Visa officers make life-changing decisions in minutes—often after just a brief conversation through a glass window. I talk with former U.S. visa officer Travis Feuerbacher (ZFvisa.com) about what really goes into those rapid judgments. How much do behavior and “gut feelings” actually matter? Can anyone reliably read honesty or deception under that kind of pressure? And what happens when cultural differences, personality differences, or just plain anxiety get mistaken for something more suspicious? We explore the hidden psychology behind visa interviews, the limits of reading people in high-stakes situations, and why the system can force snap judgments—whether they’re fair or not. Travis also talks about a time he caught an applicant trying to deceive him.
Episode links:
- YouTube (includes video)
- Spotify
- Apple Podcasts
TRANSCRIPT
(transcripts are automatically generated and will contain errors)
Travis Feuerbacher: “An applicant comes to a bulletproof window where the visa officer is standing on the other side… Then they start asking questions. And to put this in perspective, uh, when I was an officer in, in both China and Mexico, I would conduct regularly, well over a hundred interviews a day in Beijing, it was generally over 120 interviews a day. So I had maybe one minute. Maybe up to three minutes per interview, to reach a decision…
It’s like being a weather forecaster… They’re trying to forecast… if I give you this ticket into the United States, you know this visa, are you going to do everything exactly like you should?
And, you know, this is potentially life changing… In the back of your mind, you know that this is a, a, a major decision you’re making. But you’re expected to make it time, after time, after time all day.”
That was a clip from my talk with Travis Feuerbacher, an immigration attorney and a former consular officer who’s done many, many interviews of people seeking American visas, mainly in China and Mexico. In addition, Travis is an immigration attorney. With his wife, Travis runs a business called ZF Visa Guides, which helps prepare people for seeking American visas; you can learn more about that business at zfvisa.com.
If you haven’t listened to this podcast before, this is the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zachary Elwood. I’m the author of a trilogy of books on reading behavior in poker, aka poker tells, and the success of those books is how I got into doing this behavior podcast. You can learn more about this podcast at behavior-podcast.com.
I wanted to talk to Travis to answer some questions I had about how consulate officers were doing visa interviews. I was curious how much reading nonverbal behaviors might be a factor in whether visas get denied or approved. The reason I got interested in this was because I talked to someone who was recently doing some visa interviews and they were telling me how quick and random the process often is, and how often an officer’s “vibes” and ambiguous feelings about someone could determine which way an interview went. This got me interested to delve into this a bit. I’d theoretically be interested in talking to other people who have previously done visa interviews and are now retired and able to speak freely, if you have any ideas on that front. I’m sure it’s a topic where there are a lot of interesting stories and different views about what happens.
In this talk, topics we discuss include:
How visa interviews are typically conducted, and what visa officers are trying to determine
A story from Travis’s career about a deceptive visa seeker
How fair visa interviews and determinations generally are
The difficulty of trying to use behavior-based reads for such a task
A little more about Travis from his zfvisa.com site:
During more than six years as a career U.S. Diplomat assigned to China and Mexico, as well as a brief assignment to Guatemala, Travis interviewed thousands of business executives, students, tourists, employees, investors, and immigrants seeking visas to travel, work, study or migrate to the United States from across the globe. Travis also managed a fraud investigation team in Mexico which investigated potential visa and passport fraud. Through these interactions and experiences, Travis developed a deep understanding of how Visa Officers conduct interviews and ultimately reach their decisions. He realized that visa applicants often failed at their visa interview because they didn’t understand the nuanced requirements or simply did not know how to effectively convey their personal and professional situations to the Visa Officer.
Okay here’s the talk with Travis Feuerbacher:
Zachary Elwood: Hi Travis. Thanks for joining me.
Travis Feuerbacher: Hey, Zach. Thanks for having me. It’s a, it’s a pleasure to be here. Really
Zachary Elwood: appreciate your time. So maybe we can talk about the. Work of Visa interviewing what that entails. Maybe you can walk us through what the, I know it may differ from country to country and such, but maybe you could talk us through what the general processes look like.
Travis Feuerbacher: Yeah, certainly. And, and surprisingly it doesn’t change much from country to country visa officers. First of all, maybe I should talk a little bit about training, and I think that might, that might shed some light on this, but Visa officers are, are generally, they’re, they’re called foreign service officers, which is a, a fancy word for diplomat.
They work for the US Department of State. They have to go through, you know, a lengthy kind of test and vetting process and security clearance and all sorts of stuff. But once a foreign service officer is, is minted, you know, once they go through kind of the, the vetting process, they have to choose a specialization, what we call a cone.
Uh, I have no idea why it’s called a cone, but it is. And so I chose consular work as my cone or my specialty. My wife, Mandy, as another example, chose public diplomacy. So her job was essentially to, you know, liaise with press and foreign media and be a spokesperson. Other people may choose to focus on management, which is things like, you know, managing facilities, human resources.
There are economic reporting officers, political reporting officers. There’s, there’s a number of specializations you can choose from. Now, the, the first or second foreign assignment for every foreign service officer. Must be in a consular tour, which basically means you have to do visa interviews. And so virtually every diplomat who works for the US Department of State is at one point or other in their career, a consular officer, a, a visa officer, and they all go through the same training in Washington, DC what we call congen, which is it’s, it’s roughly divided in half over about five weeks.
Where half of that training is dedicated to how you support Americans abroad. You know what happens if, if an American is incarcerated or if they are, you know, hospitalized or. What happens if somebody needs to renew their passport? You know, more mundane things. And then the other half of that training is dedicated to visa processing.
