Integrity Legal

This blog routinely discusses issues and news relevant to US Immigration. In a recent announcement from the Office of Public Engagement, within the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), it was noted that a new Director has been named to oversee the activities of the California Service Center. The following is a copy of the announcement directly quoted from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:

Dear Stakeholders,

USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas has appointed Rosemary Langley Melville, currently the Acting Regional Director in the Southeast Region, as the new California Service Center (CSC) Director. Ms. Melville will assume her new responsibilities in late August.

Effective Monday, July 12th Barbara Velarde, Deputy Associate Director for Service Center Operations, assumed the role of Acting Director of the CSC with Phoenix District Director John Kramar as the Acting Deputy Director. We look forward to working together as we continue to address areas of common interest.

The California Service Center plays an integral part in US Family Visa cases as it processes a large number of visa petitions each year. For those living in certain Western US States the California Service Center is most often the processing point for K1 visa applications as well as the I-129f petitions submitted in connection with the K3 Visa category.

Those seeking traditional US Marriage Visa benefits may also have their petition processed by the California Service Center. When an I-130 petition (used by those seeking the CR1 and/or IR1 visa) is submitted to USCIS, the Lockbox Facility will usually forward the petition to either the California Service Center or its counterpart, the USCIS Service Center in Vermont. USCIS adjudicates the merits of the petition and assuming there is an approval in the case the file will be forwarded to the Department of State’s National Visa Center where it will either be quickly forwarded to the proper US Consulate or US Embassy (as is the case in the K1 visa process or the K3 visa process) or the NVC will hold the petition and begin the process of accumulating relevant documentation. After necessary documents are compiled the whole file will be forwarded to the Consular Post with appropriate jurisdiction.

If a visa application is denied by the US Consulate then the file will be sent back to USCIS for revocation. Under certain circumstances, a petitioner may challenge a USCIS revocation.

For further information regarding recent developments pertaining to Consular Processing and USCIS revocation please see: US visa denial.

Tags: United States Citizenship and Immigration Servioce, US Embassy, US Family Visa, US Marriage Visa, US Visa, us visa denial, USCIS, USCIS California Service Center
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, News, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 2 Comments »

K1 visas are a topic frequently discussed on this web log as they are a rather popular travel document for those American Citizens who have a foreign fiancee living outside of the United States of America. That said, in a recently filed complaint before the Federal District Court of Oregon an American Citizen, Dzu Cong Tran, asked for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a writ of mandamus in connection with his previously filed I-129f petition on behalf of his Vietnamese fiancee. To quote the opening of the complaint:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Nearly three years ago, the former United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Ombudsman Mr. Prakash Khatri issued recommendations to Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and USCIS regarding necessary changes to the standards and
processes for re-adjudication of petitions returned by consular offices for revocation or revalidation, due to systemic nationwide failures of the system. Two years ago, Jonathan R. Scharfen, former Acting Director of USCIS under the Bush Administration responded to the USCIS Ombudsman’s recommendations, implementing only some of those recommendations and specifically rejecting others. This class action lawsuit involves some of the recommendations of the USCIS Ombudsman which were rejected by defendants, in addition to other issues.

Through the contradictory and unlawful practices of each defendant agency, plaintiff and class members have been aggrieved by agency action and inaction, have suffered agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, have been subjected to arbitrary, capricious and unlawful denials and file transfers, have been deprived of due process of law and had visa issuance and petition approval denied or unreasonably withheld contrary to constitutional right, contrary to procedure required by law, and contrary to the limitations of statutory jurisdiction and authority. Thousands of families across the country and around the
world have been separated due to a colossal sparring match between the defendant agencies, and because of internal dissent within each agency.

