Integrity Legal

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 »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that various US Missions abroad are taking substantial steps to deal with what would appear to be an impending shutdown of the United States government. For those who are unaware, the United States government may shutdown due to the fact that various legislators in the nation’s capital are unable to reach an agreement which would result in a resolution to keep the American government funded.

For a somewhat different perspective on this issue, it may be best to quote directly from the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says another round of talks with congressional leaders has helped but there is no deal yet to avert a government shutdown.

Obama said he hoped to be able to announce a deal on Friday but “there’s no certainty yet.” He said he told House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he wants an answer in the morning.

Meanwhile, it would appear as though the United States Department of State is frantically working in an effort to get as much done as possible before the shutdown actually takes effect. For example, the US Embassy in Bangkok, to that Post’s immense credit, has been processing out approved visas as quickly as possible as the possible shutdown approaches. This blogger personally witnessed the expedited remittance of a visaed passport by the US Embassy to an applicant immediately preceding the writing of the posting. Meanwhile, it also came to this blogger’s attention that some Department of State employees situated in the United States were put in a position where they had to work a substantial amount of overtime in an effort to get as much done as possible prior to a government closure.

In this blogger’s opinion, the current efforts of States Department officials are notable for the fact that such endeavors go to show a genuine concern for providing optimal service to the public-at-large. At the time of this writing, it remains to be seen whether the American government will actually shutdown, but for those with pending immigration matters the prospect of a government shutdown opens up the possibility of delay in the overall immigration process. This is especially true in the context of United States Embassies and United States Consulates abroad as such Posts are likely to close for all but emergencies should a shutdown eventually come to pass.

For related information please see: Government Shutdown.

Tags: Department of State, Government Shutdown, Government Shutdown US Visa Process, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, US Consulate shutdown, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy shutdown, us embassy thailand, US government shutdown, US Immigration Government Shutdown
Posted in US State Department | No Comments »

This blogger writes this post in transit between the Vientiane, Laos and Bangkok, Thailand having been retained to assist with Consular Processing at the Post in Laos. It came to this blogger’s attention while physically outside of the US Embassy compound that the Post in Vientiane will be closed on April the 8th for training purposes. This alone would not have concerned this blogger a great deal as United States Missions abroad routinely close local posts in order to use the closure as an opportunity to train personnel. Therefore, those reading this should not necessarily make the assumption that the Post in Vientiane is closing in anticipation of a government shutdown. That said, the forthcoming information, in conjunction with that noted above gave this blogger pause.

Bearing the above paragraph in mind, this blogger was also notified that the US Embassy in Bangkok has been calling prospective visa beneficiaries with upcoming visa interview appointments in order to attempt to reschedule pending visa interviews. It would appear that this is being done in response to the belief that a government shutdown is possibly imminent and should such a shutdown actually occur it would likely result in the closure of the various Immigrant Visa Units and Non-Immigrant Visa Units at US Missions abroad.

In a previous posting on this blog, the administration analyzed the possible ramifications of such a state of affairs and those reading this posting are encouraged to look at that post in order to learn more about this rather serious issue. The previous posting on this issue can be found at: Government Shutdown.

A few notes on the US Embassy in Vientiane, Laos; first, three words accurately describe this Post: courteous, professional, and efficient. The foreign-language officers are extremely helpful and the English-language officer aptly engaged in staying on top of what, to this blogger, appeared to be  substantial caseload and simultaneously dealing with applicants very politely all while checking documents and doing the routine due diligence required of Consular Officers stationed overseas.

At the time of this writing, it remains to be seen whether or not a government shutdown will actually occur, but should the government shutdown, then this could have a substantial impact upon US visa applications for visas such as the CR-1 visa, the K-1 visa, the IR-1 visa, and the K-3 visa. Meanwhile, processing of business visas such as the EB-5 visa and the L-1 visa could also be impacted by a shutdown of the United States government. There is some speculation as to whether or not the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) will shutdown as a result of possible government closure as USCIS is self-funded by petition and application fees (although that agency did receive money from the US government last year in order to cover a funding shortfall).

As this situation evolves, the administration of this blog will attempt to keep readers updated.

