Integrity Legal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage Fraud as well as Immigration Fraud are a serious issues in the eyes of those agencies tasked with the job of adjudicating visa petitions and enforcing American law with regard to admission to the United States. With that in mind, it should be noted that domestically the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE) has jurisdiction to enforce immigration regulations as well as decisions issued by Immigration courts. The following is a direct quote from a recently promulgated press release from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – A U.S. citizen, who was paid to engage in a phony marriage with a Cambodian national to evade immigration laws, pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court. The guilty plea resulted from an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Justin Michael Martin, 25, of Georgetown, Ky., pleaded guilty June 22 in the Western District of Kentucky
to conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and marriage fraud. Martin admitted that between Jan. 1, 2000 and April 7, 2010, he knowingly reached an agreement with Yota Em, Phearoun Peter Em, aka Sophea Lim, and Michael Chanthou Chin to knowingly enter into a marriage to evade U.S. immigration laws. Martin admitted that Phearoun Peter Em drove Martin to a U.S.
Post Office in Lexington to apply for a U.S. passport, and that Phearoun Peter Em paid the passport
application fee. On June 17, 2004, Michael Chanthou Chin drove Martin and others to the Louisville airport. In exchange for a fee, Martin, Phearoun Peter Em, and others traveled from Kentucky to Cambodia. Once in Cambodia, Martin met with Cambodian national Yota Em and agreed to marry her to evade the immigration laws of the United States.

Photographs were taken of Martin and Yota Em during an engagement ceremony on June 25, 2004, and at other locations in Cambodia. While in Cambodia, members of the conspiracy paid for Martin’s lodging, food, transportation, sexual services from a Cambodian female, and other expenses.
On June 27, 2004, Martin returned to the United States and was met at the airport by Michael Chanthou Chin. Thereafter, certain immigration forms were completed by Martin and Yota Em, which falsely represented the marriage as genuine. On Sept. 27, 2005, Yota Em entered the United States using a K-1 (fiancée) visa. On March 5, 2007, Yota Em and Martin participated in a civil marriage ceremony in Lexington, knowing that the marriage was not entered into in good faith, was in exchange for something of value, and that the purpose of the marriage ceremony was to enable Yota Em to obtain U.S. permanent resident status in the United States. Phearoun Peter Em and Michael Chanthou Chin served as witnesses at the civil marriage ceremony.

Martin and Yota Em subsequently participated in a marriage interview with immigration officials in Louisville and falsely claimed that they married in good faith. Phearoun Peter Em acted as an interpreter for Yota Em. On June 30, 2009, Martin and Yota Em were divorced. The marriage between Martin and Yota Em was fraudulent and was entered into solely to evade U.S. immigration laws. Martin admitted that he was paid about $7,000 for participating in the marriage fraud scheme.
Defendant Yota Em is currently a fugitive. Anyone with information about her whereabouts should call 1-866-DHS-2ICE. The maximum potential penalties for Martin are 10 years’ imprisonment, a $500,000 fine, and supervised release for a period of six years.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Claire Phillips, Western District of Kentucky, is prosecuting the case. For more information, visit www.ice.gov.

It is unfortunate to see this type of fraud occurring as it makes it increasingly difficult for bona fide couples to receive immigration benefits due to the fact that the American government must expend resources in an effort to catch fraudulent visa petitions and applications. As time and resources are spent investigating visa fraud, the overall visa process for all applicants could slow down. That said, Officers of the United States government should be commended for their diligence in apprehending the individuals involved in the conspiracy noted above. Fraud Prevention is a serious issue that must be dealt with in order to forestall an erosion of the integrity of the US Immigration system.

In recent weeks it has been announced that fees associated with the K1 visa and the K3 Visa are increasing. There is speculation that the funds derived from the increase in fees will be used to combat immigration fraud on a wider scale as the fee is being increased by the Department of State for those applications filed at a US Consulate or US Embassy abroad. Many feel that the funds will likely be used to increase the resources available to each Fraud Prevention Unit attached to US Missions overseas. Hopefully, by increasing resources available to Fraud Prevention Units outside of the USA, there will be fewer people entering the United States illegally based upon sham relationships.

Tags: Conspiracy to Commit Marriage Fraud, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Fiance Visa Fraud, Fraud Prevention, Fraud Prevention Unit, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marriage Fraud, Marriage Visa Fraud, Sham Marriage, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Immigration, US Immigration Fraud, US Visa, US Visa Cambodia, US Visa Fraud, USICE
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USICE | 1 Comment »

This blog routinely discusses interesting issues associated with American Immigration and US Embassies and Consulates overseas. That being said, in a recent press release from the American State Department it was noted that Officers at the US Embassy in China are opening their facilities in order to assist in processing the extremely large number of visa applications made by Chinese nationals who are seeking admission to the United States. The following is a direct quote from the aforementioned press release:

The U.S. Embassy in Beijing, along with four U.S. consulates general across China, is opening on Saturdays over the next few weeks to accommodate thousands of Chinese travelers seeking visas to visit the United States.

Trade, commerce, people-to-people exchanges, and tourism between China and the United States have grown dramatically over the past couple years. In 2009, U.S. consulates in China issued more than 487,000 visas to Chinese travelers. Sixty-six percent of these visas were for business and tourism. Growth in 2010 has been even more dramatic. China’s 2010 visa load is up 28 percent over the same period last year.

“We’re excited about the extraordinary growth in visa demand in China and what it means for our countries’ deepening economic and interpersonal relationship,” said Janice Jacobs, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. “We expect this trend to continue and are actively increasing staffing in our Embassy and consulates. We also introduced new technologies to improve our efficiency while providing more convenient procedures for applicants.”

“While we’re pleased about increased Chinese interest in traveling to the United States, we are not pleased by the increased wait times for a visa appointment,” observed U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, Jr. “We applaud the efforts of our Consular staff and the Bureau of Consular Affairs to think creatively and boost resources to help clear the backlog. I witnessed our team’s dedication when I visited the Consular Section last week.”

This author applauds the efforts of the US Embassies and Consulates in China. The attitude taken toward the backlog of pending applications in China is similar to the attitude taken by the US Embassy in Bangkok regarding the backlog arising from recent unrest in the city. In Thailand, this author is pleased to have been witness to the exceptionally diligent efforts of the Consular Officers and support staff at the US Consulate in Bangkok as they cleared a rather large caseload which arose as a result of the extended closure of the Post due to the protests that broke out in the district in which the Post is located.

Although the US Immigration process can be rather cumbersome, it is nice to see that officers in the Department of State are taking active measures to creatively and efficiently deal with what could be viewed by others as an overwhelming work load.

Tags: American Consulate Chendu, American Consulate Guangzhou, American Consulate Shanghai, American Consulate Shenyang, American Consulate Wuhan, American Embassy Beijing, American Embassy China, US Consulate, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate China, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Embassy, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy China, US Visa
Posted in US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Wuhan, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy China, US Embassy Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

Frequently this author uses this blog to post accurate processing time estimates for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Centers in the United States. USCIS is a key agency tasked with adjudicating Immigration petitions prior to possible Consular adjudication at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

The following was quoted from the USCIS website on June 18, 2010. These are the current processing time estimates for the USCIS service center in California:

The following are estimated processing times for the USCIS Service Center in Vermont:

Those interested in bringing a foreign loved one to the United States on a K1 visa, K3 Visa, CR1 visa, or IR visa are advised to remember that the above processing time estimates do not take into account special circumstances, Consular Processing, I-601 waiver adjudication, or I-212 waiver adjudication. Therefore, those interested in obtaining a US visa are wise to consult a US Immigration lawyer prior to making any decisions as different visa categories can process faster relative to other categories.

Due to recent unrest in the Kingdom of Thailand, those processing through that Consular Post may find that it takes a bit longer to get an appointment compared to more tranquil periods. However, it should be noted that the US Embassy in Thailand has diligently worked to clear the backlog caused by the recent Embassy closure and processing is getting back to a state of relative normality.

For further information please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Visa, Consular Processing, CR1 Visa, How Much Time Does it Take to Get a US Visa, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, USCIS Processing Time
Posted in CR1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 30 Comments »

On this blog, we regularly discuss the US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. However, we relatively rarely discuss the US Embassies and Consulates located throughout Southeastern Asia. There are many other American Diplomatic and Consular facilities in Southern Asia and one of those Posts is the US Embassy Jakarta. This Embassy is located in the capital city of Indonesia and routinely processes US visas such as the K1 visa, the K3 Visa, as well as the CR1 and IR1 visa categories. Just like any other US Consulate, the Consulate at the US Embassy in Jakarta is also tasked with adjudicating non-immigrant visa applications for categories such as the B1 visa, the B2 visa, the F1 visa, and the J1 visa (to name just a few).

Recently, this author came across an interesting statement from the US Embassy in Indonesia’s website which is quoted here:

The decision whether or not to hire a lawyer is yours alone.  We cannot tell you whether or not to obtain representation, nor can we recommend any specific lawyers.  If you do hire an attorney or other representative, that person may accompany you to your visa interview but may not/not answer questions on your behalf.  You, the applicant, must answer the consular officer’s questions.  If your case is complicated, or if you cannot devote the necessary care to properly prepare, then we encourage you to find a lawyer qualified in immigration law by visiting www.aila.org.

Generally, each Consulate sets its own rules regarding participation by American attorneys in the Consular processing phase of the US Immigration process. Some posts refuse to allow anyone except the beneficiary into the Consulate on the date of interview (this policy is generally based upon space considerations) while others allow virtually unfettered participation by American attorneys. Many ask: which is the better approach? For the most part, there is no “best” approach to Consular processing as each country is unique and certain considerations in one country may lead to one type of policy while different circumstances in another country results in a different policy decision by the US Consulate in that country. Furthermore, circumstances are always fluid and policies can change. For this reason, it is always wise to frequently check the status of the regulations at any facility in which one’s visa petition or application is awaiting adjudication.

Recently discussed fee increases are likely to impact those processing through US Embassies and Consulates worldwide as the Department of State recently raised the fees associated with many visa categories most notably those visas categorized as K visas.

Tags: American Consulate, American Embassy, B1 visa, B2 Visa, CR1 Visa, F1 Visa, IR1 Visa, J1 visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Consulate, US Consulate Indonesia, US Consulate Jakarta, US Embassy, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Jakarta Indonesia
Posted in IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K2 Visa, K3 Visa, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta | No Comments »

In a recent statement, the Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), Timothy J. Healy, discussed the overall methodology of the Center and how it has had a positive impact upon anti-terrorism initiatives of both the United States and the global community. The following in an excerpt from the statement, which has been distributed by AILA:

Established in 2003, the TSC is a multi-agency center that connects the law enforcement communities with the Intelligence Community by consolidating information about known and suspected terrorists into a single Terrorist Screening Database, which is commonly referred to as the “Terrorist Watchlist.” The TSC facilitates terrorist screening operations, helps coordinate the law enforcement responses to terrorist encounters developed during the screening process, and captures intelligence information resulting from screening.

Of paramount significance is the TSC’s success in making this critical information accessible to the people who need it most – the law enforcement officers who patrol our streets, the Customs and Border Protection Officers who protect our borders, and our other domestic or foreign partners who conduct terrorist screening every day. In the six years since we began operations, the Terrorist Watchlist has become the world’s most comprehensive and widely shared database of terrorist identities. The current terrorist watchlisting and screening enterprise is an excellent example of interagency information sharing whose success is due to the superb collaborative efforts between the TSC, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and other members of the Intelligence Community.

It is interesting to note the international character of this initiative. In a previous posting on this blog the author noted that Thai Immigration authorities have begun linking their database to international and American information databases in order to more accurately investigate individuals who may be a threat to security.

On a related note, it should be mentioned that due to the new synergy that has arisen as a result of international cross referencing of criminal record databases those Americans living or staying in a foreign country could have significant problems if they have an American warrant as having a US Criminal warrant could result is passport confiscation by a Consular Officer at an American Citizen Services section of a US Consulate overseas. This usually happens when Americans with such warrants need to obtain a new passport or add pages to their current passport. In order to forestall these types of problems, it is advisable to speak to an American attorney in order to assess one’s options with regard to dealing with the matter in the legally prescribed manner.

For further information about Thai Immigration, please see: Thailand Visa.

Tags: AILA, American Citizen Services, criminal warrant, DHS, FBI, New Passport, passport, Terrorist Screening Center, Terrorsit Watchlist, TSC, US Consulate, warrant
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, Thailand Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, US Warrants, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

A recently proposed rule would increase the fees charged by the US Department of State for services performed at Embassies and Consulates abroad. To quote the AILA website:

“This rule proposes adjustments in current fees for consular services. The Department of State is adjusting the fees in light of an independent cost of service study’s (“CoSS”) findings that the U.S. Government is not fully covering its costs for providing these services under the current fee structure. The primary objective of the adjustments to the Schedule of Fees is to ensure that fees for consular services reflect costs to the United States of providing the services.”

Although not exhaustive, the following quotes list the proposed fee increases for services that will likely have the biggest impact upon US Citizens resident abroad:

“Passport Book Application Services

The Department is increasing the application fee for a passport book for an adult (age 17 and older) from $55 to $70. The application fee for a passport book for a minor (age 16 and younger) will remain at $40. The CoSS estimated that the cost of processing first-time passport applications for both adults and minors is $105.80 based on a projected FY10 workload of 11.9 million. This cost includes border security costs covered by the passport book security surcharge, discussed immediately below. Because a minor passport book has a validity of just five years, in contrast with the ten-year validity period of an adult passport book, the Department has decided to leave the minor passport book application fee at $40, and allocate the remainder of the cost of processing minor passport book applications to the adult passport application fee.”

The proposed rule goes further as there will be further fee increases for new passport seekers:

“Passport Book Security Surcharge

The Department is increasing the passport book security surcharge from $20 to $40 in order to cover the costs of increased border security which includes, but is not limited to, enhanced biometric features in the document itself. The passport book security surcharge is the same for adult passport books and for minor passport books.”

The addition of visa pages to an American’s passport has always been a courtesy provided free of charge. However, the proposed rule would change this:

“Additional Passport Visa Pages

In the past, the Department provided extra pages in a customer’s passport, to which foreign countries’ visas may then be affixed, at no charge. The CoSS found that the cost of the pages themselves, of having the pages placed in the book in a secure manner by trained personnel, and of completing the required security checks results in a cost to the U.S. Government of $82.48 based on a projected FY10 workload of 218,000. Therefore, the Department will charge $82 for this service.”

For those American Citizens who have a child overseas a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) is necessary in order to ultimately obtain a US passport for the child. That being said, the fee for a CRBA would be increased under the newly proposed rule:

“Application for Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States

The CoSS found that the cost of accepting and processing an application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States is $197.28 based on an FY10 workload projection of 80,000 applications. The Department has decided to raise the fee from $65 to $100, still significantly less than cost, based on its view that too high a fee might deter U.S. citizen parents from properly documenting the citizenship of their children at birth, a development the Department feels would be detrimental to national interests.”

The Immigrant visa fees associated with the processing of Immigrant family based visa applications (such as IR-1 visas and CR-1 visas) are to be decreased pursuant to the proposed rule:

“Immigrant Visa Application Processing Fee

The Department is changing the fee for processing an immigrant visa from $355 for all immigrant visas, to a four-tiered fee based on CoSS estimates for each discrete category of immigrant visa, as applications for certain applications cost more to process than others. Accordingly, the application fee for a family-based (immediate relative and preference) visa (processed on the basis of an I-130, I-600 or I-800 petition) will be $330.”

This being said, employment based application fees are to rise dramatically. Immigrant visa fees should not be confused with non-immigrant dual intent visa fees (such as those payable for the obtainment of a K1 visa or a K3 Visa) which are expected to rise in the future. Finally, an often overlooked service of the American Citizen Services section of a US Embassy or a US Consulate involves document notarization and legalization:

“Providing Documentary Services

The CoSS found the cost to the U.S. Government of providing documentary services overseas is $76.36 per service based on a projected FY 2010 workload of 380,000 services. These are primarily notarial services, certification of true copies, provision of documents, and authentications. However, the Department is raising these fees only from $30 to $50, lower than cost, in order to minimize the impact on the public.”

The above changes in the fee structure for Consular services will hopefully result in increased funds which will provide Americans with better services when they need important documentation.

Tags: American Citizen Services, consular report of birth abroad, CR-1 Visa, dual intent, IR-1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K-3 Visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, notary service at US Embassy, passport, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Visa
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Upcoming Legislation, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 1 Comment »

Consular Processing (the process of obtaining a US visa from an American Consulate abroad) can be very time consuming. Also, for those Americans overseas wishing to obtain a new passport, US Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or new visa pages a trip to the US Consulate is likely required. Some Americans and prospective US Immigrants are unaware that most overseas Consular posts close for both American and local holidays out of respect to the American citizens working at the post as well as host-country nationals. In an effort to provide convenience to the readers of this blog below please find the holiday closing schedule for the United States Embassy in Nepal. We provide this information in an effort to forestall people traveling to the post on days when it is not open.

Note: (A) = American Holidays
(N) = Nepali Holidays

This information was taken directly from the US Embassy website, but please be advised that the Embassy’s operating hours are always subject to change. For more information please see the US Embassy in Nepal’s website at this link.

For more information about Consular Processing in Thailand please see: US Embassy Bangkok.

Tags: American Embassy Kathmandu, American Embassy Nepal, consular report of birth abroad, CRBA, US Consular Report of Birth Abroad, US Consulate, US Consulate Nepal, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Nepal, us embassy thailand, US Holidays at Embassy, US Visa
Posted in CR1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Nepal, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

The United States Consulate at the American Embassy in Bangkok conducts most, if not all, of the immigrant and non-immigrant family based visa application interviews submitted by those resident in the Kingdom of Thailand. The Immigrant Visa Unit is a division of the United States Consulate which has been given the specific task of adjudicating Immigrant visa applications for travel documents such as the IR1 and the CR1 visa as well as the non-immigrant dual intent travel documents such as the K1 visa and the K3 visa.

The visa interview itself is viewed by many applicants with apprehension and fear as they are worried that it will be used in an attempt to undermine the applicant’s visa application. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. In cases where the applicant has been candid, told the truth on the application forms,  and provided proper documentation the interview is simply an exercise on the part of the Consular Officers to determine that the applicant is who they say they are and that they meet the legal and factual requirements for visa issuance. The interview is not conducted in an effort to somehow humiliate or degrade the applicant, it is truly an investigation into the facts of the case. This being said, those that lie on an application or falsify documentation will likely have an unpleasant experience at the US Embassy as an Administrative Processing interview with the Fraud Prevention Unit can be a less-than-pleasant undertaking. Although courteous, the Consular Officers will often conduct their due diligence zealously in order to uncover the truth regarding the facts of the application.

Honesty is always the best policy when it comes to US Immigration matters. Unfortunately, some so-called “visa agents” in Thailand encourage applicants to lie in order to cover up some perceived problem with the application.  Not only is this practice unethical, but in the case of visa interviews it is almost cruel to send a non-native English speaker into the Embassy to be interrogated by officers trained and experienced in conducting these kinds of due diligence.

After the visa interview, should the application be approved, the Consular Officer will usually take the applicant’s passport and provide them with a “Red Card.” Many who research US Immigration are quite familiar with the so-called “Green Card,” which is the Resident Alien Card provided to aliens in the US as proof of lawful permanent residence in America. A “Red Card,” is the appellation that some Immigration attorneys in Thailand as well as Thai visa applicants have applied to the the small index card that the US Embassy in Bangkok provides the applicant should their passport be taken for visa issuance. The reason that this card is referred to it as a “Red Card” is due to the fact that the stamp on the card, which denotes (in Thai and English) the date and time that an applicant can pick up the passport and visa, is red.

Red Cards are not necessarily a guarantee of visa issuance as in rare cases necessary documentation is overlooked and must still be presented by the applicant. However, in the vast majority of cases when a Red Card it issued it means that the visa will more than likely be issued and can be picked up a few days after the conclusion of the interview.

Please note that each US Embassy or US Consulate has different administrative procedures and rules. Therefore, the information regarding “Red Card” issuance at the US Embassy in Bangkok may be completely irrelevant when it comes to other posts such as the US Embassy in Myanmar or the US Consulate in HCMC. Therefore it is advisable to refer to each Embassy’s individual website for specific information about processing a visa application through that particular post.

Tags: Administrative Processing, American Embassy Bangkok, American Embassy Thailand, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, Fraud Prevention Unit, Green Card, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Red Card, US Consulate, US Embassy, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, Visa Interview
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 1 Comment »

This author has had the good fortune to witness the many different ways in which Thailand visa applications are adjudicated. Generally, the adjudication of Thai visa applications depends upon the post at which the applicant is applying.

At many of the Thai Consulates and Embassies in Southeast Asia a long term Thai visa can be difficult to obtain (long term meaning those visas issued with a validity of more than 90 days). This is likely due to the fact that many of the posts in Southeastern Asia have become used to so-called “visa runners” who use nearby Thai Consulates to obtain visas to remain in the country long term. At one time, the Royal Thai Consulate in Penang was popular among visa runners. This author recently had the opportunity to visit the Thai Consulate in Burma and was surprised to find an extremely efficient and well run post, but one that does not routinely issue visas with more validity than 90 days.

Unlike the United States, Thailand issues very few, if any, immigrant visas at Consulates and Embassies abroad. Part of this is likely due to the fact that these two Immigration systems are very different. However, another explanation could be the fact that Royal Thai Embassies and Consulates abroad may not have the capacity to handle the adjudication of Immigrant visas like a US Embassy or US Consulate. Also, Royal Thai Immigration is exclusively responsible for the adjudication of Immigrant visas (also known as Thai Permanent Residence) and such visa applications must be approved in Thailand.

Since Thai Embassies and Consulates generally only issue non-immigrant visas the next question that most people ask is: “how long are such visas valid.” This depends upon the category of the Thai visa, but Royal Thai Embassies generally have the discretion to issue visas with as much as 3 years validity. As a practical matter, the Consulate or Embassy will only issue a visa with a maximum validity of 1 year.

Some Consulates require the applicant to physically present themselves, while other allow for visas to be applied for by post. However, one should not assume that simply because the application is sent in by mail that the officer does not scrutinize the application. On the contrary, there are some who would argue that such applications are more heavily scrutinized compared to “walk in” applications.

Generally, Royal Thai Consulates post the general application requirements and it is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that they meet the requirements and should therefore be granted the Thai visa. Thai tourist visas generally require the least expediture of resources on the part of the applicant. However, Thai Business visas, Thai Retirement visas, and Thai O visas can require a great deal of work in order for the applicant to obtain approval.

Tags: Thai Business Visa, Thai permanent residence, Thai Visa, Thailand Business Visa, Thailand Consulate, Thailand Embassy, Thailand Permanent Residence, Thailand Permanent Resident, Thailand Visa, US Consulate, US Embassy
Posted in Thailand Embassy, Thailand Embassy Myanmar, Thailand Visa, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand | No Comments »