Specifically, Plaintiff Dzu Cong Tran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, challenges (a) defendant U.S. State Department’s (State Department’s) policies and procedures for processing and returning approved petitions to defendant U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with a recommendation that the petition be revoked; and (b) defendant USCIS’ policies and procedures for revoking, denying or terminating petitions returned to it by defendant State Department. Plaintiff respectfully petitions this Court for injunctive, declaratory and mandamus relief to: (a) compel State Department to schedule a
visa interview within a reasonable period from the date that State Department’s National Visa Center receives an approved I-129F petition for fiancé(e) from USCIS; (b) compel State Department to issue a K-1 visa to the fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen or notify the petitioner and beneficiary that the petition will be returned to DHS/USCIS within reasonable period following interview; (c) compel State Department to provide a reasonable period during which a petitioner and beneficiary may rebut consular findings before the petition is returned to DHS/USCIS; (d) compel State Department to return petitions to DHS/USCIS only where substantial evidence
exists that fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility would lead to denial, and not where it is merely suspected; and to provide a written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return that are not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant; (e)compel State Department to render a final decision to approve the K-1 visa or return a petition to
DHS/USCIS within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of all necessary documents from the petitioner and beneficiary, and to accomplish delivery of the petition to State Department’s National Visa Center within such period; (f) declare that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5), which purports to limit the validity of a K-1 fiancé(e) petition (Form I-129F) to four months, is ultra vires and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (g) following such declaration, enjoin DHS/USCIS from limiting the validity period of any approved fiancé(e) petition; (h) declare that the Foreign Affairs Manual, at 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1, which purports to establish the materiality of an alleged misrepresentation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), merely based upon DHS/USCIS summary revocation of the petition is ultra vires and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (i) issue a permanent injunction barring the State Department from placing a marker, called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in a visa beneficiary’s record, and deeming the DHS/USCIS revocation of the petition as automatically establishing the permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility; (j) compel DHS/USCIS to issue a notice to petitioner within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from receipt of the returned petition from the State Department, providing petitioner with the legal and factual basis for the consular recommendation that is not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant; (k) compel DHS/USCIS to provide petitioner the opportunity to submit evidence to rebut the consular recommendation within a reasonable period of time; (l) compel DHS/USCIS, in the case of a reaffirmation of approval, to deliver the reaffirmed petition to the State Department within a reasonable period of time, and compel State Department to issue the K-1 visa within a reasonable period of time following reaffirmation; (m) compel DHS/USCIS, in the case of a denial, to issue a decision within a reasonable period of time, and to advise petitioner of the right to appeal the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office.

The United States of America’s immigration apparatus is complex and multifaceted. This is due to the fact that two Departments have a role in the Immigration process and within each of those Departments there are multiple government agencies with different roles at differing phases of the process. For example, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), respectively, have jurisdiction over adjudication of visa petitions and inspection of aliens upon admission to the United States. In the interim, the Department of State, through the National Visa Center and each US Embassy or US Consulate abroad, is tasked with adjudicating visa applications and making determinations regarding an individual applicant’s admissibility to the USA. In the vast majority of cases involving a US visa denial the applicant will be provided written notice of the denial along with factual and legal reasons for the denial. Amongst many other things, the aforementioned complaint alleged that the:

State Department issued the [visa] denial based on mere suspicion and failed to provide a written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return that was not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant.

When a US visa application is denied, the Consular Officer issuing the denial should provide a written notice of denial based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law. The complaint, in essence, would seem to be alleging that the Officer at the US Consulate in HCMC did not provide a legally sufficient basis for denial.  Of further interest within the complaint was the following allegation:

State Department, in its denial, stated that, “[i]f USCIS revokes the petition, beneficiary will become ineligible for a visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act.” INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), is a permanent bar to admissibility for misrepresentation. Pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1, State Department placed a marker, called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in Ms. Pham’s records, and will deem USCIS revocation of the petition as automatically establishing the permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility.

This is an interesting phenomenon. As the US Immigration system becomes more sophisticated Department of State refusals seem to be evermore problematic for those who may later seek admission to the United States. For example, in another post on this blog it was noted that those with a previously issued 221(g) denial from a US Embassy or US Consulate may be denied benefits under the visa waiver program pursuant regulations related to the Electronic System For Travel Authorization (ESTA). As ESTA is under the jurisdiction of the USCBP and since that agency considers 221g refusals to be denials, while the Department of State continues to refer to them as refusals, the issuance of 221g could lead to an otherwise admissible individual being deemed inadmissible to the United States. This author has never personally dealt with a situation in which a Consular Officer has denied a US visa without a factual or legal basis. Hopefully, this case will help ascertain the exact nature of visa refusals at Consulates and Embassies overseas. Bearing that in mind, the decision in a case such as this could have major ramifications upon Consular Processing procedures at virtually every US Consular Post abroad.

For further information related to the US fiance visa please see: K1 visa.

Tags: ESTA, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Denial, US Consulate, US Embassy, us visa denial, USCBP, USCIS, Visa Waiver Program, writ of mandamus
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, National Visa Center, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCBP, USCIS | 4 Comments »

This blog primarily reports upon issues revolving around US Family Visas. With that in mind the following announcement was made in a press release from the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Ombudsman, this quote is provided by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

During FY 2009 and FY 2010, usage of family-based visas has been exceptionally low, especially among spouses and children of green card holders (the F-2A preference category). In FY 2009, approximately 10,000 family-based visas were unused and, by statute, were reallocated for use by employment-based immigrants in FY 2010.

It is interesting to note the relative lack of interest in Family based visas under preference category F-2A because, in this author’s experience, there is little decline in the demand for spouse and family based visas for the immediate relatives of American Citizens. That said, there seems to have been a slight decrease in demand for the K1 visa in Thailand, but this is likely attributable to the recent unrest in the city of Bangkok.

For those readers who are unaware, United States Citizens may petition for their foreign fiancee to travel to the USA on a K1 Fiance Visa. After arrival the fiancee must marry the American petitioner within 90 days of entry and subsequently file an application for adjustment of status. Those American Citizens with a spouse overseas may petition for a US Marriage Visa. There are multiple marriage visa categories although the once popular K3 Visa is no longer being processed by the National Visa Center where the underlying visa petition arrives contemporaneously or before the K3 visa application.

For those who are not United States Citizens, a K1 visa is not available for the fiancees of Lawful Permanent Residents. Furthermore, the spouse of a Lawful Permanent Resident is not given high priority compared to the spouse of a US Citizen. This preference has existed for a relatively long period of time. There are those who argue for “rolling over” the balance of preference petitions in order to provide a chance for later applicants to enjoy the higher relative priority. That being said, current Immigration policy favors employment petitions if there is are any unused visa numbers in the aforementioned family based category.

Some speculate that Comprehensive Immigration Reform will have a dramatic impact upon the overall Immigration system, but for now the current system remains and those seeking a family based visa in the F-2a category would be wise to file sooner rather than later.

Tags: American Visa, F-2A, Fiance Visa, K1 Visa, Preference Petition, US Visa, USA Visa
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS | No Comments »

On this blog, we try to provide information for those individuals (be they American Citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, or prospective immigrants) who may have business with US Embassies and Consulates overseas. That said, the following information is quoted from the website of the United States Embassy in Beijing, China:

The Embassy is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. We are closed on the following American and Chinese holidays:

Embassy Holidays for 2010

***    January 1          Friday                  New Year’s Day
*       January 18         Monday                Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday
**     February 13-17   Sat-Wed               Chinese (Lunar) New Year
*       February 15        Monday                President’s Day
**     April 5                Monday                Tomb Sweeping Day
**     May 1-3             Sat-Mon               International Labor Day
*       May 31              Monday                 Memorial Day
**     June 16              Wednesday           Dragon Boat Festival
*      July 5                 Monday                 Independence Day
*      September 6        Monday                 Labor Day
**    September 22       Wednesday           Mid-Autumn Festival
**    October 1-5         Fri-Tuesday           Chinese National Day
*      October 11          Monday                Columbus Day
*      November 11       Thursday               Veterans’ Day
*      November 25       Thursday               Thanksgiving Day
*      December 24       Friday                   Christmas Day

Those who may be traveling to any US Embassy or US Consulate abroad are generally wise to at least attempt to make an appointment to visit the Embassy in advance. This is particularly true for those seeking assistance from the American Citizen Services Section of US Missions abroad. In many cases, an appointment can be made in advance and this allows the Consular Officers to better anticipate customer needs thereby streamlining the overall process. Those seeking an appointment should first find the official website of the US Embassy in their country of residence and make scheduling decisions accordingly.

