VALIDATION STUDY OF NEW DELHI'S B1B2 HINDI/PUNJABI LANGUAGE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 000638 SIPDIS SENSITIVE CA/FPP FOR JILL NYSTROM, PLEASE PASS TO DHS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KFRD CVIS CMGT ASEC IN SUBJECT: VALIDATION STUDY OF NEW DELHI'S B1B2 HINDI/PUNJABI LANGUAGE APPLICANTS REF: (A) NEW DELHI 0007 (B) NEW DELHI 575 (C) NEW DELHI 619 SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) As one of a series of validation studies (reftels) by the Fraud Prevention personnel in Mission India, Embassy New Delhi undertook a validation of B1B2 visas issued to "language applicants" during the first quarter of the 2008 calendar year (January 1-March 31, 2008). The rate of overstay at 5.3% was lower than anticipated and confirms that New Delhi NIV officers are making informed adjudications. When our standard questions lead to unclear answers, our use of Section 214b appears appropriate. Although our refusal rate for Hindi and Punjabi speakers (approximately 62%) is much higher than for English speaking applicants (approximately 14%),the extra scrutiny is warranted. LANGUAGE APPLICANTS AS PART OF THE WHOLE -------------- ¶2. (SBU) At Embassy New Delhi, applicants may opt to schedule visa interviews in either English or in the Hindi/Punjabi language categories. We refer to the latter applicants as "language applicants"; their interviews are conducted by Hindi and Punjabi-speaking officers, with interpreter assistance as necessary. ¶3. (SBU) For the period in review, 27,202 total B1B2 visas were adjudicated in both English and language appointment categories, with an overall refusal rate of 32%. Language applicants represented about 37% of total adjudications, but they represented 72% of total refusals. HINDI/PUNJABI LANGUAGE APPLICANTS -------------- ¶4. (SBU) While anyone may schedule a language appointment, the applicants in this category largely tend to be residents of the state of Punjab. Often, the applicants in this category are older and/or of lower socio-economic levels. Even in the face of reduced applications from other groups, our demand for interview appointments from this category remains strong. ¶5. (SBU) During the first quarter of the 2008 calendar year (January 1-March 31) 10,146 applicants appeared for language appointments. Of that group, 38%, or 3,859 applicants were issued visas. A statistically representative number of approved applicants, 964, was selected at random and run through ADIS to generate a record of entries and exits (as well as adjustments and 
extensions). Paired U.S. arrival/departure records were removed and remaining cases further cross-checked against available ATS data leaving just 76 records lacking any departure information. FPU staff attempted to make calls to these 76 applicants using the contact information provided at the time of interview. ¶6. (SBU) Of those records, 26 cases did not list valid phone numbers. In twenty-five cases, family members answering the phone confirmed that the applicant remained in the U.S. If we assume that the applicants in the cases without valid phone numbers withheld this information purposefully in order to obscure immigrant intent, and combine the two totals, this represents an overstay rate of 5.3% of the sample. TRENDS? -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Of those confirmed to remain in the U.S., 60% are males. Over 82% of the overstay applicants mentioned that they were married, or were children traveling with parents, and of the married applicants only 2 were the sole member of their family to apply for a visa and travel. ¶8. (SBU) Twenty-nine percent of the overstays were in the 36-50 year age range. The 50+ age range was the next highest level at 27% of the total overstays. Ninety-three percent of the over-50 overstay pool cited family visits as motive for travel at the time of interview. Family visits were cited as the motive for travel for 82% of all overstay applicants. ¶9. (SBU) An interesting note: of the sample group, it appears that 214 or 22% of the applicants did not travel. This is worth keeping in mind given the extraordinary demand for language appointments. Applicants seeking these appointments often cite a pressing need to travel. A random CCD review of two dozen of those NEW DELHI 00000638 002 OF 002 no-travel applicants seemed to show that the applicants were older, of retiree age, often renewals or the parents of H1B visa holders. While some of this applicant pool may indeed be seeking visas for urgent travel, a significant portion has applied preemptively. ¶10. (SBU) COMMENT: The results indicate that the current adjudication standards are appropriate and that the overstays represent some of the outliers. Our adjudicating officers are asking good questions, e.g., why is a married man traveling alone for tourism? We are also using the tools at hand well, e.g., running CCD text search checks on U.S. contact numbers to identify fake or heavily-used contacts. It is reasonable to assume strong demand for appointments will continue given the presence of family members in the U.S. and the benefits possible to those who find employment overseas. We will continue to refine our adjudications in light of the information from this study. END COMMENT. WHITE