What are the requirements for every different category of visa? How do you conduct an interview? And ultimately how do you make a decision? So long-winded way of saying it’s, it’s. Very similar a across the board, but when you arrive at a post, at, at your foreign assignment. So my, my first overseas assignment was at the embassy in Beijing, China.
Uh, you know, I had gone through a couple of weeks of, of basic consular training to, to understand how to conduct a visa interview, but I had never conducted a visa interview at this point. So much of your training is, is kind of on the job and, and this is where it may differ a little bit. So some embassies and consulates will, and, and Beijing was, uh, an example of this.
They will have you shadow a more senior officer, maybe a manager or somebody who’s done this for a while. Then after a week or two, once you figure out the process, then somebody shadows you to make sure you’re doing it right. Then you are on your own. So it’s a little bit like becoming a pilot, right? You, you kind of are trained, then you do it, you solo and then you’re off, you’re off to the races.
So the, you know, generally speaking, there, there may be some, some nuances from country to country because of that kind of on the job training, you know, there’s a bit of culture that may be different at the embassy in Beijing. From, let’s say the consulate in Frankfurt, Germany. But you know, beyond that, the, the process is very similar.
Uh, an applicant comes to a, a bulletproof window where the, the visa officer is standing on the other side, the officer will scan a barcode on a confirmation sheet that the applicant has, or sometimes they’ll pull the applicant up out of a, a small batch of, of people. And that’s the first time in almost every instance, except for a few types of visas.
That’s the first time the Visa officer will see any details about the applicant. They’re going to read the responses that the applicant submits to an online application form. They may not read all of them because they’re under extreme time constraints. They will look at a couple of details on the screen, such as, you know, has this individual been arrested before?
Have they applied for a green card before? Have they ever been approved or denied for a non-immigrant visa before? They will read some notes entered by previous officers. If this individual has applied before. Then they start asking questions. And to put this in perspective, uh, when I was an officer in, in both China and Mexico, I would conduct regularly, well over a hundred interviews a day in Beijing, it was generally over 120 interviews a day.
So I had maybe one minute. Maybe up to three minutes per interview.
Zachary Elwood: Wow.
Travis Feuerbacher: To reach a decision. And you know, in the back of your mind, this is potentially life changing. You know, this is something, this is maybe somebody who wants to go and study in the United States, or even if it’s just a vacation, you know, this is something maybe they’ve been planning for, for years and saving up money for, for years.
And so in the back of your mind as a, as a visa officer, you know that this is a, a, a major decision you’re making. But you’re expected to make it time, after time, after time all day. And it can be a, a, a very exhausting job. But that’s kind of the, the format of the process, generally speaking.
Zachary Elwood: Mm-hmm. Well, yeah.
Uh, they’re very quick and you do a lot of them, I guess.
Travis Feuerbacher: Mm-hmm.
Zachary Elwood: Could you give your thoughts on how. Fair, the processes in general, because it seems like by definition it couldn’t really be fair, but I’m curious to get your thoughts on that. It seems like it’s, by definition, it seems like it’s gonna be often random and quick judgements, but
Travis Feuerbacher: you know, I, I think that you, you could argue that it’s patently unfair.
How can a, how can a human being in such a short timeframe make the right decision? But I will tell you, you know, a couple of things. First of all, visa officers take their job very seriously. These are people who have chosen to do this as a career. Even if, even if I was going to be a, a political reporting officer.
This is a really important part of my career as a foreign service officer conducting visa interviews. You know, I never worked with somebody who was cavalier about this job and just kind of randomly made decisions. And then beyond that, the training is comprehensive. It may be short. But officers are constantly honing their skills.
They’re constantly learning how to try to reach the right decision. And so, you know, there are countries that generally make these types of decisions on paper, you know, some European countries, uh, and I’ll use a, a student visa as an example if I want to go and, and obtain a graduate degree at, you know, Travis University.
I submit a bunch of documentation and I may be approved or denied just on the basis of, of that documentation. Now, is it more fair for a human being to make that decision? I might argue that it is, you know, because I think documents can be forged. Documents can, can kind of tell a, a certain story without context when you have a human to human interaction in person, you know, we’re, we’re speaking through technology so.
You’re not seeing all of my mannerisms, my body movements, when you’re speaking face-to-face, even though it’s through a bulletproof glass window, you’re picking up on a lot of both verbal and nonverbal cues, you know, and officers are trained to ask specific questions to address, you know, specific concerns that might be floating around in their brain.
And even though it is a, a very short amount of time, I do think that the right decision is reached far more often than not. Now there were situations though, Zach, where uh, and, and quite frankly, this is why I do what I do now. It’s why I’ve, I’ve focused my immigration law practice on, on what we call consular processing.
You know, helping applicants navigate through this interview stage of their visa journey. And that’s because as a visa officer I’m under intense time pressure and, and far too often I encountered an applicant who might be qualified. For whatever reason, you know, maybe they just weren’t prepared. Maybe they had no idea what this process required.
They, they couldn’t really convey their qualifications to me. And the law by default requires me to say no. And so if the applicant doesn’t establish their qualifications, and if I simply am just running out of time, I can’t say yes. And that was super frustrating. That’s why I, I, I focus on what I focus on now.
Zachary Elwood: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And, uh, you know, it might be worth clarifying, you know, some people might think that if I’m saying the process is unfair, it, it’s not like that’s a lar a major judgment because every human endeavor is, is unfair in some way. Like every, every human area of judgment or justice is unfair at some level because it can’t be perfect.
Right. So I think, uh,
Travis Feuerbacher: totally
Zachary Elwood: to clarify, it’s like. The sheer quantity of people that need to be processed and interviewed, I mean, sets it up so that it, it can only be a short period of, uh, of interview and, and review, right? So. Just to say there’s a, there’s a limit to hell. You know, with, with infinite time, maybe you could make even more better decisions, but there, there is a limit to everything, you know, all these processes.
Yeah. Uh, just wanted to clarify that so people didn’t think I was being too, like, pessimistic about it.
Travis Feuerbacher: No, and I, I think it’s, I think it’s fair though, and, and think about, you know, again, back to this idea that you’ve got a, a minute, maybe a couple of minutes to, to make this assessment, to reach this decision where I think the process can be a bit less fair.
When you talk about cultures that may not be as, as apt to volunteer details and, and share information and, and China is a culture that was like this, you know, I think the, the average Chinese citizen is not generally going to volunteer a lot of details to a government official. They’re, they’re not even going to volunteer a lot of details to somebody that they don’t know well.
You know, it’s, it’s not a, a, a super free flowing, you know, expressive culture. And, uh, you know, there’s a, there’s a phrase, I think it was Nelson Mandela who says that if you speak to somebody in your language, it goes to their head. But if you speak to somebody in their language, it goes to their heart.
And that resonates. You know, in the world of Visa interviews, it’s not that applicants need to speak English. You know, I was trained in, in Mandarin, I, I could conduct my interviews in Chinese, but if somebody was able to speak to me, like I would assume a conversation should go, or like, I would expect a conversation to go, they’re already in a better position for success.
And so a an example for you, you know, if I said, what do you do for work? A lot of applicants in Beijing would say something like business, okay, uh, what company do you work for? Travis Company. Okay, well, what kind of company is that business? And now, okay. I’ve asked three or four questions at this point, and I have, I’ve gotten no closer to understanding your situation, right?
I’ve gotten no closer to being able to make a good decision, and I’m looking at this whole time, I’m looking at, you know, a hundred more people standing behind you that I still have to interview. So at some point I just can’t reach a, a positive decision. I can’t say you’ve convinced me that you are qualified.
Zachary Elwood: Right.
Travis Feuerbacher: And that’s where I think, you know, culturally, culturally, this, this can be tough and that can be unfair, right?
Zachary Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And leaving a certain culture, I mean, sometimes just, you know, personality types can be more reserved or reticent or these kinds of things too. Yeah. Um. So I was curious, uh, you know, as you, as you know, the reason I got interested in doing, uh, an episode on this topic is because I talked to somebody who did, uh, visa interviews and Visa, um, did, did this same work, and they were describing what they saw as very, uh, you know, occasionally very, because the system, you know, because the system is so rushed, they were describing people, relying on quick reads of behavior and sometimes basing it on.
Things that you would hear about and you’d be like, well that’s patently unfair. Like you shouldn’t judge it on. Like whether they, you know, these kind of things where somebody was averting eye contact and somebody thinking that, that they were reading, that they were deceptive or these kinds of things.
Right? But because the process is so, uh, rushed and because it does rely so much on quick personal judgment, it is understandable why people. Are basing it on vibes and such, even if those vibes that they’re getting can be criticized by other people. Right. But I’m curious if you have observations about how much these kind of, you know, ambiguous or high variance behavior things might have played a role in, uh, people making quick judgements.
Travis Feuerbacher: I think it does. I mean, for better or worse, like you said, it, it’s almost just like the, the system welcomes that kind of of decision making process. I think it’s, it’s kind of human nature, right? For us to, to compartmentalize or, or put people into, to buckets. And I think the Visa interview process does kind of welcome that type of behavior.
And you know, an example would be. I’m talking to a young person that, well, actually, let me take a step back. Let’s, let’s, let’s take an example of a tourist visa application. What’s called a B one, B two visitor visa. The, the legal requirements are essentially, you know, number one, you’re planning to do something in the United States that you’re allowed to do, so maybe you’re going for a vacation and you’re not planning to work, which you wouldn’t be allowed to do with this visa.
Number two, you’ve got enough money to afford this trip. And then number three, you’re going to leave the United States after your trip comes to an end, and this is what we commonly refer to as having ties to home. Some compelling reason or multiple reasons that you’re likely to, to depart the country and in, in a very short amount of time an officer is trying to arrive at, at those three kind of considerations so that they can make a, a decision yes or no.
And so I’ve been in a situation before where I encounter an applicant who’s young. They haven’t yet really started a career. They’ve never traveled abroad, so they haven’t built any sort of pattern showing that, you know, they always come home after they leave their country. Uh, they can’t really articulate kind of a clear plan, you know, they just want to go and experience the United States.
Now, that exact fact pattern was me after I graduated law school. I went to Europe for a month and a half backpacked through countries. I had no firm itinerary. It was the greatest time of my life. I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t violate any laws. I was a tourist. The problem though, in the Visa interview for for the United States is that that fact pattern can welcome lots of concern.
You know, how can I be concern? How can I be convinced or at least confident that this person is going to not try to find a job in the United States? How can I be confident that they even have enough money to afford a trip? How can I be confident that they’re ever going to leave if there’s. No, you know, clear reason to, to kind of pull them back home.