Tags: American Embassy Laos, American Embassy Thailand, American government shutdown, American Visa Process Government Shutdown, CR-1 Visa Process Government Shutdown, Department of States, EB-5 Visa Process Government Shutdown, IR-1 Visa Process Government Shutdown, K-1 Visa Process Government Shutdown, L-1 Visa Process Government Shutdown, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Laos, us embassy thailand, US Embassy Vientiane, US government shutdown, US Visa Laos, US Visa Process Government Shutdown, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, National Visa Center, News, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, 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 Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Turkmenistan, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Uzbekistan, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) may be changing some of the procedures associated with the processing of immigration petitions pertaining to the application for issuance of the CR-1 visa, IR-1 visa, K-1 visa, and K-3 visa filed by United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. To quote directly from a recent USCIS Memo posted on ILW.com:

This memorandum provides guidance to USCIS service centers regarding changes in the handling of all stand-alone I-130 and I-129F petitions filed by petitioners who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“Adam Walsh Act” or “AWA”) and related issues.1 This memorandum applies only to petitions that are adjudicated at the service centers and not to petitions adjudicated at USCIS field offices.

Generally I-130 petitions (the categorical designation used to refer to the petition for a CR-1 visa or an IR-1 visa) are processed by the USCIS Service Center designated by the lockbox upon receipt. In some cases, it may be possible to process an I-130 petition at one of the various USCIS field offices located abroad, such as the USCIS office in Bangkok. The I-129f petition (categorical designation used to denote the US fiance visa or K1 visa) can only be processed at a USCIS Service Center in the USA as the field offices overseas do not process such petitions as of the time of this writing. To quote further from the previously mentioned memorandum:

USCIS will centralize at VSC all files currently at service centers if the service center adjudicator has made a preliminary determination that the petition warrants review as an AWA-related case. The VSC will serve as a central clearinghouse for inquiries from Federal, State, and local agencies regarding AWA-related cases that are pending or were recently adjudicated at one of the four service centers [hereafter referred to as “originating service center” or “sending service center”]. While AWA-related cases require special handling, the decision to centralize AWA-related adjudications at the VSC will affect caseloads at other service centers only minimally.

Clearly, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is making policy changes in an effort to take steps to more efficiently process cases requiring further scrutiny pursuant to the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). In a way, the Vermont Service Center’s role in AWA-related cases is somewhat similar to the role of the National Visa Center in the overall US visa process as that agency is tasked with acting as a sort of clearinghouse for visa applications arriving from USCIS and being processed out to a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. Although, NVC is under the authority of the Department of State whereas the Vermont Service Center (like the other USCIS Service Centers) is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS.

For related information please see: Adam Walsh Act.

Tags: Adam Walsh Act, American Immigration Attorney, American Immigration lawyer, American Visa Attorney, American Visa Lawyer, AWA, CR-1 Visa, CR-1 Visa Thailand, IR-1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Burma, K-1 Visa Cambodia, K-1 Visa China, K-1 Visa Hong Kong, K-1 Visa India, K-1 Visa Indonesia, K-1 Visa Laos, K-1 Visa Myanmar, K-1 Visa Philippines, K-1 Visa Singapore, K-1 Visa Taiwan, K-1 Visa Thailand, K-1 Visa Vietnam, K-3 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Cambodia, K1 Visa Laos, K1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Vietnam, National Visa Center, NVC, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Immigration attorney, US Immigration Lawyer, US Visa Attorney, us visa lawyer, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, USCIS Processing Times
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, National Visa Center, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

In recent months the likelihood of a government shutdown seems to be increasing as the politicians in the United States capital seem to be more polarized than ever. Meanwhile, some are arguing in favor of a shutdown (even going so far as to advocate for an extended period of governmental closure). At the same time, others argue against a shutdown. Regardless of one’s opinion either way, it seems possible that a shutdown may occur, and in the event that a shutdown does come to pass, those processing an immigration matter may be prudent to research the impact that a shutdown might have upon the immigration process.

The following was quoted directly from a recent posting on the website CaldwellTeaParty.org:

The next month will be marked by intense negotiations on the debt ceiling, and the GOP will then have to decide on a shutdown or a bipartisan budget deal with Kent Conrad and his allies.

The above citation most clearly and concisely sums up the current state of affairs regarding the possibility of a government shutdown. The administration encourages readers to click on the above links as this issue is quite complex. Those interested in understanding the ramifications of a government shutdown may be best informed by this administration quoting directly from Wikipedia:

A government shutdown occurs when a government discontinues providing services that are not considered “essential.” Typically, services that continue in spite of a shutdown include police, fire fighting, armed forces, utilities, air traffic management and corrections.

A shutdown can occur when a legislative body (including the legislative power of veto by the executive) cannot agree on a budget financing its government programs for a pending fiscal year. In the absence of appropriated funds, the government discontinues providing non-essential services at the beginning of the affected fiscal year. Government employees who provide essential services, often referred to as “essential employees”, are required to continue working.

Although the above citation clears up the issue of what constitutes a government shutdown, the question likely on the mind of those with foreign loved ones processing through the immigration system is: how would a government shutdown impact the processing of my loved one’s visa? The answer: a Federal government shutdown would result in a sort of “freeze” of most of the immigration apparatus as this falls within the bailiwick of the Federal government. Therefore, a Federal shutdown would likely result in little, if any, action being taken with regard to adjudication of visa applications  at each US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. For further insight it may be best to quote directly from a recent posting on the Diplopundit blog:

In 1995, all visa applications are walk-in.  Today, a good number of consular sections have online appointment systems. Which means, visa appointments will have to be canceled and rescheduled if there is a shutdown.  Consular sections may only be open for life and death emergencies. That means lost passport applications, reports of births abroad, adoption cases, notarials, etc. will all have to wait until the Federal government reopens.

The administration of this blog highly encourages readers to click on the above hyperlinks as the quotation above was found in a very interesting and detailed posting dealing with these issues.

Clearly, the ramifications of a government shutdown will be severe for those awaiting processing of a visa application. Meanwhile, it would appear as though USCIS will continue to operate as normal despite a possible shutdown. To quote directly from the website Martindale.com:

USCIS has announced that, because it is funded by filing fees, it should remain open during a government shutdown. The operations of the four Service Centers should remain largely unaffected. Local USCIS District Offices should also remain open.

Again, this blogger highly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to learn more.

Notice that the above quotation uses the word should. This blogger only points this out as it goes to show how difficult it is to foretell what the impact of a government shutdown would be on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) since that agency has attempted to remain self-funded through application fees. That said, the overall issue of government shutdown has yet to fully manifest itself, but that should not be construed to mean that it will not. In fact, those seeking American visas are likely to see an overall slowdown in the overall processing of cases as a result of a shutdown (should one actually occur, which remains to be seen).

Tags: American government shutdown, American Visa Process Government Shutdown, US Consulate shutdown, US Embassy shutdown, US government shutdown, US Visa Process Government Shutdown, USCIS shutdown
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, E1 visa, E2 Visa, EB5 Visa, I-601 Waiver, IR1 Visa, J1 visa, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, National Visa Center, News, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Business, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, 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 Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Taxes, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCBP, USCIS, USICE, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of State has proposed a final rule which would raise some of the costs and fees associated with the J-1 visa, a travel document designed for exchange visitors wishing to visit the United States of America. To quote directly from the Federal Register’s official website FederalRegister.gov:

§ 62.17 Fees and charges.

(a) Remittances. Fees prescribed within the framework of 31 U.S.C. 9701 must be submitted as directed by the Department and must be in the amount prescribed by law or regulation...

(b) Amounts of fees. The following fees are prescribed...

(1) For filing an application for program designation and/or redesignation (Form DS-3036)—$2,700.00…

(2) For filing an application for exchange visitor status changes (i.e., extension beyond the maximum duration, change of category, reinstatement, reinstatement-update, SEVIS status, ECFMG sponsorship authorization, and permission to issue)—$233.00.

The administration of this blog highly recommends that those interested in this issue click on the links above to read the Federal Register entry in its entirety.

Those who are unfamiliar with the J-1 visa should also note that this visa category is sometimes utilized by foreign nationals wishing to act as Au pairs in the United States of America.

Pursuant to the provisions of section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Consular Officers at every US Embassy or US Consulate abroad are required to make the presumption that the applicant for a non-immigrant visa is actually an intending immigrant unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome this presumption. This triggers a “strong ties” vs. “weak ties” analysis in the mind of the interviewing Consular officer. During such an analysis, the Consular officer will weigh the ties that the applicant has to their home country and compare these with the applicant’s ties to the United States. If the offficer feels that the applicant has stronger ties to a country abroad than to the USA, then the visa will likely be granted.

