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 would appear as though government shutdown has been averted, at least for the time being as an apparent bi-partisan initiative has resulted in continued funding for the United States government. To quote directly from ABC News on go.com:

Barely more than an hour before a midnight deadline Friday night, officials announced a deal to avert a government shutdown. “We will cut $78.5 billion below the president’s 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote in a joint statement.

The agreement would cut $37.67 billion from the 2010 budget and keep intact funding to Planned Parenthood, sources from both parties told ABC News.

“We protected the investments we need to win the future,” President Obama said after the deal was struck. “At the same time, we also made sure at the end of the day this was a debate about spending cuts — not social issues like women’s health and the protection of our air and water. These are important issues that deserve discussion, just not during a debate about our budget.”

Readers of this blog are highly encouraged to visit the above links to gain more insight on this story.

On a related note, credit where credit is due regarding the preparations seemingly undertaken by the officers of the Department of State in trying to front load their efforts as much as humanly possible regarding previously-approved visa issuances as the prospect of Government Shutdown became more acute.

On a less related note, those interested in the struggle for equality for the LGBT community in the context of the United States immigration process should take note of the fact that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) attempted to put a hold on deportations involving same sex bi-national couples before having that hold rescinded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). USCIS, your efforts to help keep bi-national families together has not gone unnoticed.

It would seem as though the ultimate resolution on this issue will come either in the form of a legal opinion from the United States Supreme Court, as in a case such as that from the Massachusetts Federal Court and others in the US Courts currently working their way through the appellate process, or through enactment of legislation which would repeal, hopefully at the very least, the Federal recognition provisions currently embodied in the language of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) similar to the legislation colloquially referred to as the Respect for Marriage Act and/or the Uniting American Families Act.

Tags: American government shutdown, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, House Speaker John Boehner, LGBT community, LGBT Equal Immigration, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, US government shutdown, USCIS
Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | 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 »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Center for Disease Control and the United States Department of State are likely to begin imposing more stringent regulations upon visa applicants, especially immigrant visa applicants, seeking a travel document for lawful admission to the United States of America. According to research conducted by the administration of this blog as well as credible anecdotal evidence it would appear that those with tuberculosis or those who have previously had tuberculosis are likely to be required to undergo intense screening in order to ascertain whether the applicant has fully recovered from the disease and poses no threat of future contagion.

In the past, tuberculosis has been a significant issue for those within the consular jurisdiction of the US Embassy Thailand as the applicants applying for visas at the US Embassy in Bangkok and the US Consulate Chiang Mai are sometimes found to either have tuberculosis or to have had it previously. The major issue associated with Consular Processing is timing. Even for those who no longer have TB, it could take a matter of weeks or even months to undergo testing necessary to prove that the disease has been treated to such a degree that contagion is no longer an issue.

Meanwhile, there are likely to be rule changes regarding X-rays as well. For example, in the past it was possible to have the required chest X-ray waived for pregnant women. It has come to this blogger’s attention that such waivers are unlikely to continue to be granted. Therefore, those pregnant spouses and fiancees of American Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents seeking visas such as the K-1 visa, the K-3 visa, the CR-1 visa, or the IR-1 visa are likely to be required to either undergo an X-ray while using a lead screen to shield the fetus or await the birth of the child and then see that the mother undergoes an X-ray post-pregnancy. As to children, it would appear as though child seekers of visas such as the K-2 visa, K-4 visa, or the IR-2 visa may be required to have skin tests to check for illnesses. It may also prove necessary for children to be X-rayed in connection with diseases such as tuberculosis.

Notwithstanding upcoming changes some recent changes to the rules regarding disease and admission to the United States have resulted in more lax requirements for visa applicants. For example, only relatively recently have visa applicants seen the restrictions imposed on those with HIV lifted. Bearing this in mind, the reader should note that the removal of the imposition of inadmissibility upon HIV infected immigrants does not mean that it is necessarily easy to gain admission to the United States for those with HIV as such visa applications are generally subjected to intense scrutiny to ascertain whether the intending immigrant has adequate medical coverage for the duration of their lawful status in the United States. In the past, those infected with HIV needed an I-601 waiver in order to overcome the legal grounds of inadmissibility. As HIV infection is no longer a legal grounds of inadmissibility an I-601 waiver is no longer required under such circumstances.