And that’s where I, I do think that there’s a, a semblance of, you know, kind of bucketing people and may maybe reaching a, a bit of a premature decision. The problem is, you know, there’s, there’s not really any other way to do it. Right? I mean, you’ve, you’ve gotta make these decisions in a, in a short timeframe.
Zachary Elwood: Limited informa, limited information, limited time. Yeah.
Travis Feuerbacher: Totally. And you know, the way I think about this. Now I think about this all the time when I, when I did this for my career, it’s kind of like being a weather forecaster, because if you think about it, a, a weather forecaster is expected to tell you if, if it’s going to be hot or cold, you know, rain or maybe sunny tomorrow.
There’s never going to be a 100% accuracy rate. You know, a forecaster’s looking at kind of historical data, maybe some projection models. A visa officer is doing very much the same thing. They’re taking a limited amount of data about that applicant standing in front of them, and they’re trying to forecast, if I give you this ticket into the United States, you know this visa, are you going to do everything exactly like you should?
Are you going to qualify with every regulation? Are you going to leave on time or am I concerned that one little thing might go wrong? And if I am and if, and if I can’t really overcome that concern again legally, I should not say yes.
Zachary Elwood: Yeah. Getting back to the concept of fairness, it’s like it can never be fair on an individual level because as, as we’ve talked about, incomplete information, incomplete or limited time, limited information, but the, the goal in sort of a game theory optimal way is to minimize the risk below a acceptable amount.
Right? So That’s
Travis Feuerbacher: right.
Zachary Elwood: That’s kind of the, the goal. The goal is can’t be to, to make the right decision for every single person. The goal is to. At large make decisions that optimize, um, optimize or minimize the risk. Yeah.
Travis Feuerbacher: Yeah. I mean, I, I think that’s partially true. I would argue that the goal really is to make the right decision for every person, though.
Zachary Elwood: Hmm.
Travis Feuerbacher: I mean, it, it really, it it truly is because again, mm-hmm. One, one thing that always stuck with me when, when I was in Congen, which again, it’s that initial, you know, five week training program I went through for consular work specifically, one of the things the instructor told us was. This Visa interview, this interaction may be the first time a, a person from that country has ever interacted with an American.
And so at the end of the day, we are diplomats, we’re representing the United States abroad. And so we need to make sure not only that the interaction is, is, you know, fair and, and polite and respectful, but also reaching the wrong decision, especially if it’s kind of premature. That’s doing nothing to promote American interests.
Right. I mean, that’s, that’s damaging our reputation and, and, and our relationships. And so I think the goal really is to make the right decision. And that’s why the job is so exhausting. Mm-hmm. Because you’re really trying to get at that, that kernel right. That, that, you know, detail that’s going to give you the, the confidence that you’re saying yes or no.
And you’re, and you’re making the right choice. And it’s hard to get to that,
Zachary Elwood: right? Yeah. It is the goal. Even if we know that. It can’t be possible, but the, that is the goal, right? Yeah. Um,
Travis Feuerbacher: that’s exactly right.
Zachary Elwood: I’m curious, you know, because, um. I focus on behavior and especially, um, kind of bad behavioral reads and applications.
More recently, do you have any anecdotes where coworkers or people you heard about were basing decisions on things, behavior related things where you’re like, that’s, that’s just bad decision making.
Travis Feuerbacher: I mean, look, everybody’s done it and, and everybody’s seen it happen. Uh, again, we’re all human beings. You know, we, as much as we try not to, we bring our own kind of biases with us, and, and we project, you know, on, on people that we’re interacting with.
I think every, every vs o officer has a story like what I’ll, I’ll tell you here, which is where you, you go in. With a, a bit of a, of a, an optimistic worldview. You know, you, you want to think the best in people and, and you want to take people at their, at their word. Then you get burned and then you start, you know, maybe being a little more cynical or, or at least a little bit more skeptical, which is arguably what the job requires.
But in early in my career as a visa officer, this is when I was in Beijing. I was interviewing an applicant who, I won’t share a lot of details for obvious reasons, but you know, this individual was at my window and they had tears streaming down their, their cheeks. They were telling me about a family member who they had been very close with, who passed away in the United States.
They were planning to attend a funeral, and so, you know, I was speaking with them. I, I offered my condolences. I, I mentioned, you know, I’m, I’m sure this is so hard on you. I hope you and your family are okay. And, uh, one of our managers tapped me on the shoulder and said, Travis, come back here. He had pulled this individual’s Facebook page up on, on his computer, and this individual, smartly enough had posted right before their interview.
They had figured out how they were going to get a visa. They had come up with this whole story about how somebody had died in the United States and they were going to cry and they were going to convince some, you know, DPE visa officer that, that they deserved a visa. I was so angry that this happened. I mean, I was completely duped.
I, I was, honestly, I was about to say yes. I went back to the window and I’m not proud of this, but I told this individual. This bulletproof glass is usually here for my protection. At this point. It’s here for your protection. I was so angry. Obviously I wasn’t gonna do anything violent, but of course I denied their application because they had been completely lying to me and that was my turning point as a, as a visa officer, right?
That was my reminder that people are not going to come with with honesty every time. Some will. I hope they will. But you really do have to have your antenna up. You have to be skeptical. You have to poke holes in stories if you’re going to reach the right decision.
Zachary Elwood: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I mean, I kind of wonder if you have a take on this.
