Send Flowers to Russia, Ukraine and Worldwide with Cyber-Florist.com Fiance.com: Beautiful Russian brides
Home  |  About  |  Forum  |  User Blogs  |  Login  |  Register

	Create New Topic   My Posts   My forum buddies   Invite friends   Private messages Russian brides > Main Forum > NASFAN6 SPECIAL Author Post Sergey Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/5/2006 2:48:02 PM   Nasfan6 read the following US State Department to consulate advisory cable, and ask yourself, why the heck has it taken them 6 paragraphs to repeat the same thing over and over again? TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS 1. POSTS SHOULD BE JUDICIOUS ABOUT RETURNING PETITIONS, since the revocation process is lengthy and the evidentiary standard that must be met to sustain a petition revocation is relatively high. 2. ..POSTS RETURN RELATIVELY FEW PETITIONS TO BCIS FOR REVOCATION. THIS IS A POSITIVE PRACTICE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, since petitions should only be returned to BCIS when fraud or misrepresentation or ineligibility for status can be clearly established or when the petition merits automatic revocation because of such circumstances as the death of the petitioner. 3. In all cases BCIS APPROVAL OF A PETITION IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S STATUS.. a consular officer should only seek revocation of the petition if the officer knows, or has reason to believe, that the petition approval was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or other unlawful means. 4. ..POSTS SEEKING REVOCATIONS MUST SHOW THE "FACTUAL AND CONCERETE REASONS FOR REVOCATIONS." BCIS has asked us to remind consular officers that revocation requests must provide solid, factual evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, evidence that is likely to stand up in a court of law. 5. Posts should not return petitions to BCIS based on mere suspicion or as a substitute for making a decision at post. If the evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status is strong enough to lead to a likely revocation, returning the petition would be warranted. However, if the evidence is not likely to lead to a revocation and returning the petition would be a wasted exercise, the petition should not be returned. Returning cases that are only suspect or that appear too complex to figure out is not appropriate and only increases BCIS'' administrative burden and prevents the applicants and petitioners in these cases from obtaining the timely decision on their petitions to which they are entitled. 6. IN ABSENCE OF HARD, FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, OR INELIGIBILITY FOR STATUS, CONSULAR SECTIONS ARE ADVISED TO ISSUE THE VISA. COLIN POWELL nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/6/2006 6:27:34 AM   And Your Point is?? I didn't realize Colin Powell was still the secretary of state? Sergey Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/6/2006 12:16:26 PM   Above advisory cable is titled GUIDANCE ON PETITION REVOCATIONS, dated July 1, 2001, when Powell was the USSOS. It appears that repeating the same thing over in 6 paragraphs proved insufficient for consulates because the USDOS had to issue another similar cable on February 25, 2004. Note how may times is "FACTUAL" repeated below. All this has been discussed over and again on this forum, but newbees pop up, claiming our unlawful visa denial claims to be baseless. TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS GUIDELINES AND CHANGES FOR RETURNING DHS /BCIS APPROVED IV AND NIV PETITIONS 5. THE DEPARTMENT IS REGULARLY NAMED AS A CO-DEFENDANT WITH DHS IN CASES INVOLVING THE RETURN OF PETITIONS TO DHS. 6. The memo supporting the petition return must clearly show the FACTUAL AND CONCRETE REASONS for recommending revocation (observations made by consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant) and; consular officers must provide to the applicant in writing as full an explanation as possible of the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return. 7. In general, AN APPROVED PETITION WILL BE CONSIDERED BY CONSULAR OFFICERS AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASSIFICATION HAVE BEEN MET. 8. DHS regulations require DHS/BCIS to provide the petitioner notice of intent to revoke, and to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the grounds for revocation. DHS REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT REVOCATIONS MUST BE BASED ONLY ON GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS. 9. The report must be comprehensive, clearly showing FACTUAL AND CONCRETE reasons for revocation. The report must be well reasoned and analytical rather than conclusory. Observations made by the consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant." The criteria cited in this note derive from the Board of Immigration Appeals case, Matter of Arias, in which the Board determined that the memorandum supporting a petition return did not constitute "good and sufficient cause" for petition revocation, because it consisted of "observations of the consular officer that are conclusory, speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant to the bona fides of the claimed relationship". 10. MEMO SUPPORTING PETITION RETURNS SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED CAREFULLY BEARING IN MIND THAT THEY MAY BECOME RELEVANT IN LITIGATION. The memoranda should be based on SPECIFIC FACTUAL EVIDENCE, rather than conclusions, and should be clearly reasoned. 11. INA 212(b) requires the conoff to "provide the alien with a timely written notice that- (A) states the determination, and (B) lists the specific provision or provisions of law under which the alien is inadmissible." 9 FAM 42.81 Procedural Note one instructs the conoff to provide: "1) The provision(s) of law on which the refusal is based; (2) The FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE REFUSAL (unless such information is classified); (3) Any missing documents or other evidence required; (4) What procedural steps must be taken by the consular officer or Department; and (5) Any relief available to overcome the refusal." 12. There are legitimate reasons why in some cases a conoff should not release all information relating to a visa refusal; such reasons could include.. confidentiality concerns. However, absent such considerations, conoffs should provide the applicant with the FULL FACTUAL BASIS FOR A VISA REFUSAL, as well as a reasonable opportunity to overcome the finding. This is particularly important to ensure that the Department's interests are protected in any subsequent litigation. COLIN POWELL nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/6/2006 3:03:31 PM   Sorry Sergey, but no newbie here, I went through the process and completed the process. Still you haven't cited your denial reason. Read the I129 and 325, you must comply on information, or that in itself is reason for deniability. You claim the denial came because you weren't smiling in the pictures. I'm sure your memorandum had more than that to it. Or you would be litigating it I'm sure. Did you process an appeal in this case? I'm just curious. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/7/2006 11:36:42 AM   What they mean by FACTUAL BASIS is what some of you are complaining about here, that is, visa is denied for non-legal reasons, but some already met legal reason is stated on OF-194. Solution is not in issuing advisory cables every couple of years, but to prosecute one consular official case under 18 USC 1001(a) Fraud and False Statements, but it could never happen in the US. US attorney lay it in department's lap, department lays it in embassy's lap, embassy lays it in consulate's lap, and consulate feeds you some fancy BS. Often consulate's motives are nothing more than to enjoy from your misery (sadism). Litigation in the US is filed, not to get to trial, but to force the other party into negotiating a settlement to avoid accumulating legal bills. But in litigation against US, the US attorneys can't care less about how many laws and regulations are violated, their only demand is a DISMISSAL. If you file a litigation, do NOT name officials or mail them a copy of the court COMPLAINT because it will only encourage them further into corruption, as the US attorneys will claim sovereign immunity, without ever getting in touch with the consulate. Sergey Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/7/2006 2:41:06 PM   I quoted the denial reason from memo -- what more? Again, all info was correctly disclosed on forms. I was told appeal would take longer than starting from scratch. I lost her 6 months after visa denial because she was in a situation of domestic abuse -- her mother was deceased and she lived with her father and brother. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/10/2006 10:33:01 AM   Nasfan6, Sergey's petition wouldn't have been approved by the CIS if there was a problem with his I-129F and G-325 forms. Visas are no mystery. PETITIONER's verification and approval is handled by the CIS because, unlike beneficiary, petitioner resides within the jurisdiction of one of their service centers. If and when CIS approves a petitioner, it asks the DOS to check out the beneficiary who resides within the jurisdiction of one of their consulates. That's all there is to it. IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH PETITIONER, PETITION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. All a consulate's job is to verify and approve the beneficiary. Neither the consulates nor the public seems to grasp this simple logic. nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/10/2006 12:39:16 PM   C. Everett, in Sergeys case it may not regard the forms as said, but what knowledge the fiance has of you. I think the issue here and you still haven't answered is where is this a right? If the girl during the interview cannot not answer simple questions as how many times have you been married, or how many children you have, or maybe your parents name, how can that establish any serious relationship? Then what's the point of having an interview at the consulate? Why have background investigations done? Why does the petitioner have to provide proof of financial support to the beneficiary at the consulate? Seems to me that would follow under CIS approving the petition? So it's not just the job of the consulate to verify and approve the beneficiary. The CIS leaves the support judgment up to consulate level, either by previous tax forms or a notorized i134. I think if the truth be known Sergeys case was based on something else. Maybe income, who knows. If it was denied for document reasons, she could reschedule an appointment. I'm hard pressed to believe it was based on not smiling in a picture. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/10/2006 2:30:55 PM   I missed that one. Affidavit of support is the only petitioner-provided ground at consulate level for visa refusal. Both proof of relationship and evidence that petitioner and beneficiary must have met are also part of petition approval process. Did you read my 'Non-legal reasons for fiancee visa denial'? Many fiancee visas have been denied for these reasons. Steve3 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/13/2006 12:25:49 PM   i wanna tell you guy of my experiences at one american consulate. this is when i first visited this consulate to pick up forms to apply for my fiancee there. on an afternoon i walk in the room with windows on my left with only one official sitting behind a desk with his forehead resting on his palm, and on my right a room full of visitors sitting very orderly and quiet. in 15 minutes there is no movement in room, i ask the man sitting next to me. he said he had been waiting there since that morning. i asked him if he was an american citizen. he said yes. i got up and walked out. my fiancee visa was denied and my fiancee was told just about everything in my background. someone told me that it is very hard to get visas in some countries so i found another girl elsewhere and told the INS and consulate of change. consulate kept sending letters to my ex fiancee asking her to call them. they wanted to spice up my hooking up with another girl and tell her. it is all fun and games at consulates. they love to shock these fiancees and enjoy every minute of it. DrKoop Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/14/2006 5:04:53 PM   It's not uncommon for these officials to come in at 10:30, 11 am, but it's the same domestically too, where federal employees often leave for the day by 1:30, 2 pm. The following explains why for most consulates (except Bucharest): "Although visa refusals must be reviewed by a superior at the same post (consulate), the method of review is such that the objective supervisory review is often precluded. The unusual circumstance of working and living together in a distant land, isolated from normal community and social interactions, places the superior and subordinate in too close a work and social relationship to permit objective supervisory review." Things're really bad at Bucharest, because there officials're literally in bed with one another (see The Pink Embassy on web search or my forum posting "Visa and Foreign Affairs at One US Mission." wtrav02 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/7/2006 8:26:49 PM   nasfan, just wondering man how does it feel to live in a state with a newly elected democratic governor? Please let me know if you'd like me to send you that big box of kleenex for your current needs. I can have them fedexed as soon as tomorrow:::))) Ohio, the most decisive battleground state, has also elected democratic governor, so we won't have black vote suppression in 2008 as we had in 2004. The wheel has turned!!!! Two more years ..... :::))) nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/8/2006 6:17:54 AM   Wtrav, I don't live in a state with a newly elected Democratic Governor. As for crying, nope, it's only two years,no big deal, and you still can't appoint liberal judges to the bench thank God. Also vote suppression is the biggest lie ever perpetrated by the libs. I don't think you have ever worked the polls, but tell me how do you suppress votes when both parties sit at the tables. Every party has the right to challenge voters. If they don't meet the criteria to vote, they don't. Another lie black vote suppression. Well the power hasn't shifted too much and it surely wasn't the mandate the libs or the media thought. Just a little bloody nose, but we'll be back. danny3777 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/8/2006 1:29:27 PM   wtrav02, Having been incommunicado in Ukraine for the past 11 days, and having just watched the evening news, I'm actually beginning to enjoy US politics, keep in coming :) Martin boredfuka Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/8/2006 3:01:15 PM   Gee martin you get around. By the way where is incommunicado in Ukraine? is it near Kiev? wtrav02 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/8/2006 3:07:48 PM   nasfan, yeah it was only a bloody nose, say that to Rumsfeld::)) they resigned him a few hours ago, bye bye Rummie::)) You lost the house by a big majority, you should be glad that the libs are not as mean as Newt Gingrich was, but they'll still question a lot of what has happened the last 12 years, and certainly all of the Iraq contracts, so we'll have much fun the next couple of years ... I hope they impeach Bush because he must one day give in public display explanations about his own and his administration's actions, but again Dems are not GOP, so I am not certain how far they'll want to go. You lost the senate as well, so Bushy now has to listen and stop being arrogant. We have the majority of state governments and certainly the ones in the battlegorund states to ensure fair elections next time. If you want to find out more about how they suppressed the vote in OH and how they cooked the results, ask Blackwell, he's gonna have a lot of time to answer questions from fellow party followers from now on::::))))) P.S. I can hear the crying from your side, my offer is still effective .. what the heck if I don't help these difficult times when would I??? danny3777 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/8/2006 4:11:26 PM   bored, I said Incommunicado in Ukraine, not Incommunicado is in Ukraine nor I was in Incommunicado in Ukraine. P.S. Took a taxi yesterday from Zaporozhye to Dnepropetrovsk, the driver 'Victor' and me became quite chatty and I gave him a UAH20 tip, ooh that's about the price of one of your Ryanair fares. Next time I guess I'll need to try to find one of your 'arsehole' taxi's :) nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/9/2006 7:17:32 AM   Bush is and always has been some what whimpy, with the exception on the war. He started to kiss the liberal ass and that made me laugh. A large majority. Hell if Bush had real stones, he would have held up his pen and said, does anyone understand Veto? Then tell me Wtrav what kind of majority you have. Slim and none. Look at the state ballot initiatives across the country, gay marriage got shelled in every state. Maybe the Libs now will try not to hide behind the court about abortion? Hardly it's their sacrament. If the libs had balls they would put it on state ballots and it would get creamed in most every state. No this nation will never again regain great status until they give up the reckless and wanton murder of the unborn. Dems whine all the time. I didn't hear one cry about voter impropriety from on republican. Oh that's only used when the liberals lose. No Wtrav, just a blip on the radar screen. Looking at ballot initiatives I see the country is mostly conservative and that rest's well with me. Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer will destroy the last of the libs coming these next couple of years. Go ahead an impeach Bush, I don't think you'll get it done. I really hope you do, that will expose what the libs are all about. Illegal contracts, Hell Clinton gave away no bid contracts. Secrets to the Chinese, shall we go on? Like I've said in the past, I'm a Reagan conservative, didn't like Bush I or Bush II much. I believe America is a Providential country and until it returns to that, and not one that caters to the european way, it will be a mess. Bored: I think you should ask Martin_UK about where He gets those Volvo Limo's from. Gee a four dollar tip last of the great tippers. jetmba. Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/9/2006 8:52:03 AM   "As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year. In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate. In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate. In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate. In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats. " What happened was no big deal. It was even expected. jetmba. Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 11/9/2006 8:58:11 AM   (From the same source). "During eight years of Clinton..... Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House. " Your Reply: Your name:   New Registration Password:   Forgot password?   refresh Code:   Russian brides > Main Forum > NASFAN6 SPECIAL
	Pages: 1 2 3