe it is happens and I assume there might be a number of drivers for it, but I wonder how big of a problem is it in reality and how much has it been abused.
For example, friends told me the scheme in the UK might be too prone for fraud on the other hand most of the anti immigration topics do not seem to ask it to be fixed but rather stopped. What is your opinion on that? Do you think immigration is a big source of corruption problem? And how big is it relative to other problems?
My question comes from a point that I question if this is a populist/nationalist act to create a common enemy, literally the Enemy from 1984, rather than actually addressing the root cause of the problems. I am referring to the UK mostly because I have many friends living and working in the UK and some are British and some others are not.
And it seems weird to me that tackling such issues ( eg of the asylum seekers and the illegal immigration) as root causes of the current economic situation. Is it going after those folks really make a change on the prospects of the economy or is it addressing emotional needs to feel that someone is in control and that someone will take care of you because they fight the "enemy"?
For example, one of my British folks pointed out, and I did not validate myself, that the cost per asylum seeker is of £40 a week and there about 110.000 people in that situation which would make an expenditure of 4M per week or 200M per year. Which seems quite a large amount of money to deal with humanitarian assistance. And it would represent about 10% of the total expenditure. Another friend pointes out that UK collects £2.7B in taxes considering Health care, skilled and senior staff workers. The deficit in the public accountants are rather debatable so I do not have an opinion. What do you make from it?
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/25_0826_cbp_...
I can't address your other concerns about economic impact etc. I'm not sure if there is a negative economic impact from this.
Having done tens of thousands of visa interviews, I do think the requirement of a physical appearance before an officer is important. I could quickly review a person's travel history by looking through their passports, questioning them about prior trips. A person's travel patterns and visas to other countries can tell you a lot. I could quickly use a UV light or magnifier on educational documents to see if they were genuine. Several times, I overhead conversations from other applicants and officers that were relevant to my applicant (same employer/group) and I would consult with them. There are many other details you notice when doing this in person thousands of times.
There are also practical matters - if you're trying to do this via video link, how to you authenticate the person on the other end? At the consulate, we fingerprint them and compare them to previously collected biometrics. If you offload this authentication to a contractor site in the US, but I'm in India, is this site open in the middle of the night?
In cases where the applicant qualifies for a waiver of the interview, the State Department actually does (or at least did when I was there) have a substantial program whereby visa applications are largely processed remotely. An applicant would have no hint as to whether or not that happened, though.
Like it seems hilariously backwards in your example that the cheaters were able to make an end run around the system you praise, when it would be easy to have someone local taking a look at global applications. Or just applications that someone thought were odd.
So oddly, the US was far more permissive than other locales in this one aspect. All this change does is bring it in line with security practices that other nations already had in place.
Honestly am quite surprised that the US didn’t already have this restriction considering overall it’s one of the toughest countries to get a visa for or even enter with a valid visa.
The US visa vetting procedure is known to be so strict even for tourists that many nations give visa free access to nationals who would otherwise require a visa - just because they hold a valid (or sometimes even expired!) US visa. It’s a highly regarded sticker if you can get one in your passport and seriously ups the power of your passport if it’s a weaker one to start with.
(And in fact, in my experience, it is getting easier with online applications becoming more common.)
https://bkpk.me/peru-visa-for-indians/
The San Francisco consulate of India refused to process my spouse’s Indian visa because she was not resident in the US.
https://bkpk.me/how-we-finally-got-zaras-visa-to-india/
Several more examples but in this day and age you can just ask chat gpt to summarize for you. But if you check visa application requirements for many embassies, they will often say: proof of residence if not a national of the country of application. So that’s the requirement often.
I will add though that I’ve always maintained that this is a soft policy and they will make exceptions in some cases. It is mostly consulates wanting to do as little work as humanly possible. So there can be ways to get around it if you can talk to someone in charge. But usually that’s very difficult with consulates.
I’m pretty sure though in the US’ case now it’s a hard no. So there will be no working around it.
An embassy will often have its own requirements based on the locality, whereas the visa requirements are uniform.
The Indian embassy in San Francisco might refuse to process non-resident applications but that doesn’t mean you can only get an Indian visa by going to an embassy in your country of nationality.
E.g. the NYC consulate: https://www.ny.us.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_en/visa00.html
> You may apply for a visa at this Consulate if you are currently residing within the area covered by this Consulate.
Also, "a traveler without a fixed residence" can get a non-immigrant visa for Schengen? I'm sorry but this just is not true if you're not a Westerner.
If there is no doubt that you will leave and you can sustain yourself: sure.
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/visa-pol...
This seems to differ from the new US rule where you must also apply in the country you're a resident of.
The way it works is, if you're applying for a French visa in Mongolia and you're not a Mongolian national, you need to provide your Mongolian residence permit or else your application will be refused outright.
Sure, most other countries don't allow TCNs to apply for visa, but they also don't require their long term residents to leave the country to renew their visa.
So, the correct solution to this is Domestic Visa Renewal. A pilot program was run last year, but it was limited to Indian H1B holders. Without this program in place, disallowing TCNs is simply cruel.
You ask too much for HN. HN is set to Orange Man Bad mode.
No comments yet
I recommend you read the link, which in the first few words outlines “non-immigrants” and my summary.
> Adjudicating Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants in Their Country of Residence
While true, the State Department already made the same change to immigrant visas a few days ago: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/a...
Did you response to the wrong comment or get a little mixed up about the shape of the comments tree or what?
The recourse to the constitution is silly. It has barely any relevance to the country we've become.
Insane. This is going to destroy the tourism industry and collapse business travel.
Last time I went to Canada all I needed was a Passport. I do not even remember showing it to the Custom Official. I drove up said hi and they let me through.
As far as I know it was/is the same for Canadians visiting the US. Except the US border people tended to be d**ks, even to US Citizens.
Did that change?