Who is eligible for US visa interview waiver? Key changes, additional criteria — all you need to know
The non-immigrant visa categories include tourist and business visas (B-1/B-2), student visas (F and M), work visas (H-1B), and exchange visas (J). Diplomatic visas fall under categories A and G.
The latest update on July 25, which aims to enhance security, has raised concerns among H-1B visa holders and other nonimmigrant visa categories about increased waiting time and processing delays.
All nonimmigrant visa applicants, including applicants under the age of 14 and over the age of 79, will generally require an in-person interview with a consular officer, except for the following categories:
To qualify for an interview waiver, applicants must:
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services emphasised that even with potential interview waivers, consular officers retained the discretion to interview the applicant on a case-by-case basis for any reason. This supersedes the Interview Waiver Update of February 18, 2025.
'Consular officers may still require in-person interviews on a case-by-case basis for any reason. Applicants should check embassy and consulate websites for more detailed information about visa application requirements and procedures, and to learn more about the embassy or consulate's operating status and services,' the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said in its release.
Earlier this month, the US also introduced a new $250 Visa Integrity Fee, which takes effect in 2026. Designed as a form of security deposit, the fee is pegged to inflation and may be refunded if visa holders meet specific compliance criteria.
This is part of Trump's sweeping immigration overhaul, under the recently signed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
26 minutes ago
- Economic Times
US Fed opens policy meeting, set to hold rates steady
The US Federal Reserve opened its two-day policy meeting Tuesday, with the central bank widely expected to hold off on further interest rate cuts despite fierce political pressure from President Donald Trump to slash levels. ADVERTISEMENT Fed policymakers have kept the benchmark lending rate unchanged since their last rate reduction in December, as officials wait for clarity on how Trump's tariffs are impacting the world's biggest economy. Their patient approach has riled the president, who has chastised Fed Chair Jerome Powell on multiple occasions, calling him a "numbskull" and a "moron." On Tuesday, the Fed said in a statement that its policy meeting started at 9:00 am US Eastern time (1300 GMT) as scheduled. The case for holding interest rates steady at a range between 4.25 percent and 4.50 percent this week has been made by several Fed speakers, said JP Morgan chief US economist Michael Feroli in a recent note. Inflation remains above the Fed's longer-term target of two percent, risks still persist and the labor market is near full employment, he added. ADVERTISEMENT The Fed has signalled it is waiting on the effects of Trump's sweeping tariffs on allies and competitors alike to begin to show up in economic data. As the central bank mulls changes to monetary policy, officials are seeking a balance between price stability and maximum employment. ADVERTISEMENT Analysts are expecting to see some dissent from Fed policymakers at the end of their meeting Wednesday, given that a couple of officials have signaled openness to rate cuts as soon as in July."It will be interesting to watch whether Powell alludes to some potential policy easing before year-end" or if he avoids explicit forward guidance given differences among the Fed's rate-setting committee, said EY chief economist Gregory Daco. ADVERTISEMENT "With no imminent need to act, and a fractured FOMC facing asymmetric risks, the Fed will likely wait until September to deliver the next 25 basis points rate cut," Daco added, referring to the Federal Open Market Committee. The Fed said Governor Adriana Kugler would not be attending the meeting "due to a personal matter." (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel)
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
DOJ files misconduct complaint against federal judge James Boasberg over anti-Trump remarks, seeks recusal from key case
US Attorney General Pam Bondi on announced that the Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg. The DOJ alleges Boasberg made 'improper public comments' about President Donald Trump and his administration during a closed-door judicial conference. 'Today at my direction, [DOJ] filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,' Bondi wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter). The complaint was submitted to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and was authored by Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff. According to the document, the remarks were made on March 11 at a Judicial Conference of the United States meeting attended by Chief Justice John Roberts and roughly twelve other judges. Mizelle alleges Judge Boasberg strayed from administrative topics and 'attempted to improperly influence' his colleagues by predicting that the Trump administration would 'disregard rulings of federal courts' and cause 'a constitutional crisis.' 'The Department of Justice respectfully submits this complaint alleging misconduct by US District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg… that have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,' the complaint reads, as quoted by Fox News. Mizelle further stated: 'Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders.' The complaint also notes that Judge Boasberg failed to cite any examples of non-compliance, making his 'unprecedented predictions' all the more troubling. The DOJ points out that Boasberg made the remarks just days before presiding over a case involving Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members. According to the complaint, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order on March 15 blocking deportation flights—an order that was later vacated by the Supreme Court. 'Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders,' Mizelle wrote. The DOJ is asking for the complaint to be referred to a special investigative committee to determine whether Boasberg's conduct amounts to 'conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.' Additionally, the DOJ is requesting that Boasberg be removed from the ongoing case involving deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador to 'prevent further erosion of public confidence while the investigation proceeds.' Boasberg, 62, is an appointee of former President Barack Obama and currently serves as the chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Mizelle argued that Boasberg's comments and judicial actions reflect 'bias' and violate the Code of Conduct for US Judges, which requires impartiality. 'Taken together, Judge Boasberg's words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and, erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation,' the complaint concludes. Judge Boasberg has not yet responded publicly to the allegations.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom
Harvard's standoff with the Trump administration tests the price of dissent in American academia. January 2025 wasn't supposed to read like the script of a dystopian campus drama. Yet, within days of Donald Trump's second inauguration, American higher education found itself back in the crosshairs. Harvard University, that centuries-old fortress of intellectual prestige, became the frontline in a clash not over grades or graduation rates, but over politics, power, and the weaponisation of federal authority. This isn't the same old 'Trump vs. Academia' skirmish we saw in 2017. This time, it's a stress test of whether a White House—any White House—can muscle its way into university governance, dictate the fate of billions in research funds, and even toy with student visas as leverage. If you think this saga only concerns one elite campus, think again. What happened to Harvard between January and July 2025 may well be the blueprint for how political control over universities could be asserted in America for years to come. January–February 2025: The opening moves On January 29, barely a week after the oath-taking ceremony, Trump signed Executive Order 14188. Following this, the Department of Justice established the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo At first glance, it seemed like another culture-war skirmish wrapped in civil rights language. But the fine print gave federal agencies unprecedented authority to probe universities, condition funding, and scrutinise so-called 'alien students' for ideological leanings. Harvard, along with dozens of institutions, received its first formal letter of 'concern' on February 27 from the Department of Justice, demanding meetings over alleged Title VI violations. For the uninitiated, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, or national origin. These weren't polite invitations. They were the opening salvo in a campaign that would escalate beyond anything seen before in federal–academic relations. The groundwork was laid: The administration now had a legal hook (civil rights), a moral shield (antisemitism), and a political target (elite universities often painted as 'woke havens'). Harvard was merely the first domino. March–April 2025: From review to retaliation On March 31, the Task Force formally launched a federal review into Harvard's use of billions in federal research grants, citing alleged failures to protect Jewish students. Boston University Radio (WBUR) and multiple outlets reported that this review was the precursor to unprecedented fiscal scrutiny and laid the foundation for later punitive actions. Just days later, the White House sent a letter demanding sweeping changes at Harvard: Dismantle DEI programs, overhaul governance, adopt 'merit-based' hiring, submit to viewpoint diversity audits, and revise admissions policies. In other words, the federal government wasn't just enforcing civil rights, it was trying to rewrite campus rules by diktat. Harvard refused. What followed was a fiscal guillotine. On April 14, $2.2 billion in federal research grants were frozen, along with $60 million in contracts. The message was blunt: Comply or watch your labs go dark. Trump's Truth Social post on—calling Harvard a 'JOKE' teaching 'Hate and Stupidity' and suggesting it lose tax-exempt status—wasn't just an online bluster. It was the President setting policy through grievance politics. By April 16, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem piled on, demanding detailed records on every international student, threatening SEVP decertification (loss of Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification), and cancelling an additional $2.7 million in grants. Harvard struck back legally on April 21, filing its first lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to challenge the funding freeze as unconstitutional. The complaint asked the federal court to vacate punitive actions and restore billions in research dollars. But the damage was already done: Projects stalled, faculty recruitment froze, and students with research assistantships were left dangling, unsure if their stipends would arrive next semester. May 2025: Visa warfare on campus If April was about money, May targeted people. On May 5, Trump signed a proclamation declaring Harvard an 'unsuitable destination' for foreign students, citing nebulous national-security concerns. It was a shot across the bow, signalling that visas could be wielded as a political weapon. Then came May 22. ICE revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, effectively threatening the legal status of roughly 5,500–6,000 international students overnight. The timing was surgical: Just as spring exams wrapped, thousands of students risked being forced to leave the country or transfer. Harvard's emergency lawsuit on May 23 pulled it back from the brink—Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later, halting the move. But the message was clear: Even the most prestigious university couldn't shield its students from the whims of political power when visas were used as leverage. For every prospective international student watching this unfold, the warning was unmistakable: In the US, your ability to study may hinge less on your merit than on whether your university angers the Oval Office or not. June–July 2025: Courtroom standoff and settlement signals By summer, the conflict had crystallised into two major lawsuits: One over the funding freeze, another over SEVP decertification. Both landed in Boston's federal court, with Harvard arguing that the administration's actions violated the First Amendment, Title VI protections, and due process laws. The Trump team countered that grant money was a privilege, not a right, and universities failing 'agency priorities' could have funding yanked at will. On July 21, oral arguments over the $2.2 billion freeze saw Judge Allison Burroughs grill both sides. A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the hearing laid bare the stakes: if Harvard loses, future presidents could dictate university policy through the purse strings, turning research funding into a political loyalty test. If Harvard wins, it would carve out a legal shield for academic freedom, albeit one forged in bitter litigation. Meanwhile, The New York Times revealed Harvard is exploring a potential settlement with the Trump administration, reportedly willing to pay up to $500 million to resolve the dispute. Negotiations reportedly focus on restoring access to more than $2 billion in frozen research funds while preserving governance autonomy, but the very premise of these talks is chilling. The figure is staggering, not just because of the money involved, but because of what it signals: Even the wealthiest and most powerful university in the country might have to 'pay tribute' to the White House to unlock funding it was already lawfully awarded. The talks mirror Columbia University's earlier $200 million settlement, but this is a higher‑stakes game. Harvard's endowment has become both shield and target, a financial bullseye for an administration eager to make an example of elite academia. Behind the headlines, DHS expanded its scrutiny to J-1 visas, research visas, and campus-linked foreign programs. Even without a final ruling, universities nationwide began quietly reviewing policies, fearing they'd be next. The chilling effect on student speech, faculty hiring, and international enrolment was immediate and measurable. Harvard's choice: Buy relief or win the law If Harvard settles, it risks sidelining the judiciary altogether, dodging the constitutional answer: Can a White House weaponise federal funding to police campus thought? The money tap may reopen, but the chance to set a legal boundary closes. The precedent becomes fear, telling every university president that when Washington knocks, resistance is futile and freedom negotiable. It transforms education into a marketplace where political compliance can be bought and dissent carries a billion-dollar price tag. If Harvard bows to this arrangement, it legitimises a dangerous precedent: Federal funding as ransom, with intellectual independence up for sale. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
