- US consulates now ask two key questions during visa interviews.
- Applicants must answer ‘no’ to fearing harm back home.
- This policy change aims to prevent visa program misuse.
A fresh directive from the United States has introduced a significant change to the visa process, adding two key questions that could determine whether an application moves forward or stops altogether.
According to a report by WSJ, the US State Department on April 28, circulated a diplomatic cable to embassies and consulates worldwide, mandating immediate implementation of the new rule.
What Has Changed in the Visa Process?
Under the revised framework, all applicants for non-immigrant visas, including tourists, students, technology professionals, business travellers and seasonal workers, must now respond to two specific questions during their visa interview.
The questions are:
“Have you experienced harm or mistreatment in your country of nationality or last habitual residence?”
“Do you fear harm or mistreatment in returning to your country of nationality or permanent residence?”
Consular officers have been instructed that applicants must verbally answer “no” to both questions for the application to proceed.
Also Read : Google Wallet Now Stores Your Aadhaar, But Is Your Data Safe?
Why These Questions Matter
The directive suggests that expressing fear of returning home could signal that the applicant may not intend to stay temporarily, raising concerns over misuse of visa categories.
This effectively creates a high-stakes moment during the interview, where a single response could determine the outcome of the application.
A Policy Shift Linked to Broader Crackdown
US officials have tied the move to an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025, which called for tighter scrutiny of visa programmes to prevent misuse by “foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.”
The timing is also notable. The directive comes shortly after a federal appeals court ruled that Trump’s earlier declaration of an “invasion” at the US-Mexico border, used to block asylum seekers, was unlawful.
Concerns Over Future Legal Risks
The policy raises questions about what happens if an applicant answers “no” during the visa process but later seeks asylum after entering the US.
Immigration experts, as cited in the report, warn that such cases could lead to allegations of visa fraud and even deportation.
The cable itself notes that a fear of returning home may cast doubt on whether the applicant’s original intent was truly temporary travel.
Critics Warn of Chilling Effect
The move has drawn strong criticism from refugee advocacy groups, who argue that it could undermine protections for vulnerable individuals.
Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International, said the policy appears to erode pathways for people seeking safety. “They’re trying to systematically demolish any means by which a persecuted person could seek protection and safety in the United States,” he said.
He further added that the directive sends a troubling signal: “You’re explicitly asking someone: ‘Are you being persecuted in your country?’ And if they say ‘yes,’ the U.S. government’s official answer is: ‘Okay, stay there.’”
Also Read : ITR 2026: Why Debt Funds, Equity Gains, & Interest Income Are All Taxed Differently
Impact on Asylum Pathways
Under US law, individuals can apply for asylum after arriving in the country if they face persecution or have a credible fear of harm. A separate refugee resettlement system also exists for applicants outside the US, reported The Financial Express.
However, the current administration has already taken steps to tighten both routes. Nearly all refugee admissions have been halted, except for specific categories such as White South Africans, citing fraud risks and security concerns.
Data cited by analyst David Bier of the Cato Institute highlights the scale of the shift: monthly asylum seekers fell sharply from nearly 40,000 in December 2024 to just 26 in February 2025, shortly after Trump returned to office.
A New Gatekeeping Mechanism?
The introduction of these questions is being seen by critics as a pre-screening mechanism, potentially limiting asylum claims before individuals even reach US soil.
The directive’s timing, coming soon after a court ruling that reopened pathways for asylum processing at the southern border, has further fuelled debate over whether the policy represents an indirect way to restrict access.