In the case of those seeking visas to the USA, American Consulates generally make visa interview appointment on a “first come, first serve” basis. As each post has different administrative protocols it may be wise to contact an Embassy directly if one is seeking a non-immigrant visa to the USA. In the case of Immigrant visas (or pseudo-immigrant visas such as the K1 visa or the K3 Visa) an appointment for interview is generally made after the Embassy or Consulate receives the prospective immigrant’s application package from the National Visa Center. In some cases, a Direct Consular Filing may be available to those prospective immigrants with an American Citizen spouse residing in the Consular District. In any case, many opt to consult an American lawyer prior to submitting an application or petition for a US Marriage Visa or a US fiance visa.

Tags: American Citizen Services, American Citizen Services Beijing, American Citizen Services China, Direct Consular Filing, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, Us Consulate Beijing, US Consulate China, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy China, US Embassy China Holiday Schedule, US Fiance Visa, US Marriage Visa
Posted in K1 Visa, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy China, US Visa | No Comments »

With the recently announced fee increases associated with K visa applications filed overseas, there are many who feel that serious thought should be given to the type of visa a couple should petition to obtain. In the past, many couples who were thinking of marriage opted to apply for a US fiance visa, also referred to as a K1 visa. That being said, it was recently announced that the application fee for all K visas sought overseas would be increased from $131 to $350. Apparently, the resources accrued are to be used in furtherance of fraud prevention measures as well as implementation of measures meant to streamline the overall visa process. As the fee increase was only recently announced, it remains to be seen how newly acquired fees will be used on the Consular level. With that in mind, it has also been recently announced that USCIS may be raising fees for Immigrant visa petitions. For those who are unfamiliar with this blog, it should be noted that for purposes of traveling to the USA, the K1 visa and the K3 Visa are considered to be immigrant visas even though they do not automatically confer lawful permanent residence to the bearer upon entry in the USA.

Those seeking a US visa would be prudent to seriously consider their options because the costs associated with the process of applying for and obtaining a CR1 visa or an IR1 visa may be lower in some cases when compared to the costs associated with the K1 visa process. When viewed from a long term perspective the CR1 visa, although more time consuming to obtain, confers lawful permanent residence to the bearer upon entry and thereby negates the necessity of adjustment of status which is necessary for those who travel to the US on a K1 visa with the intent to marry the Petitioner and remain in the USA permanently.

In most cases, those wishing to bring a spouse to the USA are wise to bear in mind the fact that K3 visa applications, once a popular travel document for bi-national married couples, are now being administratively closed by the National Visa Center if the underlying I-130 is approved prior to, or at the same time as, the I-129f application. This has lead to many instances of spouses being required by circumstance to process a CR1 or IR1 visa rather than a K3 visa because the NVC simply will not process the K3 application.

For those interested in further information about US Immigration please see: American Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Visa Thailand, CR1 Visa, CR1 Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, IR1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Costs, K1 Visa Fees, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, US Visa Costs, US Visa Fees, USCIS Costs, USCIS Fee hike, USCIS Fee Increase
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, News, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Weird Law | No Comments »

In a recent transcript from a news conference held by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) it was announced that USCIS may be increasing many of the fees associated with US Immigration petitions. The following is a direct quote from the aforementioned news conference transcript:

While we received appropriations from Congress, budget cuts of approximately $160 million have not bridged the remaining gap between costs and anticipated revenue. A fee adjustment, as detailed in the proposed rule, is therefore necessary to address that gap.

Although few seem to doubt the fact that USCIS has experienced a revenue shortfall, many seem to be perturbed by the announcement of fee increases. The following is quoted from the AILA Leadership blog:

Yesterday, due to lower than projected fee revenues, USCIS proposed a fee increase that will amount to an average increase of  10% across the board.  USCIS will issue the formal proposal on Friday and there will be a 45 day comment period.  This, in combination with the 66% fee increase that was implemented in 2007, constitutes a tremendous hit in the pocketbook for a variety of users of immigration services. For example, an I-130 petition for an alien relative will jump from $355 to $420, under this proposal, thus impacting those who want to be reunited with family members.  An I-131 application for a travel document goes up by $55, and an application for an employment authorization document increases by $40.  Adjustment of status fees will increase by $55.  Businesses will also bear some of the brunt, with I-140 petitions for immigrant workers increasing over $100, premium processing going up by $225 and a brand new fee of $6,230 to establish a Regional Center under the EB-5 program. And –perhaps the coup de grace—fees for filing I-290 Notices of Appeal will increase from $585 to $630, a $45 dollar increase that will allow us to continue to file appeals that take over 2 years to adjudicate and generally conclude with either a rubber stamping of the original decision, or as in a handful of recent AAO decisions, a tortured legal analysis resulting in increasingly restrictive interpretations of the law.

The tone of the above quote leaves some readers feeling as though the author is rather upset about the recently proposed fee increase. The following passages from the aforementioned post on the AILA Leadership blog leaves little to the imagination regarding some practitioners feelings with regard to the proposed fee increases:

Why do these fee increases feel like a punch in the stomach to immigration practitioners?  Because they come at a time when the quality of decision-making and the ability to correct even the simplest errors or address basic problems with USCIS are at an all-time low. A small sampling of the problems we have all experienced with alarming increased frequency over the past few years…Application of new extra-regulatory standards in case adjudication…Adjudication of issues not within the province of USCIS…A “pick and choose” attitude with respect to previously issued long-standing agency guidance…Lack of accessibility of agency officials and decision-makers…Lack of predictability in decision-making…Lack of respect for the role of counsel in various proceedings: Examples:  Practitioners report that they are sometimes not copied on RFE’s, and that district offices from time to time have barred attorneys from accompanying their clients to adjustment interviews.

Although USCIS adjudicates cases on an individual basis and no single practitioner can make a generalized statement about USCIS adjudication generally, there appears to be an increasingly common feeling among immigration practitioners that agencies associated with Immigration adjudication are becoming rather unpredictable.

Also of possible interest to those seeking certain family based visas such as the K1 visa and the K3 Visa is the fact that the US Department of State has recently raised the fees associated with such applications when adjudicated by US Consulates abroad. The previous fee for K visa applications was $131, but under the newly promulgated rules the K visa application fee has been raised to $350. Those seeking K3 visas are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the recent fee increase as K3 visa applications are currently being “administratively closed,” in many cases, by the National Visa Center. That said, those seeking a K1 Fiance Visa will likely be required to pay the increased fee in order to have their K1 visa application adjudicated.

Tags: K1 Visa, K1 visa application, K3 Visa, US Visa Costs, US Visa Fees, USCIS, USCIS fees
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, National Visa Center, News, USCIS | 3 Comments »

In recent postings on this blog, this author has discussed proposed fee increases for Consular services at US Embassies and Consulates outside of the United States of America.  Recently the American State Department made the following announcement:

The Department is increasing fees to ensure sufficient resources to cover the rising cost of processing nonimmigrant visas. This increase applies both to nonimmigrant visas placed in passports and to border crossing cards issued to certain applicants in Mexico. The new, tiered fee structure was created to cover the higher unit costs for processing certain categories of nonimmigrant visas that are more complicated and require more in-depth consideration than most other categories of nonimmigrant visas. The Department is required to recover, as far as possible, the cost of processing nonimmigrant visas through the collection of the application fees. For a number of reasons, including new security enhancements, the $131 fee set on January 1, 2008 no longer covers the current, actual cost of processing nonimmigrant visas. Under the new schedule of fees, applicants for all visas that are not petition-based, including B1/B2 tourist and business visitor visas and all student and exchange visitor (F, M and J) visas, will pay a fee of $140. Applicants for petition-based visas will pay an application fee of $150. These categories include:

· H visa for temporary workers and trainees
· L visa for intracompany transferees
· O visa for aliens with extraordinary ability
· P visa for athletes, artists and entertainers
· Q visa for international cultural exchange visitors
· R visa for religious occupations

The application fee for K visas for fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens will be $350. The fee for E visas for treaty-traders and treaty investors will be $390.

