{shortcode-b8e10f30c9350f645e68463419aa806af2dc9432}
A United States embassy in South Asia denied an incoming Harvard College freshman their visa on Tuesday, citing a nonexistent section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The student had not heard from the embassy since their F-1 visa interview on June 6, when their application was moved to administrative processing, a status that allows staff to indefinitely hold their request. But on June 24, the student attended an early morning appointment where they were given an official notice of refusal under Section 212(a)(F) of the INA.
The problem? Section 212(a)(F) does not exist.
The designation, which was typed and then checked off on a paper slip given to the student, was likely meant to refer to 212(f) — a provision of the INA that gives the president power to restrict foreigners’ entry to the U.S. on national security grounds.
Donald Trump cited the INA to justify his proclamation banning international students from entering the U.S. on Harvard-sponsored visas. But by the time of the student’s appointment on June 24, the proclamation had already been blocked for weeks by a judge’s temporary restraining order. The judge cemented the halt by issuing a preliminary injunction hours before the student’s appointment.
Embassy officers told the student they were not allowed to reapply in the South Asian country, of which they are a citizen, and that they would have an easier time obtaining the visa in a neighboring country, according to the student.
President-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Jeff Joseph called the whole ordeal “nonsense.”
“It’s just sloppiness. It’s the first time I’ve seen that typo,” he said.
At the Tuesday appointment, an embassy officer told the student their visa was rejected because of the timing of their June 6 interview, according to the student.
Due to the time difference between South Asia and the U.S., their initial appointment fell within the brief period when President Donald Trump’s June 4 proclamation barring Harvard students from obtaining visas was in effect — before a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order the next day.
Joseph said there was no legal reason the timing of the initial interview would matter given that a federal judge granted Harvard’s motion for a preliminary injunction on Monday, halting the proclamation from taking effect shortly before the student received the refusal notice.
“That’s made-up law,” Joseph said. “It’s also just trying to make it as difficult as possible for Harvard students to get back in the U.S.”
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment. It was not clear whether additional Harvard affiliates received similar notices in the days following the proclamation.
The visa refusal comes amid a wave of attacks on Harvard’s ability to host international students. The Department of Homeland Security announced on May 22 that it had revoked the University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which is necessary to host international students.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the move the next day, but the Trump administration continued to take aim at the University. On May 28, the DHS gave Harvard a formal notice that the government intended to withdraw the University’s certification again.
The notice initiated a 30-day process, during which the University could meet the DHS’ demands and demonstrate compliance with SEVP regulations. That window closed on Friday.
Even if the embassy had cited the presidential proclamation in the refusal notice — as the visa officer implied it should have during the Tuesday appointment — it would be in violation of the Monday injunction, several lawyers said.
Jacob Hamburger, a visiting professor at Cornell University who studies immigration law, said consular officials have a significant amount of “unreviewable discretion” when issuing visas, but the embassy’s decision was irregular.
“Certainly I would think that that would be grounds to ask for reconsideration or to reschedule,” Hamburger said.
It would not be the first time U.S. officials around the world have cited White House policies after they were blocked in court. The consulate in Munich denied a visa to a Harvard postdoctoral researcher on June 6, citing the proclamation though it had been blocked by a TRO.
And in court filings, Harvard has said affiliates have been denied visas, held in isolation at the Boston Logan International Airport, and turned away at the border even after a judge halted the presidential proclamation.
On Friday, the Trump administration said it plans to appeal the preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s June 4 proclamation. Judges on the First Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to hear the federal government’s appeal.
After receiving the denial, the incoming freshman from South Asia said they plan to try again — this time from a neighboring country, following the advice of consular officials. The process will require international travel, added expenses, and time away from home.
—Staff writer Samuel A. Church can be reached at samuel.church@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @samuelachurch.
—Staff writer Cam N. Srivastava can be reached at cam.srivastava@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @camsrivastava.
