Dan Maranci

Before tweaking your client’s process or suggesting a change to a hiring bar, determine whether the denial was an anomaly, or an early indicator of a changing formal or informal rule or interpretation of a rule. As immigration professionals are painfully aware, an agency service center or consulate can develop its own new “standard” overnight, driven by new officer rotations, promotions, etc. Also - be ready and able to quickly escalate an erroneous denial, or flag the error in a reapplication. Again, those who have done this for a long time take a deep breath, read the denial’s basis or get the facts from the applicant, absorb it, and determine whether to fight, reapply, and/or escalate per client and employee’s situation.

It of course largely depends on which country’s visa and particular category the applicant was rejected from. It’s also critical to differentiate a “rejection” from a “denial” from “administrative processing.” The most critical things to have in place to minimize the emotional and logistical toll on the applicant, and create the best chance for mitigation are having knowledgeable counsel in place, and well-developed, easy to digest FAQs or other guides that preview the possible outcomes in advance (without overwhelming or intimidating the applicant).

Openness and trust are crucial - the last thing you want is for your team to feel like they will be personally attacked for making a mistake. Because they may bury it, and then the consequences can multiply. Also have them propose the solution, or at least contribute to it, to learn the most from it.

Lots of great guidance here, and frameworks for rationally trying to address and lessen tension. It largely depends on the source and nature of the tension. In most cases, if you've done a reasonable job of creating an atmosphere of trust and respect, and people are clear on their roles, you have a group that should come around and work cooperatively. But in some cases with toxic personality issues, the answer is separating the individual(s) from the team.

I see a fair amount of content about “being genuine” from people that seem anything but genuine (sort of like when the “no jerks” rule is touted by the biggest jerk in your org.). However - teams can tell when their leader is either putting on an act, or misleading them. So I’d cautiously advocate for “being genuine” and vulnerable.

One of the seemingly least important is immigration - both I-9 compliance, and impact on acquired employee populations. But not getting ahead of the potential issues can be a terrible experience for the incoming sponsored workers. Especially if there will be disruption or ineligibility for continued work authorization.