|
|
|
|
|
by jimbo808
286 days ago
|
|
> From statements made and queries in law enforcement databases, [redacted] has not violated his visa; however, the Atlanta Field Office Director has mandated [redacted] be presented as a Voluntary Departure. [Redacted] has accepted voluntary departure despite not violating his B1/B2 visa requirements.” The article worded the whole thing very carefully, in a way to me is intentionally misleading. The director mandated that the visa holder be labeled as a voluntary departure. That could simply mean the person decided he would return, and was allowed to do so, and the director simply informed whoever filled out the paperwork that this was a voluntary departure. There is nothing in the article that actually indicates the person was forced to leave the country with a valid visa. The fact that they dance around this tells me that this article is bullshit. And knowing what I know about The Guardian, it almost certainly is. |
|
That’s to say that a voluntary departure doesn’t mean no harm was caused.