Visa applications are no longer judged solely by what’s on paper. Increasingly, immigration authorities around the world are looking at what’s online.
Social media content—posts, profiles, comments, and even tagged photos—can now influence decisions about who gets approved for a visa, who’s denied entry at the border, and who may face delays or additional scrutiny. While the United States has openly integrated social media into its immigration vetting procedures, other countries are beginning to follow suit—some quietly, others with formal disclosure requirements.
For mobility professionals, this shift presents new challenges: how to educate globally mobile employees, protect their privacy, and avoid potential immigration risks tied to digital footprints.
United States: Formal Policies, Expanding Scope
The United States is among the most transparent and structured when it comes to social media screening. According to Violeta Petrova, partner at Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty LLP, “Social media data collection and screening has been an intrinsic part of the immigration vetting process in the U.S. for close to a decade.”
Beginning with the optional collection of social media handles on the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) application in 2016, the U.S. immigration system has moved steadily toward embedding digital footprint analysis into all levels of vetting. The Department of State began formally collecting social media identifiers in 2019, and a 2018 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) policy authorizes border agents to conduct warrantless searches of electronic devices—including social media content—regardless of citizenship or immigration status.
More recently, new measures introduced in 2025 under the Trump administration have intensified scrutiny:
- In March, USCIS proposed collecting social media identifiers on immigration forms for national security screening.
- In April, new guidance declared that online expressions of extremism, terrorism, or antisemitism may be treated as negative discretionary factors in visa adjudications.
- In June, the Department of State launched a policy requiring F, M, and J visa applicants to set their social media accounts to public.
These policies are part of a broader strategy to enhance vetting and identify what the U.S. government describes as “hostility toward U.S. citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.”
But such policies also raise serious legal and ethical concerns. “Visa applicants may lack an adequate opportunity to rebut or clarify potentially misinterpreted social media information before a decision is made,” Petrova says. “And under the consular non-reviewability doctrine, there is no judicial recourse for denied visa applicants.”
She also says that social media screening now touches nearly all categories: F, M, and J visas are most impacted at the nonimmigrant level, while applications for adjustment of status or naturalization are increasingly assessed in part based on moral character, where social media content may play a role.
Latin America: A Growing but Uneven Practice
In Latin America, the use of social media in visa decision-making is expanding—though often quietly and without formal legislation.
“In most countries, the practice is not officially acknowledged,” says Ana Gazarian, CEO at Employee Mobility Solutions. “But there’s mounting evidence that social media plays a growing role in verifying applicant intent, cross-checking employment or travel claims, and flagging political content that may be considered problematic.”
Colombia stands out for its transparency: its visa application platform explicitly asks applicants to disclose usernames across Facebook, Instagram, and X for all visa categories. However, applicants are not required to make their profiles public.
Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil do not formally require social media disclosure, but mobility professionals have observed routine monitoring of public accounts—especially in cases involving public figures, journalists, unclear intent, or politically sensitive material.
In one notable case in Peru, immigration authorities sanctioned more than 220 foreign artists in 2023 after identifying their participation in commercial performances via social media promotions. These individuals had entered as tourists, but authorities used posts and digital flyers circulating on platforms like Facebook and Instagram to prove unauthorized work.
Beyond immigration, Latin American governments are increasingly leveraging social media for tax enforcement, particularly in the influencer economy. For example:
- Colombia’s DIAN has actively audited influencers’ online content to match declared income with online activity.
- Peru’s SUNAT classifies influencers as income earners and monitors their platforms for undeclared earnings.
- Mexico’s SAT has used social media as part of its risk-based audit triggers. Social media screening is integrated with other forms of electronic data monitoring, including digital invoices (CFDIs) and electronic accounting records.
“These checks are rarely the sole basis for a denial,” Gazarian says, “but they often serve as a starting point for deeper investigation.”
Asia-Pacific: Discretion, Surveillance, and Early Signals
While formal social media vetting requirements are rare across Asia-Pacific, anecdotal evidence points to a growing trend, particularly in jurisdictions with strong national security postures.
A representative from Magrath Sheldrick Global, based in Asia, observed that “while most APAC jurisdictions do not have formal laws mandating social media collection, we are seeing informal vetting, especially for high-risk applications like politically active nationals or media professionals.”
Countries such as China and India have shown signs of social media influencing visa interviews, though such checks are rarely documented. In Singapore, tightened vetting procedures hint at a move toward more holistic applicant evaluations—possibly including digital behavior.
In Australia, the practice is far more entrenched, even if not fully codified.
“DHA border officers routinely undertake social media checks,” says Essence Purcell of Stirling Henry Global Migration. “At the border, DHA officers routinely review devices for evidence that may contradict a visa holder’s stated purpose for travel to Australia, especially for those suspected of intending to work without authorization.”
Australia’s Partner visa and Protection visa classes are both subject to internal guidelines permitting social media review. So is the Controversial Visitors Unit, which handles cases like activists, public figures, or individuals suspected of violating visa conditions. Purcell cited several examples:
- Novak Djokovic’s visa was canceled in 2021 based on an Instagram post about his COVID-19 status.
- U.K. commentator Katie Hopkins’ visa was revoked after she posted about flouting quarantine rules.
- High-profile political figures have faced scrutiny tied to their social media activities.
While applicants are not legally required to make profiles public, public content is fair game. “Employers must seek legal guidance before monitoring an employee’s social media directly,” Purcell says. “Australia’s privacy laws are strict, and consent is critical.”
Europe, the Middle East, and Africa: Limited but Emerging
In France, according to Karl Waheed Avocats, there is no formal practice of social media screening in immigration adjudication, and visa decisions are primarily based on verifiable documentation.
The U.K., while not formally collecting social media handles, has acknowledged using online content in national security screenings since around 2015.
In Hungary, South Africa, and much of the Middle East, there is currently no known institutionalized use of social media in immigration, but several experts believe it may be only a matter of time. A representative from EER Middle East noted, “Social media vetting isn’t an official practice in the region right now, but with global trends in digital screening, that could change.”
What Raises Red Flags?
Across regions, certain patterns of online behavior consistently draw attention from immigration authorities:
- Inconsistencies between visa applications and online profiles (e.g., LinkedIn vs. work history submitted)
- Posts suggesting unauthorized work while on a tourist or dependent visa
- Expressions of political dissent, particularly against the host country
- Support for extremist ideologies, hate speech, or content deemed to incite unrest
- Unverified or deceptive profiles, especially in partner visa cases involving romantic or familial ties
“Even when digital content isn’t the primary evidence,” Gazarian says, “it can serve as a trigger for deeper investigation, delays, or denials.”
Implications for Employers and Mobility Professionals
As social media screening becomes more prevalent, mobility professionals must walk a fine line between protecting employee privacy and ensuring compliance.
Key best practices include:
- Educate employees—and their families. Explain how public posts can affect visa outcomes, especially for dependent visa holders.
- Ensure profile consistency. Discrepancies between LinkedIn and visa applications may raise red flags.
- Avoid prescriptive guidance. Instead, provide general awareness, FAQs, and access to independent legal counsel.
- Coordinate with legal teams. Review internal social media and mobility policies through a legal lens, especially when advising on posts related to employment, location, or political views.
- Prepare for the border. Remind assignees that even with a valid visa, inconsistent or concerning content may prompt extra screening or denial at the port of entry.
“Social media vetting in the immigration context raises complex legal and ethical questions about privacy, free expression, and due process,” Petrova says. “Mobility teams should ensure their internal messaging is legally sound, culturally sensitive, and coordinated across HR, legal, and immigration functions.”
Final Thoughts
Social media is no longer incidental to visa decision-making. For immigration authorities, it’s a practical tool for assessing risk, verifying claims, and spotting potential red flags. For global mobility teams, it presents a challenge that’s difficult to manage with documentation alone.
Rather than treat digital footprints as an afterthought, mobility programs should bring this issue into the open. Early conversations, clear internal guidance, and coordination with legal teams can help employees avoid unnecessary delays or scrutiny.
As immigration vetting grows more complex, preparing assignees for digital exposure is as important as preparing them for the move itself.