Apple WWDC 2017 Conference Scholarship Recipient Denied Entry to the US | Hacker News Reader

Apple WWDC 2017 Conference Scholarship Recipient Denied Entry to the US

twitter.com

75 pointsLeoPanthera58 comments

Open articleView on HN

This is nothing to be upset about or newsworthy. This probably happens every day.

He got rejected because he didn't provide enough evidence that his intent is purely non-immigrant.

https://twitter.com/HarshilShah1910/status/86578769858118451...

Umm, I might have misunderstood you, but you're really telling us that that there's nothing wrong with that?

What is wrong with that?

What isn't wrong with rejecting someone from visiting a conference he got scholarship from?

I mean, you can quote "security", "not enough paperwork", "he didn't smell right and a suit decided to reject him"... but in software we usually call that a bug - someone should be able to visit a conference but couldn't due to broken process. And there's A LOT wrong with making people miserable over paperwork. It has to serve people not enslave them.

How can you be so sure that the process is broken, rather than this being the fault of the applicant? If a country requires certain paperwork to enter and you fail to provide it, is that the process's fault?

That you shouldn't have to prove "non intent"?

This is "presumed guilty".

That's precisely the current legal situation in the USA. From Wikipedia (my emphasis):

> The presumption in the law is that every nonimmigrant visa applicant (except certain employment-related applicants, who are exempt) is an intending immigrant unless otherwise proven. Therefore, applicants for most nonimmigrant visas must overcome this presumption by demonstrating that:

* The purpose of their trip is to enter the U.S. for a specific, intended purpose;

* They plan to remain for a specific, limited period; and

* They have a residence outside the U.S. as well as other binding ties which will ensure their return at the end of their stay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Stat...

I mean, yea, basically. Why shouldn't it be that way? Probably a majority of the people of the world would prefer to live in the US/Canada/EU if given a choice. So it makes sense to assume they plan on staying and make them explain why they'd willingly return to an "inferior" country.

But maybe some sort of bond procedure would be handy for this kind of thing where you really want someone to visit and are willing to stake a lot that they'll return. OTOH I'm sure if Apple wanted to get involved they could easily help him out on his application.

Because you don't want to live in a world where everyone behaves like that (towards you too). I thought we learned that lesson in the cold war.

It's easy to debate from your position of power, but remember that it's easy that you can easily be the one rotting in an slump UK/EU/African or even your own bureaucracy.

All the kid wanted to do is visit a tech conference. Why on earth are you defending the shitty process that tried to prevent that?

>Probably a majority of the people of the world would prefer to live in the US/Canada/EU if given a choice. So it makes sense to assume they plan on staying and make them explain why they'd willingly return to an "inferior" country.

That's so "American exceptionalism" way to think. People from some backwater developing countries maybe...

OK, what's your estimate on how many billion people would prefer to live in EU/US/Canada? What if they could bring their whole family with them?

That's how it is to enter virtually every country.

That has not been my experience in over 20 countries I've visited.

How many of those required visas?

A fair number.

And usually it was just a matter of paying some money and getting the visa (sometimes even on the spot at the airport at arrival). Other times the travel agent just handled it all, with just your name and passport number.

No third degree examination I can recall of...

Is your citizenship with a wealthy country?

Not particularly. In fact it's with one of the most troubled financially ones, and one with almost 1/3 of the population has migrated at some point or another in the last 100 years.

I think it's appalling. But: it does appear to be the law, and it happens many times a day, it's just that normally nobody pays attention.

When I first clicked on this, I thought that the guy must be from a banned Muslim country or something based on the title. So I assumed it would be another case of "anti-anti Muslim Ban" story.

But it turned out he just got rejected like any other normal person could get rejected. That is what I meant. Like his position to be a Conference Scholarship Recipient does not have anything to do with this. He is just a normal guy like you and me who got denied for a normal reason.

He is going to a conference obviously, but how does he prove that his intent is "purely non-immigrant" besides that? I mean, it seems to me this could be used to deny anyone entry since you can't very well prove it (I think) if it is not enough that you say that you are not trying to work or immigrate.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Usually the best proof is a return ticket and an occupation back home (school, job, etc.). IDK if the guy has bought a return ticket. Also I don't (and won't, I can't take what is described in tens of news articles to be the way the US Border acts) have any experience w/ American visas, just European.

They might evaluate your ties to home (family, job, real estate, etc.), and statistics from your country of origin (i.e. an applicant from a poor country might have a higher hurdle to clear than an applicant from a developed country).

Ties to your home country, such as mortgage, lease, a job, things like that.

When I applied for a Visa, I had to explain them what my parents do etc. Basically you have to convince them that you have enough reasons to return back home. You can do that in many ways, like saying all your family is home, or you own a house at home etc. It is pretty much about convincing the person working at the consulate.

I am guessing in certain countries they are stricter than others. I think there is an issue with Indians overstaying their Visa in the US, so maybe that's why they are so strict over there.

Check out the show Border Security on Netflix. There's 3 versions, USA+Canada+Australia and they go quite in-depth on how the border security officers make these kinds of determinations.

The Australian one is extra awesome because they have very tight import restrictions on food/plant products for biosecurity reasons and their proximity to Asia means there are tons of people trying to bring in very interesting (but illegal) items from those countries. Plus they have a whole series of really cute dogs that sniff out the food.

As someone with a spouse from a "high risk" country, they want you to show a pile of evidence that tells them you're going to go back home before your visa expires.

Some examples: Close family back home, a job or school back home, money/property/investments/bank accounts back home, lack of strife/conflict back home, lack of family in the US, solid plans in the US that indicate a temporary stay, ticket for a return flight (this actual ranks pretty low I think).

He included Apple's visa latter which I assume explains in detail that these folks are coming to the us for a conference and not for a work opportunity.

He asked for the letter later, to re-apply, from my understanding. And that letter might or might not be enough in the eye of the law - you can come to a conference and then stay, obviously. And as outlined below, that is the legal presumption.

Just to be clear: I'm not defending that law, but saying that this case might well have been in accordance with the law. There are tons of similar cases that don't make HN. If you think this is crazy, you should work to change the law, not decry this particular case.

That doesn't really show why they'd choose to return, in and of itself.

I don't know if you had a visa interview lately, but it's not quite an interview, because they just ask you two or three questions and don't let you show any documents unless requested.

My brother showed up with a folder full of documents, but was dismissed without showing any of it. Profile based, I think.

I had a visa interview in 2012. It was a few questions, but I think it largely depends on why you are coming to the country and where you are coming from.

I am not saying that Shah should have been denied entry, and personally, I think it kind of sucks. Shah's prolific tweeting probably worked against him in terms of proving his non-immigrant intent.

Four days ago: I really want to work at this building

https://twitter.com/HarshilShah1910/status/86445977790400102...

Eight days ago: Apparently you can drive around in California as long as you have a valid license from anywhere. Really wish I’d planned for a longer stay.

https://twitter.com/HarshilShah1910/status/86300061707719475...

Twelve days ago: Wild to think that Jared Kushner’s brother being a VC might save H1B.

https://twitter.com/HarshilShah1910/status/86160090342970982...

May 2nd: I’m thinking of applying for 2 jobs. One is almost literally a stone’s throw away. The other is on a continent I’ve never stepped foot on.

https://twitter.com/HarshilShah1910/status/85958214083233382...

[Edit: This post is the result of my genuine curiosity. Again, I think it kind of sucks and the lost opportunity is unfortunate. I'm not trying to blame a victim or justify US immigration policy or trying to dig up dirt. I'm more interested in something approaching a root cause analysis that might help someone else avoid similar problems in the future. Getting a scholarship to WWDC is a big deal in a young person's life and getting refused a visa to attend is also a big deal.]

[Edit: If the source had not been Twitter, I certainly would not have scrolled through the tweets. I pretty much hate Twitter as a news source because it favors sound bites over analysis.]

So people who aspire to get work visas and relocate to the US should no longer be able to visit temporarily on tourist visas? That seems like a nonsensical policy.

It’s not like he can get a job working as a software engineer for Apple as an undocumented immigrant.

Edit for anyone confused: this is a comment about the policy, not about the parent poster.

I'm not judging what should or should not be the case. My recently acquired lay understanding of a temporary visa to the US is that an applicant has the burden of proving that their intent is not immigrate. For me, the tweets do not create proof for belief that the applicant has no volition to immigrate. The tweets do not create proof for a belief that the applicant has an overwhelming volition to return.

I suspect that the US State Department has more sophisticated tools for analysis than my hand scrolling through the last three weeks of the 46,000 tweets. For example, I'd not be surprised if it had tools for looking at social graphs and demographic data that correlates applicants marital status,socio-economic status, educational status, and country of origin for temporary visas with visa compliance.

None of which is to take a stance on whether the process is fair or right or just or moral. The only stance I am taking is that it is the process and given that it is the process the result is understandable and that there is actionable intelligence based upon what happened.

