Integrity Legal

สิ่งที่กำลังได้รับความสนใจในขณะนี้คือ กระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS) ได้ให้คำแนะนำแก่หน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ในการที่จะจัดการกับการชะลอการเนรเทศคู่ของคนเพศเดียวกันที่เป็นพลเมืองอเมริกันและเป็นผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวรซึ่งมีการประกาศเมื่อ 2 วันที่ผ่านมา อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่เขียนในเว็บ Advocate.com ซึ่งเกี่ยวกับ การไม่ชะลอเรื่องของการเข้าเมืองของคู่เกย์

เช้าวันพุธ เลขาธิการ USCIS คริสโตเฟอร์ เอส.เบนท์ลีย์กล่าวว่า ตัวแทนได้รับคำแนะนำทางกฎหมายให้ยกเรื่องการชะลอที่เผยแพร่เมื่อวันจันทร์ที่ผ่านมา คำแนะนำนี้เป็นไปในรูปแบบของลายลักษณ์อักษรจากสำนักงานอัยการที่กระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (USCISเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของ DHS)

.ผู้ที่สนใจสามารถศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมได้จากลิงค์ที่อ้างถึงด้านบน

เป็นที่ปรากฎอย่างชัดเจนว่า เจ้าหน้าที่ของหน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกา (USCIS) ด้วยความพยายามที่จะหาหนทางที่จะช่วยเหลือกลุ่มเพศที่สามในสหรัฐอเมริกากับคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติผู้ที่อยู่ในกระบวนการเข้าเมืองนี้ เนื่องจากเป็นการปกป้องการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกัน คำถามของผู้เขียนคือ เพราะเหตุใดจะมีทางแก้ปัญหาเรื่องของรัฐได้ เป็นสิ่งที่ชัดเจนว่า วิธีที่จะแก้ปัญหาในประเด็นนี้ ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกา แต่ดูเหมือนว่า ฝ่ายบริหารจะแก้ปัญหาในประเด็นนี้ผ่านทางกฎระเบียบภายในและแนวทางปฏิบัติของฝ่ายบริหาร แต่สิ่งนี้ไม่ใช่วิธีทางกฎหมาย และไม่เป็นไปตามกฎหมายที่กระทบต่อการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสถานการณ์ต่างๆเช่นที่จะกระทบต่อกลุ่มเพศที่สาม ตามทัศนะของผู้เขียน แม้คำตัดสินศาลสูงสุดของสหรัฐอเมริกาในประเด็นการรับรองของส่วนกลางให้เป็นไปตามกฎหมายและบังคับใช้ในแต่ละรัฐมีแนวโน้มที่จะส่งผลให้เป็นหนทางในการอนุญาตให้คู่เพศเดียวกันได้รับสิทธิประโยลชน์ทางการเข้าเมืองเช่นเดียวกับสิทธิคู่ต่างเพศสองสัญชาติ

การประกาศจาก USCIS ในวันจันทร์เกี่ยวกับ “การชะลอ” การเนรเทศของคู่เพศเดียวกันของพลเมืองอเมริกันและผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวร เนื่องจากการบรรเทาแก่ชาวอเมริกันผู้ที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการเนรเทศตามพระราชบัญญัติ “การคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน” (DOMA) เนื่องจากคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาตินั้นเป็นไปตามกฎหมายที่การแต่งงานของคนเพศเดียวกันมีผลใน 6 รัฐ (รวมทั้งแคลิฟอร์เนีย)ซึ่งอนุญาตให้มีการแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกัน สิ่งหนึ่งที่มีการรับรองจากส่วนกลางของการแต่งงานเพศเดียวกันภายใต้เขตอำนาจของรัฐที่มีอำนาจซึ่งเป็นการปฏิบัติตามรัฐธรรมนูญเรียกว่า “พระราชบัญญัติการคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน” (DOMA)ซค่งมีการร่างในสมัยของประธานาธิบดีวิลเลียม เจฟเฟอร์สัน คลินตัน

เมื่อไม่นานมานี้ ในบันทึกจากสำนักงานอัยการ (อีริค โฮลเดอร์)ถึงโฆษกสภาผู้แทนราษฎร ความว่า ฝ่ายบริหารของประธานาธิบดีเห็นว่า คู่เพศเดียวกันควรจะได้รับสิทธิในการตรวจสอบที่เข้มงวดจากศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาและฝ่ายบริหารไม่ได้ดำเนินการต่อพระราชบัญญัติ DOMA ต่อคู่เพศที่สาม บทความนี้บอกว่า อาจจะไม่เป็นการให้สิทธิประโยชน์ของการเข้าเมืองเนื่องจากมีการพลาดไม่มี “ข้อโต้แย้ง” ก่อนที่ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาจะนำไปสู่สถานการณ์ที่มีประเด็นทางกฎหมายที่ซับซ้อนที่ไม่ได้ตัดสินโดยศาลสูงสุดของสหรัฐอเมริกาและยังคงเป็นเรื่องที่ถูกลืมในประเด็นที่ไม่มีความหนักแน่น ประกาศของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ เพิ่มเติมว่า จนกระทั่งบทบัญญัติในพระราชบัญญัติ DOMA ซึ่งจะมีการรับรองส่วนกลางในการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันเป็นจุดพลิกผันของการแต่งงานของกลุ่มเพศที่สาม (อย่างน้อยที่สุดในมุมมองของผู้มีอำนาจทางกฎหมาย)

ประเด็นหนึ่งที่กล่าวอ้างข้างบนเป็นที่น่าสนใจของบทความนี้ ข้อความต่อไปนี้อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่กล่างมาแล้วก่อนหน้านี้

เบนท์ลีย์ปฏิเสธที่จะเผยแพร่เอกสารใดๆที่เป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรในเวลานี้ อาจกล่าวได้ว่า เป็นการสื่อสารที่ได้รับสิทธิประโยชน์ เขาเน้นว่า นโยบายอย่างเป็นทางการใน DHS ไม่มีวันเปลี่ยนแปลง

ด้วยสิทธิประโยชน์ รัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกา ในแบบของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิให้สิทธิพิเศษ (หลักการที่สำคัญที่ขะสงวนสำหรับบุคคลโดยธรรมชาติในการติดต่อกับหน่วยงานในสหรัฐอเมริกา) ในการที่จะเก็บบันทึกไว้เป็นความลับ ทำไมต้องเป็นความลับ ทำไมเรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับสิทธิประโยชน์ของกลุ่มเพศที่สามจึงไม่มีการบังคับใช้ให้เป็นธรรมและอาจจะมีการวางฐานะของกลุ่มเพศที่สามน้อยเมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับฐานะของพวกเขาก่อนที่จะมีบันทึกถึงโฆษกสภา ดังนั้นกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิได้อ้างถึงสิทธิประโยชน์ในการสื่อสารกับหน่วยบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ตัวแทนอเมริกันภายใต้เขตอำนาจของ DHS เป็นเรื่องแปลกหรือไม่ที่รัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกาอ้างถึงนโยบายระหว่างตัวแทนที่จะรักษาสสิทธิของอเมริกันและครอบครัวอเมริกัน ตามความเห็นของผู้เขียนว่า เจ้าหน้าที่รัฐของสหรัฐอเมริกาทำหน้าที่รับใช้ประชาชนและดังนั้นต้องการที่จะสร้างความโปร่งใสในนโยบายโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งนโยบายที่มีผลกระทบในวงกว้างต่อพลเมืองและครอบครัวของสหรัฐอเมริกา

โดยปรากฏอย่างชัดแจ้ง การโจมตีความเท่าเทียมกันของสิทธิการเข้าเมืองของกลุ่มเพศที่สามยังไม่ได้รับชัยชนะ แต่สำหรับผู้ที่สนใจในประโนนี้อาจเป็นการรณรงค์ที่แสดงให้เห็นถึงการเยียวยาของคู่เพศเดียวกันภายใต้กฎหมายสหรัฐอเมริกา บทความนี้จคอยคัดเลือกประเด็นที่สำคัญและน่าสนใจ

อีกวอธีการหนึ่งที่จะได้รับสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันของคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติผ่านทางการร่างกฎหมายเช่นพระราชบัญญัติการรวมกลุ่มของครอบครัวอเมริกัน (UAFA)ซึ่งได้ให้สิทธิแก่คู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติในการขอวีซ่าคนเข้าเมืองสำหรับ “คู่ถาวร”ของเขา” ดังนั้น เป็นการหลีกเลี่ยงข้อกำหนด DOMA การร่างกฎหมายของส่วนกลางเช่นผู้แทนเจอร์รัลด์ แนดเลอร์เสนอร่างกฎหมายอีกครั้งด้วยความพยายามที่จะหาวิธีที่จะบรรเทาสิทธิประโยชน์การแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติที่ยังคงไม่ได้รับความเป็นธรรม  ในขณะที่เขียนนี้ นายแนดเลอร์ ยังคงที่จะเปิดการเรียกร้องเกี่ยวกับ DOMA และการปประกาศใช้พระราชบัญัญติการเคารพสิทธิการแต่งงานซึ่งเป็นงานการร่างกฎหมายที่ฟื้นฟูมาจากการรับรองของรัฐในการแต่งงานตามกฎหมาย อย่างน้อยที่สุดในส่วนหนึ่ง สิทธิของคู่แต่งงานเพศเดียวกันต้องการความเป็นธรรมตามากฎหมาย

To view this information in English please see: Department of Homeland Security.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DOMA, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย | No Comments »

A recent email message from the Warden of the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand came to this blogger’s attention. To quote the message directly:

The American Citizen Services Unit at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok will be closed for staff in-service training on April 28 and 29. Only emergency services will be available on those days.  Normal operations will resume on May 2. We strongly recommend making an appointment for all services, especially because our waiting room will be under construction from mid-April until June.  Waiting times, especially for those without appointments, will be longer.

For those who are not familiar with matters pertaining to US Missions abroad it should be noted that American Citizen Services is primarily responsible for undertaking duties such as issuance of US Passports, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, and visa page additions.

Those wishing to visit the official ACS webpage on the official website of the US Embassy in Bangkok please click HERE.

Tags: American Citizen Services, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, US Embassy Emergency Services, us embassy thailand, us passport
Posted in us embassy bangkok | No Comments »

For those who follow this blog with any degree of regularity it may have noticed that the administration routinely posts the updated processing times for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). To quote directly from the official website of USCIS:

It should be noted that these processing times only represent the processing times for USCIS. During the US visa process, an applicant for, say, a K-1 visa (US fiance visa) or a CR-1 visa (or any visa which requires an approved immigration petition) must undergo Consular Processing following USCIS approval. Therefore, in most cases the approved petition will be sent to the National Visa Center (NVC) before being forwarded to the US Embassy or US Consulate with appropriate jurisdiction. Meanwhile, those who utilize Direct Consular Filing methods or submit an I-130 petition with USCIS abroad should disregard the times noted above as they only pertain to USCIS Service Centers in the USA.

For related information please see: US Embassy Thailand or Consular Processing.

Tags: advance parole, CR-1 Visa Processing Time, CR-1 Visa Thailand, EB-5 Visa Processing Time, Employment Authorization Document, I-129f Processing Time, I-130 Processing Time, IR-1 Visa Processing Time, IR-1 Visa Thailand, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Processing Time, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, L-1 Visa Processing Time, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, us embassy thailand, US Visa Process, USCIS, USCIS Processing, USCIS Processing Times
Posted in USCIS | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that there are important events occurring in the realm of finance as the United States recently appears to have had its sovereign debt rating outlook lowered by Standard & Poor’s. To quote directly from an article written by Robin Harding, James Politi, and Michael Mackenzie on the official website of the Financial Times at FT.com:

Standard & Poor’s issued a stark warning to Washington on Monday, cutting its outlook on US sovereign debt for the first time and throwing more fuel on the raging debate over America’s swollen deficits.

The agency kept America’s credit rating at triple A but for the first time since it started rating US debt 70 years ago, cut its outlook from “stable” to “negative”. A negative outlook means there is a one-third chance of a downgrade in the next two years.

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to view this story in detail as further insight can be derived therein.

The ramifications of this announcement are likely to reverberate around the globe, but in the United States there appears to have already been at least a market reaction to this information. To quote directly from an article written by Larry Elliot posted on the official website of The Guardian at Guardian.co.uk:

US budget deficit has moved from a surplus at the turn of the millennium to a deficit of 11% by 2009. Shares fell sharply on Wall Street today after the ratings agency S&P issued a warning to the US government about its soaring budget deficit. In a move that surprised and rattled the financial markets, S&P said it was cutting its long-term outlook on America from stable to negative…In early trading in New York, the Dow Jones industrial average had lost nearly 250 points – 2% – with the dollar weaker on the foreign exchanges and yields rising on US Treasury bills. The FTSE 100 in London was also down 2% or 126 points at 5869.

Again, this blogger strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to read further and gain greater insight.

Hopefully, the consequences of the S&P downgrade will be short lived for America and her People, but there are some who argue that further turbulence may be ahead as countries around the world are economically re-aligning in ways which are unprecedented.  To quote directly from an article written by David Marsh on the website Yahoo.com:

China and four other leading high-growth economies have taken landmark steps toward lowering the importance of the dollar in international financial transactions — part of a seminal shift in the move towards a multicurrency reserve and trading system…Addition of South Africa to the former BRICS format seems to have galvanized the grouping. The five countries agreed to expand use of their own currencies in trade with each other — an important step toward putting the dollar into a new downsized place. One key influence is the annual expansion of China’s trade volume with other core countries by 40% in 2010 — and the buoyancy looks set to continue. The BRICS’ state development banks, including the China Development Bank, agreed to use their own currencies instead of the dollar in issuing credit or grants to each other — and they will also phase out the dollar in overall settlements and lending among each other.

In the recent past, it seemed as though many were discussing an “alternative” reserve currency to take the place of the dollar in an international context. However, from the information which can be gathered above, it would appear as though the so-called BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and newly added South Africa) are moving towards something of a multicurrency system which, presumably, would incorporate the currencies, to one degree or another, of the member states noted above.

It is difficult to comment upon these events in detail at the time of this writing as the full ramifications of S&P’s downgrade, in conjunction with the BRICS announcements, could substantially impact the United States, Thailand, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a whole; since all of these entities have economic and political ties to the BRICS nations.

Concurrently, it would appear as though the Kingdom of Thailand remains something of an oasis of economic stability amidst the events unfolding above as tourism in Thailand along with the business of Thai Companies would appear to be steady. Currently, Thailand maintains thriving economic ties with the United States pursuant to agreements such as the US-Thai Treaty of Amity.

For related information please see: Thai business visa or US Company Registration.

Tags: American Business, ASEAN, ASEAN Business, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Brazil Business, BRIC, BRICS, business in America, Business in ASEAN, business in China, business in India, business in Russia, Business in Thailand, China Business, China Development Bank, India Business, international financial transactions, multicurrency reserve, Russia Business, S&P, South Africa Business, Sovereign Debt, Sovereign Debt Downgrade, Standard and Poor's, Thailand Business, US Sovereign Debt, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in News | No Comments »

On what could be described as a sad day for civil liberties in the United States it was recently noted that America is in something of a figurative de facto state of war upon the internet manifestation of the game of Poker. To quote directly from what would appear to be a Daily Mail article posted on the website ThisIsMoney.co.uk:

Three of the largest online poker sites were taken over by the FBI on Friday in the probe that could bring about the death of the internet gambling industry. Websites Full Title Poker, Absolute Poker and PokerStars were all shut down and replaced with warning messages. Their owners were charged with bank fraud and money laundering.

The acronym UIGEA noted above is used to condense the name of the provisions of the so-called SAFE Port Act‘s section which was, at one time prior to enactment, referred to as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. There remains a great deal of controversy surrounding the UIGEA provisions of the SAFE Port Act especially as the addition of the UIGEA language occurred through what could be described as legislative chicanery. In order to better shed light upon this issue it may be best to quote directly from Wikipedia:

The Act was passed on the last day before Congress adjourned for the 2006 elections. Though a bill with the gambling wording was previously debated and passed by the House of Representatives,^[6][7][8] the SAFE Port Act (H.R. 4954) as passed by the House on May 4th (by a vote of 421-2) and the United States Senate on September 14th (98-0),^[9] bore no traces of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act that was included in the SAFE Port Act signed into law by George W. Bush on October 13th, 2006.^[10] The UIGEA was added in Conference Report 109-711 (submitted at 9:29pm on September 29, 2006), which was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 409-2 and by the Senate by unanimous consent on September 30, 2006. Due to H.RES.1064, the reading of this conference report was waived.

Clearly, the passage of the amended version of the SAFE Port Act was accomplished via a rather circuitous legislative route. Meanwhile, the enforcement of this Act’s provisions have been noted by some to have had a massive impact upon both the online gaming industry as well as other industries whose business models dovetail those of many online gaming endeavors.

How this whole situation will ultimately play out remains anyone’s guess, but there is little doubt that legal matters pertaining to online gaming are likely to be at the forefront of many judicial dockets in the upcoming months.

As a former licensed poker dealer himself, this blogger is somewhat saddened to hear this news as the game of Poker, both in its real-world and online forms, is a favorite pastime of many players both in the United States of America and around the world.

For related information please see: Online Gaming Lawyers.

Tags: Absolute Poker, bank fraud, CEO Raymond Bitar, Full Tilt Poker, Internet Gambling, Internet Gambling Law, Internet Gambling Lawyer, Internet Gaming, internet gaming law, Internet Gaming Lawyer, internet poker, money laundering, Nelson Burtnick, Online Gambling, Online Gambling Law, Online Gambling Lawyer, Online Gaming, Online Gaming Law, Online Gaming Lawyer, online poker, Online Poker Law, PokerStars, UIGEA
Posted in Gaming Law | No Comments »

As a Citizen of Kansas, this blogger is rather used to stories about tornadoes, but when news of multiple tornadoes across the United States comes to the fore it may be something noteworthy even for those based in Southeast Asia. To quote directly from Meteorologist Meghan Evans on AccuWeather.com:

From Thursday, April 14, 2011 to Saturday, April, 16, 2011, devastating tornadoes rampaged across communities of the southern United States. Cities and towns from Oklahoma to North Carolina were assaulted by the deadly twisters.

