VZCZCXRO7110
RR RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHNEH
DE RUEHNE #0638/01 0920258
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 020258Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5994
INFO RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 4501
RUEHNEH/AMCONSUL HYDERABAD 0414
RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA 3717
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 3543

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 000638 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
CA/FPP FOR JILL NYSTROM, PLEASE PASS TO DHS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KFRD CVIS CMGT ASEC IN
SUBJECT: VALIDATION STUDY OF NEW DELHI'S B1B2 HINDI/PUNJABI LANGUAGE 
APPLICANTS 
 
REF: (A) NEW DELHI 0007 (B) NEW DELHI 575 (C) NEW DELHI 619 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) As one of a series of validation studies (reftels) by the 
Fraud Prevention personnel in Mission India, Embassy New Delhi 
undertook a validation of B1B2 visas issued to "language applicants" 
during the first quarter of the 2008 calendar year (January 1-March 
31, 2008).  The rate of overstay at 5.3% was lower than anticipated 
and confirms that New Delhi NIV officers are making informed 
adjudications.  When our standard questions lead to unclear answers, 
our use of Section 214b appears appropriate.  Although our refusal 
rate for Hindi and Punjabi speakers (approximately 62%) is much 
higher than for English speaking applicants (approximately 14%), the 
extra scrutiny is warranted. 
 
 
LANGUAGE APPLICANTS AS PART OF THE WHOLE 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  At Embassy New Delhi, applicants may opt to schedule visa 
interviews in either English or in the Hindi/Punjabi language 
categories.  We refer to the latter applicants as "language 
applicants"; their interviews are conducted by Hindi and 
Punjabi-speaking officers, with interpreter assistance as 
necessary. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  For the period in review, 27,202 total B1B2 visas were 
adjudicated in both English and language appointment categories, 
with an overall refusal rate of 32%.  Language applicants 
represented about 37% of total adjudications, but they represented 
72% of total refusals. 
 
 
HINDI/PUNJABI LANGUAGE APPLICANTS 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  While anyone may schedule a language appointment, the 
applicants in this category largely tend to be residents of the 
state of Punjab.  Often, the applicants in this category are older 
and/or of lower socio-economic levels.  Even in the face of reduced 
applications from other groups, our demand for interview 
appointments from this category remains strong. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  During the first quarter of the 2008 calendar year 
(January 1-March 31) 10,146 applicants appeared for language 
appointments.  Of that group, 38%, or 3,859 applicants were issued 
visas.  A statistically representative number of approved 
applicants, 964, was selected at random and run through ADIS to 
generate a record of entries and exits (as well as adjustments and 
extensions).  Paired U.S. arrival/departure records were removed and 
remaining cases further cross-checked against available ATS data 
leaving just 76 records lacking any departure information.  FPU 
staff attempted to make calls to these 76 applicants using the 
contact information provided at the time of interview. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  Of those records, 26 cases did not list valid phone 
numbers.  In twenty-five cases, family members answering the phone 
confirmed that the applicant remained in the U.S.  If we assume that 
the applicants in the cases without valid phone numbers withheld 
this information purposefully in order to obscure immigrant intent, 
and combine the two totals, this represents an overstay rate of 5.3% 
of the sample. 
 
TRENDS? 
------------ 
¶7.  (SBU)  Of those confirmed to remain in the U.S., 60% are males. 
Over 82% of the overstay applicants mentioned that they were 
married, or were children traveling with parents, and of the married 
applicants only 2 were the sole member of their family to apply for 
a visa and travel. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  Twenty-nine percent of the overstays were in the 36-50 
year age range.  The 50+ age range was the next highest level at 27% 
of the total overstays.  Ninety-three percent of the over-50 
overstay pool cited family visits as motive for travel at the time 
of interview.  Family visits were cited as the motive for travel for 
82% of all overstay applicants. 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  An interesting note:  of the sample group, it appears 
that 214 or 22% of the applicants did not travel.  This is worth 
keeping in mind given the extraordinary demand for language 
appointments.  Applicants seeking these appointments often cite a 
pressing need to travel.  A random CCD review of two dozen of those 
 
NEW DELHI 00000638  002 OF 002 
 
 
no-travel applicants seemed to show that the applicants were older, 
of retiree age, often renewals or the parents of H1B visa holders. 
While some of this applicant pool may indeed be seeking visas for 
urgent travel, a significant portion has applied preemptively. 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  COMMENT: The results indicate that the current 
adjudication standards are appropriate and that the overstays 
represent some of the outliers.  Our adjudicating officers are 
asking good questions, e.g., why is a married man traveling alone 
for tourism?  We are also using the tools at hand well, e.g., 
running CCD text search checks on U.S. contact numbers to identify 
fake or heavily-used contacts.  It is reasonable to assume strong 
demand for appointments will continue given the presence of family 
members in the U.S. and the benefits possible to those who find 
employment overseas.  We will continue to refine our adjudications 
in light of the information from this study.  END COMMENT. 
 
WHITE