US Embassy London · Immigrant Visa Unit

Administrative processing: history requests and technology checks

Some 221(g) refusals tick administrative processing instead of listing documents. Most of those need nothing from you. This page covers two cases that do: a post that asks for 15 years of personal history and a CV, and the technology check an officer can order when your field touches sensitive work.

When a post asks for your history

The interview ran about an hour and covered two subjects. The first was public charge: the officer asked about the beneficiary's bank balances and property abroad, and worked through the joint sponsor questions from the written public charge questionnaire. The second was his field. He holds a degree in cybersecurity. The officer asked about specific attacks, how testers probe for vulnerabilities and what his thesis covered, and looked things up online while he answered.

The officer refused the visa under 221(g) with administrative processing ticked, and kept his passport. The post then asked him to email a set of personal history details under a fixed subject line, with his CV attached.

What the form asks for

Most of the form matches Form DS-5535, Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants. The Department describes that form as being for applicants determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities. DS-5535 asks for 15 years of travel, addresses and employment. It also asks for five years of social media identifiers, which this form leaves out; the DS-260 collects those already. The physical description and military service items do not appear on DS-5535.

What it may mean

The post gave no reason. Two kinds of review would explain the form:

• A security check. The 15-year history matches DS-5535. Officers use height, weight and identifying marks to tell an applicant apart from someone with a similar name in a records check. That is our reading, and the post has not confirmed it.
• A technology-transfer review. INA 212(a)(3)(A)(i) makes an applicant inadmissible if they seek to violate or evade US export-control law. An officer can refer a case to Washington when the applicant's field touches sensitive technology. Practitioners report the same sequence in those cases: detailed questions about technical work, then a request for a CV and publications list. See dual-use careers.

Neither review says anything about whether the officer can approve the case. Neither is a public charge finding, and nothing on the form concerns money.

Who should expect it

The Department publishes no current list. Be ready for it if you studied or work in a scientific or technical field, such as security, computing, engineering or the physical sciences, or if you have published research. Your travel history or nationality can also draw extra checks.

How to respond

1. Use the subject line as given. It routes your email. Send it to the address on your 221(g) sheet or in the post's instructions.
2. Answer each item, and write "none" where nothing applies. An officer reads a blank as an omission.
3. Check it against your DS-260. Addresses, employers, prior passports and travel should match what you filed. Where the DS-260 asked for less, add to it without contradicting it.
4. Make the CV precise. Give dates, employers and a plain description of what you did. The officer has heard your spoken account of your work already, so keep the CV consistent with it, and neither overstate nor understate the technical content.
5. Send it in one email, once. Then wait. No one can expedite administrative processing. The Department asks you to wait at least 180 days from the interview, or from your last submission if that came later, before you enquire, unless you face emergency travel.

Dual-use careers and technology checks

A dual-use career uses knowledge that serves ordinary civilian work and could also serve weapons, military or intelligence purposes. The State Department defines dual-use as “technologies which have both civilian and military applications”. A chemical engineer at a pharmaceutical plant, a microbiologist, a penetration tester, a drone developer and a satellite imagery analyst all do legitimate jobs in fields the Department has listed as sensitive. If your education or career sits in one of these fields, the officer may refer your case to Washington before deciding it. At the window, that looks like a 221(g) with administrative processing ticked.

The legal basis

INA 212(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) makes an applicant inadmissible if there is reason to believe they seek to enter the US to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export of goods, technology or sensitive information. To answer that question, the officer can request a security advisory opinion from Washington. For technology-transfer concerns, this is the Visas Mantis check. A 2004 State Department Inspector General review describes the chain: the Bureau of Nonproliferation reviews the case, and the FBI runs a name check. The post will not tell you which check it has requested.

The Technology Alert List

Officers use the Technology Alert List (TAL) as guidance. The Bureau of Nonproliferation drew it up as a list of key words and phrases. The current version is not public. The last public version is State Department cable UNCLAS STATE 147566, Using the Technology Alert List (Update), sent to all posts on 1 August 2002. It has two parts: a Critical Fields List of 15 lettered fields, and the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The cable tells officers they need not be experts in these fields. They should “listen for key words or phrases from the list in applicants' answers to interview questions”.