The tornado outbreak led to a total of 241 tornado reports in 14 states over the three-day period. This will likely rank this tornado outbreak among the largest in history.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more about this tragic situation.  Meanwhile, it would appear as though the situation in Japan continues to be traumatic for both the government of that country as well as the public-at-large. Bearing this in mind, the engineers at the Fukushima nuclear facility have noted that the process of recovery could be quite time consuming. To quote directly from NECN.com:

In Japan, engineers say they will need up to nine months to fully shut down the damaged reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. And government officials are heading to areas that are slated for evacuation — amid warnings of possible new radiation leaks.

The situation in Japan remains a concern for nations and individuals throughout Asia and the world due to both the human toll as well as the damage caused by what can only be described as a “perfect storm” of events which befell Japan on March 11, 2011. It would appear as though the situation is even becoming an increasingly serious cause of concern for the Department of State. In fact, Secretary Clinton was quoted by NECN.com as stating:

“After the Indian Ocean tsunami, after the hurricane Katrina, after the earthquake in Haiti, Japan sent aid and often aid workers,” she said. “In places unsettled by conflict from Somalia to the Golan Heights Japan sends peacekeepers. To help Pakistan meet its security and economic challenges, Japan organized a donors’ conference and pledged one billion dollars itself. Japan is one of the world’s most generous nations and the dozens of countries that have sent support in the past five weeks, are honoring Japan’s legacy of caring for others.”

NECN.com is not the only news outlet which is currently reporting on the situation in Japan as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been keeping up with this story as well. To quote directly from the BBC‘s official website BBC.co.uk:

The operator of Japan’s crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has said it expects to bring the crisis under control by the end of the year. Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) aims to reduce radiation leaks in three months and to cool the reactors within nine months. The utility said it also plans to cover the reactor building, which was hit by a huge quake and tsunami on 11 March… America has won Japanese admiration for sending scores of US ships and aircraft as well as 20,000 troops to help the relief effort. Operation Tomodachi, or Friend, was the biggest humanitarian mission the US has conducted in Japan.

The administration of this web log highly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above in order to read these stories in full and thereby gain further insight into these developments.

All of the developments noted above could prove to be concerning to both local populations experiencing these tragedies in real time as well as the global community since problems arising from weather related events in one part of the world could have a significant economic and political impact upon nations and individuals in a different geographic location.

In the case of the Japanese Crisis, many feel as though the geopolitical and economic reverberations emanating from the situation in Japan are likely to cause a sort of “ripple effect” which will continue to impact business in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the United States of America. The exact nature and magnitude of these reverberations remains to be seen as it seems likely that the economies of the world will react in different ways to the unfolding situation in Japan.

For related information please see: business in China or US Visa Thailand.

Tags: 241 tornado reports, Fukushima, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Hillary Clinton, hurricane Katrina, Indian Ocean tsunami, Operation Tomodachi, Southeastern USA, TEPCO, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Tornado, Tornadoes
Posted in American Business | No Comments »

This blogger recently read a rather interesting piece about the future of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It is becoming increasingly clear that ASEAN will continue to play a key role in the regional politics of Southeast Asia notwithstanding the seemingly ever present role of domestic politics and bi-lateral relationships in all international contexts. To quote directly from a concisely written article by Amitav Acharya, American University, Washington and posted on the website EastAsiaForum.org:

ASEAN’s irrelevance or even death has been predicted several times before. At its birth in 1967, few people thought it would live to see another decade, given that the two previous attempts at regional cooperation in Southeast Asia — the Association of Southeast Asia and the MAPHILINDO (Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia) concept — ended within a few years after their creation. The Malaysia-Philippines dispute over Sabah in 1969, the aftermath of the US withdrawal from Indochina in 1975, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1979, the end of the Cold War in 1991 and the outbreak of the Asian financial crisis in 1997, have all been seen as critical blows to ASEAN. But ASEAN not only survived, it actually grew a bit stronger each time. So there is precedent, and hope, that ASEAN will be around in 2030.

But surviving is not the same as thriving. In 2030, ASEAN might keep plodding on, but will it still be a key player in regional peace, stability and prosperity in Asia? This question is more difficult to answer.

Clearly, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been a steadfast regional organization and seems likely to remain one in the future. It would appear from implications in the above quotation as if there are those who believe that dynamism must be maintained by ASEAN in the future in order to ensure continued prosperity. That stated, deftly maintaining coherent regional policies amidst intra-ASEAN tensions also appears to be of concern:

A second question about ASEAN’s future is what the state of intra-ASEAN relations will be. The ongoing skirmishes on the Thai-Cambodian border do not inspire confidence. Simmering rivalries and mistrust continue to cloud relationships between Singapore and Malaysia, Thailand and Burma, and Malaysia and Thailand. But this is a far cry from the 1960s and 1970s, and there is every reason to hope that these intra-ASEAN conflicts will not doom the organisation. They would need, however, to be managed carefully, especially with the help of existing and new mechanisms that ASEAN is currently seeking to develop.

Meanwhile, it would appear as though looking ahead at all regions of the world the prospects for some nations are not nearly as upbeat as those of ASEAN. It would appear as though tensions are arising in the countries of Saudi Arabia and Iran to the point that some commentators in the United States and on the World Wide Web are dubbing the situation a “New Cold War”.  To quote directly from an article written by Bill Spindle and Margaret Coker and posted on the Wall Street Journal‘s official website WSJ.com:

For all the attention the Mideast protests have received, their most notable impact on the region thus far hasn’t been an upswell of democracy. It has been a dramatic spike in tensions between two geopolitical titans, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

This new Middle East cold war comes complete with its own spy-versus-spy intrigues, disinformation campaigns, shadowy proxy forces, supercharged state rhetoric—and very high stakes.

Those reading this blog are highly encouraged to click on the hyperlinks noted above to read further from what may prove to be an important article. Although the political and economic winds of change tend to move about the global geopolitical landscape incrementally there come times where changes can occur quite rapidly and the unfolding situation in the Middle East would appear to be evolving in unprecedented ways. That stated, if two poles of regional geopolitical power are indeed coalescing, then that would be an issue of interest for all nations throughout the world since such information can have a substantial impact upon trade, economics, and political matters in an international context. Hopefully, the current turbulence will resolve itself toward the maintenance of peace for all concerned, but such a hope may in the end prove to have been optimistic.

For related information please see: US-Thai Treaty of Amity or US Company Registration.

Tags: ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Burma, Cambodia, Cold War, Cold War Iran, Cold War Iran Saudi Arabia, Cold War Saudi Arabia, Geopolitics, Indonesia, intra-ASEAN, Iran, Laos, Malaysia, Middle East cold war, Myanmar, New Cold War, New Cold War Saudi Arabia Iran, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Thailand company, US Company Registration, Vietnam
Posted in ASEAN Business | No Comments »

Those who read this blog with any degree of frequency may have noticed that the administration of this resource considers the issue of same sex marriage; and Federal recognition thereof, to be one of, if not the, foremost pending political and legal issues of the age. This opinion is based upon the fact that currently discriminatory Federal policies regarding recognition of properly solemnized and legalized State marriages between same sex couples are clearly operating in violation of long held Constitutional notions regarding State Sovereignty, Federalism, Separation of Powers, Full Faith and Credit, and Equal Protection.

Bearing the above in mind, it should be noted that there are legislators in Washington D.C. who seem committed to the cause of Equal Rights for the LGBT Community. To quote directly from a post on the website ImmigrationEqualityActionFund.org, apparently authored by Steve Ralls (Contact Details: 202-347-7007, [email protected]):

Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, and Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Honda (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Jackie Speier (D-CA) announced the re-introduction of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). This overdue legislation would allow gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their permanent partners for legal residency in the United States, a right currently enjoyed only by married heterosexuals under immigration law. Because the U.S. does not legally recognize gay and lesbian couples and their children as families, many same-sex binational couples are torn apart. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also introduced UAFA today in the Senate.

In previous postings on this blog, the efforts of Representative Jerrold Nadler in support of the LGBT Community and same sex bi-national couples have been noted and Representative Nadler’s current reintroduction of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is simply one more example of this legislator’s continuing dedication to the cause of Equal Rights for the LGBT community. On a related note, it was recently pointed out that Representative Nadler is also a proponent of the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA) which would provide Federal recognition for same sex marriages solemnized and legalized in a sovereign State.

At the time of this momentous event this blogger would ask all interested parties in matters pertaining to Liberty, States Rights, Civil Liberties, and Personal Freedom to take heed of the current events involved in the struggle to obtain equal protection under the law for the LGBT community as a whole as well as same sex bi-national couples who are currently separated due to the current state of American Immigration law. On that point, it should be noted that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) recently attempted to put policies in place to halt deportations of foreign same sex partners of American Citizens. It would appear as though USCIS’s policy was aimed at providing some relief, akin to that once accorded to individuals impacted by the so-called “Widow’s Penalty,” to those who are currently subjected to Federal non-recognition of same sex marriages, even those lawfully solemnized and legalized in a sovereign US State,  pursuant to what are clearly Unconstitutional provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). That said, as of the time of this writing it is this blogger’s understanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rescinded USCIS’s hold on such deportations thereby allowing the same sex bi-national spouse, even if the underlying marriage was solemnized and legalized in one of the Several States, to be deported.

The current discriminatory practices, pertaining to the LGBT community, on the part of the United States government are so pervasive that even first-year law students are aware of the issue. The current legal discrimination faced by a same sex bi-national couple seeking immigration benefits in much the same manner as their different-sex counterparts is so noticeable that even those with only an elemental grasp of the dynamics of United States law can discern many of the issues. To quote directly from a blog post titled Why Denying Homosexuals the Right to Marry is Completely Unconstitutional, authored by Sarah McCarthy on the site My Dog Ate My Blog:

Our country (as I’ve learned over the past week) essentially works like this: states are presumed to have all the power. Our founding fathers were most worried about tyrannical government, and hence wanted to give individual states the power to govern themselves and make their own laws in almost every situation. Hence, in the U.S., we really do have 50 different sets of law governing 50 different states.

Some of these 50 States have opted to use their lawmaking powers to provide marital benefits to same sex couples wishing to marry within their jurisdiction. The administration of this blog would strongly suggest that readers click on the hyperlinks noted above to read more from the above cited posting.  As noted by Ms. McCarty above, pursuant to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, those powers not specifically enumerated to accrue to the Federal government are to be reserved to the States and the People respectively. Therefore, pursuant to the explicit language of the 10th Amendment and the implications present throughout the Constitution as a whole inherent State rights, such as the right to marry those within the jurisdiction of a given State, are generally considered to be beyond the bailiwick of the Federal government.

Even though legislative initiatives may ultimately prove to be effective for the LGBT community in securing some of the rights, privileges, and immunities associated with marriage it is this blogger’s opinion that only through full repeal of DOMA by the US Congress or the overturning of that legislation on Constitutional grounds by the US Supreme Court can the issue be laid to rest. In this blogger’s opinion, it is especially desirable that a “case or controversy,” such as that which recently arose in Massachusetts Federal Court, be brought before the United States Supreme Court as only that body has the authority, and possibly expertise, to delineate the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause with regard to interstate vs. State-Federal recognition of same sex marriages.

There are some who have raised the argument that the same sex marriages which are legal in certain jurisdiction are only legal as a result of judicial fiat. However, this blogger would argue that, especially in the case of Massachusetts, there are strong indications that there is a political will manifesting itself in favor of same sex marriages, at least within that jurisdiction. To support this claim it may be best to quote directly from an article written by Pam Belluck and published by the New York Times on June 14, 2007:

Same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Massachusetts, after proponents in both houses won a pitched months-long battle on Thursday to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,” Governor Deval Patrick said after the legislature voted 151 to 45 against the amendment, which needed 50 favorable votes to come before voters in a referendum in November 2008.

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to read this story in detail. Clearly, there are those within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who support equal marital rights for same sex couples. However, Federal recognition of same sex unions remains to be seen. Hopefully, through continued action on the part of legislators such as those mentioned above the notions of Equal Protection under the law and State sovereignty will be upheld to the benefit of all American families.

For more information please see: Same Sex Visa or same sex marriage.

Tags: Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Representative Jackie Speier, Representative Jared Polis, Representative John Conyers, Representative Luis Gutierrez, Representative Mike Honda, Representative Tammy Baldwin, Respect for Marriage Act, RFMA, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, US Department of Homeland Security, USCIS
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that new In Vitro Fertilization methods could see future children born with 3 parents. Although this may sound like something from science fiction, clearly this is a real issue which could have real world implications. In order to provide a degree of insight to the reader on this topic it may be best to quote directly from Wikipedia:

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the body, in vitro. IVF is a major treatment in infertility when other methods of assisted reproductive technology have failed. The process involves hormonally controlling the ovulatory process, removing ova (eggs) from the woman’s ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a fluid medium. The fertilised egg (zygote) is then transferred to the patient’s uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy. The first successful birth of a “test tube baby”, Louise Brown, occurred in 1978. Robert G. Edwards, the doctor who developed the treatment, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2010. Before that, there was a transient biochemical pregnancy reported by Australian Foxton School researchers in 1953 and an ectopic pregnancy reported by Steptoe and Edwards in 1976.

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above in order to gain perspective and insight into the way that IVF actually works.  According to recent reports, it would appear that new IVF methodologies may allow for a child to be born with three biological parents.  To quote directly from the official website of the BBC at BBC.co.uk:

Embryos containing DNA from a man and two women have been created by scientists at Newcastle University.

They say their research, published in the journal Nature, has the potential to help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children…The work raised several ethical problems… including safety risks, children with DNA from two mothers, and making genetic changes to unborn children.

IVF and medical procedures of the same ilk may have been considered of little concern in the legal and immigration contexts during years past, but new developments, such as those noted above, could have tremendous implications for future seekers of a US Passport, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or similar identity documentation acquired both domestically or at US Embassies and US Consulates abroad. For further insight this blogger felt it prudent to quote directly from a blog post by PrideAngelAdmin on PrideAngel.com:

The first baby with three biological parents could be conceived next year after the Government announced a major review of Britain’s fertility laws.

The move would allow doctors to use a revolutionary IVF technique that prevents incurable, deadly genetic illnesses being passed down from mothers to their children.

Babies created with the therapy – called three-parent IVF – would inherit 98 per cent of their DNA from their ‘real’ parents. The rest would come from a female donor.

The scientists say the donor genes would not alter the children’s appearance or personality, but would stop them dying from painful diseases of the heart, liver and brain.

As can be seen from the above cited quotations, most of the dialogue that is occurring with respect to the issue of 3 parent IVF is emanating more from Great Britain than from the United States, but it should be noted that these issues could have an impact upon the way in which possible future American immigration benefits are bequeathed. Meanwhile, new IVF methodologies may require changes in the rules and protocols regarding issuance of Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA) since there never really seem to have been provisions in place for a child born with three biological parents. It remains to be seen how these new technologies and procedures will impact American jurisprudence regarding United States Immigration, Family Law, and the rules and regulations regarding US Citizenship.

In this blogger’s personal opinion, the implications of possible 3 parent IVF could be as important in an American Citizenship context as the promulgation and enactment of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. Who can say if it might not be possible in the future to see a child receive a Certificate of Citizenship based upon a parent-child biological relationship stemming from shared mitochondrial DNA? As humanity’s technological prowess becomes more defined legal issues may be increasingly raised in contexts that few in the past would have dreamed could even exist at all.

For the LGBT community, the citations noted above should be borne in mind especially by those who may wish to start a family in the future as it may one day be possible to see children born as a result of increasingly creative medical breakthroughs.

Tags: 3 Parent In Vitro Fertilization, 3 Parent IVF, American Citizenship, assisted reproductive technology, CCA, Certificate of Citizenship, Child Citizenship Act, Child Citizenship Act of 2000, consular report of birth abroad, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, CRBA, in vitro, In Vitro Fertilization, infertility, IVF, mitochondrial DNA, Test Tube Baby, Three Parent In Vitro Fertilization, Three Parent IVF, US Citizenship, us passport
Posted in US Citizenship | No Comments »

This blogger recently came across a great deal of interesting information pertaining to issues surrounding the consular processing of United States visas and visa applications.

The first item of note involves a recent United States Federal Court decision which spoke to the issue of the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability (sometimes referred to by the somewhat draconian sounding: Doctrine of “Consular Absolutism”). It would appear that one issue in that case revolved around the procedural usage of administrative designations made by interviewing Consular Officers at the US Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) which were then utilized as a basis for administratively establishing findings of misrepresentation by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) thereby creating a grounds for revoking the underlying petition. It seems that the Judge in this case did not agree with the plaintiff that usage of so-called “P6C1” tags caused any “actual injury” as “natural expiration” of immigration petitions apparently does not rise to the level of “revocation” under the circumstances in that case. To quote directly from the PDF version of the official order dated March 29, 2011 as found on the Entry Law website at EntryLaw.com:

The F&R concludes that plaintiffs have stated a claim under the APA challenging 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 as unlawful and in excess of the agency’s statutory authority. F&R 25. That provision states that where a consular officer finds what she believes to be misrepresentation with regard to a family-based immigrant visa petition, the consular officer “must return the petition to the appropriate USCIS office. If the petition is revoked, the materiality of the misrepresentation is established.” 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1. Plaintiffs allege that by placing a “P6C1” marker in a visa beneficiary’s record—indicating a perceived misrepresentation—the State Department saddled plaintiffs with a “permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility” if USCIS revokes the petition. First Am. Compl. ¶ 158.4

I reject plaintiffs’ argument, and decline to follow the F&R, because plaintiffs have not properly alleged that a P6C1 marker has any effect on them. Importantly, 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 states that the materiality of a misrepresentation is only established “[i]f the petition is revoked,” and plaintiffs have not alleged that USCIS revoked the petitions. Therefore, plaintiffs have not stated a plausible claim that any future bar to immigration possibility would attach to plaintiffs as a result of the P6C1 marker. The F&R concludes that because USCIS does not act on petitions, and allows them to expire after denials, that inaction is equivalent to a revocation, and therefore would trigger the permanent misrepresentation bar. F&R 26. However, plaintiffs do not cite any authority for the proposition that the word “revoked” in 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 includes inaction that allows a petition to expire naturally. Nor have plaintiffs offered any support for the allegation that they are in fact barred from any future action. Thus, plaintiffs have not yet alleged any actual injury with respect to the P6C1 marker. Plaintiffs argue that they should not be required to show actual injury because they are entitled to assume the defendants will “enforce the law as written,” and any future action by plaintiffs would therefore be futile. F&R 27. Because I conclude that the law as written only bars petitioners whose petitions were “revoked,” and not those whose petitions expired naturally, I find no basis upon which to exempt plaintiffs from showing injury. Plaintiffs therefore do not have standing, and have not stated a claim, regarding the Department of State’s use of the P6C1 marker.

Those interested in learning more about the detailed facts of this case as well as issues pertaining to Consular Processing in general are well advised to click on the hyperlinks above to learn more about the seemingly ever evolving issues associated with the US Immigration process and the process of obtaining so-called “hybrid” family-based visas such as the K-1 visa or the K-3 visa as well as classic immigrant visas such as the CR-1 visa and the IR-1 visa from the various US Embassies, Consulates and Missions abroad.

These so-called “P6C1″ markers are not necessarily disagreeable to this blogger per se, but their usage can be troubling to those who study how the visa process works in a real-world environment. This blogger fully believes that Consular Officers are entitled to make factually based decisions which may have legal ramifications either in the form of a finding of a legal grounds of inadmissibility which may or may not be waivable through application for an I-601 waiver and/or an I-212 waiver (depending upon the situation). That said, why all of the redundancy? Where applicable, why not simply make the material misrepresentation finding of inadmissibility at the American Consulate or American Embassy abroad thereby providing a more streamlined opportunity for applicants to seek a remedy in the form of a waiver from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), if applicable? Why would the application package be sent back to USCIS with a so-called marker? The Consular Officers at US Missions abroad are adjudicators of visa applications and both the wide latitude of their discretion as well as the virtually non-reviewable nature of their factual findings are legal creations designed to lend efficiency to visa processing because the Consular Officers are in the best position to make factual determinations. Why send the petition back to USCIS with the “misrepresentation marker” at all? The USCIS is not in any discernably better position to make a determination regarding the veracity of the application. Therefore, DOS is failing to make an actual decision while simultaneously placing USCIS in a position where they cannot really claim to be able to better review the facts of the case as it was the Consular Officer who actually interviewed the applicant and adjudicated the posture of the overall application. It has been this blogger’s experience that visa applicants and petitioners are looking for some degree of certainty in the visa process. If an applicant is possibly legally inadmissible to the USA do not the notions of efficiency and equity seem to dictate quick adjudication of a finding of inadmissibility, if applicable, and visa denial, if appropriate? From the point of view of the inadmissible applicant the argument in favor of quick visa denial may possibly stem from the desire to seek a waiver in a timely manner thereafter.

Many of the Founding Fathers who drafted the United States Constitution were involved in the creation of legislation which would lead to the establishment of the Department of State. It would seem to this blogger as though these gentlemen did so because they recognized that America would need a governmental entity to deal with affairs of State, international trade matters, and Consular affairs so that average Americans could get on with their personal business and so that those of foreign origin would have an organ by which to entreat with the government of the United States of America. In an effort at providing more clarity on this topic it may be best to quote directly from Wikipedia:

The U.S. Constitution, drafted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 and ratified by the states the following year, gave the President the responsibility for the conduct of the nation’s foreign relations. It soon became clear, however, that an executive department was necessary to support the President in the conduct of the affairs of the new federal government.

The House of Representatives and Senate approved legislation to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs on July 21, 1789, and President Washington signed it into law on July 27, making the Department of Foreign Affairs the first Federal agency to be created under the new Constitution.^[2] This legislation remains the basic law of the Department of State. In September 1789, additional legislation changed the name of the agency to the Department of State and assigned to it a variety of domestic duties.

These responsibilities grew to include management of the United States Mint, keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, and the taking of the census. President George Washington signed the new legislation on September 15. Most of these domestic duties of the Department of State were eventually turned over to various new Federal departments and agencies that were established during the 19th century. However, the Secretary of State still retains a few domestic responsibilities, such as being the keeper of the Great Seal and being the officer to whom a President or Vice-President of the United States wishing to resign must deliver an instrument in writing declaring the decision to resign.

Those wishing to better understand the history of the American State Department are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read more on this engrossing topic.

Bearing the above legal opinion from the Federal Court for the District of Oregon’s Portland Division in mind, the reader may be interested to take note of the fact that some students of issues associated with Consular Processing of American visas are taking exception with some of the Department of State’s practices and proposing measures in an attempt to provide some sort of notification mechanism for complaints regarding Consular Officers at US Missions abroad seemingly aimed at curtailing what some feel are negative aspects of Consular discretion. To quote directly from Kenneth White in an article posted on ILW.com:

In contrast to other immigration-related agencies such as USCIS and CBP, the Department of State (“Department”) has no formal complaint system. The Department has a Customer Service Statement to Visa Applicants on its website,¹ yet does not indicate how to pursue a complaint for a violation of the rights specified. The “How to Contact Us” page of the Department’s website mentions “inquiries” but not complaints. The Glossary page of the Travel.State.gov/visa section of the Department’s website indicates how to file a complaint with CBP, but not the State Department. Consular websites are silent on the issue of filing complaints.

In October 2009, the Department announced to the American Immigration Lawyers Association an address² within the Visa Office to send complaints. However, the Visa Office does not investigate the complaints: it merely recites the consular officer’s version of events. Further, the mandate of the Department’s Office of Inspector General is limited to instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. It is abundantly clear that a genuine Complaint Procedure must be implemented.

The administration of this web log highly encourages readers to click on the above cited hyperlinks for further detailed information about consular processing and Mr. White’s opinions thereon. This blogger agreed with a great deal of the analysis presented in this article such as the author’s somewhat economic rationale in favor of at least the argument that some sort of complaint system may be beneficial to Consular processing, to quote further from the aforementioned posting:

dollars and sense – International visitors and students spend billions of dollars every year in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs are dependent on this spending by foreigners. Competition for the travel dollar is intense, with other countries not requiring visa interviews and utilizing visa procedures that are faster and cheaper than the US. Thus, it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that consular officers treat applicants respectfully and professionally;

The American People in general, the States as well as all sectors of the Federal government should always be aware of the tremendous amount of economic activity that occurs as a result of foreign direct investment in the United States as well as tourist dollars spent in the United States of America. Streamlined visa processing and professional Consular staff are always a good idea, but this blogger did take some exception with at least one passage in the aforementioned article:

doctrine of consular nonreviewability – There is no formal administrative or judicial review of the overwhelming majority of visa decisions, meaning that consular officers are not accountable to applicants for the decisions they make. In the view of many, this non-accountability consciously or subconsciously emboldens consular officers, leading to a fiefdom mentality;

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click upon the above hyperlinks to read further from this detailed and well researched article so that all quotes cited above can be understood in context. This blogger would not say that he is unequivocally in favor of the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability (also colloquially referred to as the Doctrine of “Consular Absolutism“) per se, as any time a significant amount of discretion is vested in a non-elected officer of the American government one should ponder the implications of such a state of affairs, but the argument for such a doctrine within the factual context of consular processing has to take into consideration the notion of “efficiency” which would seem to presuppose that there are some decisions which given the totality of the circumstances can only be efficiently made by an adjudicator on the ground in the applicant’s home country or country with appropriate consular jurisdiction. Presumably, there are unlikely to be a great many such adjudicators and those who do exist are likely to have a great many cases and/or applications to adjudicate. Therefore, there are reasonable arguments in favor of granting wide discretion to Consular officers in matters pertaining to factual adjudication of applications, but readers should not mistake this blogger to mean that he is in favor of unlimited discretion on the part of Consular Officers. The Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability provides that a great deal of deference will be paid to Consular Officers’ factual decisions by the US Courts, but that is not to say that the Courts do not have jurisdiction over visa denials especially when such denials are “facially illegitimate“. Bearing this in mind, as can be seen from the case above, American Courts are generally loathe to review visa denials as doing so could be viewed by some as a waste of Court resources and because it currently appears somewhat difficult for most Courts to sufficiently review a Consular Officer’s decision in a given case from a position that is qualitatively better than the unique perspective of the Officer on the ground in the country where the application is taking place. Proving that a Consular Officer’s decision is “facially illegitimate” could seem like a virtually insurmountable standard of proof, but fortunately it is not wholly impossible to receive judicial review of visa decisions as doing so would be a truly frightening concept from a due process perspective. That stated, having all Consular Officers’ decisions reviewed by the Court system seems equally as frightening if one considers how much time, energy, and resources would need to be expended in order to maintain such a docket.

To be clear, this blogger agrees with a great deal of Mr. Kenneth White’s analysis on many of the issues associated with Consular Processing, but where this blogger takes some degree of exception relates to the notion that officers have a “fiefdom” mentality. Although this blogger certainly cannot speak for everyone who has undergone Consular Processing, it has never been this blogger’s personal opinion that Consular Officers have a “fiefdom-mentality”. That stated, as an American Resident Abroad, this blogger must say that it does not seem like such a bad thing for American civil servants abroad, Consular Officers included, to take some pride in their position as a representative of America and the American people. As such, an Officer taking an interest in the efficiency and business of their US Embassy or US Consulate may also be prudent to take a personal interest in the overall impact of Post policies and procedures upon applicants, petitioners, and their families.

The notion of a Consular Complaint Box is something that should be pondered by interested parties long and hard especially in light of the fact that the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability appears to still be as virtually unshakable as it ever has been. Therefore, the main question regarding a Consular Complaint Box that this blogger feels should be posed is: what benefit will the public receive from such an undertaking? If the Consular Officers continue to be endowed with virtually non-reviewable authority what good is it to be able to complain about it? What good would this do? This does not provide a tangible remedy to the applicant in the event of an adverse decision. Furthermore, would not the implementation of such a policy result in simply further paperwork for Department of State employees, but under such circumstances to no particularized end? In this blogger’s opinion, it is probably better that DOS use what resources it has with regard to Consular Processing to one end alone: efficiently adjudicating visa applications as that is clearly within their mandate. That stated, a complaint system to deter truly rude behavior as noted in Kenneth White’s article above may ultimately prove appropriate, but this blogger might make further suggestions. For example, how about something akin to an “Alien Miranda Warning”. Where American peace officers are required to Mirandize suspects so as to put them on constructive notice of rights like the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney it could prove beneficial for all concerned in the immigration process if Consular Officers made it clear that foreign applicants could seek the advice and counsel of licensed American attorneys regarding pending or prospective immigration matters pursuant to section 8 CFR 292.1, as amended. Such a suggestion should not be construed to be advocating attorney consultation regarding submission of complaints. Instead, attorneys may be best equipped to apprise prospective visa seekers of relevant immigration law as well as the regulations pertaining to application for various United States visa categories. One aspect of the issues surrounding Consular Processing that seems to be of little concern to the public-at-large involves doomed applications made by those who truly cannot overcome statutory presumptions such as that enshrined in section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. The time and resources expended by Posts to adjudicate and deny visa applicants pursuant to section 214(b) of the INA and the time and resources needlessly expended by the applicants who are denied under this section of the INA could often be saved through effective assistance of counsel in providing advice and information regarding the likelihood of visa application approval based upon the unique facts of a given case. In short, perhaps informing applicants and petitioners of the issues associated with US Immigration rather than creating a mechanism to complain to what appears to be rather overworked Consular Officers is the appropriate course of action at this juncture. Hopefully, by thus informing concerned parties regarding US Immigration matters the negative overall impact from so-called “visa companies”, notarios, visa agents, and fake lawyers can be diminished to the benefit of the prospective immigrant community and the American People.

Tags: Consular Absolutism, Consular Complaint Box, Consular Non-Reviewability, Consular Processing, CR-1 Visa Process, Department of State, DOS, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, IR-1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa Process, K-3 visa process, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Consulate HCMC, US Embassy, US Visa Process, USCIS
Posted in US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hong Kong, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Macau, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Vladivostok, US Consulate Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Brunei Darussalam, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Iraq, US Embassy Islamabad, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan), US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Mauritius, US Embassy Mongolia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy New Zealand, US Embassy Pakistan, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Russia, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Turkmenistan, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Uzbekistan, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department | No Comments »