Why is it that embassies do not divulge reasons for visa denial?

Question

Why is it that embassies do not divulge reasons for visa denial?

Is it because they do not want the applicant to

know what his fault is?

Answer 1

I don't know about other countries, but when you are denied a visa to the US they are supposed to give you a written explanation. They don't always follow this, though. I had a friend who was denied a tourist visa and they gave him a form letter with the reason left blank. Not very helpful!

Answer 2

Like every other application process, the people who receive applications don't want the applicants to know specifically what works and what doesn't.  Sometimes it's a grey area.

Another reason is that specifics may vary from one consular officer to another. An applicant's individual urgencies don't matter, neither do his honest intentions. What matters is that the applicant convinces the consular officer that the applicant has sufficient ties to another country. It's not a guilt thing- there's no "fault" involved. It's about ties to another country.

Consular officers are human. If you'd just learned that someone lied to you to get a visa, wouldn't you be a bit firmer in issuing another?  I think so.  So a "maybe-maybe not" kind of applicant might have otherwise received his visa; today not.

Form letters, blank or not, aren't very useful. Tell your friend who's received a blank form letter that he needs demonstrable and substantial ties to another country. FWIW, proving ties to Germany while you're in Burma can be difficult, so it's always easiest to get a visa where you live.

Answer 3

no embassy is obligated to give you a reason, you ask for something? and they denied it? that is the way is is......

Answer 4

US officers are required to give a brief explanation. It's usually a form telling you  under what section you were denied, although some officers will go into a brief oral explanation. For tourist visas, it's almost always 214b, failure to prove you are not an intending immigrant. US immigration law requires an applicant to prove "to the satisfaction of the interviewing officer" that he or she is not an intending immigrant. That's not exactly a very specific standard. US immigration law considers all visa applicants to be intending immigrants, and it's up to the applicant to convince the officer that they aren't. The officer doesn't have to prove the applicant won't come back, they only  have to suspect it. It's very unusual under US law, basically under immigration law, tourist visa applicants are guilty until proven innocent. But no one has a legal right to a tourist visa.

With this as a standard, there's very little reason to go into specifics at the window. The applicant would naturally continue to argue, which is essentially  pointless if the officer has made up his mind. Also, there's no time to go into extended discussions, as there's a long line of other applicants also waiting to be interviewed. Any visa based on a petition, whether it's a nonimmigrant work visa, or an immigrant visa does require an explanation, both to the applicant, and to USCIS back in the US, as they approved the petition. There's a presumption that since the petition was approved, the applicant is qualified and the burden to prove otherwise shifts to the interviewing officer.