Posted: 4:08 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]
In case you missed this:
We’ve just read the Daily Press Briefing from last week with the press corps asking questions about K-1 visas related to the San Bernardino attack.
Oh, holy mother of goat and her stupid nephews!
It should have been all hands on deck to know absolutely everything about this case. Instead we have Mark Toner, the deputy spokesperson of the State Department on December 3, either asking to take the question, or guessing his response. “I don’t know “…. “I would presume …”
Then the next day, Elizabeth Trudeau, the Press Office director did the DPB and seriously underwhelmed our video player. She refused to confirm that the K-1 visa was issued in Islamabad, something that Mr. Toner already talked about just the day before.
Folks, haven’t you learned anything at all? Anything? It’s not like this case is locked in a file cabinet in the catacombs of Foggy Bottom.. That’s why you have your consular systems.
Her name is Bond, Michelle Bond.
The State Department need to put its Consular Affairs Assistant Secretary of State Michele Bond up there at the podium to answer these questions. Help the journalists understand the K-1 process, and the roles State and DHS play in the systems currently in place. PA officials who have not done visa work in 15-20 years should not be left on the podium guessing about the process and unable to answer questions about this case.
When the press asks, “Can Americans have confidence in this visa processing system?”, Ms. Bond should be able to say “Absolutely, and here’s why.” And she should be able to explain clearly the whys. Hopefully, she’s not going to say because “it’s an adaptable system” or that “We continue to improve it.” Because people are not really interested whether it’s an adaptable system. They want an assurance that the systems in place work; and if it did not work in the visa issuance process for Tashfeen Malik, they want to know what had been done to update that process.
We were going to suggest that the State Department convene an Accountability Review Board per 12 FAM 030. The ARB Permanent Coordinating Committee, where the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services sits as one of its seven members, by the way, can make that recommendation to the Secretary:
“The ARB process is a mechanism to foster more effective security of U.S. missions and personnel abroad by ensuring a thorough and independent review of security- related incidents. Through its investigations and recommendations, the Board seeks to determine accountability and promote and encourage improved security programs and practices. In addition, the ARB mechanism enhances the integrity of the visa issuing process by determining accountability in certain instances in which terrorist acts in the United States are committed by aliens.”
Except that current regulations are quite clear that “a Board will be convened with respect to a visa incident only if the following three determinations are made:”
(1) That the incident involved a terrorist act causing serious injury, loss of life, or significant destruction of property in the United States;
(2) That there is probable cause to believe that a specifically identified alien was a participant in the terrorist act; and
(3) That the alien was issued a visa on or after May 1, 1996; at the time of visa issuance, the alien’s name was included in the Department’s Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) and that the visa was issued as a result of a failure by the consular officer to adhere to the procedures required to be followed by the inclusion of the name in such visa lookout system.
Since State is confident of its vetting process, it appears right now that subject was not in the CLASS. Which would make the ARB not a requirement under these regs.
Nonetheless, it would be helpful to know if the State Department has reviewed its internal processes or that it plans to do so. This individual got through — despite the vetting, the interagency sharing of information, fingerprints, etc, and the face to face interview — it is not unreasonable to ask how she got in. Maybe there are no cracks, but the public needs to understand the process, which will never with 100% fault-free.
As our consular blog pal told us, “It will never be fault-free because humans aren’t.” People can get away with lying, or can change their minds. Unless the USG has come up with a precognition system similar to Philip K. Dick’s in the Minority Report, there is no way to determine an individual’s action in the future. What do you do with a culprit that has not yet committed a crime? Do you arrest him or her before he/she commits a future crime thereby protecting the public from all prospective harm? What regulations apply to that?
Daily Press Briefing excerpts:
On December 3, Mr. Toner, the State Department’s deputy spox took a stab at the K-1 questions. If you want to beat your head against the wall, hard … well, we can understand the feeling, but wear your helmet first, okay?
QUESTION: — of the suspects in the San Bernardino mass shooting that happened yesterday? There are various statements and reports out there about Tashfeen Malik, the alleged female shooter suspect who was killed yesterday. Some are saying that she lived in Saudi Arabia before coming to the U.S. And what I wonder is the extent to which the State Department has been pulled into this investigation. Can you give us some kind of guidance on whether those reports are accurate? And if so, what type of visa was she in the United States on? Is there anything about the citizenship status of her that you can share with us?
MR TONER: Sure. Well, since it’s already been reported out in the press, I can confirm that she did receive or was issued a K-1 so-called fiancee visa, I believe in 2012. Is that correct? 2015 – 2000 – help me here. Okay, we’ll get that number for you. Unfortunately, it’s not in front of me here. But she did receive that from Pakistan. That allowed her to travel here to the United States.
QUESTION: Does that require an interview?
MR TONER: If that petition is approved, the case is forwarded to the U.S. consulate abroad in order to verify the qualifying relationship and vet the applicant for any derogatory information. I’m virtually sure that, as in any visa – as in any visa processing, that that involves an interview. I don’t know if —
QUESTION: But not a joint interview, right? They don’t have to appear together at the consular office, wherever that is?
MR TONER: Not – that I’ll have to – I’ll have to take that question. I’m not sure. I’m not sure.
QUESTION: And can you also check on the – that before getting that given visa, where did they meet? Because I’m not sure, but if I’m remembering correctly, there is a clause that they should have met or like – it’s not just on the —
MR TONER: Again, no, that wouldn’t – so that wouldn’t – again, I would refer those kinds of questions to the FBI who’s conducting the investigation into this.
QUESTION: Well, what happens if they don’t get married within 90 days?
MR TONER: I would presume that the – that would invalidate the visa.
QUESTION: And if – okay. And then if they do, does that mean that the visa is extended or they have to apply for something else?
MR TONER: Unclear to me whether that would be – that would be automatically extended. I would somewhat doubt that. There may be – again, I’m – I’d have to get you the full facts on it. I mean, if there’s extenuating circumstances, perhaps. I don’t know in this particular case and can’t really speak to it, but there’s a 90-day window because there’s a 90-day window. So, I mean —
QUESTION: Right. But one doesn’t automatically become a U.S. citizen —
MR TONER: No, not at all.
QUESTION: — simply because one married one. So clearly —
MR TONER: Not at all. So any individual would have to provide for legal residency or a green card after living here, I guess, in – it’s one year, I think.