22 C.F.R. § 40.6
Basis for refusal
A visa can be refused only upon a ground specifically set out in the law or implementing regulations. The term “reason to believe”, as used in INA 221(g), shall be considered to require a determination based upon facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the applicant is ineligible to receive a visa as provided in the INA and as implemented by the regulations. Consideration shall be given to any evidence submitted indicating that the ground for a prior refusal of a visa may no longer exist. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to establish eligibility to receive a visa under INA 212 or any other provision of law or regulation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “§ 1201 (g) ; 22 C.F.R. §§ 40.6 , 42.33(f). If an applicant is issued a visa by September 30, 2017 (the end of the fiscal year), he or she has six months within which to enter the United States.”
Hamed Almaqrami v. Michael Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “§ 1153 (c), (e)(1) ; 22 C.F.R. §§ 40.6 , 42.81(a) ; see 8 U.S.”
Am. Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2009). “We also conclude, in agreement with the Ninth Circuit, that the absence of an allegation that the consular officer acted in bad faith satisfies the requirement that the reason is bona fide. (i) Construction of the relevant statutory provisions.”
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 447, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 605 Jyotika Patel Mohanbhai Patel v. Janet Reno, Attorney Gen. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. Clifton J. Rogers, Ins, Acting Dist. Dir., Los Angeles, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1998). “Every refusal shall be in conformance with the provisions of 22 C.F.R. 40.6." In addition, the section is entitled, "Issuance or refusal mandatory.”
Udugampola v. Jacobs, 795 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011). “” 22 C.F.R. § 40.6 . Plaintiffs therefore assert that “absent ‘facts or circumstances’ sufficient to support a “reasonable conclusion” that a visa applicant is excludable on a particular ground, the Consulate has breached its legal duty to adjudicate in good faith the alien’s…”
Raduga USA Corp. v. United States Dep't of State, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (S.D. Cal. 2006). “81(a) goes on to provide that “[e]very refusal must be in conformance with the provisions of 22 CFR 40.6.” Here, Plaintiffs simply seek to compel the consul to render a final decision on Plaintiffs Romanavskiy and Ms.”
Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643 (1st Cir. 1990). “See 22 C.F.R. 41.102(b), 41.103(b) and 41.105(a).”
Romero v. Consulate of US, Barranquilla, Colombia, 860 F. Supp. 319 (E.D. Va. 1994). “” 22 C.F.R. § 40.6 (1993). But offshore aliens have no right to judicial enforcement of these provisions, or to judicial review of administrative compliance with them.”
Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997). “Every refusal shall be in conformance with the provisions of 22 C.F.R. 40.6.” In addition, the section is entitled, “Issuance or refusal mandatory.”
Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643 (1st Cir. 1990). “Instead, consular officers are permitted to consider all available information in making their determinations. See 22 C.F.R. 41.102(b), 41.”
P.K. v. Tillerson (D.D.C. 2017). “§ 1201 (g); 22 C.F.R. §§ 40.6 , 42.33(f). If an applicant is issued a visa by September 30, 2017 (the 2 The statute makes available up to 55,000 diversity visas annually, but 5,000 of those are reserved for aliens covered by the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief…”
Tesfaye v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2022). “Finally, Plaintiffs point to 22 C.F.R. § 40.6 as the source of a non-discretionary agency duty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.