Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
03AMMAN5943
2003-09-16 04:53:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Amman
Cable title:  

JORDAN IV DENIED ENTRY TO U.S.

Tags:  CVIS CLOK PREL KPAO JO 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 005943 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS CLOK PREL KPAO JO
SUBJECT: JORDAN IV DENIED ENTRY TO U.S.

REF: State 258883

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 005943

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS CLOK PREL KPAO JO
SUBJECT: JORDAN IV DENIED ENTRY TO U.S.

REF: State 258883


1. (U) While the Department correctly notes the difficulties
facing some students in fulfilling NSEERS requirement
(reftel),other travelers bearing different visa
classifications can also get caught up in the system. A
recent experience by a Jordanian contact traveling under the
International Visitor (IV) program stands as evidence that a
coordination mechanism between DHS (especially at Dulles)
and Washington agencies would be useful in ensuring our high-
priority. USG-funded visitors are able to enter the U.S. to
attend their programs. END SUMMARY.


2. (U) Post's experience tracks with the analysis laid out
in reftel: many students may not initially grasp the intent
and seriousness of the NSEERS program and the negative
impact that non-compliance can have on return travel to the
U.S. We are also finding other travelers who do understand
what NSEERS is all about but who, for one reason or another,
have not fulfilled the letter of the NSEERS program -- and
have paid for it.


3. (U) A recent example: Jordan IV Haytham Wahdan was denied
entry to the United States August 5 by Port of Entry
Inspecting Officers on the basis of having failed to
properly notify the INS of an earlier departure from the
U.S. in February 2003. Wahdan claims he tried to inform
officials of his departure on that earlier occasion but
found no one to tell -- unable to find a DHS officer, he
seems to have thought that notifying an official-looking
person at the departure gate (probably an airline employee)
was sufficient. When detected as an NSEERS violator upon
his return in August, Wahdan spent over 24 hours in DHS
detention before being placed on a flight back to Amman.


4. (U) It is clear, in retrospect, that Wahdan did not check
out properly in February, and that DHS officers were correct
in detecting him as having violated the NSEERS system. But
from post's perspective, it would have been very much
preferable for DHS to have exercised its authority to find
that Wahdan had "rebutted the legal presumption that (his)
future entry into the U.S. will be to engage in unlawful
activity" (reftel para 5). DHS might have done so on the
basis of Wahdan's own statement (assuming DHS found him
credible),but also because Wahdan was traveling on a fully-
funded USG program intended to facilitate exchanges between
influential foreigners and the U.S. Wahdan is just the sort
of visitor to the U.S. who we need to cultivate;
unfortunately, Wahdan's experience on this occasion is
unlikely to cement his ties with our country.


5. (U) Who was at fault? Not DHS, as Wahdan had obviously
not fulfilled NSEERS requirements. Certainly Wahdan bears
ultimate responsibility for leaving the U.S. without having
made appropriate notification, but his account that he did
not know the difference between a DHS official and an
airline official has a ring of truth. Sometimes, a bonafide
traveler can make a mistake and run into the law, but the
USG's best interests may be served by permitting entry. In
post's view, the most useful way to handle future cases like
Wahdan's -- where the USG itself has already invested in
getting the traveler to America -- is to establish a liaison
link between DHS at Dulles (where the majority of our and
most posts' IVs arrive) and the Department.


6. (U) Under this system, when a visitor is brought aside
for further review by DHS (including for NSEERS violation),
and when it is seen that the visitor is participating in a
USG-funded program, DHS could both inform the
Department/post and seek an advisory view on permitting the
traveler to enter the U.S. If useful, post could even issue
a sealed letter to USG-funded travelers affirming USG
interest in their travel and requesting DHS call the
Department/post at specified numbers if any problems occur.
At best, this system would save DHS the time and expense of
removing an alien who might otherwise benefit from a
"rebuttal." At minimum it would let the Department know
that an officially-sponsored traveler was being turned
around (in Wahdan's case, no one knew where he was for two
days during his detention and turn-round). Post would
welcome Department's views on this proposal which we believe
is in the best interests of DHS, State, the traveler, and
U.S. security interests.


7. (U) The bottom line of course, as reftel makes clear, is
that posts need to do all in their power to make visa
applicants, including those traveling on USG programs, aware
of these requirements. We will redouble our efforts to make
sure such sponsored travelers are fully briefed and asked
about possible previous violations leading to
ineligibilities. But for such travelers who nonetheless
have made innocent mistakes, a liaison system can save the
USG money while allowing us to attain the goals which lay
behind these visitor programs.

HALE