The table below reproduces the 2002 Critical Fields List, with the three rocket and drone fields (C to E) in one row. Use it as a guide to the kinds of work that draw attention. The current list may differ.

What makes a check more or less likely

• A listed field does not require a check by itself, but the bar for skipping one is high. The cable does not make checks mandatory for each applicant in a critical field. It tells officers to decide a case without one only when they believe the ground “clearly does not apply”, and to refer when in doubt.
• Public knowledge is not controlled. The cable states that information in the public domain, and information taught in an academic course, generally is not controlled for technology-transfer purposes.
• Depth and purpose count for more than a job title. The cable tells officers to start by asking whether the applicant proposes advanced research or study (doctoral, postdoctoral or research scholar) or business activity in a listed field. Later guidance, as university international offices quote it, reaches further: graduate study, teaching, research, training, employment or commercial transactions. For an immigrant visa, what you are likely to do in the US matters as well as what you did before.
• Nationality and employer count. Under the 2002 cable, a check is mandatory for anyone who holds a passport of, or works for, a state sponsor of terrorism and seeks to work in a critical field. The 2002 list of those countries is out of date: use the State Department's current list. The cable also flags people linked to organisations on the US Commerce Department's Entity List. If you have worked or studied at a foreign university, lab or company, check it against the Consolidated Screening List.
• A field missing from the list guarantees nothing. The cable tells officers to refer any case they suspect falls under the ground, whatever the applicant's profession.
• It surfaces at the interview. Officers listen for key words. In the case above, the officer asked detailed questions about the beneficiary's cybersecurity degree and thesis, then asked for a CV and publications. Immigration practitioners report the same pattern: a 221(g) first, then requests for a detailed CV, an employer letter, or evidence that the work is not military.

Military, defence and intelligence backgrounds

The Critical Fields List covers technologies, not roles, and no published list covers military, defence or intelligence occupations. Officers still ask about these backgrounds. The DS-260 asks whether you have served in the military and whether you have specialised skills or training in firearms, explosives, or nuclear, biological or chemical work. The history form in the case above asks for branch, dates, rank and specialty. Conscription and ordinary national service are common and cause no problem by themselves. Give complete answers, and keep them consistent across the DS-260, the history form, the CV and what you say at the window.

How long it takes, and how often it clears

The Department publishes no current figure. The Government Accountability Office found that Mantis checks averaged about 75 days in October 2003, and about 15 days by November 2004 after the Department streamlined the process (GAO-05-198). The Inspector General reported in 2004 that the Bureau of Nonproliferation received an estimated 10,000 of these referrals a year, and that about 85% of FBI visa name checks came back with no match on the first pass, rising to about 95% after manual review. These figures are over 20 years old and come from a much smaller caseload. They show that most checks clear. They cannot tell you how long yours will take. The Department now asks applicants to wait at least 180 days from the interview, or from their last submission, before enquiring.

Prepare before the interview

The 2002 cable tells officers to gather as much detail as they can when they refer a case, because “the effectiveness of the name check (and the turnaround time) is directly related to the completeness of the information”. It names the documents officers should encourage applicants to provide. If your field is on the list, or the officer may ask for your history, have these ready before interview day. Reconstructing 15 years of trips from memory after a refusal is slow, and that is where contradictions with your DS-260 creep in.

1. A complete CV. Dates, employers, job titles, and a plain description of what you did. Say what the work was for: making a medicine, securing a bank's network, surveying land.
2. A complete list of publications, with titles and dates, including theses and patents. The cable asks for this for the applicant and for an accompanying spouse.
3. Project descriptions for significant research or technical work.
4. A letter from your current employer describing the role and duties, and whether the work involves export-controlled technology.
5. Letters of recommendation, from a US source or from abroad, if you have them.
6. Evidence the knowledge is public, where it fits: a course syllabus or standard textbook showing that universities teach the subject.
7. A short, true answer about your US plans. The cable's questions include where the applicant will work, who is funding them, and “how, and where, does the applicant plan to use the goods or knowledge acquired?”. An immigrant visa needs no job offer, and “not decided yet” is an acceptable true answer.
8. Your 15-year history: travel with dates, addresses, employers with job descriptions, education and prior passport numbers, checked against the DS-260. The 15-year history worksheet lays it out item by item.

Moved from the 221(g) page on 1 October 2026. Reviewed 1 October 2026.