I guess that it would depend on what the document was and...if it didn't exist at all...would he have been admitted? Nothing at all says that he was traveling on false documents. My point is much more that the articles (and I've seen several) all say that the reason the visa (for a day trip into town, while he was on the way to Obama's inauguration) was denied because of the "sex attack" accusations, and the reason that came up was because the fake document (whatever it was) led them to check on him. My question is, is an unsubstantiated accusation sufficient to deny a visa? He apparently had no trouble getting into the US.