In some cases, applicants for a United States visa are denied. This would seem to happen more frequently in non-immigrant visa cases than immigrant visa cases, but this can, at least partially, be attributed to the stringent analysis that all Consular Officers must make during the adjudication of certain non-immigrant visa applications. Should a visa be denied, then it may be possible to request reconsideration of that decision. That said, appealing visa denials, especially denials pursuant to section 214(b), is difficult, if not impossible, pursuant to the doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability (sometimes referred to as Consular Absolutism). This doctrine states that, with exceptions in rare and highly extreme circumstances, a Consular Officer’s discretion regarding the issuance of a visa is virtually absolute.

Some have pondered whether the provisions of section 214(b) applies to applicants for a K-1 visa. In point of fact, although the K-1 visa is a non-immigrant visa category similar to the J-1 visa; the K-1 visa applicant is not scrutinized subject to section 214(b) of the INA as the applicant for said US fiance visa is entitled to have immigrant intent at the time of the K-1 application.

Tags: 214(b), Exchange Visitor Visa, J-1 visa, J-1 Visa Australia, J-1 Visa Bangladesh, J-1 Visa Burma, J-1 Visa Cambodia, J-1 Visa China, J-1 Visa India, J-1 Visa Indonesia, J-1 Visa Japan, J-1 Visa Korea, J-1 Visa Laos, J-1 Visa Malaysia, J-1 Visa Myanmar, J-1 Visa New Guinea, J-1 Visa New Zealand, J-1 Visa Russia, J-1 Visa Singapore, J-1 Visa Sri Lanka, J-1 Visa Taiwan, J-1 visa Thailand, J-1 Visa Vietnam, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, US Consulate, US Embassy
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 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 Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department | No Comments »

In recent postings on this web log the administration has posted news and information pertaining to the ongoing situation in the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar (also referred to as Burma). In a recent report, it was noted that the Burmese government was discussing the idea of setting up a stock exchange. Meanwhile, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has informally called for an end to the American (as well as international) sanctions being imposed upon Myanmar. To quote directly from a recent posting on the Voice of America’s official website:

The United States is among a handful of countries that have imposed targeted economic sanctions on those most responsible for denying democracy and disregarding human rights in Burma. As the time approaches for the parliaments to convene, some of Burma’s neighbors have called on the West to lift sanctions. They say U.S. policy hampers important areas of trade, prevents investment and technology from helping to develop Burma’s hard-pressed ethnic regions, and hurts the Burmese people.

The United States is deeply concerned about the plight of ordinary citizens of Burma. But it is the regime that is responsible for the country’s dire economic situation. The record is clear on how the military regime has mismanaged the economy, institutionalized corruption and plundered valuable national resources for private gain.

Our two nations have been in talks about improving relations since 2009 and we will continue to engage the government on our mutual concerns. Until the government undertakes fundamental change in Burma, including releasing the more than 2,100 political prisoners and beginning a meaningful and time-bound dialogue with the democratic opposition and ethnic minorities, U.S. sanctions will remain in place.

The issue of Human Rights in Burma is not intended to be the topic of this posting as this blogger sincerely does not feel qualified to address such issues. Exploitation, murder, and human rights abuses in Burma (Myanmar) are all issues which should concern anyone living in modern times, but there is a rather strong argument in favor of lifting sanctions such as these as there are those who would argue that these sanctions fail in their objective and may actually worsen the plight of the common people who are sometimes more adversely impacted by such measures than are those at whom the sanctions were originally aimed. In a piece written on this issue by Leon T. Hadar entitled U.S. Sanctions Against Burma: A Failure on All Fronts these issues were more eloquently elaborated:

The U.S. policy of imposing unilateral trade and investment sanctions against Burma has proven to be a failure on all fronts. By forcing U.S. firms to disengage from Burma, that policy has harmed American economic interests and done nothing to improve the living conditions or human rights of the people of Burma.

Sanctions have denied Burmese citizens the benefits of increased investment by American multinational companies–investment that brings technoloygy, better working conditions, and Western ideas.[sic]

State and local sanctions against Burma have compounded the problem caused by federal sanctions and raised troubling constitutional questions.

Unilateral sanctions have alienated our allies in the region and strengthened the hand of China but achieved none of the stated foreign policy aims. If Washington had allowed the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to take the lead in setting policy toward Burma, the United States could have enjoyed a “win-win” situation–better relations with our allies and more influence over the regime in Rangoon.

As an alternative to the failed policy of sanctions, the United States should allow U.S. companies to freely trade with and investment in Burma. A pro-business approach to engagement would more effectively promote political, civil, and economic freedom around the world. Congress should enact legislation requiring a full accounting of the cost of sanctions and explicit justification on national security grounds before they can be imposed.

It has always been this blogger’s personal opinion that the Burmese sanctions were neither well promulgated nor well executed as the imposition of sanctions has resulted in a situation in which the people at the lowest echelons of Burmese society are not able to enjoy the technological and monetary benefits that come with increased investment and the increased economic activity springing therefrom. The policy reasons underlying the sanctions against Burma would seem to originate in a belief that such sanctions will result in better conditions for the dispossessed currently living in Burma. Although this is pure speculation, it would seem that there is at least some room for reasonable people to disagree about the effects of the Burmese sanctions. Hopefully increased dialogue on this issue will result in new strategies which can be implemented to the benefit of the Burmese people and those seeking investment opportunities in Southeast Asia.

For related information please see: US Visa Myanmar.

Tags: American Embassy Burma, American Embassy Myanmar, American Sanctions Burma, American Sanctions Myanmar, ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Burmese Government, Burmese Parliament, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Myanmar, US Policy in Burma, US Policy in Myanmar, US Sanctions Burma, US Sanctions Myanmar, US Visa Burma, US Visa Myanmar, Voice of America
Posted in Editorial, Myanmar (Burma) Business, News, Opinion, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Visa | No Comments »

Those who read this web log with any frequency may have noticed that the administration routinely posts the estimated processing times of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) as both a courtesy to our clients and the public-at-large. The following estimated processing times were quoted directly from the official website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS):

Those pondering the prospect of petitioning for Immigration benefits should note that the above estimated processing times only account for USCIS processing and do not take into account possible processing at the United States National Visa Center (NVC) as well as Consular Processing times at a US Embassy, US Consulate, American Institute, or US Mission abroad.

For related information please see: US fiance visa.

Tags: American Institute, National Visa Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service processing time, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service processing times, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Fiance Visa, USCIS
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, EB5 Visa, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, National Visa Center, US Citizenship, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, 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 Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, 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 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 Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

There was a recent story on the Telegraph.co.uk website entitled, “Boy, 9, has Disney World trip ruined after US Immigration rules him a threat” it was reported that a 9 year old child was denied a US tourist visa to the United States. To quote directly from the article:

They said there was a risk he would not leave the US at the end of his holiday and refused his application under Section 214 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This blogger noticed in the title of the original article that the use of the term “US Immigration” may have been somewhat opaque as the visa application was likely filed with a US Consulate under the jurisdiction of the United States Embassy in the United Kingdom and not the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in the USA. That said, the article describes the visa application of a child in the United Kingdom and the denial of the application. The child’s parents were attempting to surprise him with a trip to Disney World in the US State of Florida. To quote further directly from the article itself:

Micah [the proposed beneficiary of the US B-2 Visa sought] was born in Britain and has lived in Middlesex all his life with his mum Claudia Lewis.

He holds a South African passport because his grandparents Kathy and Edward, who have lived and worked in Britain since 1990, only got him a South African passport.

They are originally from South Africa.

A letter from Micah’s primary school was included in his visa application confirming he attended the school.

But the US Embassy’s rejection letter to Micah said: “Because you either did not demonstrate strong ties outside the United States or were not able to demonstrate that your intended activities in the US would be consistent with the visa status, you are ineligible.”

His grandmother Kathy, from Brixton, South London, said: “It was going to be a total surprise. He would have loved it.

This blogger highly recommends that those interested in this heartfelt story go to the Telegraph website and read further.

Section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act is a provision which creates a legal presumption in the eyes of adjudicating Consular Officers at every US Mission abroad (US Embassy, US Consulate, American Institute, Visa Units, etc.) that an applicant for a United States visa is actually an undisclosed intending immigrant. Overcoming this presumption often occurs when a Consular Officer feels that, as opposed to the factual citing from the denial noted above, the applicant has shown “strong ties” to their country of origin, or another country abroad, and, simultaneously, “weak ties” to the United States.

In another section of the aforementioned article the author noted that the couple had spent a considerable sum of money purchasing plane tickets in anticipation of the proposed holiday in the USA. As noted in previous postings on this blog, it is not generally prudent in visa application proceedings to assume a particular outcome as issuance of United States travel documents to foreign nationals is not considered a foregone conclusion nor a “formality”. The circumstances mentioned above are unfortunate as they were unexpected and costly (in both monetary and emotional terms). Those foreign nationals wishing to travel to the United States should not make irrevocable travel arrangements until such time as a US visa has been issued and remitted to the applicant.

That said, the one major factor that could materially alter the outcome of another visa application in a case such as this: a UK Passport. As noted in the section quoted above from the US Embassy the applicant did not show “strong ties” to the UK or another country abroad. If the child always lived in the UK, but never possessed a UK passport and, as noted in the above cited section; never lived in South Africa, but was attempting to use a South African passport to travel to the US, then could it be inferred that the child’s ties to either country were attenuated? Possibly, and without knowing further about details, that may very well have been the reason for denial. However, as all cases are adjudicated based upon the unique facts under the circumstances any analysis of the aforementioned denial is merely an exercise in speculation.

It is generally imprudent to continuously resubmit American visa applications when there has been no material change to the facts of one’s case. However, when circumstances do change materially, then a subsequent application may not be frivolous. In the eyes of the law in many jurisdictions a change in nationality, the acquisition of nationality, the registration of nationality, or the naturalization to a new nationality all come with a host of different legal rights, obligations, and privileges not least of these may be a passport. Perhaps, after acquiring a UK Passport on behalf of the child, if eligible for such a travel document, another visa application would be approved? Better yet, upon acquisition of a UK Passport, the child in the article may be eligible for the visa waiver program, although his previous US visa denial would need to be noted in the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) registration system.

Hopefully those thinking of applying for a US Tourist Visa in the future will take note of the fact that one’s nationality is an important facet of any immigration petition or visa application.

For related information please see: US Visitor Visa.

Tags: American Visa Denial, American Visa Denied, Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, nationality, Naturalization, Section 214(b), Telegraph, US Consulate, US Consulate UK, US Embassy, US Embassy UK, US Immigration, US Visa, us visa denial, US Visa Denied, Visa Unit
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, Legal Opinion, News, Opinion, US Citizenship, 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 Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, 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 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 Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention, thanks to the efforts of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), that the Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate is being altered and updated in an effort to take further steps to ensure less forgery of such vitally important documents. To quote directly from the American State Department’s official website:

The Department of State is pleased to announce the introduction of a redesigned Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA). The CRBA is an official record confirming that a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. The redesigned document has state-of-the-art security features that make it extremely resistant to alterations or forgery.

CRBAs have been printed at U.S. Embassies and Consulates around the world since their introduction in 1919. Effective January 3, 2011, CRBAs will be printed at our passport facilities in Portsmouth, New Hampshire and New Orleans, Louisiana. Centralizing production and eliminating the distribution of controlled blank form stock throughout the world ensures improved uniform quality and lessens the threat of fraud.

Applications for U.S. passports and the redesigned CRBA will also use the title of “parent” as opposed to “mother” and “father.” These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.

It remains to be seen whether these changes will have a significant impact upon incidences of fraud in connection with Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA). That said, the Consular Report of Birth Abroad is an extremely important document as it is evidence of nationality for Americans born outside of the United States of America. Frequently, parents obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad immediately prior to obtaining a US Passport on behalf of a child born overseas.

This blogger found it interesting that the Department of State has taken steps to make such documents more gender neutral. In a similar move, in 2010, the State Department announced that measures had been implemented to allow transgender individuals to change their sex on their US Passport. It would appear that the efforts toward gender neutrality implemented in the updating of the Consular Report of Birth Abroad take into account the fact that the traditional gender roles within families and the family structure itself are in something of a state of flux as American families are becoming increasingly unorthodox compared to times past.

Under certain circumstances, children born to some Americans outside of the USA are not automatically vested with United States Citizenship. Should that be the case, then the American parent may be able to see that their children become US Citizens by filing a petition for immigration benefits pursuant to the Child Citizenship Act (CCA) of 2000. Those children of American Citizens who become US Citizens by operation of law pursuant to the CCA may obtain a Certificate of Citizenship which is very similar to a naturalization certificate although the bearer is not technically a naturalized US Citizen.

For related information please see: Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

Tags: Certificate of Citizenship, consular report of birth abroad, Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate, Consular Report of Birth Abroad Changes, CRBA, CRBA Certificate, CRBA Certificate Changes, Naturalization Certificate
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, US Citizenship, 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 Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, 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 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 Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department | No Comments »