Apparently, that's not enough ties to a country you built a company in.
In a moment that illuminates the widening gap between documented achievement and bureaucratic judgment, Rohit Srivastav — co-founder of a $12 million sustainable children's fashion brand, Forbes-recognized entrepreneur, and employer of over a hundred people — was denied a US visitor visa on the grounds that he lacked sufficient ties to India. His case, one of many emerging from the Indian startup community, reflects a broader tightening of American visa policy in which the presumption of immigrant intent falls entirely on the applicant, and where the definition of 'enough' remains at the sole discretion of a consular officer. It is a reminder that in the architecture of global mobility, legal frameworks often move more slowly — and less generously — than human ambition.
- A founder who built a venture-backed company from scratch, employs over 100 people, and appears on Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia was told his life's work did not constitute sufficient reason to return home.
- Section 214(b) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act presumes every applicant intends to stay permanently, placing the entire burden of proof on individuals who must convince an officer in a brief, high-pressure interview.
- Indian entrepreneurs and senior professionals are reporting a wave of similar denials, signaling that business success alone no longer satisfies consular officers who now demand concrete, immovable evidence of return intent.
- The US has expanded social media screening for several visa categories and consulate appointment delays in India have grown sharply, creating a system that is simultaneously slower and harder to navigate.
- A July 2026 pilot program will allow applicants to pay $750 above the standard fee for a faster interview slot — a market-based workaround that rewards financial means over merit or documented ties.
Rohit Srivastav co-founded Kidbea in 2021, and by 2026 the sustainable kids fashion brand was generating over $12 million in annual revenue, employing more than 100 people, and earning him a place on Forbes's 30 Under 30 Asia list. He had family, property, payroll obligations, and tax responsibilities anchoring him to India. When he arrived at the US consulate for a B-1/B-2 visitor visa interview, he brought documentation of all of it. The officer rejected him anyway, citing insufficient ties to his home country.
The rejection fell under Section 214(b) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, a provision that presumes every applicant intends to immigrate permanently unless they prove otherwise. The burden is entirely theirs, the interview is brief, and the officer's judgment is final. Srivastav took to social media to express his disbelief, noting that a family with an extensive international travel history had been rejected just before him. He said he would reapply — founder instincts, he suggested, had prepared him for rejection.
His experience is far from isolated. Multiple Indian startup founders and professionals have reported similar denials in recent months, and immigration lawyers describe the overall consular environment as measurably more cautious. In late 2025, the US expanded social media screening requirements for H-1B and H-4 visa categories, and appointment delays at Indian consulates have grown considerably across the board. Officers processing high volumes of applications quickly have, in practice, raised the bar: business success is no longer enough; applicants now need to demonstrate deeply concrete, near-immovable reasons to return.
The US State Department's response to the systemic backlog arrives in the form of a July 2026 pilot program offering earlier interview slots — within ten business days — for an additional $750 fee on top of the standard $185 charge. For applicants like Srivastav, who must navigate the process a second time, it may become a necessary expense. That a market-based shortcut is the proposed remedy for a system that already disadvantages many qualified applicants says something about the direction the policy is heading.
Rohit Srivastav built Kidbea from nothing in 2021. Five years later, the sustainable kids fashion brand he co-founded generates over $12 million in annual revenue, employs more than 100 people, and has backing from top-tier venture capital firms. He's been named to Forbes's 30 Under 30 Asia list. By any measure, he is a successful Indian entrepreneur with deep roots in his home country—a family, property, an active business, payroll obligations, tax responsibilities, and a network of personal and cultural ties that bind him to India.
None of it was enough to get him a US visitor visa.
When Srivastav walked into the US consulate for his B-1/B-2 visa interview, he came prepared. He had documentation showing his family responsibilities, his property holdings, his business operations, his payroll and tax obligations. He had the kind of evidence that, on paper, should demonstrate exactly what consular officers are supposed to see: a person with compelling reasons to return home. The officer reviewed his file and rejected him anyway. The reason given was simple and, to Srivastav, baffling: "Not enough ties to home country."