I know I will upset many when I say this but: Nobody cared when it happened under Obama's administration (as with most atrocities that happened when he was president).

It happened at much much larger scale in 2010. Noone gave a shit.

This level of deliberate ignorance of history is surprising to see on HN. Lots of people were just as concerned about abuses under Obama (and Bush before that) as under any other administrations.

No they were not. I never heard of immigrant marches at airports in 2010. Care to back up your "just as concerned" ?

You could try backing up your claim that nobody cared in 2010. You didn't say anything about "immigrant marches" in your original post. Protest and petition change forms over time. The burden of proof does not.

P.S. Thanks for reminding me why I stopped commenting on HN, saves me a bunch of time.

Yeah the "nobody" was hyperbole, but it's obvious that the current concerns are broadly driven by partisanship.

I am not defending or accusing. But having several good and bad interactions with US borders and Customs. I should say:

1. Most of the time they are correct but not for the reason we imagine;[1]

2. Most the time the procedures should be followed even if it seems crazy[2];

There is no pleasure in any US service to cancel or deny but they should work on procedures to be more fair. in case [2] even if I am not even close to match they HAD to check everything before releasing me. So if you have a common name disclose everything (travel to other countries, parents, friends, everything).

If you think US border is "bad" you should check European (London). They do not require visa but if the customs is in a bad day they will reject you and sent you back while you wait in detention.

At least US has the courtesy to ask for a visa before most of the times.

[1] - The form asks if you have any parents and you did not disclose (even distant family).

[2] - In my case my name is on the Wanted Database. There is a terrorist with similar name. So EVERY TIME I approach customs there is an scary look when they digit my name and I should go to "the room". After some time: "Sorry for the trouble have a good one."

Disclaimer: I do not work for US gov or have any affiliation but I think they tend to be more fair. If not please check Middle East countries or Europeans.

Please do not compare all of Europe with the way the UK runs their immigration services.

Please do not compare all of the UK's immigration services with the way one customs agent handled their bad day.

You should be able to get a known traveler number from the TSA. When provided, that should dispel any concerns they have about the similar name.

You're now excusing abusive crappy behaviour towards people by quoting other terrible abusive behaviour. Alternatively, you're doing the same by quoting bureaucracy and forgetting that someone wrote those inhuman rules.

I might be harsh, but this kind of "it's procedure, we're not budging!" defense was used by government officials in our previous socialist government to treat people like crap. And both the rules and petty beaurocrats interpreting them in worst way possible were the cause of a lot misery.

No need to defend that.

There's nothing inhuman about asking visitors to prove they're only going to visit and not stay.

Using the world "asking" for the dehumanizing process that is immigration in USA is almost insulting.

Call it what you want, but when getting a visa, it's totally voluntary. This isn't some border crossing shenanigans, they're well known prerequisites you deliver to the embassy.

> forgetting that someone wrote those inhuman rules.

and people voted them in.

> At least US has the courtesy to ask for a visa before most of the times.

Having a valid visa doesn't mean that you're going to be allowed into the country, so I wouldn't consider that a "courtesy" (especially since you have to pay for the privilege).

UK is not a part of Schengen, and is in the process of leaving EU. I've got family there and have gotten myself a visa before, I won't take that struggle again. Better they come here or we meet somewhere else.

He wasn't denied entry to the US at the border. He was denied a visa while in India. This is not being stuck in an airport or in detention.

See [1]

[1] http://lawandborder.com/proving-nonimmigrant-intent/#2_The_R...

As if it was any better that way.

Of course being rejected in advance is better

Its objectively better in every way. He may not even be out the cost of a flight (if he didn't buy it yet -- and even if he did, he may still be able to use it), he won't have to wait around in a terminal or a detention center for an unscheduled return flight, he'll have the opportunity to appeal and, assuming he's really not trying to immigrate, gather the documentation required to prove that and he should be permitted a visa.

That sucks. People get denied entry to countries all the time and it's always inconvenient. I know this is going to get down voted to hell, but my point is that, this stuff happens. It's not new because Trump is president, and crossing the border just about everywhere sucks.

> crossing the border just about everywhere sucks.

I've been to 100+ countries, and my least favourite borders are Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the USA (in alphabetic order).

I assume I'd add UK to that list if I didn't have a EU passport (let's see what Brexit will do).

But in many places crossing the border is just fine.

Depends on your Visa. My experience in the United States, is I just walk right through because I have Global Entry. In Europe it was a breeze too, same with Mexico and Canada and many other countries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com