I mean, some, something I’ve wondered about, whether it’s, you know, FBI training, CIA, training, any, any training, I kind of wonder if they go fairly minimal in some cases because they do, they don’t want to be. They don’t want to, uh, they want people to learn in the field and come up with their own takes, and they also don’t want to be responsible for like, giving bad training to people at some sense.
So that might explain why they might leave it a bit open-ended and say, you’re gonna go learn in the field. And also like, you know, it’s, as you say, everyone’s gonna have their own. Biases. We can’t, we can’t remove people’s biases and judgments from, you know, when they interview people, how they feel about people.
So in some sense it’s like giving people kind of like, you know, if they don’t train them to specifically, it’s basically saying, you know, go out there and do your, use your best judgments however you, you see fit. But I’m curious what you think of that take.
Travis Feuerbacher: There, there could be some, some, some rationality to that.
Uh, you know, part of it is there are nuances, there are very, very specific nuances in each country around the world and even in, in regions of each country around the world. And so, you know, I mentioned that part of this experience was, was essentially on the job training. But, you know, a, a, a story that my wife Mandy likes to tell, and this is, this is very true, it’s something I experienced myself is when she first got to, to Beijing, when we, when we went out there together, she denied a couple of applicants who said that they were going to the United States on a honeymoon and bringing their parents.
And in my wife’s, you know, perspective mine too. We were always thinking, how could this be true? Who’s gonna go on a honeymoon and bring their parents? That’s ridiculous. Like, that doesn’t make any sense. Well, uh, my wife talked to a couple of our local staff members at the embassy about this pattern, and they said, no, no, no.
That’s totally common here in our culture. You know, the, the parents raised this kid. They, they may have paid for the, the cost of the wedding ceremony and everything else. This is a way for their child to, to give back to them and, and gift them with a vacation. And so those types of nuances, this isn’t something you can teach in Washington DC because it may be completely different in South Africa, from Mexico, from Azerbaijan, you know, name a place.
And so there is a, a fair amount of. Understanding the, the local landscape, you know, once you arrive. And we’re also taught, there’s a, there’s a series of courses called Area studies that many consular officers will go through before they’re dispatched to a foreign country, you know, to learn about culture and history and, and, uh, and local customs.
But I think a, a fair amount of this is specialized, it’s localized
Zachary Elwood: context is huge. Yeah. The social context. Yeah. I was curious. Specifically for the nonverbal behavior kind of things. I was curious if you had any observations about the trainings or guidance in that area, because, you know, we’ve seen that kind of go into different stages.
Like post nine 11 there was an upsurge in like Paul Ekman’s work being used in this spot program for um, TSA kind. Work and then it kind of fell out a favor when it was obvious that that stuff really wasn’t doing much. But I’m curious, did you experience much in the way of nonverbal training, or did you hear much about that and how it changed over time?
Travis Feuerbacher: We did go through some of it. Uh, I never, I never subscribed, you know, completely to it. You know, the, there is this idea floating around online that, that visa officers are human lie detectors and, and I’ll be the first to tell you that’s, that’s not true. I mean, I don’t even know if that is possible. Well,
Zachary Elwood: they’re like, they’re like lie detectors because they’re often wrong.
Maybe.
Travis Feuerbacher: Yeah, that could be.
Zachary Elwood: That’s, that’s my joke. That’s my own joke. I, I’ve said that before. Not about visa, not about visa people, but just about general. I’m, I’m a human lie detector general. I’m a human lie detector, which means I’m often wrong.
Travis Feuerbacher: I think. I think that’s probably true.
Zachary Elwood: Yeah.
Travis Feuerbacher: But I think in, in, in training, you know, we were taught, uh, about nonverbal cues, things that we would call micro expressions.
And so if you’re, if you’re really watching somebody while you ask them a question and while they answer your question, there are sometimes cues that might raise some additional concerns. You know, people may kind of grimace quickly or smile quickly, or look to one side or fidget a little bit. Sometimes that can, that can lead you to maybe ask a few additional questions.
You know, maybe this isn’t true. Maybe you’re, you’re trying to remember a script that you, that you were taught, something like that. But, you know, I, this is not to disparage. Computer science majors, let me, let me preface what I’m about to say with that. But I would often interview international students who were coming to the United States for a degree in, in computer science and, you know, their, their life was going to be, you know, writing computer code and, and working in front of a computer screen.
A lot of respect for these people, but they’re not always, you know, great conversationalists, right? Uh, everybody’s going to come to the Visa interview with some degree of nervousness because it’s a, it’s a major milestone in, in whatever you’re trying to achieve. And I would’ve a lot of trouble with some of these students because they would really appear robotic and, and much of their answers would be very vague.
It would just sound like a Google search result. Right. And you know, if you’re thinking about non-verbal cues, they may exhibit a lot of nonverbal cues that would lead you to think that they’re lying. But in reality, they’re just not good at conversation. It’s, it’s not their strength. Like, I could never write a, a computer code, right?
That’s not my strength. And so I, I think that there’s, there’s probably a place for, for some of this kind of body language analysis, but I don’t really think that it, it very often forms, you know, the real basis for the ultimate decision.
Zachary Elwood: Well then, and then you get into the, you know, some people are just highly anxious.
I mean, I, I, myself, if. You know, and me, I would say if I, if I ever got accused of a crime or something, I think I would come across as very suspicious to police because I’m just a highly anxious person. And so you add that in the mix too, and it’s like
Travis Feuerbacher: you’d be admitting to the JFK assassination immediately.
Right.
Zachary Elwood: I don’t know if I’d do a false con. I don’t know if I’d do a false confession, but I definitely would be sweating and, uh, probably acting very suspicious to them. Uh, but I was so I was gonna ask you Yeah. The. When you talked about getting small, um, you know, expressions of maybe anxiety or unusual behaviors, that’s something I’ve talked about where it’s like, I’m very skeptical of using, uh, behavior for the reasons, you know, we’ve talked about in, in real world non-game scenarios just because of the, you know, difficulty of determining true anxiety from, uh, regular anxiety, from deception, anxiety, these kinds of things.
But I do think, you know, the one thing, like you said. The, the most useful thing is like, oh, if you think somebody’s acting strange based on one question, then ask them a few more questions about it. Like that. That seems to me like even if you’re not gonna make any big judgements and you know that you could be wrong, that’s like the one practical outcome that can come from interviews and, and interrogations and such.
It’s like. I’ll follow up, maybe follow up with a few more questions. Does it, but I’m curious, is that something you know, how often would you, do you think you would base. You know, a change in interview tactics based on like a little reaction like that, was that a common thing or rare thing, or?
Travis Feuerbacher: It was actually pretty common And, and I, I will say I have trained visa officers during my career, and I would train them to do exactly what you just said.
Zachary Elwood: Hmm.
Travis Feuerbacher: You know, if, if a, if a concern develops, ask more questions, you know, try to get at the root of this, try to get some, some clarity. Right. Uh, I think the worst thing a ES officer can do is reach the wrong conclusion prematurely. Take a little bit of time. You know, there’s that old adage in sales where it’s be, it’s, it’s better to get to a no quickly so that you can move on to the next customer, right?
Same as in a Visa interview if, if there’s a really easy yes, just to prove the visa and move on. If there’s a really easy no, like if somebody wants to get a tourist visa, so, so that they can go work, well, you know that you can’t do that on this visa. So deny it and move on and then take more time for those complicated cases.
But I think, you know, to, to the other part of your question, I wouldn’t say it was common, but it was, it was more common than, than you might expect to have some nonverbal cue. Prompt additional questions and a, a common example I’ll share is you would see somebody who had, maybe spent several months in the United States a year or two ago, you know, maybe this is an individual who was in the United States for four months, and they say that they have a job, a career.
And so the, the first thing I’m thinking is. How in the world could they afford four months in an expensive country like the United States? And then if they were working during this time, how could they have taken four months off of their job? Because you can’t even work remotely on a tourist visa in this country.
And so I would ask them a question about, okay, well what were you doing during that time? And this is where you might see somebody kind of tense and, and look down and fidget a little bit. Maybe the answer was something like, oh, I was just staying with friends. Well, now I’m concerned. Right now my antenna are up and I’m thinking they were doing something more than just visiting friends.
So now I’m going to ask some more questions. Alright. Tell me about your job. How were, how were you able to take that much time off work? How did you pay for this time in the United States? I’m gonna probe some more and I’m gonna spend some more time to try to get it at what really happened, right?
Zachary Elwood: Yeah, I’m glad you mentioned that example, because I do think, um, it’s hard to talk about the behavior aspect and separate the behavior from the content because
Travis Feuerbacher: mm-hmm.
Zachary Elwood: For example, on that example, like if they had a better answer in their content, regardless of what their behavior was, you might’ve been like, oh, okay, that makes sense. But it is, I think it is hard for people to separate, like, oh, they seemed uncomfortable, coupled with a unusual or non satisfactory. And that can make you think like, oh, they were acting funny, but in a different, in a different version of reality where they acted the same and maybe gave a better answer.
You might have been like, okay, that made sense. But, but I’m curious for your take on that. ’cause I, I do think it makes, it’s what makes the behavior aspect hard to talk about because we can Yeah. Combine the behavior and the content.
Travis Feuerbacher: Well, you know, uh, the way I would think about it, this was all kind of subconscious, but now that, now that you’re, now that you’re mentioning this, I would kind of form a baseline or, or kind of observe a baseline of, of behavior, right?
You know, I’m talking to this individual, I ask them a couple of questions and I, I see kind of their level of nervousness, how they’re answering questions. Then my fourth question is, well, what did you do during that time in the United States? And then their behavior totally changes. And they tense up.
Right? They look
Zachary Elwood: down or they, you know,
Travis Feuerbacher: start
Zachary Elwood: staring down or whatever. Yeah.
Travis Feuerbacher: That’s where, because you know, back to my earlier point, everybody is nervous during the Visa interview. Why wouldn’t you be? It’s, it’s, it’s completely crazy. You know, you’ve waited in line for maybe a couple of hours at this point.
You’re talking to some random person who you know in 30 seconds is going to decide your fate, right? And you’re speaking through this bulletproof glass window and you’re hearing people get denied all around you. It’s a crazy experience. And so everybody’s nervous and, and as a visa officer, you know that everybody’s nervous.
You know, there’s, there’s some tricks that we would employ where, you know, I, students would stand in front of me, they’d be shaking. They couldn’t really explain anything. Sometimes I would just say, all right, hold on. Tell me what you ate for breakfast this morning. Or, tell me what color your shoes are.
You know, some ridiculous question just to break the, the, the scene up and, you know, let’s take a deep breath. Let’s get through this together, because, you know, that’s not helping anybody if, if somebody’s that nervous.
Zachary Elwood: I was gonna ask about, uh, the managing of behavior. Is that something you deal with when you give advice to clients about, you know, trying to remain, uh, you know, open seeming and not very, or behavior much?
