&w=3840&q=100)
US visa update: B1/B2 interview waiver window cut from 48 to 12 months
Until now, applicants whose visas had expired within the past 48 months could apply for a renewal without attending an interview. That grace period will be reduced to 12 months under the new rules, as per revised guidance from the US Department of State.
Current policy till September 1, 2025):
From September 2, 2025):
The eligibility window is reduced drastically: only those whose previous B1/B2 visa expired within the past 12 months can apply without an interview.
What this means:
— Fewer people will now qualify for dropbox or waiver processing.
— More applicants will be required to appear for in-person interviews at consulates, increasing appointment demand and wait
The change will mean many more applicants will now need to schedule in-person appointments at US consulates, potentially straining already stretched visa processing systems in countries like India.
Notably, in 2023, over 700,000 B1/B2 (visitor) visa applications were processed for Indians by the US.
More face-to-face interviews ahead
For applicants used to the 'dropbox' route, this update could be a setback. The dropbox facility allowed people renewing certain visa types to simply submit documents without visiting a consulate. With the new 12-month expiry rule, only a smaller subset of applicants will now qualify.
The policy also grants US consular officers the discretion to call any applicant for an interview, regardless of eligibility under the waiver programme.
Fewer waivers, more checks
The B1/B2 category isn't the only one impacted. Students on F-1 visas and professionals on H-1B will also be asked to appear in person if their previous visa expired over 12 months ago—even if they previously qualified for a waiver.
Still, some categories remain eligible for interview waivers, including:
Children under 14
Adults over 79
Applicants for diplomatic and official visas such as A-1, A-2, G-1 to G-4, NATO, and TECRO E-1
Applicants renewing diplomatic or official visas
Mexican nationals with a Border Crossing Card/Foil, or applicants for B1/B2 visas applying from their country of residence without any past visa refusals or apparent ineligibility, may also be considered for a waiver.
New Visa Integrity Fee to be charged
Earlier this month, the Trump administration rolled out a new Visa Integrity Fee of $250 (around Rs 21,700). This fee applies to all non-immigrant visa categories and is collected at the time of visa approval—not during application.
The Department of State has said the fee applies to most major categories including tourist (B-2), business (B-1), student (F, M), work (H-1B), and exchange visitor (J) visas.
'There are no exemptions for these groups. The fee will be adjusted every year based on inflation,' said a consular note issued to applicants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
6 minutes ago
- Time of India
Friday fury ahead? India's tariff clock is ticking
As the August 1st deadline looms, India faces potential US tariffs due to unresolved trade negotiations. The US team's visit on August 25th signals a missed deadline, increasing the risk of punitive measures. Trump's administration may use tariffs to pressure India, impacting key export sectors and straining bilateral relations despite mixed signals. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads As the clock ticks toward Friday, August 1, the weight of an unresolved trade deal with the United States is beginning to feel increasingly burdensome for US team will visit India on August 25 -- well after the looming deadline -- for the sixth round of negotiations for the proposed bilateral trade agreement between the two countries, an official told PTI on Tuesday. India faces the strong possibility of punitive tariffs from the US, a development that could send ripples through its export economy and broader diplomatic ties with trajectory of US-India trade negotiations has become emblematic of a broader pattern in Washington's trade posture under President Donald Trump . What began as a bilateral discussion aimed at resolving market access issues and addressing tariff asymmetries has evolved into a high-pressure bargaining exercise marked by missed deadlines and implicit slated for July 9, the deadline for concluding the interim trade deal was extended to August 1 by Trump, ostensibly to give negotiations more room. However, the scheduling of a sixth round of talks for August 25 strongly signals that no agreement will be reached in time to meet the new deadline. This delay, while perhaps reflecting the complexity of the deal, is unlikely to be viewed sympathetically by a White House that has increasingly framed trade as a high-stakes, zero-sum has already shown a willingness to use tariffs as a tool of leverage in trade negotiations, not just with strategic competitors like China, but with allies and partners alike. India, though spared from a tariff notification letter after the July 9 deadline passed, remains very much in the crosshairs. The administration's hesitation to act then may have been strategic: a calculated move to keep India at the table without escalating tensions the upcoming August 1 deadline carries more urgency. Trump could reassert his trademark coercive tactics, using tariffs to pressure India into faster concessions. The risk is amplified by the current political tone in Washington, where trade deals are increasingly judged by their speed and assertiveness rather than the nuances of this context, recent remarks made by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stand out as a rare, moderating voice. His assertion that 'quality matters more than timing' suggests a recognition of the complexity involved in crafting a sustainable and equitable trade deal. "We're not going to rush for the sake of doing deals," Bessent told CNBC in an interview nearly a week ago. However, he said that tariffs might re-enter the negotiation toolkit if progress stalls, effectively undermining the very caution he advocates. "We'll see what the President wants to do," he said. "But again, if we somehow boomerang back to the August 1 tariff, I would think that a higher tariff level will put more pressure on those countries to come up with better agreements."This duality -- between a push for quality and a readiness to use tariffs -- mirrors the broader contradictions in the Trump administration's trade approach. While the US claims to be seeking mutual benefit, the reliance on deadlines, threats and unilateral pressure points to a strategy of deal-making by domination rather than now finds itself in a delicate position. With little time left before the August 1 deadline, and no further negotiations scheduled until August 25, it must brace for the economic and diplomatic fallout of potential US tariffs. Key export sectors such as pharmaceuticals and textiles could be hit hard by sudden trade barriers. Moreover, the imposition of tariffs would inject fresh tension into an already complex bilateral relationship, one that spans not just trade but also defense, regional security and technology cooperation. If Washington proceeds with punitive measures, it risks alienating one of its key strategic partners in Asia at a time when counterbalancing China is high on both nations' August 1 approaches, India faces an unenviable situation: a deadline without a deal, and a partner unwilling to wait. The scheduling of the next round of talks for August 25 makes it all but certain that the two sides will miss the current window for an interim agreement. What remains to be seen is whether Trump will act on his threats or hold off once more in the hope of securing a better, more stable outcome of the immediate outcome, the broader takeaway is clear: India must prepare for a more transactional and turbulent trade relationship with the US, where pressure and pace increasingly trump patience and process.
News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
Justice Department Seeks Disciplinary Action Against DC Judge Over Trump Remarks
The complaint was submitted under the name of Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has launched a formal complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court in Washington, D.C., accusing him of judicial misconduct over comments he allegedly made about President Donald Trump's administration. The complaint was filed on Monday, as reported by CNN. US Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the development in a post on X (formerly Twitter), stating, 'Today at my direction, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration." The complaint was submitted under the name of Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff, and delivered to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The allegations stem from comments Boasberg is reported to have made during a judicial conference held in March. According to a report by POLITICO, which reviewed the contents of the formal complaint, Judge Boasberg allegedly implied that the Trump administration might 'disregard rulings of federal courts," thereby risking a 'constitutional crisis." The letter further claims Boasberg sought to improperly influence Chief Justice John Roberts and around two dozen other judges with his remarks. Mizelle argued that the judge's comments violated the 'presumption of regularity," a legal principle that assumes government officials act lawfully and in good faith. She also defended the administration's actions, stating that it had complied with existing court orders. Notably, Boasberg had previously blocked a Trump administration effort to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals to a prison facility in El Salvador. In an emergency hearing, held shortly after the controversial invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, Boasberg ordered that any aircraft already en route to El Salvador should be rerouted back to the US. However, reports suggest that the administration went ahead with its plans, successfully transferring many of the Venezuelan detainees despite the ruling. The complaint by Mizelle further alleges, 'Having assumed President Trump would defy court orders, Judge Boasberg issued a [temporary restraining order] and threatened sanctions, all on a false premise." Mizelle has called for disciplinary measures against Boasberg, including a public reprimand, and has requested that the Alien Enemies Act case currently assigned to him be reassigned to a different judge during the course of the investigation. According to protocol, judicial complaints in the US are usually reviewed by the chief appellate judge, who may dismiss them or order an investigation. A council of judges then decides on possible actions, such as a reprimand or reassigning cases. Removal from the bench, however, requires impeachment and a two-thirds Senate vote. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: July 29, 2025, 20:32 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Scroll.in
36 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Bihar voter roll revision is assault on foundations of democracy, say 93 ex-bureaucrats
A group of 93 retired civil servants and diplomats, on Tuesday, called the ongoing special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar an 'assault on the very foundations of our democracy', referring to the right to vote. 'The assault is an insidious one where the purported attempt to clean up and sanitise the electoral rolls is likely to end up disenfranchising a very large segment of the voting population, particularly the poor and the marginalised,' the Constitutional Conduct Group said. The group of former bureaucrats highlighted that a vast majority of the economically weaker sections of the population have held their right to vote as the 'most fundamental stake in Indian democracy' because a liberal approach was followed to prepare electoral rolls, with the understanding that several Indians lack documentation to prove their citizenship. 'This process has now been reversed to ensure that those with poor access to documents will be deprived of their rights as voters,' the group contended. The former bureaucrats argued that the exercise by the Election Commission allows it to effectively become a deciding authority on citizenship rights' without possessing the constitutional mandate to do so. The exercise, under the guise of cleaning up voter lists, attempts to 'introduce the contested idea of the NRC [National Register of Citizens] through the backdoor', the group further alleged. The group also raised alarm at the 'breakneck speed' at which the process of revising the electoral roll has been implemented. It highlighted that booth-level officers have been tasked with completing the process with 'grossly inadequate infrastructure' and under 'impossible timelines'. The group also cited journalist Ajit Anjum's reportage as evidence that there has been a massive scale of 'fraud and forgery' during the entire process. In a video posted on his YouTube channel on July 12, Anjum had claimed that he had found irregularities in the revision of the electoral rolls in the state, with several enumeration forms at the booth not having photos of the applicants and others that had been partially filled or did not have signatures. Anjum was, however, booked by the police for allegedly interfering in the Bihar voter roll revision process and for allegedly provoking communal discord. Several press bodies questioned the filing of a case against him, saying that the authorities should not 'criminalise journalism'. The signatories to the statement by the Constitutional Conduct Group include Punjab's former director general of police Julio Ribeiro, Delhi's former Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung and former Indian Administrative Service officer Harsh Mander. The revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar was announced by the Election Commission on June 24. As part of the exercise, persons whose names were not on the 2003 voter list will need to submit proof of eligibility to vote. This means that 2.9 crore out of the state's 7.8 crore voters – or about 37% of the electors – will have to submit documentary evidence. Voters born before July 1, 1987, must show proof of their date and place of birth, while those born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, must also submit documents establishing the date and place of birth of one of their parents. Those born after December 2, 2004, will need proof of date of birth for themselves and both parents. A draft roll will be published on August 1 and the final roll will be out on September 30. On July 2, eleven INDIA bloc parties told the Election Commission that the special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls risked disenfranchising more than 2.5 crore voters, as they may not be able to produce the necessary documents. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on July 6 defended the exercise, claiming that the exercise had to be carried out as no one was satisfied with the current voter rolls.