The rejection came under Section 214(b) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, a legal framework that inverts the presumption of innocence. Under this rule, every visa applicant is assumed to intend permanent immigration to the United States unless they affirmatively prove otherwise. The burden falls entirely on the applicant. They must convince the consular officer—often in a brief, high-pressure interview—that they have sufficient reasons to return home. Family, property, business commitments, financial obligations, long-term career plans: these are the currency of proof. But what constitutes "enough" is subjective, and the officer's judgment is final.
Srivastav's response came via social media. "I built a Series A company from scratch, employ 100+ people, have backing from top VCs and investors, and serve millions of Indian families through our brand," he wrote. "Apparently, that's not enough ties." He noted that he was accustomed to rejection as a founder and would reapply. He also mentioned that another family with extensive international travel history—trips to Europe, Japan, and elsewhere—had been rejected just before him, which deepened his confusion. How could someone with his documented commitments to India be deemed insufficiently tied to the country?
What Srivastav experienced is not an anomaly. In recent months, several Indian startup founders and senior professionals have publicly reported similar denials under the same 214(b) provision. The pattern reflects a broader tightening of the US visa environment. In late 2025, the US government expanded social media screening requirements for certain visa categories, including H-1B and H-4 visas, requiring applicants to disclose their social media handles so consular officers could review their online activity for signs of hostility toward the US or other concerns. While B-1/B-2 visitor visa applicants are not always subject to the same formal screening protocols, immigration lawyers say the overall atmosphere has become noticeably more cautious and restrictive.
The pressure on the system is real. Appointment delays at US consulates in India have increased significantly, with long waiting periods across multiple visa categories and stricter interview assessments reported by applicants. The volume of applications is high, and the pace of interviews is fast. For Indian applicants in particular, this creates a difficult dynamic: officers are processing many cases quickly, and the bar for proving return intent has, in practice, risen. Many applicants report that business success alone is no longer sufficient; officers now demand very concrete proof—strong family dependence, immovable property, detailed travel purpose, or clear short-term visit plans tied to specific events or conferences.
The US State Department is preparing to introduce a new option that may reflect this reality. Starting July 1, 2026, a pilot program will allow some applicants to pay an additional $750 fee on top of the standard $185 visa application charge to secure an earlier interview appointment at selected consulates. Those who pay could potentially get an interview within 10 business days. It is a market-based solution to a systemic problem: if you have the money, you can skip the line. For someone like Srivastav, who has already been rejected once and must reapply, it may be a necessary cost of trying again.
Notable Quotes
I built a Series A company from scratch, employ 100+ people, have backing from top VCs and investors, and serve millions of Indian families through our brand. Apparently, that's not enough ties.— Rohit Srivastav, co-founder of Kidbea, on his visa denial
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a founder with this much documented success in India be seen as a flight risk?
Because Section 214(b) doesn't measure success—it measures intent. The law assumes you want to stay in America unless you prove you don't. A business can be thriving and still look like a stepping stone to someone leaving.
But he has family, property, employees depending on him. Doesn't that matter?
It should. And it's presented. But in a fifteen-minute interview, with dozens of cases ahead and behind, the officer makes a judgment call. What looks like clear evidence of ties to one person can look like a convenient cover story to another.
Is this happening to other people?
Yes. Multiple founders, professionals, people with similar credentials. The pattern suggests the bar has moved, not just for him but across the board. The system is under pressure.
What does the $750 fast-track option actually solve?
It solves wait time, not judgment. You get in front of an officer faster. Whether that officer approves you is still a coin flip—but at least you're not waiting six months to find out.
So what does Srivastav do now?
He reapplies. He tries again, probably with a lawyer, probably with even more documentation. He joins a growing list of successful people who have to prove they belong at home.