Is that, do, do you get into that element of coaching people?
Travis Feuerbacher: Absolutely. And you know, I I, there’s a, there’s a fine line here, right? I’m, I’m never going to tell somebody what to say because I want it to be honest. I want it to be their own, their own story, their own details. But I will tell them how to say it.
You know how to bring the honest details out. And, you know, back to that Nelson Mandela quote where, you know, if you speak to somebody in, in their language, you, you go to their heart, right? I tell people to channel your inner American. Show your emotions, you know, smile, if you’re excited about this, you might even just say, I’m excited about this.
You know, I’m really excited for the opportunity to go to Travis University to pursue my MBA. Like, this is something you’ve been working for, or you’re excited for that trip to Disney World, or whatever it is. You know, be a little bit less robotic, be more voluntary. When you, when you describe details.
That as Americans, that’s kind of what we expect in our interactions. And so if you come to this officer kind of speaking in their style, you’re going to resonate better. So yeah, we, we do work on that a lot when I work with clients.
Zachary Elwood: Do you have any, uh, any more interesting anecdotes related to making quick reads of people that stood out from your years of work?
And that could be even just like logical deductions of someone’s. Bad intent or, or bad motivations based on something small they said. Anything stand out like that?
Travis Feuerbacher: You know, one, one thing that I’ll mention is appearance. And, and I will tell you that this could go, you know, both ways. It could, it could lead to, I think, correct outcomes.
It could also re lead to, to mistakes. Uh, I used to encounter people in everywhere that I’ve worked as a visa officer. I would encounter people who clearly were, they were, they were trying too hard. Maybe they were wearing a, a suit and a tie, but you kind of look at ’em and you see that that suit doesn’t fit them.
Uh, the tie is tied in a weird way. You know, they’re, they’re uncomfortable and stiff, like this is not how they would normally dress. That leads to some questions, you know, why are you trying so hard? I appreciate that you’re taking this seriously and you want to appear professional, but. You are so uncomfortable, you know, something doesn’t, doesn’t make sense here.
Or, you know, I would encounter people who claimed to be A-A-C-E-O of a large company, and, and you look at their hands when they hand you a passport and you see a bunch of dirt and grime under their fingernails and their hands are weathered, you know, and you’re thinking. That doesn’t match up right, that doesn’t kind of fit this, this mold of a CEO that I’m thinking about.
But I will tell you also that you know, now that I’m no longer a Visa officer and I’m on the other side as a, as an immigration lawyer and I’m working with applicants. I encounter people that I probably would have refused, you know, based on these kind of visual, uh, assumptions that are made. Uh, you know, I I, I was talking to somebody who runs their own family office a couple months ago.
They’re extremely wealthy, but they look like they’re homeless. You know, they’ve, they’ve got that kind of, I don’t need to dress nicely. I could buy and sell you kind of vibe going on. And, and I had to, I had to tell this individual. You know, change your appearance a little bit for that Visa interview.
You’ve gotta kind of look the part. And so I think that, you know, again, we all bring our, our kind of biases, our expectations as as human beings. And, uh, you know, back to your question about ease, this fair, you don’t have a lot, a lot of time. You’ve gotta make that first impression. You have to judge that first impression as a visa officer.
And that can lead to, you know, maybe the wrong decision sometimes.
Zachary Elwood: I was curious if you care to share, uh, no pressure to, but do you want to, do you have any observations about, have you heard how Visa applications have changed in any way since Trump took office?
Travis Feuerbacher: Yeah. I, it’s a really good question, and I think, you know, generally speaking, uh, and this is true, this is something that I, that I, I tell people quite often.
The culture of the Visa officer has not changed. And, and not only has it not changed in the past year, it hasn’t changed in the past couple of decades. Uh, you know, the, the underlying training that that officers go through is the same. The computer system they use is the same. The, you know, the, the local staff have not turned over in any meaningful way.
I mean, it, it’s the same process and the same expectations. What has changed is that I think officers are expected to be harsher towards people who have any sort of complication. Uh, you know, an example would be criminal records. In the past and, and the law hasn’t changed either, by the way. The law does allow for, for some kind of flexibility, you know, on the part of the visa officer for many types of crimes.
Uh, if it wasn’t a violent crime or what we would call a crime involving moral turpitude, which is basically something that’s inherently evil, you know, for, for most types of criminal offenses and criminal records. If an applicant can explain what happened and, and kind of take responsibility and, and indicate how they’ve, they’ve kind of turned their life around since this happened, uh, I would’ve expected many of those to be approved in the past.
Now we’re seeing that officers are taking a much harsher stance, and I think that that’s for a couple of reasons. One would be right after President Trump, you know, retook the, the office of the president last January. There was a, I don’t remember if it was a proclamation or an executive order, I think it was an executive order, and it essentially said.
If any foreign service officer is found not to be promoting the, the president’s agenda, they’re subject to investigation and separation, which is State Department speak for being fired. And so what we’ve seen is, is a bit of a chilling effect. I think a lot of officers are, and, and by the way, uh, there have been reductions in force a couple of times where I’ve had people who I went through the initial training with.
Find that they were terminated seemingly at random. You know, people who have been award-winning and, and exemplary officers have been removed from, from the service completely arbitrarily, it seems. And so there is a, a, I think a, a, a well-based concern, uh, uh, bordering on fear that many officers are looking at this as.