Tags: CDC, Center for Disease control, CR-1 Visa Thailand, Department of State, HIV, I-601, I-601 Waiver, IR-1 Visa Thailand, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Thailand, K-2 Visa, K-3 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K-4 visa, Medical Examination, Tuberculosis, US Consulate Chiang Mai, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, US Immigration Medical Examination
Posted in US Consulate Chiang Mai | No Comments »

เมื่อเร็วๆนี้สิ่งที่เป็นที่น่าสนใจของบล็อกคือ ความพยายามของสมาคมทนายความคนเข้าเมืองอเมริกันในการที่จะให้กงสุลที่ความตื่นตัวที่จะออกใบรับรองการเกิดในต่างประเทศและเพิ่มความพยายามที่จะสร้างขั้นตอนเพื่อลดการปลอมแปลงเอกสารที่สำคัญนี้ อ้างโดยตรงจากเว็บไซต์กระทรวงแห่งสหรัฐอเมริกา:

กระทรวงแห่งรัฐมีความยินดีเป็นอย่างยิ่งที่จะแนะนำการออกแบบใหม่ของรายงานกงสุลในเรื่องการเกิดในต่างแดน(CRBA) CRBAนี้เป็นบันทึกที่รับรองอย่างเป็นทางการว่า เด็กที่เกิดในต่างแดนจากพ่อแม่ที่เป็นพลเมืองอเมริกานั้นได้สัญชาติอเริกันโดยการเกิด เอกสารที่มีการออกแบบใหม่นี้มีความปลอดภัยซึ่งสามารถที่จะขัดขวางการเปลี่ยนแปลงหรือปลอมแปลงได้

สถานทูตอเมริกาและสถานกงสุลทั่วโลกได้มีการพิมพ์ CRBAs ตั้งแต่การริเริ่มในปี1919 มีผลบังคับตั้งแต่วันที่ 3 มกราคม 2554 ซึ่งจะมีการพิมมพ์ที่หน่วยบริการพาสปอร์ตในพิร์ตเมาส์ นิวแฮมเชียร์ และนิวออร์ลีน หลุยเซียนา การเป็นศูนย์กลางของการผลิตและการกำจัดการแจกจ่ายแบบฟอร์มที่ว่างเปล่าทั่วโลกเป็นหลักประกันว่า ต้องมีการปรับปรุงคุณภาพของรูปแบบและลดการปลอมแปลง

การยื่นขอพาสปอร์ตสหรัฐอเมริกาและการออกแบบCRBA จะใช้ในแง่มุมของผู้ปกครองดูแลซึ่งตรงข้ามกับแม่และพ่อ การเปลี่ยนแปลงที่สำคัญต้องการที่จะอธิบายถึงเพศของเด็กที่ได้มาจากพ่อและแม่และความแตกต่างของครอบครัวแต่ละแบบ

มันยังคงเป็นการเปลี่ยนแปลงที่มีผลกระทบต่อพฤติการณ์การฉ้อฉลที่เกี่ยวข้องกับรายงานของกงสุลเกี่ยวกับการเกิดในต่างประเทศ อาจกล่าวได้ว่า รายงานของกงสุลเกี่ยวกับการเกิดในต่างประเทศนั้นเป็นการเปลี่ยนแปลงที่สำคัญในเรื่องของเอกสารในฐานะที่เป็นหลักฐานแสดงสัญชาติของคนอเมริกันที่เกิดนอกสหรัฐอเมริกา โดยส่วนมากพ่อแม่มักได้รับรายงานของกงสุลเกี่ยวกับการเกิดทันทีก่อนที่จะขอพาสปอร์ตสหรัฐอเมริกาในฐานะของเด็กที่เกิดในต่างประเทศ

ผู้เขียนบล็อกเห็นว่า สิ่งที่น่าสนใจคือ กระทรวงแห่งรัฐมีขั้นตอนที่สร้างเอกสารที่มีความเป็นกลางทางเพศมากขึ้น เช่นเดียวกับการเคลื่อนไหวในปี 2010 กระทรวงแห่งรัฐประกาศมาตรการที่จะนำไปใช้ในทางปฏิบัติเพื่อที่จะอนุญาตให้มีการแปลงเพศและเปลี่ยนเพศในพาสปอร์ตสหรัฐอเมริกา นับเป็นสิ่งที่ปรากฏได้ว่า ความพยายามต่อความเป็นกลางทางเพศในการที่จะปรับเลี่ยนข้อมูลรายงายของกงสุลเกี่ยวกับเด็กที่เกิดในต่างประเทศทำให้ตระหนักว่า บทบาททางเพศภายในครอบครัวและโดยโครงสร้างของครอบครัวอเมริกัน ครอบครัวอเมริกันนนั้นได้มีการฉีกกฎเดิมมากขึ้นเมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับในอดีต

ายใต้สถานการณ์ที่แน่นอน เด็กที่เกิดนอกสหรัฐอเมริกานั้นไม่สามารถที่จะได้รับสิทธิการเป็นพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาโดยอัตโนมัติ พ่อแม่ชาวอเมริกันนั้นสามารถที่จะทำให้เด็กกลายเป็นพลเมืองอเมริกันได้โดยการยื่นคำขอรับสิทธิประโยชน์คนเข้าเมืองตามพระราชบัญญัติสัญชาติเด็ก (CCA)ปี 2000 เด็กที่เกิดจากคนสัญชาติอเมริกันนั้นกลายเป็นพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาโดยกฎหมายซึ่งตา CCA จะได้รับใบรับรองสัญชาติซึ่งเหมือนกับใบรับรองการแปลงสัญชาติแม้ว่าในทางทฤษฎีผู้ถือจะไม่ได้สัญชาติอเมริกันโดยตามธรรมชาติ

For related information please see: Department of State.

Tags: CCA, Child Citizenship Act, consular report of birth abroad, CRBA, Department of State, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, การได้สัญชาติอเมริกัน, คนเข้าเมืองอเมริกา, พาสปอร์ตอเมริกา, รายงานการเกิดในต่างเเดน, วีซ่าอเมริกา, สัญชาติอเมริกัน
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

การที่ผู้ตรวจการของการบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสหรัฐ (USCIS)มีข้อแนะนำเกี่ยวกับกระบวนการละเว้นของ I-601 เป็นเรื่องที่สร้างความน่าสนใจให้แก่ผู้ที่ติดตามบล็อก อ้างโดยตรงจากบันทึกความเข้าใจที่ผู้อำนวยการ USCIS คือ อเลเจนโดร์ เอ็น มาโยกาส ส่งไปยัง ผู้ตรวจการ CIS เมื่อเดือนมกราคม

ผู้ตรวจการ CISแนะนำว่า USCIS :

รวมศูนย์กลางการดำเนินการในทุกแบบฟอร์มI-601 เพื่อที่จะส่งให้เร็วขึ้นและมีคำวินิจฉัยที่เป็นมาตรฐาน;

จัดให้มีการกรอกแบบฟอร์ม I-601และฟอร์ม I-130 คำขอสำหรับญาติของคนต่างด้าว

จัดลำดับความเสร็จสมบูรณ์ของการจัดการเรื่องที่อยู่ต่างประเทศ (การพัฒนา) เพื่อที่จะรายงานทางสถิติที่ถูกต้องของฟอร์ม I-601 ในการอนุญาต (1) เขียนขั้นตอน (2)การติดตามโดยทาง “สถานะเรื่องของฉัน” ทางเว็บไซต์ USCIS

เผยแพร่คำแนะนำที่จะเสนอแนะแนวทางแก่ลูกความที่มีความประสงค์จะทำให้ขั้นตอนของฟอร์ม I-601เป็นไปอย่างรวดเร็ว

พัฒนาการทำงานร่วมกันระหว่าง DOS เจ้าหน้าที่กงสุล และ ผู้ที่มีอำนาจตัดสินที่จัดการเกี่ยวกับฟอร์มI-601 ที่ CDJ และ

แก้ไขนโยบายของสำนักงาน CDJที่อนุญาตให้ลูกจ้างUSCIS เรียกร้องแฟ้มของชาวต่างชาติแปลงเป็นรูปแบบดิจิตอล(A-files)โดยขึ้นอยู่กับใบเสร็จรับเงินของตารางการสัมภาษณ์

บางประเด็นนั้นอาจเป็นเรื่องที่เกิดก่อนการจัดตั้งการบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสหรัฐ หรือสถานทูตสหรัฐ หรือสถานกงสุลสหรัฐในต่างประเทศ บันทึกที่ได้กล่าวมาแล้วค่อนข้างครอบคลุมและหากต้องการข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมสามารถหาได้จากบันทึกออนไลน์ อาจกล่าวได้ว่า USCIS ได้โต้ตอบในหลายๆประเด็นที่ผู้ตรวจการยกขึ้นมา ตามตัวอย่างข้างล่างนี้

รวมศูนย์กลางการดำเนินการในทุกแบบฟอร์มI-601 เพื่อที่จะส่งให้เร็วขึ้นและมีคำวินิจฉัยที่เป็นมาตรฐาน;

USCIS โต้ตอบ: USCIS เห็นด้วยในบางส่วน

USCIS กำลังประเมินความแตกต่างของรูปแบบการจัดระบบของกระบวนการจัดการฟอร์ม I-601 ข้ามประเทศ ด้วยวัตถุประสงค์ที่สร้างความต่อเนื่องและมีประสิทธิภาพ การใช้ทรัพยากรที่เหมาะสม และลดขั้นตอนการทำงานของเรื่องที่ไม่สามารถได้รับการอนุมัติอย่างรวดเร็ว ในขณะที่การรวมศูนย์กลางเป็นรูปแบบหนึ่งที่จะนำไปสู่เป้าหมาย รูปแบบอื่นๆ ตัวอย่างเช่น สองวัตถุประสงค์เฉพาะ (เช่นกระบวนการเฉพาะสำหรับฟอร์มในสองประเทศเท่านั้น) อาจจะได้รับประโยชน์บางอย่าง

บันทึกได้รับการตอบเพิ่มเติม:

จัดให้มีการกรอกแบบฟอร์ม I-601และฟอร์ม I-130 คำขอสำหรับญาติของคนต่างด้าว ร่วมกัน

USCIS โต้ตอบ: USCIS กำลังพิจารณาข้อแนะนำนี้

ในเดือนเมษายน 2010, USCIS จัดตั้งคณะทำงานภายใต้การนำของสำนักงานนโยบายและโครงสร้างที่จะสำรวจการรวบรวมการกรอกฟอร์มและความเป็นไปได้ในการนำไปใช้ เพราะการเปลี่ยนแปลงในกระบวนการของเราสามารถส่งผลที่ไม่สามารถคาดล่วงหน้า ต้องทำให้เสร็จเรียบร้อยตามรูปแบบซึ่งเป็นไปด้วยความระมัดระวังในการจัดการความคาดหวังของผู้ยื่นคำขอและทรัพยากรของUSCIS คณะทำงานมุ่งเน้นไปที่การประเมินความเป็นไปได้และประโยชน์ที่ได้รับในการเปลี่ยนแปลงกระบวนการที่สำคัญ

คำแนะนำที่สามารถพิสูจน์ความน่าสนใจในทางปฏิบัติในขณะที่การรวบรวมการกรอกฟอร์มไว้ที่จุดเดียวอาจจะไม่มีความเป็นไปได้  ลักษณะของการกล่าวอ้างข้างบนนี้บอกเป็นนัยว่า ก่อนที่จะมีคำแนะนำนี้ได้มีการศึกษาอย่างจริงจัง ในขณะเดียวกัน ภายใต้กระบวนการในปัจจุบันมีผู้ที่ประสงค์จะละเว้นเรื่อง I-601 นอกสหรัฐอเมริกาต้องถือว่าไม่สามารถได้รับคำวินิจฉัยโดยเจ้าหน้าที่กงสุลตามปฏิบัติการของสหรัฐอเมริกา สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกา สถานกงสุลสหรัฐอเมริกา ดังนั้น การยื่นคำพร้อมกันตามที่กล่าวข้างต้นนั้นอาจจะไม่สอดคล้องกับกระบวนการในปัจจุบัน

จัดลำดับความเสร็จสมบูรณ์ของการจัดการเรื่องที่อยู่ต่างประเทศ (การพัฒนา) เพื่อที่จะรายงานทางสถิติที่ถูกต้องของฟอร์ม I-601 ในการอนุญาต (1) เขียนขั้นตอน (2)การติดตามโดยทาง “สถานะเรื่องของฉัน” ทางเว็บไซต์ USCIS

USCIS โต้ตอบ: USCIS เห็นด้วย

USCIS รายงานว่าระบบการจัดการเรื่องของ USCIS ในต่างประเทศซึ่งมีตัวแทนที่สำคัญในช่วง FY2010 ซึ่งใช้พนักงานปฏิบัติการระหว่างประเทศในวันที่ 16 สิงหาคม 2553

หวังเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า วิธีการนี้จะนำไปสู่การปรับปรุงกระบวนการเข้าเมืองของสหรัฐอเมริกาให้มีประสิทธิภาพมากยิ่งขึ้น

เผยแพร่คำแนะนำที่จะเสนอแนะแนวทางแก่ลูกความที่มีความประสงค์จะทำให้ขั้นตอนของฟอร์ม I-601เป็นไปอย่างรวดเร็ว

USCIS โต้ตอบ: USCIS เห็นด้วย

USCIS อยู่ในระหว่างการปรับปรุงคู่มือการปฏิบัติการของภาคส่วนที่ดำเนินการระหว่างประเทศเกี่ยวกับคำวินิจฉัยฟอร์ม I-601ที่จะจัดการกับคำร้องที่ขอให้ช่วยเร่งให้กระบวนการต่างๆเร็วขึ้น

หวังเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า คู่มือใหม่นี้ที่เกี่ยวกับการเร่งให้ขั้นตอนรวดเร็วขึ้นจะช่วยให้ผู้ยื่นคำขอและผู้ที่ได้รับผลประโยชน์เข้าใจถึงการยื่นคำร้องเพื่อที่จะทำให้กระบวนการรวดเร็วขึ้นในเรื่องที่สมควร

พัฒนาการทำงานร่วมกันระหว่าง DOS เจ้าหน้าที่กงสุล และ ผู้ที่มีอำนาจตัดสินที่จัดการเกี่ยวกับฟอร์มI-601 ที่ CDJ

USCIS โต้ตอบ: USCIS เห็นด้วย

USCIS เห็นด้วยว่า DOS เจ้าหน้าที่กงสุล และ ผู้ที่มีอำนาจวินิจฉัยของ USCIS ควรจะรักษาความร่วมมื่อที่แนบแน่นที่ CDJ และที่อื่นๆที่อยู่ต่างประเทศ สำนักงานของUSCISที่อยู่ต่างประเทศนั้นได้รับความร่วมมือจากผู้ร่วมงานDOS ใน CDJ เจ้าหน้าที่กงสุล DOS และผู้ที่มีอำนาจวินิจฉัยของ USCISมีการปรึกษาหารือกันทุกวันผู้อำนวยการของ USCIS CDJ และหัวหน้าวีซ่าประเภทถาวรยังคงติดต่อกันอยู่ทุกวัน

.ในหลายๆวิธี ความร่วมมือระหว่างเจ้าหน้าที่ของตัวเทนของรัฐบาลที่แตกต่างกันเป็นตัวแทนที่ดีที่สุดของการการปรับปรุงพัฒนากระบวนการขอวีซ่าให้ดีขึ้น แม้ว่า ผู้ที่เข้าใจในกระบวนการละเว้นของกระบวนการ  I-601 นั้นต้องระลึกว่า เจ้าหน้าที่กงสุลและเจ้าหน้าที่USCIS ต้องยังคงต้องทำหน้าที่ต่อไป

แก้ไขนโยบายของสำนักงาน CDJที่อนุญาตให้ลูกจ้างUSCIS เรียกร้องแฟ้มของชาวต่างชาติแปลงเป็นรูปแบบดิจิตอล(A-files)โดยขึ้นอยู่กับใบเสร็จรับเงินของตารางการสัมภาษณ์

USCIS โต้ตอบ: USCIS เห็นด้วยบางส่วน

USCIS เห็นด้วยว่า กระบวนการวินิจฉัยควรจะเรียกร้องบันทึก A-file(ไม่ว่าจะอยู่ในรูปแบบดิจิตอล หรือต้นฉบับก็ตามและเป็นวิธีการประเมินเพื่อที่จะบรรลุเป้าหมายโดยปราศจากความล่าช้า

แม้ว่าบันทึกแบบดิจิตอลจะมีประสิทธิภาพมากกว่า แต่ต้องใช้เวลากว่าจะบรรลุผลตามคำแนะนำ

กระบวนการการขอวีซ่า หรือการขอละเว้นของการไม่สามารถได้รับ I-601นั้นเป็นเรื่องที่เข้าใจยากสำหรับผู้ที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับกระบวนการคนเข้าเมือง ในหลายๆเรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับการขอละเว้นของ I-601 แต่ละคนหรือหลายๆคู่เลือกที่จะขอความช่วยเหลือจากทนายความอเมริกันที่มีประสบการณ์เกี่ยวกับการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาและได้รับอนุญาตที่ให้คำแนะนำและคำปรึกษาที่เหมาะสมกับประเภทการเดินทางและการขอละเว้นการไม่สามารถเดินทางไปสหรัฐอเมริกาได้

To read this post in English please see: I-601 waiver.

Tags: American Immigration Thailand, American Visa Thailand, Department of State, DOS, I-130, I-601 Waiver, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย
Posted in US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Embassy Thailand, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

This blog frequently discusses American Immigration matters in a country-specific context in order to provide insight to those researching US Immigration issues for the first time. Some are not aware that in 2010 the United States National Visa Center (an agency under the jurisdiction of the US Department of State) promulgated the policy that K3 visa applications would be “administratively closed” if the underlying immigrant visa petition arrived at NVC prior to, or at the same time as, the K3 Visa petition.Those researching this issue for the first time may find a brief overview of the K3 visa’s history insightful as this may shed light upon the possible reasoning behind the “administrative closure” policy.

At one time, there was a rather large backlog of Immigrant spouse visa petitions (petitions for visas now classified as either a CR1 Visa or an IR1 Visa) at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). Therefore, the United States Congress and President William Jefferson Clinton promulgated and executed legislation colloquially referred to as the “Life Act”. This statute effectively created the visa category known as the K-3 (for derivative dependents the visa category is a K-4 which is similar to the K-2 derivative visa associated with a K1 visa or fiance visa). Since the creation of the K-3 visa, the USCIS has cut down their backlog to the point where immigrant visa petitions are being adjudicated within a matter of months. As a result, there was a rather brief period of time in which USCIS was adjudicating immigrant visa petitions faster that K3 visa petitions. In any case, once USCIS has made their adjudication, such petitions are then sent to the NVC where they are the forwarded on to the US Mission, US Embassy, or US Consulate with appropriate jurisdiction for Consular Processing. At some point, a decision was made to “administratively close” K3 visa applications when the underlying immigrant visa petition arrives at NVC before, or contemporaneously with, the immigrant visa petition. In practical terms, this means that if the adjudicated immigrant visa petition arrives at NVC before the K3 petition, the K3 will be effectively set aside and the bi-national couple will be compelled to proceed with the immigrant visa process.

In a way, this policy makes some sense as the K3 visa’s utility is somewhat negated by the contemporaneous processing of an immigrant visa. As a result, at the time of this writing, there are many who feel that the K3 visa is not a particularly viable option for those Americans wishing to bring their Taiwanese husband or wife to the USA. It should be noted that the K3 visa was always a non-immigrant visa meaning that it did not confer lawful permanent residence upon the bearer when admitted to the USA. Those arriving in the USA on a K3 could choose to either consular process their immigrant visa application or file for adjustment of status in the USA.

For related information please see:  K1 Visa Taiwan or US Marriage Visa.

Tags: Adjustment of Status, American Immigration Taiwan, American Institute Taiwan, Department of State, Fiance Visa Taiwan, K-1 Visa Taiwan, K-3 Visa Taiwan, K1 Visa Taiwan, K3 Visa Taiwan, National Visa Center, US Immigration Taiwan, US Marriage Visa, US Marriage Visa Taiwan, US MArriage Visa Taiwanese Wife, US Visa Taiwan, USA Visa Taiwan
Posted in Adjustment of Status, CR1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K2 Visa, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS | No Comments »

Those familiar with this blog may have noticed that administrative closure of K3 visa applications has been a topic of discussion since the Department of State’s National Visa Center (NVC) announced that K3 visa applications would be administratively closed if the underlying I-130 petition arrives at NVC prior to, or at the same as, the supplemental I-129f petition. Those who conduct research about the US visa process over the internet may have noticed that the buzzword used to describe a US Marriage Visa is: K3 visa. However, the K3 Visa is not the classic travel document used to bring a Vietnamese spouse to the United States of America. This is due to the fact that in the relatively recent past the only travel document available to the foreign spouse of a US Citizen, based upon the marriage alone, was either an IR-1 visa or a CR1 Visa both of which are only available to those filing an Immigrant visa petition.

The K-3 visa category’s creation was the result of a piece of legislation commonly referred to as the “Life Act”. This bill was promulgated by the United States Congress and signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton. At that time, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) was processing Immigrant spouse visa petitions quite slowly due to a rather significant backlog of such petitions. The K-3 was designed to alleviate some of this backlog as well as reunite bi-national married couples as quickly as possible in the USA.

Recently, the USCIS has been processing Immigrant spouse petitions in a much more efficient manner. This has lead to many approved Immigrant petitions reaching the National Visa Center (NVC) at the same time or before the supplemental petition used to seek K3 visa benefits. As a result, the NVC made the policy that K3 visa applications would be “administratively closed” if the CR1 or IR1 visa petition arrived at NVC prior to or at the same time as the K3 petition. This has effectively compelled bi-national Vietnamese-American couples to seek Immigrant visa benefits rather than non-immigrant K3 visa benefits. That said, the Immigrant visa really is a preferable visa category to the K-3 as those Vietnamese spouses of American Citizens entering the USA on an Immigrant visa are granted Lawful Permanent Residence (either CR-1 or IR-1 status depending upon the couple’s circumstances) upon admission to the United States at a Port of Entry. Those entering the USA on a K3 visa are not granted lawful permanent residence upon admission, but instead must file for adjustment of status in the USA which can be costly and rather time consuming. Therefore, some have argued that NVC’s administrative closure policy has actually lead to an overall streamlining of the US Marriage Visa process.

For related information please see: K3 Visa Vietnam or K1 Visa Vietnam.

Tags: administrative closing, Administrative Closure, American State Department, American Visa Vietnam, CR-1 Visa Vietnam, CR1 Visa Vietnam, Department of State, IR-1 Visa Vietnam, IR1 Visa Vietnam, K-1 Visa Vietnam, K-3 Visa Vietnam, K-4 Visa Vietnam, K1 Visa Vietnam, K3 Visa Application, K3 Visa Process, K3 Visa Vietnam, K4 Visa Vietnam, National Visa Center, US State Department, US Visa Vietnam, USA Visa Vietnam
Posted in CR1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K2 Visa, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy Vietnam, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

Those familiar with this blog may note that the Diversity Visa Lottery is on the horizon. This is a no-cost application and our firm currently does not take clients for Diversity Visas. That said, there are many around the world who are eligible to submit an application to be entered in the Diversity Visa Lottery. The following is language from the Federal Register quoted directly from a posting on the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:

[Federal Register: October 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 60846-60854]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01oc10-116]

—————————————

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7184]

Bureau of Consular Affairs; Registration for the Diversity Immigrant (DV-2012) Visa Program

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

—————————————

SUMMARY: This public notice provides information on how to apply for the DV-2012 Program. This notice is issued pursuant to 22 CFR 42.33(b)(3) which implements sections 201(a)(3), 201(e), 203(c) and 204(a)(1)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, (8 U.S.C. 1151, 1153, and 1154(a)(1)(I)).

Instructions for the 2012 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV-2012)

The congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is administered on an annual basis by the Department of State and conducted under the terms of Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649) amended INA 203 and provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants.” Section 203(c) of the INA provides a maximum of 55,000 Diversity Visas (DV) each fiscal year to be made available to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

The annual DV program makes permanent residence visas available to persons meeting the simple, but strict, eligibility requirements. A computer-generated random lottery drawing chooses selectees for Diversity Visas. The visas are distributed among six geographic regions with a greater number of visas going to regions with lower rates of immigration, and with no visas going to nationals of countries sending more than 50,000 immigrants to the United States over the period of the past five years. Within each region, no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available Diversity Visas in any one year.

For DV-2012, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply because the countries sent a total of

[[Page 60847]]

more than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years:

BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PERU, the PHILIPPINES, POLAND, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM.

Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible. For DV-2012, no countries have been added or removed from the previous year’s list of eligible countries.

The Department of State implemented the electronic registration system beginning with DV-2005 in order to make the Diversity Visa process more efficient and secure. The Department utilizes special technology and other means to identify those who commit fraud for the purposes of illegal immigration or who submit multiple entries.

Diversity Visa Registration Period

Entries for the DV-2012 Diversity Visa Lottery must be submitted electronically between noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), Tuesday, October 5, 2010, and noon, Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-5) Wednesday, November 3, 2010. Applicants may access the electronic Diversity Visa Entry Form (E-DV) at http://www.dvlottery.state.gov during the registration period. Paper entries will not be accepted. Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the last week of the registration period to enter. Heavy demand may result in Web site delays. No entries will be accepted after noon, EST, on November 3, 2010.

Requirements for Entry

To enter the DV lottery, you must be a native of one of the listed countries. See “List of Countries by Region Whose Natives Qualify.” In most cases this means the country in which you were born. However, there are two other ways you may be able to qualify. First, if you were born in a country whose natives are ineligible but your spouse was born in a country whose natives are eligible; you can claim your spouse’s country of birth, provided both you and your spouse are on the selected entry, are issued visas, and enter the United States simultaneously. Second, if you were born in a country whose natives are ineligible, but neither of your parents was born there or resided there at the time of your birth, you may claim nativity in one of your parents’ country of birth, if it is a country whose natives qualify for the DV-2012 program.

To enter the lottery, you must meet either the education or work experience requirement of the DV program. You must have either a high school education or its equivalent, defined as successful completion of a 12-year course of elementary and secondary education; OR, two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation requiring at least two years of training or experience to perform. The U.S. Department of Labor’s O*Net OnLine database will be used to determine qualifying work experience. For more information about qualifying work experience, see Frequently Asked Question 13. If you cannot meet either of these requirements, you should NOT submit an entry to the DV program. [AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 10100163 (posted Oct. 1, 2010)]

Those wishing to apply for a Diversity Visa should first ascertain if they are eligible. After determining eligibility an application must be submitted. Should an entrant be chosen to receive the visa, then Consular Processing will still be required. Therefore, applicants for a US diversity visa may still be required to submit themselves for interview at a US Embassy or US Consulate outside of the United States. Some find that attorney assistance is beneficial during the Consular Processing phase of this type of application while others choose to file pro se.

It should be noted that the Visa Lottery does not require payment of any fees  initially (although winners may need to pay Consular Processing fees and travel expenses). Therefore, those wishing to obtain this type of travel document should view anyone seeking an “application fee” with caution. Finally, as always, before retaining anyone to assist with any type of visa application it may be prudent to check the credentials of the individual to be retained in an effort to determine if he or she is a licensed American attorney who is able to practice US Immigration law.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: American State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, DHS, Diversity Visa, Diversity Visa Lottery, DOS, DV program, State Department, USCIS, Visa Lottery
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, US Emassy Mongolia, 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 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 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 Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

The J1 visa can be an effective travel document for those seeking admission to the United States for cultural and educational exchange. It was recently announced that certain changes will be implemented which may have a significant impact upon J1 visa applicants. The American State Department has made rule changes which may effect J1 visa processing, to quote a recent press release distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

On June 19, 2007, the Department published an interim final rule amending its regulations regarding Trainees and Interns to, among other things, eliminate the distinction between “non-specialty occupations” and “specialty occupations,” establish a new internship program, and modify the selection criteria for participation in a training program.

This document confirms the Interim Final Rule as final and amends the requirements to permit the use of telephone interviews to screen potential participants for eligibility, to remove the requirement that sponsors secure a Dun & Bradstreet report profiling companies with whom a participant will be placed and also amends this provision to provide clarification regarding the verification of Worker’s Compensation coverage for participants and use of an Employer Identification Number to ascertain that a third-party host organization providing training is a viable entity, and to clarify that trainees and interns may repeat training and internship programs under certain conditions.

It would appear that the US State Department is making these changes in order to better enjoy the benefits of technological advances. The use of telephone interviews for eligibility screening purposes will likely decrease overall processing time. Furthermore, repealing the Dun & Bradstreet report requirement will likely save individuals as well as companies time and resources when they opt to file for J-1 visa benefits on behalf of a foreign national.

The J-1 visa is often utilized by those who travel to the USA as exchange visitors. Often, those applying for such a travel documents do so at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. As the J-1 visa is a non-immigrant visa, the Consular Officer adjudicating the application must ascertain whether the applicant should be granted the visa notwithstanding the provisions of section 214b of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act which requires that those seeking a non-immigrant visa show “strong ties” to their home country and “weak ties” to the United States. Some are under the mistaken impression that a J-1 visa is a “dual intent” travel document akin to the L1 visa. Due to the provisions of section 214b of the INA, the applicant for a J1 visa should not maintain an intention to remain in the USA indefinitely.

For related information please see: US Tourist Visa.

Tags: 214(b), American State Department, Cultural Exchange Visa, Department of State, dual intent, Exchange Visitor Visa, J1 visa, L1 Visa, United States Immigration and Nationality Act, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa Bangladesh, US Visa Burma, US Visa China, US Visa India, US Visa Japan, US Visa Korea, US Visa Laos, US Visa Malaysia, US Visa Myanmar, US Visa Nepal, US Visa Philippines, US Visa Singapore, US Visa Thailand, US Visa Vietnam
Posted in General Legal Information, J1 visa, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, L1 Visa, Miscellaneous, Thai Family Law, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Mumbai, 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 Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, 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 Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »