WAIVE IN-PERSON INTERVIEWS FOR RETURNING WORKERS
This proposal would waive in-person interviews for returning workers. Returning workers are people who have already held a temporary visa, used it lawfully, and left the country on time. Many work in seasonal industries, such as agriculture or seafood processing, where the same workers are rehired year after year. Under current practice, applicants for most temporary visas must sit for an in-person interview with a consular officer in their home country, even if they were interviewed when they got an earlier visa. The State Department would still run a new background check against the usual databases.
The Case For
Supporters argue that interviewing a returning worker again is unnecessary and yields little new information. These are workers USCIS has already approved, the government has already screened, and a consular officer has already interviewed in person. They then used their visa lawfully and left on time. A second interview, supporters argue, mostly re-confirms what is already on file. They note that the in-person interviews have been waived before. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the State Department temporarily waived in-person interviews for returning workers and others to ease consular backlogs. Supporters argue it can be done again without compromising security.
Advocates argue that a repeat in-person interview offers little added benefit but can create real problems for employers with urgent labor needs. They also note that consular capacity is limited. Waiving interviews for returning workers would shorten the wait for first-time applicants and focus resources where interviews matter most. In some high-demand locations, applicants wait months for an appointment.
The Case Against
Opponents argue that circumstances can change between visas. A worker who entered legally and complied with an earlier visa may not be in the same position by the time they reapply. They assert that a records check will not always reveal those changes. Opponents contend that a live interview can catch inconsistencies, coaching, or fraud that database screening misses. An officer can probe answers in person, not just match them against existing data. Opponents also note that the pandemic-era waivers were temporary. The State Department rolled them back in 2025 and returned to in-person interviews for most applicants to maintain appropriate vigilance. Opponents further argue that the solution for consular backlogs is to increase resources, not waive important security requirements.