This is my career. This is the only thing I’ve ever known. My, my spouse, my children are here, I’m supporting them. I don’t wanna lose my job. And, and, uh, you know, we are seeing anecdotally, I think more refusals, but certainly more refusals for people who have any sort of complication on, on their record.
Zachary Elwood: Right. I imagine, I imagine that would lead to, uh, an upswing for requests for your consultations to people really wanting to get the application right.
Travis Feuerbacher: It is, you know, and people often ask us if, if we’re busy, and, and my answer is always yes, we’re, we’re busier than we’ve ever been. But honestly, it’s not necessarily the type of work you want.
You know, there’s a lot of people who are just scared. They’re facing separation from their family. Maybe they can’t obtain that degree that they’ve been working towards. They, they can’t travel to the US for the job that they’re, that they’re hoping to secure. And, uh, you know, in the past, immigration law has been fairly stagnant.
You know, there’s been a, a clear kind of goalpost and, and you work towards that with a, with a clear strategy. And I think now the goalposts are kind of moving and, and we’re, we’re quite often we’re, we’re trying to kind of react to. A new visa ban or a pause or a new restriction or a new way of, of imposing a, you know, a denial on, on certain situations.
And so it’s a much more fluid, you know, paradigm than, than I think we’re, we’re used to.
Zachary Elwood: This has been great. Travis, do you want to throw anything else in there before we end about anything we’ve talked about that you think is worth mentioning?
Travis Feuerbacher: No, I, I, I, this has been really fun. I appreciate the, the opportunity to connect with you.
I think, you know, I am a lawyer and so of course I’m trained in the law and I’m, I’m constantly offering people, you know, legal advice. Right. But when you get down to the interview itself, it’s, it’s far more psychological than, than legal. And I think most Visa officers, I was definitely an exception. Most visa officers are not lawyers and, and I would even argue that they’re not making legal decisions, they’re making administrative decisions.
You know, they’re applying kind of the, the, the framework of legal requirements, but they’re, they’re making their administrative decisions based on the dialogue, the verbal back and forth with the applicant. And, and that’s why, you know, a lot of my interactions with my clients is less based on here’s legally what you should do and more on here’s how you can resonate with that officer.
Here’s how psychologically. You can put yourself in the best position for success. That’s why I think that, you know, this type of podcast is excellent because it really is a game of psychology at the end of the day.
Zachary Elwood: Yeah, that I thought of another question that I wanted to ask. I was curious how much, uh, say the, they review, uh, say they deny a Visa application, how much justification do they have to go on record for giving and uh, yeah, I’m curious about that because I can imagine.
A situation where they don’t have to provide much justification, which would allow them to act on vibes more versus giving very concrete reasons.
Travis Feuerbacher: It’s a really good question. So, first of all, every time an applicant appears for an interview, there is essentially a, a, a written record of that interaction that’s maintained.
So in the computer system, the Vs. A officer is required to note their, their decision and, and provide a kind of a justification or an explanation for the decision they reach. Now, unfortunately, those notes are completely confidential. Me and you can never see those. They’re, they’re not subject to FOIA requests or anything else.
They’re secret, but they are visible to other Visa officers. So if, if I’m an officer and, and you’re the applicant and I deny you. I’m gonna type in some notes, and they’re probably going to be fairly negative because I’m, I’m explaining my rationale for my, you know, decision to deny you. Then the next time you go for your next interview, my notes are visible to your next officer or to, to the officer who interviews you.
And that can kind of, you know, to use our American phrase, it can kind of poison the well because if that’s the first thing the officer’s looking at. Hey, I’m worried that this guy doesn’t have enough money for a short trip, or I’m concerned that, you know, based on these details, he may not leave the United States after his trip concludes.
Whatever it is. Well, now that’s planted in my head, right? And now I’m fixated on that concern as well. And, and that’s where this can get a, a little bit difficult.
Zachary Elwood: Is there any repercussions to being very vague about why you rejected someone? Can you just say like, something very minor or, or, or is there somebody reviewing that and being like, I want more information, or is it pretty wild west?
Travis Feuerbacher: Well, I mean, first of all, I, I think that you are motivated to be specific because, you know, if, if I am concerned, if I have a reason to refuse a visa. I wanna be specific about that because I know that this individual’s at some point probably going to reapply and I want to help the next officer make the right decision.
So I do want to note my specific concerns so that they can address that it’s not so that this person’s always going to be refused. That’s not my goal. My goal is for them to get a fair assessment and so the next officer needs to understand what to do. But the flip side of that is, you know, training and and management of officers.
So first of all, officers are trained to be specific, but then after the fact, managers are required to review a certain number of, of officer decisions. And while they’re not expected to change that decision, you know, a decision is final. Once it’s made, it’s not appealable. If an officer is not giving any details or maybe they appear to be making the wrong decision, that’s where a manager is expected and, and they should jump in and use this as a teachable moment.
You know, let’s talk about that last interview and, you know, maybe even shadow an officer if they’re showing a pattern of, of not doing enough or maybe not making the right decision. This is a training requirement at this point. Mm.
Zachary Elwood: Mm-hmm. Makes sense. Okay. This is great. Uh, thanks a lot Travis. Really appreciate your time.
Travis Feuerbacher: Yeah, thanks for having me. It was a pleasure.
That was a talk with Travis Feuerbacher, a former visa officer who now helps people with American visa applications with his company ZF Visas, which you can learn more about at zfvisa.com.
This has been the people who read people podcast, with me, Zach Elwood. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com.
Thanks for listening.
Music by Small Skies.