The last portion of this announcement is of the most pressing concern to those wishing to bring a Thai loved one to the USA. Many Americans opt to use a K1 visa to bring a Thai fiancee to the United States. In the past, many also utilized the K3 Visa to bring Thai spouses to the USA. At the time of this writing the National Visa Center (under the authority of the Department of State) is administratively closing all I-129f petitions for K3 Visas if the underlying I-130 petition has been submitted to the NVC concurrently with, or prior to, the submission of the I-129f petition. Therefore, the increase in fees is unlikely to have a major impact upon those seeking a US marriage visa as the vast majority of US Marriage visas being processed out of any US Consulate or US Embassy are immigrant visas (CR1 or IR1) rather than non-immigrant K3 visas.

For further general information about US Immigration from Thailand please see: Fiance Visa Thailand.

Tags: American States Department, Consular Fees, Costs for K visa, CR1, Fee Increase, IR1, K visa fees, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, NVC
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 7 Comments »

ในกระทู้ก่อนๆ เราได้พูดกันถึงเรื่องกฎภายในของ NVC ที่เปลี่ยนไป NVC ประกาศว่าให้มีผลตั้งแต่ วันที่ 1 กุมภาพันธ์ 2553 NVC จะไม่ดำเนินการเกี่ยวกับคำขอ I 129F ที่เกี่ยวกับวีซ่าคู่สมรสอีกต่อไปหากว่า คำขอ I-130 มาถึง NVC ก่อนหรือพร้อมกับคำขอ I 129F มีคนที่สงสัยว่าจะมีผลต่อผู้ขอวีซ่าอย่างไร สำหรับคนที่จะขอวีซ่า เค ทรี ผลของประกาศนี้สำคัญมากเพราะในหลายๆเคส NVC จะเรียกให้ผู้ที่ต้องการขอวีซ่าคู่สมรสถาวรขอวีซ่าคู่สมรสเช่น IR1 หรือ CR1 แทนที่จะเป็นวีซ่าทางด่วนแบบ เค ทรี  อย่างไรก็ตามมีบางคนข้องใจว่าเรื่องนี้จะมีผลต่อวีซ่าคู่หมั้นอย่างไร

เพื่อขอวีซ่าคู่หมั้น บุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกันต้องยื่นคำขอ I-129F สำหรับวีซ่าเค วัน เมื่อคำขอได้รับการอนุมัติแล้ว จะถูกส่งต่อไปยัง NVC เพื่อตรวจสอบทางความมั่นคง หลังจากที่ตรวจสอบเสร็จเรียบร้อย จะถูกส่งต่อไปยังสถานทูตสหรัฐหรือกงสุลสหรัฐที่มีเขตอำนาจ ซึ่งก็อาจจะมีความสับสนเกิดขึ้นเนื่องจากบางคนอาจจะเข้าใจว่าคำขอ I 129F นั้นถูกยกเลิกสำหรับกรณีวีซ่าคู่หมั้นด้วย ซึ่งเรื่องนี้ไม่เป็นความจริงเนื่องจากการยกเลิกคำขอ I 129F นั้นเกิดขึ้นเฉพาะกับกรณีวีซ่า เค ทรี ไม่ใช่ วีซ่าเค วัน การเปลี่ยนแปลงที่ว่าไม่มีผลกับการขอวีซ่าเควันแต่อย่างใดเพราะกฎนี้มีขึ้นเพื่อเปลี่ยนแปลงการขอวีซ่าเค ทรี โดยเฉพาะ

ข้อดีของการพัฒนาในครั้งนี้ก็คือ NVC สามารถนำทรัพยากรบุคคลที่ดูแลเรื่องคำขอ I 129F สำหรับวีซ่าเค ทรี มาใช้ดูแลวีซ่าถาวรหรือวีซ่าคู่หมั้นก็เป็นได้ นั้นหมายความว่า ในความคิดเห็นของผู้เขียนนั้น ขั้นตอนการดำเนินการของวีซ่า เค วันนั้นค่อนข้างมีประสิทธิภาพยู่แล้ว และ NVC มักใช้เวลาไม่นานในการดำเนินการวีซ่าเค วัน ในเคสส่วนใหญ่ที่ดำเนินการโดยสถานทูตสหรัฐ ประจำประเทศไทย จะมีระยะเวลาการรอประมาณ 2 สัปดาห์ระหว่างที่ คำขอ I 129F ได้รับอนุมัติแล้วโดย USCIS และถูกส่งต่อจาก NVC มายังสถานทูต สำหรับคนทั่วๆไปก็เป็นระยะเวลาที่รอได้ และในกรณีวีซ่าถาวร ขั้นตอน NVC อาจจะนานขึ้นนิดหน่อยเนื่องจาก NVC ต้องการเอกสารมากขึ้นสำหรับวีซ่าถาวร เมื่อเทียบกับวีซ่าไม่อพยพ

For more information in English please see K1 visa or Fiance Visa Thailand.

Tags: CR1, Fiance Visa Thailand, I-129f, I-130, IR1, K1 Visa, National Visa Center, NVC, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

The issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform seems to be more hotly debated as the mid-term Congressional elections in the United States approach. Recently, President Barack Obama was quoted as saying:

What has become increasingly clear is that we can no longer wait to fix our broken immigration system, which Democrats and Republicans alike agree doesn’t work. It’s unacceptable to have 11 million people in the United States who are living here illegally and outside of the system. I have repeatedly said that there are some essential components that must be in immigration legislation. It must call for stronger border security measures, tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants and clearer rules for controlling future immigration. And it must require those who are here illegally to get right with the law, pay penalties and taxes, learn English, pass criminal background checks and admit responsibility before they are allowed to get in line and eventually earn citizenship. The outline presented today includes many of these elements. The next critical step is to iron out the details of a bill. We welcome that discussion, and my Administration will play an active role in engaging partners on both sides of the aisle to work toward a bipartisan solution that is based on the fundamental concept of accountability that the American people expect and deserve.

Many argue that the United States Immigration system needs to be modified as it is proving to be too inflexible when it comes to dealing with some of the important immigration problems of the day. A case in point is the debate on Same Sex US Immigration benefits for bi-national couples. At present, same-sex bi-national couples cannot receive the same family immigration benefits as different sex couples due to provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In short these couples cannot receive a same sex marriage visa. Many hope that by placing specific legislative language akin to the provisions of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) into the Comprehensive Immigration bill this policy of providing disproportionate benefits will come to an end.

Overall, the current immigration system has improved for those seeking immediate relative immigration benefits (IR1, CR1, IR2, etc). For example, the  National Visa Center has begun administratively closing K3 Visa applications as the need for such expedited travel documents is felt to be no longer necessary for those seeking immigrant benefits since USCIS no longer has a high backlog for such petitions. The K1 visa is still processing in the same manner as it has in the past. However, some of the preference petition categories are still processing quite slowly. Also, this brief assessment does not look at employment based immigration issues associated with visa categories such as the L1 visa and the E2 visa nor does it begin to tackle to issue of undocumented workers and immigrants in the USA.

For further information on this issue please see: Fiance Visa Thailand.

Tags: Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, lgbt immigration, LGBT US Immigration, LGBT US Visa, lgbt visa, Same Sex CR1 Visa, Same Sex IR1 Visa, Same Sex K1 visa, Same Sex K3 Visa, same sex visa, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, General Legal Information, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, lgbt immigration, National Visa Center, same sex visa, Upcoming Legislation, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

For information in English please see: National Visa Center.

NVC คืออะไร?

กระบวนการขอรับผลประโยชน์จากการเข้าเมืองของสหรัฐอเมริกาอาจจะยุ่งยากเป็นบางครั้ง แต่โดยภาพรวมแล้วหากว่าเข้าใจขั้นตอนหรือมีการจ้างทนายความผู้มีประสบการณ์ก็อาจจะทำให้ง่ายขึ้น

คำถามที่พบบ่อยๆเกี่ยวกับกระบวนการขอวีซ่าก็คือ NVC คืออะไรและมีหน้าที่อะไร NVC ย่อมาจากศูนย์วีซ่าแห่งชาติ ซึ่งเป็นหน่วยงานรัฐภายใต้อำนาจของกระทรวงต่างประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา NVC มีสำนักงานอยู่ที่ Portsmouth มลรัฐ New Hampshire อำนาจของ NVC คือการดำเนินการคำขอวีซ่าและทำให้แน่ใจว่าคำขอวีซ่าจะถูกส่งต่อไปยังหน่วยงานที่อยู่ในพื้นที่ผู้รับผลประโยชน์มีภูมิลำเนาอยู่

NVC ยังรับผิดชอบในการรวบรวมค่าธรรมเนียมวีซ่าถาวร และเอกสารสำคัญที่จำเป็นต้อเจ้าหน้าที่กงสุลในการพิจารณาคำขอ

กระบวรการดำเนินการของ NVC วีซ่าไม่ถาวรและวีซ่าถาวร

การดำเนินการของ NVC นั้นยุ่งยากและใช้เวลาค่อนข้างมากกว่าสำหรับวีซ่าถาวร ซึ่งตรงข้ามกับวีซ่าไม่ถาวร กิจกรรมหนึ่งที่ NVC ทำบ่อยๆก็คือการตรวจสอบด้านความมั่นคงและตรวจสอบภูมิหลังของผู้ที่มีความประสงค์จะเข้าประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา หลังจากเหตุการณ์ 11 กันยายน 2544 NVC ได้มีบทบาทสำคัญเพื่อทำให้มั่นใจว่าบุคคลเหล่านั้นจะไม่เป็นภัยต่อความมั่นคงของประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา

NVC นั้นบางครั้งถูกเข้าใจสับสนกับ NBC หรือ ศูนย์ผลประโยชน์แห่งชาติซึ่งได้รับมอบหมายจาก USCIS ให้จัดการเกี่ยวกับเอกสารก่อนสัมภาษณ์สำหรับการสัมภาษณ์คนเข้าเมืองในประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา

สำหรับคนที่ต้องการนำคู่หมั้นชาวไทยไปอเมริกาโดยวีซ่า K1 ขั้นตอน NVC มักจะเร็วกว่าผู้ขอวีซ่าอพยพ ซึ่งก็เป็นจริงสำหรับกรณีวีซ่า K3 จากประเทศไทยที่ยื่นคำขอเพิ่มเติม I129F ในกรณีใดๆก็ตาม เมื่อวีซ่าได้รับการอนุมัติจาก USCIS มันจะถูกส่งต่อไปยัง NVC และ เมื่อได้รับอนุมัติคำขอจะถูกส่งไปยังสถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาหรือสถานกงสุลใหญ่

ขึ้นอยู่กับจำนวนเรื่องที่ NVC กระบวนการอาจจะใช้เวลาจาก 2 ถึง 8 สัปดาห์ ในการดำเนินการและส่งต่อเรื่องไปยังสถานทูตในต่างประเทศ อย่างไรก็ตามนี่ก็เป็นแค่ระยะเวลาโดยเฉลี่ยเท่านั้น ระยะเวลาในการดำเนินการสำหรับหน่วยงานของสหรัฐก็มักจะต่างกันไป

เมื่อยื่นคำขอที่ USCIS ในกรุงเทพมหานคร NVC จะไม่เข้ามามีส่วนในขั้นตอนใดๆเนื่องจากคำขอจะถูกส่งตรงไปยังสถานทูตอเมริกาประจำกรุงเทพมหานครซึ่งอยู่ฝั่งตรงข้ามทันที

Tags: CR1 Visa, CR1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, IR1 Visa Thailand, K-1, K-3, K1, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, National Visa Center, NVC, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, กฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐ, กฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองอเมริกา, ทนายความอเมริกา, ทนายอเมริกันในไทย, ยูเอสซีไอเอส, วีซ่าคู่หมั้น, วีซ่าอเมริกา, ศูนย์วีซ่าแห่งชาติ
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »