Colombia Visa Restrictions Bar 21 Over Corruption Claims

Six current and former Colombian politicians, a former state oil chief, their families and 14 unnamed others face US visa restrictions on foreign policy grounds, the second round under a policy announced in September.

New Colombia visa restrictions announced by the State Department on Oct. 22 bar 21 people in Colombia from US visas over alleged corruption and narcotrafficking. Secretary of State Marco Rubio named seven of them, including a former president of the state oil company Ecopetrol, a sitting mayor and two newly elected members of Colombia’s Congress, and said the restrictions also reach their families. The department invoked Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the foreign policy ground of inadmissibility, rather than an ordinary visa refusal or a criminal charge.

The announcement shows the September policy is not a one-time gesture. On Sept. 28 the department revoked visas for 27 officials, former officials and relatives in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, The Associated Press reported, including two Colombians it did not name. This round covers 21 people in Colombia alone, almost as many as the first round across four countries.

The seven people the department named, with the roles it gave them, are:

Ricardo Roa Barragán, former president of Ecopetrol
Yahir Fernando Acuña Cardales, mayor of Sincelejo
Wadith Alberto Manzur Imbett, senator-elect and former member of the House of Representatives
Karen Astrith Manrique Olarte, representative-elect
Julio Elías Chagui Flórez, former senator
Liliana Esther Bitar Castilla, former senator
José Ignacio Mesa Betancur, former congressman and former mayor of Envigado

The statement gives no details of what any of the seven is alleged to have done. The department said the policy targets foreign nationals who undermine democratically elected governments in the hemisphere through corruption or narcotrafficking, “regardless of their political affiliation,” and said Washington stands with the Colombian government as it works to remove criminal influence from its courts, police and legislature. In the September round, Bolivia’s attorney general called the restrictions on him political pressure, according to the AP; no response from the Colombians named on Oct. 22 had been reported.

Why the foreign policy ground is so hard to contest

Section 212(a)(3)(C) makes a person inadmissible when the secretary of state has reasonable grounds to believe the person’s entry or proposed activities would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. The test is the secretary’s belief, not proof of a crime; no conviction, indictment or hearing is required.

That choice of tool has practical consequences. The department can revoke a visa at any time under INA Section 221(i), and the revocation is generally not reviewable in court unless it is the sole ground for removing someone already in the United States. Refusals abroad fall under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. For the people named, there is effectively no forum in which to answer the allegations.

The 14 unnamed people are likely to stay unnamed, because visa records are confidential under INA Section 222(f). Congress has also given the department a separate, public anticorruption tool, Section 7031(c) of the annual State Department appropriations act, aimed at foreign officials. The broader foreign policy ground reaches further, to business figures and politicians-elect, and needs no formal corruption designation.

Colombia has seen US visa leverage before. In January 2025, during a dispute over deportation flights, Rubio authorized visa restrictions on Colombian government officials and their families and the US Embassy in Bogotá suspended visa processing, PBS NewsHour reported, before the two governments resolved the standoff. The difference now is direction: the October action is framed as support for Bogotá rather than pressure on it.

Family members are the part to watch. The statement covers the families of the seven without saying which relatives. A relative already holding a US visa is likely to see it revoked, and anyone inside the United States could in principle face the parallel deportation ground in INA Section 237(a)(4)(C). The action also fits the department’s pace: it says it has revoked more than 300,000 visas since January 2025, and Rubio has argued that tighter visa rules apply globally rather than to any one country. As with its birth tourism revocation figures, the department has released no underlying evidence that outsiders can check.

More rounds look likely. The department called this an expansion of a campaign and tied it to the March Doral Summit and the Sept. 22 Shield of the Americas leaders’ statement, a regional banner that can carry further announcements in Colombia or the other countries named in September.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts