Integrity Legal

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Bankruptcy Courts may soon be hearing cases involving bankruptcy petitions for couples who have entered into a same sex marriage. In order to provide further insight it is prudent to quote directly from the official website of the Reuters News Service, Reuters.com:

The U.S. Justice Department has dropped its opposition to joint bankruptcy petitions filed by same-sex married couples in a victory for supporters of gay marriage. The policy change is the latest setback for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which has come under increasing pressure since the Obama administration said in February that it would no longer defend its constitutionality. Until now, the Justice Department had routinely intervened to stop joint bankruptcy cases filed by same-sex couples. The Department’s position had been that the bankruptcy code only allows joint filings by opposite-sex spouses as defined under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In an unexpected turnabout, the department on Wednesday filed a request to withdraw its appeal in one such case. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler confirmed the policy change in an e-mail to Reuters on Thursday. “The Department of Justice has informed bankruptcy courts that it will no longer seek dismissal of bankruptcy petitions filed jointly by same-sex debtors who are married under state law,” she wrote…

The administration of this web log encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to read this interesting article by Terry Baynes which was edited by Cynthia Johnston.

Although the main thrust of this blog is not centered upon the discussion of federal bankruptcy issues, this change in policy to recognize those same sex couples married under State law is certainly a victory for advocates of LGBT Equality. Concurrently, it is also a victory for proponents of States’ Rights, a doctrine which holds many of the prerogatives and laws of the States in high regard relative to those of the federal government of the United States of America. Meanwhile, advocates for full LGBT Equality must continue to wait for full legal recognition of equal rights until such time as the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) is either repealed, replaced with legislation similar to the Respect for Marriage Act, or amended in such a way that true equality under the law is granted for the individuals involved while the prerogatives of the sovereign American States are respected. Something perhaps akin to the doctrine of “certainty” enshrined in the provisions of the Respect for Marriage Act noted above.

In an American immigration context, it should be noted that members of the LGBT community cannot be granted the same visa benefits in the same manner as other communities since same sex bi-national couples are not able to obtain travel documents such as the CR-1 visa, the IR-1 visa, or the K-1 visa in the same way as their different-sex counterparts. Therefore until such time as DOMA is repealed this situation is unlikely to change. In the event that legislation such as the Respect for Marriage Act, the Reuniting Families Act, or the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is enacted by the Congress and signed into law by the President then a same sex bi-national couple may be able to petition for US immigration benefits for their spouse or fiance. As of the time of this writing, such a scenario is not yet feasible.

In news related to China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) it recently came to this blogger’s attention that tensions appear to be subsiding with respect to the various issues surrounding the South China Sea. This assessment is made based upon apparent announcements from the Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario.  To provide more information it is necessary to quote directly from the website of Business World Online, BWorldOnline.com:

BEIJING –FOREIGN AFFAIRS Secretary Albert F. del Rosario on Friday said he and ranking Chinese officials agreed to settle the territorial dispute in the South China Sea through guidelines agreed upon by China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) almost a decade ago.Mr. Del Rosario, who talked to foreign journalists at the St. Regis Hotel near the Philippine embassy, said “yes” when asked if his two-day visit was a success, adding that both side have renewed their commitment to bring stability in the area amid recent tensions. “The two sides reaffirmed their commitments to respect and abide by the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed by China and the ASEAN member countries in 2002,” Mr. del Rosario said, referring to his meeting with Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. “Both ministers agreed to further strengthen the bonds and friendship and cooperation between the two countries and to fully implement the Joint Action Plan,” he added. “Both ministers exchanged views on the maritime disputes and agreed not to let the maritime disputes affect the broader picture of friendship and cooperation between the two countries,” Mr. del Rosario further said…The South China Sea, which hosts the oil-rich Spratly Islands, has been claimed in part or wholly by Brunei Darrusalam, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. In a conference in Manila late this week, foreign policy experts called for a binding agreement among Spratly claimants to resolve conflicting positions…[sic]

This blogger asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this insightful article by Darwin T. Wee.

As can be gathered from the excerpt noted above, there have been many geopolitical facets to the South China Sea dispute, but one notable aspect of this developing situation is that the parties have a seemingly genuine desire to deal with the matter reasonably and and peacefully. Hopefully this attitude will continue and these issues can be resolved to the benefit of all concerned.

At the time of this writing, China continues to show signs of increasing economic and political strength. These developments come amidst news that Malaysia has maintained trade discussions with various African and Islamic nations while simultaneously playing a role within ASEAN. At the same time, circumstances in the so-called BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have lead many to believe that all of these jurisdiction will show further economic flourish in the future. Vietnam and Taiwan are dealing with rather new issues as they find themselves confronting the rest of the world on somewhat different terms compared to times past. These developments have both positive and negative ramifications for these jurisdictions, but the overall economic and political forecasts for all of these places appears bright.

As the aforementioned dispute appears to be moving toward a resolution it is hoped that further disputes can be handled using some sort of framework which provides efficiency in adjudicating issues while simultaneously operating on terms which all parties concerned can agree upon.

For information related to same sex marriage and the intersection between State and federal law please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

For information pertaining to legal services in Southeast Asia please see: Legal.

Tags: ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, bankruptcy courts, Brunei Darrusalam, China, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping, constitutionality, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, Defense of Marriage Act, dismissal of bankruptcy petitions filed jointly by same-sex debtors, DOMA, gay marriage, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, Joint Action Plan, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, LGBT community, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, LGBT Wedding, Malaysia, maritime disputes, married under state law, Obama Administration, opposite-sex spouses, Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario, Respect for Marriage Act, Reuniting Families Act, Same Sex Bi-National Couple, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, same sex civil union, Same Sex Immigration, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, Same Sex Wedding, same-sex married couples, South China Sea, Spratly Islands, States' Rights, Taiwan, the Philippines, U.S. Justice Department, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, Vietnam
Posted in ASEAN Business, China Business, Editorial, News, Opinion, same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a Federal Court injunction has once again been put into effect with respect to the issue of the American military’s so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. To provide further information on this matter it is necessary to quote directly from the online home of the San Fransisco Chronicle at SFGate.com:

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court ordered a halt Wednesday to the armed forces’ policy of discharging openly gay service members, citing the impending demise of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Obama administration’s escalating criticism of antigay laws. Congress has already voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 1993 law that barred military service by gays and lesbians who disclose their sexual orientation. But the repeal was due to take effect only after the Pentagon certified that the change in the law would not interfere with military readiness or recruiting, a finding the Obama administration had projected for the end of this year. On Wednesday, however, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco – which had previously allowed the government to follow its own timetable – reinstated a federal judge’s injunction that had briefly barred enforcement of the law last fall before it was suspended…

The administration of this blog asks readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read all of this interesting story by the aforementioned newspaper’s staff writer Bob Egelko.

As has been previously pointed out in the pages of this web log, the American Armed Forces should be commended for their efforts to quickly and efficiently integrate the LGBT community into their honored ranks. This blogger would speculate that the open inclusion of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (also sometimes referred to colloquially as the “third sex” in Thailand) community will only make the United States military a stronger and more cohesive force for the advancement of freedom and liberty around the globe. Posterity may one day note that the aforementioned injunction was not necessary, but the force of law which comes “part and parcel” with a federal injunction can only help the efforts of those struggling for LGBT equality.

Readers may note that the American federal government does not recognize same sex marriage even those same sex marital unions which are legalized and/or solemnized by one of the sovereign American States. Although, it would appear as though one major obstacle in the path of LGBT equality could soon be overcome since the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate may soon hold hearings regarding the repeal of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) with an eye toward the possible recommendation of something similar to the Respect for Marriage Act. In order to provide detailed information regarding these developments it may be wise to quote directly from Advocate.com:

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a first-ever hearing on efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act “in the coming weeks,” committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced Thursday. A committee spokeswoman said a date has yet to be set for the hearing on the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced in March by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and currently supported by 25 senate cosponsors, including Leahy and New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand. A witness list for the hearing, which will be webcast, has not been finalized…

This blogger strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to read from this insightful article by Andrew Harmon.

Frequent readers of this blog may have noticed that a piece of legislation similar to that noted above was also introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Jerrold Nadler who also introduced the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which is a bill that would provide United States visa benefits to same sex bi-national couples which would be substantially similar to those currently enjoyed by many different-sex bi-national couples (ex. the CR-1 visa, the IR-1 visa, or the K-1 visa). It should be noted that Representative Mike Honda also appears to have included UAFA-like language in the provisions of his proposed Reuniting Families Act. As of the time of this writing, none of this legislation has seen passage. However, in order for any bill to become a law it must first see passage in both houses of the American Congress and Senate Judiciary Committee hearings are a vital first step in effecting legislative change at the Senatorial level. Therefore, these developments may ultimately prove to be of the initial phases in a process that culminates with full LGBT equality under the law of the United States of America.

For related information please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Tags: American Congress, antigay laws, Bisexual, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, Defense of Marriage Act, different-sex bi-national couple, Don't Ask Don't Tell, federal appeals court, federal injunction, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Gay, injunction, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, Lesbian, LGBT Equality, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, openly gay service members, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Representative Mike Honda, Respect for Marriage Act, Reuniting Families Act, Same Sex Bi-National Couple, same sex civil union, same sex marital union, Same Sex Marriage, Senate Judiciary Committee, third sex, Transgender, uafa, United States House of Representatives, Uniting American Families Act, US Congress, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, “in the coming weeks”
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has been noted by various media outlets for launching a new ad campaign to encourage those present in the United States as lawful permanent residents to naturalize to American Citizenship. In order to provide further insight into these developments it is best to quote directly from the website of China Daily, ChinaDaily.com.cn:

NEW YORK – The US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has launched its first ever paid ad campaign urging roughly 7.9 million green card holders to become naturalized citizens. The $3.5 million multilingual campaign will be used for three years and is part of an $11 million allotment from Congress meant to promote integration of immigrants. This year’s campaign in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese will run in print, radio and digital formats between May 30 and Sept 5, primarily in states with large immigrant populations, such as California, New York, Florida and Texas. ”You’ve got to create that sense of urgency, and until they’ve reached that sense of urgency, they’ll just coast,” Nathan Stiefel, division chief of policy and programs for the Office of Citizenship at USCIS, told the Associated Press…

This blogger asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in detail.

For those who are unfamiliar with matters pertaining to American immigration it should be noted that those who enter the United States of America on a CR-1 visa or an IR-1 visa are accorded lawful permanent residence (also colloquially referred to as Green Card status). After spending a specified period of time physically present in the United States it may be possible for an immigrant to naturalize to American citizenship. There are many benefits to be had by undergoing the naturalization process including, but not limited to: the right to vote, the right to a US Passport, as well as the various privileges and/or immunities of citizenship. Those interested in learning if they are eligible for such benefits are encouraged to contact a licensed American attorney.

In somewhat unrelated news, it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the government of Japan is apparently preparing to conduct tests on various nuclear facilities in that country. For further insight it is necessary to quote directly from the Channel News Asia website at ChannelNewsAsia.com:

TOKYO : Japan said Wednesday it will run “stress tests” on all its nuclear reactors in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi accident sparked by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami disaster. The ongoing crisis, the world’s worst atomic accident since Chernobyl 25 years ago, has ignited debate in Japan about the safety of nuclear power, which before the disaster accounted for a third of its electricity needs. The centre-left government ordered a round of initial tests on the country’s other atomic power plants after the disaster, and said the new stress tests aimed to reassure the public that the facilities are safe…

The administration of this blog asks readers to click on the appropriate hyperlinks above to read this article in detail.

For those unfamiliar with the ongoing situation in Japan it should be noted that an Earthquake which occurred in March of this year resulted in a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima facility noted above. This situation had tremendous ramifications for both the Asia-Pacific region and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). As this tragic state of affairs continues to play out it is hoped that positive endeavors can mitigate some of the damage caused by this disaster. No doubt the Japanese citizenry remain in the hearts and minds of conscientious people the world over.

For related information please see: Certificate of Citizenship or Certificate of Naturalization.

Tags: American Citizenship, American Immigration, American Passport, ASEAN, Asia-Pacific, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, California, Certificate of Citizenship, Certificate of Naturalization, Chernobyl, Chinese, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, English, Florida, Fukushima, Fukushima Daiichi, Green Card, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, Japan Earthquake, Japan news, Lawful Permanent Residence, Lawful Permanent Resident, March 11 earthquake, Naturalization, Naturalize, naturalized citizen, New York, privileges and immunities of United States Citizenship, privileges or immunities of United States Citizenship, Spanish, stress tests, Texas, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, US Citizenship, US Immigration, us passport, USCIS, USCIS Office of Citizenship, Vietnamese
Posted in US Citizenship, US Embassy Japan, USCIS | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has implemented a new policy regarding the I-130 petition for visas such as the CR-1 visa and the IR-1 visa. To provide further insight it may be prudent to quote directly from the official website of the USCIS, USCIS.gov:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that effective Aug. 15, 2011, petitioners residing in countries without USCIS offices will be able to file a Petition for an Alien Relative (Form I-130), with the USCIS Chicago Lockbox facility. This will increase the efficiency of the relative petition filing process and give USCIS more flexibility in managing its workload. Previous regulations permitted these petitioners, who comprise about 5 percent of all I-130 petitioners, to file with USCIS or the U.S. Department of State at their local U.S. embassy or consulate. Under the new regulation, published today in the Federal Register, petitioners residing in countries without USCIS offices may file a Petition for an Alien Relative based on the addresses provided in the revised form instructions…

Clearly, this new policy could have significant ramifications for those seeking a United States visa on behalf of a foreign loved one. Concurrently, those familiar with the American visa process may note that this new policy effectively ends the Direct Consular Filing option for petitioners in certain Consular jurisdictions. In the past, it may have been possible for petitioners to file their visa petition directly with a US Embassy or US Consulate if the petitioner resided in the Consular District. These recent regulatory changes would appear to bring this era of Consular Processing to an end.

Meanwhile, in news related to Southeast Asia and the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) community, it appears that Malaysia is poised to engage in a Free Trade Agreement with India. To provide further insight into these developments it may be best to quote directly from the website MoneyControl.com:

The free trade agreement (FTA) between India and Malaysia will come into force from July 1, giving Indian professionals like accountants, engineers and doctors access to the key South-East Asian nation. In addition, exports of items of considerable interest to India, like basmati rice, mangoes, eggs, trucks, motorcycles and cotton garments, will attract lower or no duty in Malaysia with the implementation of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), according to a statement of the Commerce Ministry issued today…

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to learn more on this developing story.

As nations in ASEAN, such as Malaysia, continue to become more integrated into broader markets it stands to reason that new trade arrangements will be forged. The ASEAN community (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam) has been the topic of a great deal of recent discussion regarding future free trade agreements as many nations around the world try to make headway into this important and increasingly lucrative regional market.

For information related to legal services in ASEAN, please see: Legal.

Tags: American Consulate, American Embassy, American Visa Process, ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, CECA, Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, Direct Consular Filing, Federal Register, Form I-130, Free Trade Agreement, FTA, I-130, India, Indonesia, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, Laos, Malaysia, Malaysian Commerce Ministry, Myanmar, Petition for an Alien Relative, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Visa, US Visa Process, USCIS, USCIS Chicago Lockbox, Vietnam
Posted in ASEAN Business, CR1 Visa, IR1 Visa, Malaysia Business, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, USCIS | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Justice, in association with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is taking measures to combat scams involving immigration services for those wishing to travel to the USA . To quote directly from a recent announcement posted upon the official website of the Department of Justice, Justice.gov:

Federal Agencies Combat Immigration Services Scams
DHS, DOJ and FTC Collaborate with State and Local Partners in Unprecedented Effort

WASHINGTON—The U.S. government will unveil a national initiative to combat immigration services scams on June 9 at 1 p.m. The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are leading this historic effort.
DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the lead agency responsible for administering the U.S. legal immigration system, will announce the initiative while hosting events in seven cities around the country as well as the national launch in Washington, D.C.

The unauthorized practice of immigration law is an exploitative practice that endangers the integrity of our immigration system and victimizes members of the immigrant community. Understanding the gravity of this deceptive practice, federal, state and local partners have come together to combat immigration services scams on all fronts. The initiative is set upon three pillars: enforcement, education, and continued collaboration. Each agency plays a critical role to ensure the success of this national effort. This initiative exemplifies how government and community can work together to effectively address a serious problem…

The administration of this web log encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to learn more about the Justice Department’s recently announced initiative.

Unfortunately, there are many less-than-reputable organizations in jurisdictions such as those which comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other locales around the world falsely purporting to have the necessary qualifications to provide advice, counsel, and assistance pertaining to United States visas and immigration.

Processing a United States visa can be a cumbersome and overwhelming process for those unfamiliar with relevant immigration law and procedure. Those thinking about retaining an American lawyer to assist in the acquisition of visas such as the CR-1 visa, IR-1 visa, K-1 visa, EB-5 visa, or L-1 visa (to name just a few visa categories) are encouraged to ascertain the credentials of those claiming knowledge of such matters. This is encouraged because only properly licensed attorneys are permitted to accept fees to engage in the practice of U.S. immigration law pursuant to 8 CFR 292.1.

In general, before a visa applicant can undergo Consular Processing at US Mission abroad (US Embassy, US Consulate, American Institute, etc) they must first receive an approved petition from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand or Legal.

Tags: 8 CFR 292.1, American Consulate, American Embassy, American Lawyer, ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, deceptive practice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Departments of Homeland Security, DHS, DOJ, EB-5 Visa, EB5 Visa, Federal Trade Commission, FTC, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, L-1 visa, L1 Visa, legal immigration system, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Immigration Fraud, Us Immigration Scam, US lawyer, US Visa Scam, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

–Thomas Jefferson (3rd President of the United States of America, First Secretary of State [Washington Administration])

Gay rights are human rights.

– Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (Former First Lady of the United States)

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

– 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution, quoted from Wikipedia

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

– 10 Amendment of the United States Constitution, quoted from Wikipedia

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond located in the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia has taken political criticism for flying a rainbow flag (traditionally viewed as a flag denoting support for the LGBT community and, for some, their struggle for equal protection under United States law and/or equal recognition of same sex marriage solemnized and/or legalized in one of the sovereign American States, the District of Columbia, or the Federal territories, if applicable). To quote directly from an article by Olympia Meola posted on the official website of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, TimesDispatch.com:

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, is asking the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank to remove the rainbow flag flying below the American flag outside of the building, calling its presence “a serious deficiency of judgment by your organization, one not limited to social issues.” In a letter to Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker, Marshall says the homosexual behavior “celebrated” by the bank “undermines the American economy…”

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this story in detail in order to gain further insight into this developing situation.

This blogger must pause this analysis for a moment of personal observation. It is intriguing that Delegate Marshall would seem to be trying to scapegoat some of the blame for recent economic events upon the LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (transsexual, or “third sex“), community. This blogger must retort: how could the LGBT community “undermine” America’s economy? Explain this? Especially since a great deal of economic activity that produces revenue in America comes from married couples trying to make a living, build a home, and start a family. Is it in dispute that marriage and family generate economic benefits for America? If it is not, then the only way the LGBT community could be at fault for some hypothetical economic downturn would seem to arise from the fact that they have not started families (and therefore not generated the concomitant economic activity derived therefrom) due to the fact that they cannot gain the same legal recognition of their relationships in the same way that those in different-sex relationships are able to. This is especially true in the context of same sex bi-national couples as some of these relationships are separated by thousands of miles and jurisdictional boundaries due to the fact that federal enforcement of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) does not allow a same sex bi-national couple to petition for the same US visa benefits (such as the CR1 visa or the IR1 Visa, not to mention the K1 visa which is a US fiance visa) in the same manner as a different sex couple. There are currently American federal legislators such as Representative Mike Honda and Representative Jerrold Nadler who have introduced legislation, such as the Reuniting Families Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act; which would, to one degree or another, at least end the current discrimination that the bi-national LGBT community faces when trying to reunite with family in the United States of America. Apparently this Federal Reserve Bank was flying this flag pursuant to a request from another organization which appears dedicated to the cause of LGBT equality:

The flag is being flown at the request of PRISM, a Richmond Fed group representing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees and allies.

This PRISM organization should be commended for their efforts on behalf of the LGBT community, but this blogger must say that he would like to see legislation passed which provides tangible benefits to the LGBT community rather than a gesture from a private corporation which, at least ostensibly, has no role in deciding American policy toward legal recognition of LGBT relationships. Others echoed some of these sentiments, but for what are, in this blogger’s personal opinion, the wrong reasons:

Its presence also prompted mention from Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation in an email release on Wednesday. Although the Federal Reserve is a private entity, it is disappointing to see it participate in this celebration,” she said.

This blogger is always a bit skeptical when a group uses the term “family” when describing themselves as it is usually an indicator that such an organization has its own idea about what the definition of “family” actually is. Concurrently, such organizations are sometimes known to attempt to foist their own paradigm or definition of family upon others who may not necessarily share the same view. Therefore, readers are asked to always conduct their own research on all aspects of such issues in order to form their own well informed opinions.

This blogger must confess that this recent display of support for LGBT equality by the Fed seems a bit disingenuous considering the timing and circumstances. It has recently been reported on some mainstream and alternative media outlets that there are currently worries growing about the state of the American economy. Meanwhile it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the government of China is reported to have diminished their position in United States Treasuries. To quote directly from an article written by Terence P. Jeffrey and posted to the website CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) – China has dropped 97 percent of its holdings in U.S. Treasury bills, decreasing its ownership of the short-term U.S. government securities from a peak of $210.4 billion in May 2009 to $5.69 billion in March 2011, the most recent month reported by the U.S. Treasury. Treasury bills are securities that mature in one year or less that are sold by the U.S. Treasury Department to fund the nation’s debt. Mainland Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury bills are reported in column 9 of the Treasury report linked here…

Readers are strongly encouraged to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in full and learn more. This situation is only brought up in the context of this posting to elucidate the fact that the Fed is currently in something of a “pickle”. This news comes upon the heels of recent announcements (noted in a previous posting on this blog) that the USA and China are set to be engaging in cooperative efforts in the context of relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Clearly, current American relations with China and countries in Southeast Asia are multi-facted and complex so those interested in such topics are encouraged to conduct thorough research before forming opinions on issues associated with American, Chinese, and ASEAN economic policies and relations.

It was recently reported on the website Law.com that the Federal Reserve has come under intense scrutiny from legislators such as Representative Ron Paul for current policies supposedly being maintained by the Fed. To quote directly from an insightful article written by Shannon Green and posted on the website Law.com:

The Congressman criticized the Fed for its reluctance to disclose to the public when banks are unhealthy. Paul said the Fed’s practices of protecting banks’ privacy appears to be at odds with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is pushing companies to reveal more information.

Readers are strongly encouraged to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in full to gain more context.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with positions held by the various members of House of Representatives is not really relevant to the issue of the Fed’s decision to hoist this particular flag at this particular time. Although it is certainly a commendable gesture, this blogger’s response, with all due respect, must be: why so late, and why now? If the Fed is raising the Rainbow flag because they genuinely support LGBT Equality, then great; but if this institution is simply raising this flag because of political expediency or to score some sort of “political points”, then one must ask: why? Hopefully the LGBT community will see their equal rights fully vested soon and this valid grievance will be redressed. In the meantime, this blogger hopes that the American economy will rebound from any relative downturn to find itself more vibrant and dynamic than ever, but some developments take time. For those personally impacted by the current state of affairs: it is hoped that change will come sooner rather than later.

Readers should note that in the context of same sex marriage this blogger feels that fundamentally the issue of LGBT equality is an individual rights issue as the right to enter into a consensual relationship with whomever one wishes is an inalienable natural right reserved to the People notwithstanding the Constitution, but nevertheless enshrined within the provisions of the 9th and 10th Amendments noted above. The implied right of “free association” has also long been held to provide Constitutional protection for Americans wishing to form intimate associations with others. Concurrently, this blogger feels that where sovereign States have heeded the call of their citizenry to provide government licensure of same sex marriages or marital unions, then that licensure acts as an imprimatur of sovereign recognition which, in this blogger’s opinion, cannot be negated by the federal government and must be accorded Full Faith and Credit by sister States within the Union. Those unfamiliar with the Full Faith and Credit Clause should note that Congress can make rules regarding the effect of State law upon other States, but, in this blogger’s opinion, such law cannot be made to render the States’ laws ineffective, which is the current result of the federal government’s application of some, or all, depending upon circumstance; of the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act“. This blogger must point out that although same sex couples ought to be able to get Full Faith and Credit for those marriages solemnized and/or legalized in one of the sovereign States of the United States of America, they may not necessarily see States which do not permit same sex marriage in an intrastate context engaging in the legal procedure of divorcing same sex couples as this blogger believes that one must utilize a “horizontal vs. vertical” analysis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the context of same sex marriage since there is both an intrastate and interstate component to such an analysis. Such an analysis could, at times, result in a situation where a State Court permits recognition of the fact that a same sex marriage exists in another State jurisdiction, but the Full Faith and Credit Clause’s provisions may not necessarily be interpreted to mean that States should be compelled to grant same sex divorces if the public policy of the State in question does not permit State sanctioned legalization or solemnization of such unions in the first place.

On a side note, this blogger just thought of an interesting hypothetical: could a federal Court with concurrent federal jurisdiction over State territory grant divorces for same sex couples who were married in another State jurisdiction (which allows same sex marriage) if the underlying State’s public policy runs counter to the notion of granting recognition for such unions? It would currently seem that pursuant to the Erie Doctrine the US Courts under such circumstances may be prohibited from undertaking certain functions pertaining to same sex marriages if the underlying State’s law does not recognize such unions. That stated, as of the time of this writing any such analysis remains mere speculation as a broadly binding legal opinion on these issue has yet to be handed down.

Readers interested in learning more about the struggle for LGBT Equality are encouraged to check out UnitingAmericanFamilies.Net, Lez Get Real, and/or the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog.

For further related information please see: Rainbow Flag or US Company Registration.

Tags: ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Bisexual, Commonwealth of Virginia, companies, CR1 Visa, Defense of Marriage Act, Del. Robert G. Marshall, DOMA, equal protection, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Gay, House of Representatives, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, Lesbian, LGBT, LGBT community, Mainland Chinese, PRISM, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Representative Mike Honda, Representative Ron Paul, Respect for Marriage Act, Reuniting Families Act, Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, Same Sex Marriage, States' Rights, third sex, Transgender, transsexual, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Treasury bills, U.S. Treasury Department, Uniting American Families Act, US Fiance Visa
Posted in American Business, China Business, Editorial, Opinion, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Business, US Company Registration, US Constitution, US LLC | No Comments »

Frequent readers of this web log may have taken note of the fact that the administration routinely posts the holiday closing schedules of the various US Missions in Asia as a courtesy to the public-at-large. To quote directly from the official website of the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan:

DATE                                 DAY                           HOLIDAY

January 2*                 (US)  Sunday  New Year’s Day
January 16*               (US)  Sunday  Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
February 15              (AF)  Tuesday  Liberation Day
February 16**           (AF)  Wednesday  Prophet’s Birthday
February 20*              (US)  Sunday  President’s Day
March 21                   (AF)  Monday  Nawrooz (Afghan New Year – 1390)
April 28                      (AF)  Thursday   Victory Day
May 29*                    (US)  Sunday  Memorial Day
July 3*                      (US)  Sunday  Independence Day
August 1**                (AF)  Monday  First Day or Ramadan
August 18***             (AF)  Thursday  Independence Day
Aug 31 – Sept 2**      (AF)  Wednesday – Friday Eid ul-Fitr
September 4*             (US)  Sunday  Labor Day
September 8***          (AF)  Thursday  Martyrdom of National Hero Day
October 9*                 (US)  Sunday  Columbus Day
November 6-8**          (AF)  Sunday – Tuesday Eid-e Qurban
November 10*             (US)  Thursday  Veteran’s Day
November 24               (US)  Thursday  Thanksgiving Day
December 6**             (AF)  Tuesday  10th of Muharram (Ashura)
December 25               (US)  Sunday  Christmas Day

Notes:

*    American holidays marked with an asterisk (*) are observed on a different day than in the US.

**  Afghan holidays marked with double asterisks (**) are based on the Islamic Calendar and depend on sightings of the moon.  As a holiday approaches, adjustments to this schedule may be made based on local practice and Afghan government announcements.

*** Afghan holidays marked with triple asterisks (***) are observed one day earlier.

Those wishing to visit the official homepage of the United States Embassy in Kabul are encouraged to click HERE.

It may sometimes prove necessary for an American Resident Abroad or an American traveling abroad to acquire documentation (US Passport, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, Notarized affidavit, etc.) which can only be obtained from an American Citizen Services section of a US Embassy or US Consulate overseas. Americans seeking such documentation are well advised to contact an American Citizen Services Section with appropriate Consular jurisdiction.

Those seeking an American non-immigrant visa (such as a B-1 visa, B-2 visa, J-1 visa, or F-1 visa) are likely to see their visa application processed at a non-immigrant visa section of a US Embassy, US Consulate, or American Institute abroad. Meanwhile, those seeking an immigrant visa such as a CR-1 visa or IR-1 visa (for purposes of Consular Processing, the K-1 visa; although a non-immigrant US fiance visa, is treated in much the same way as immigrant visa categories for processing purposes) are likely to see their visa application processed by an Immigrant Visa Unit abroad. Immigrant visas such as those noted above are likely to only be granted pursuant to an initial adjudication of an immigration petition at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

Those seeking visas such as the EB-5 visa or the L-1 visa are well advised to take note of the fact that it is unlikely that a visa application will be adjudicated by a US Post abroad until after an initial immigration petition is approved by USCIS.

For related information please see: Legal.

Tags: American Consulate, American Embassy, American Institute, American Resident Abroad, B-1 Visa, B-2 Visa, B1 visa, B2 Visa, Consular Processing, consular report of birth abroad, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, CRBA, EB-5 Visa, EB5 Visa, F-1 Visa, F1 Visa, Holiday Closing, Holiday Schedule, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, J-1 visa, J1 visa, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, L-1 visa, L1 Visa, Legal, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, United States Embassy in Afghanistan, United States Embassy in Kabul, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Embassy Afghanistan, US Embassy Kabul, US Fiance Visa, us passport, USCIS
Posted in US Embassy Kabul | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the US business visas categorized as the B-1 visa and the H-1B visa are making headlines on the World Wide Web. To quote directly from the official website of First Post, FirstPost.com:

Infosys announced on Tuesday that it had received a subpoena from a US District Court demanding documentation of its B1 visa usage, which is  the subject of a criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice (DOJ).

Those reading this web log are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks above in order to gain more perspective on this developing story. Concurrently, readers are also asked to remember that those accused of an illegal act, whether a natural person or a corporation, are innocent until proven guilty pursuant to America law.

Those unfamiliar with these visa categories should note that the B-1 visa is a non-immigrant visa designed for use by those who intend to remain in the United States for a short period of time for business meetings or training. Such travel documents do not permit the bearer to take up employment within the jurisdiction of the United States. Meanwhile, the H-1B visa is intended for those who wish to  undertake employment in the United States of America. In much the same way that a Thai business visa does not confer the right to work in the Kingdom of Thailand, only a Thai work permit entails such privileges, so too does a B-1 visa exclusively permit the bearer lawful status in the USA upon admission. Therefore, those wishing to work in the USA are generally required to obtain a visa which permits the bearer to work or obtain Employment Authorization. Those who have lawful permanent residence pursuant to entry in the USA on a CR1 Visa or an IR1 Visa are allowed to work in the USA.

The aforementioned article went on to note:

The DOJ’s criminal investigation is not the only legal claim Infosys is facing in relation to B1 visas. As Firstpost has previously reported, an Alabama-based employee named Jack “Jay” Palmer filed a civil lawsuit against the company in February alleging that Infosys used the B1 visa as a way to “creatively” manoeuvre around H-1B visa caps. (Infosys has consistently been the top recipient of H-1B visas in the US.)

Those seeking American immigration benefits should be aware of the fact that the privilege of working in the United States is not always easily obtained. Furthermore, those pondering immigration benefits should note that it is never prudent to be anything but 100% honest with American immigration officials as failure to be candid regarding one’s bona fide immigration intentions could have tremendous adverse ramifications. Consequences for failure to be forthright with immigration authorities could include fines, penalties, incarceration, or a finding of legal inadmissibility. Those found to be legally ineligible for admission to the United States of America may be able to rectify such inadmissibility through use of either an I-601 waiver or an I-212 waiver, depending upon the circumstances of the case.

Meanwhile, it appears that the Department of Homeland Security‘s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is taking criticism from a federal legislator regarding the methodology surrounding the groping of individuals passing through airports in the USA. To quote directly from the official website of Real Clear Politics, RealClearPolitics.com:

The Hill reports: “I walked through … right behind me there was a grandmother — little old lady, and she was was patted down,” Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia) said on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.” “Right behind her was a little kid who was patted down. And then right behind him was a guy in Arabian dress who just walked right through. Why are we patting down grandma and kids?”

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to learn more.

It is certainly a credit to Representative Paul Broun that he is questioning TSA policies regarding groping of prospective passengers as it is this blogger’s personal opinion that such searches violate the provisions of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This news comes on the heels of a recent announcement that lawmakers in the sovereign State of Texas have withdrawn a recent bill brought before that State’s legislature to curtail the activities of the TSA. To quote directly from the website of the Texas Tribune, TexasTribune.org:

A threat from the federal government to shut down Texas airports or cancel flights may have killed legislation by Tea Party conservatives in the Texas Capitol to prohibit federal Transportation Security Administration agents from conducting “invasive searches.” “I don’t cave in to heavy handed threats by the federal government,” said an angry Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, the Senate sponsor of the bill, who ultimately withdrew the bill. House Bill 1937, which was passed by the House earlier this month, would make it a misdemeanor offense for a federal security agent to “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly [touch] the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touching the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.” Two TSA officials visited Patrick at the Capitol earlier today to discuss the legislation. They warned him that the legislation “could close down all the airports in Texas,” he said…

This blogger encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to find out more.

Clearly, the issue of TSA “pat downs” is controversial and can raise tempers. This blogger encourages readers to keep abreast of the stories above at it seems likely that the underlying issues will continue to be poignant in the days and weeks ahead. This may be especially true in the context of an upcoming election as issues pertaining to U.S. immigration and the 4th amendment may be of concern to prospective voters.

Tags: B-1 Visa, B-1 visas, B1 visa, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, DOJ, H-1B visa, H-1B visas, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, Infosys, invasive searches, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, Texas airports, Texas Capitol, Texas Senator Dan Patrick, Thai Business Visa, Thai Work Permit, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, TSA Groping, TSA invasive searches, TSA Pat Down, US business visas, US District Court
Posted in Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Visa, US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

นอกจากนี้ ภาษากฎหมายที่นักกฎหมายฝ่ายรัฐบาลใช้ในศาลในการที่จะแบ่งแยกคำตัดสินที่เกี่ยวกับการค้นหาข้อเท็จจริงโดยอัยการเป็นไปด้วยความระมัดระวังและลบล้างคำวินิจฉัยทั้งหมดจากความเห็นทางกฎหมาย นั่นเป็นการแปลความที่ไม่สมเหตุสมผลตามพระราชบัญญัติคนเข้าเมืองและสัญชาติซึ่งมองไปข้างหน้าถึงมาตรฐานของข้อเท็จจริงการพิจารณากระบวนการเพิกถอน

จากการรวบรวมข้างต้น สถานะของรัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกาในการที่จะปฏิเสธคำขอ I-130 คือ ในพฤติการณ์ที่ศาลไม่สามารถที่จะทบทวนคำวินิจฉัยที่วินิจฉัยโดยผู้มีอำนาจในหน่วยบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองของสหรัฐอเมริกา (USCIS) เป็นประเด็นที่น่าสนใจว่า ศาลไม่ถูกชักจูงโดยข้อโต้เถียงและการทบทวนคำวินิจฉัย แม้แต่คำคัดค้านของรัฐบาล

สำหรับผู้ที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับกระบวนการทำวีซ่าสหรัฐอเมริกา คำขอ I-130 นั้นเป็นขั้นตอนแรกที่จะทำให้คนต่างด้าวมีความเกี่ยวพันนกับสหรัฐอเมริกา คำขอนั้นใช้เพื่อผู้ที่ประสงค์จะพาคู่หมั้นชาวต่างชาติไปสหรัฐอเมริกา ในกรณีที่คำขอ I-130 ได้รับการอนุมัติ เรื่องที่ได้รับการอนุมัตินั้นจะถูกส่งต่อไปยังศูนย์บริการทางวีซ่า (NVC)ซึ่งเป็นตัวแทนภายใต้กงสุลสหรัฐอเมริกาในโฮจิมินห์ซิตี้ทาง NVC ในขณะเดียวกัน คู่หมั้นชาวไทยมีแนวโน้มที่จะดำเนินการในการขอวีซ่าโดยติดต่อทางสถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาในกรุงเทพฯโดยทางศูนย์บริการวีซ่า คู่หมั้นชาวจีนอาจจะดำเนินการในสถางกงสุลสหรัฐอเมริกาในจีนหรือสถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาในปักกิ่ง เช่นเดียวกันกับอินเดีย ภารกิจของสหรัฐอเมริกาในทั้งสองประเทศมีการเปลี่ยนแปปลงที่สำคัญเพื่อที่จะอำนวยความสะดวกสำหรับผู้ที่จะทำวีซ่าหลังจากกระบวนการของ NVC

ประเด็นเกี่ยวกับความเห็นทางกฎหมายในทางกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองเป็นเรื่องที่ซับซ้อนเรื่องหนึ่ง ดังนั้นองค์ประกอบต่างๆของกระบวนการทำวีซ่าอาจจะมีความหลากหลายในประเด็นทางกฎหมายขึ้นอยู่กับพฤติการณ์ในแต่ละเรื่อง สำหรับเหตุผลนี้คู่สองสัญชาตินั้นควรเลือกที่จะให้ทนายความช่วยจัดการในการขอยื่นคำขอวีซ่าและผู้เชี่ยวชาญที่ได้รับอนุญาตนั้นสามารถที่จะดำเนินการทุกขั้นตอนและจัดการให้เป็นไปตามกระบวนการขอวีซ่าได้อย่างครบถ้วน

To see this information in English please refer to the previous blog posting.

Tags: CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, I-130, I130, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K-3 Visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, NVC, USCIS, กฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองอเมริกา, ขอวีซ่าอเมริกันในไทย, คนเข้าเมืองอเมริกัน, คำขอ I-130, วีซ่าถาวรในไทย
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

Those who read this blog on a regular basis will no doubt realize that when new information regarding Consular processing comes out this administration tries to post it in an effort to provide insight to those processing a visa application through the relevant Post. It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Embassy in Manila, Philippines is changing their protocols for Immigrant visa processing. The following is a brief quotation from the official website of the US Embassy in Manila:

Effective December 1, 2010, various changes to immigrant visa services are as follows:

• Immigrant visa applicants whose appointments have not been scheduled through the National Visa Center (NVC) (i.e., immigrant visa petitions approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services Manila) may request a visa appointment by visiting the U.S. Embassy in Manila’s Visa Information and Appointment Service online at http://www.ustraveldocs.com/ph or by calling (632) 982-5555. The Visa Information and Appointment Service is open Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Manila time), except on U.S. and Philippine holidays. Callers in the U.S. should call (214) 571-1600, from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time). Callers are able to speak with an English-, Tagalog-, Ilocano- or Cebuano-speaking operator.
• Visa Information and Appointment Service representatives can provide information on visa appointment-related inquiries only. Inquiries on a specific case may be directed to the Immigrant Visa (IV) Unit by e-mail at [email protected] or by fax at (632) 301-2591. Petitioners and applicants may also call the IV Inquiry line at (632) 301-2000, extension 5184 or 5185 during normal business hours.
• Immigrant visa applicants who have been scheduled by the NVC for a visa appointment at the Embassy are required to visit the online appointment website to register their delivery address.
• K visa applicants who have been notified by the Embassy to prepare for their interview, must pay the visa application fee of $350 before they can request a visa appointment via the online appointment website or the Visa Call Center
  

It should be noted that the above quotation does not encompass all of the information provided upon the official website. Those interested in obtaining further information are encouraged to correspond directly with either an American immigration attorney or the US Embassy in the Philippines.

The Consular Processing phase is usually the last phase of the US visa process for those with immigrant intent. Although in certain cases, a 221g refusal may be issued if the adjudicating Consular Officer feels that further documentation is required to process an application. Furthermore, a visa application may be denied if it is found that a legal grounds of inadmissibility exists in a given case. Under such circumstances, it may be possible to remedy the denial through use of an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility.

In American family based visa cases, the Immigrant Visa Unit of a US Consulate abroad is responsible for the adjudication of a visa application for those seeking a K1 visa, K3 visa, CR-1 visa, or an IR-1 visa.  Those seeking a non-immigrant visa such as a B1 visa (US Business Visa), B2 visa (US Tourist Visa), F1 visa (US Student Visa), or J1 visa (Cultural Exchange Visa) must interview with an adjudicator at the Non-immigrant visa unit of the Post with Consular jurisdiction to adjudicate a visa application.

For related information please see: US Embassy Philippines.

Tags: 221(g) refusal, 221g, 221g denial, American Visa Philippines, B-1 Visa, B-2 Visa, B1 visa, B2 Visa, Consular Processing, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, CR1 Visa Philippines, CR1 Visa Process, F-1 Visa, F1 Visa, I-601 Waiver, I-601 waiver Philippines, Immigrant Visa Unit US Embassy Philippines, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, IR1 Visa Philippines, IR1 Visa Process, J-1 visa, J1 visa, K-1 Visa, K-3 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Philippines, K1 Visa Process, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Philippines, K3 Visa Process, US Business Visa, US Consulate Manila, US consulate Philippines, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Philippines, US Exchange Visitor Visa, US Student Visa, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Philippines, USA Visa Philippines
Posted in CR1 Visa, I-601 Waiver, IR1 Visa, J1 visa, K1 Visa, K2 Visa, K3 Visa, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Philippines, US State Department, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »