Jump to content

kkimm

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    168

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kkimm

  2. Who is still ON-HOLD?

    in General Visa Discussion & First Steps

    Posted

    a side note, i wonder if candle can re-pin this post at the top. its the most pressing use at the moment and it would be great that we can all be made aware of any HOLD Cases finally getting passed. It would really show hope and a guiding light for us still on hold to see some get cleared.

    I agree, this is now the utmost issue that the State dept, not GZ, has to resolve quickly...

  6. Who is still ON-HOLD?

    in General Visa Discussion & First Steps

    Posted

    On-hold is like on a TOYOTA corrola assembly line, suddenly comes up a FORD focus, and the big speaker will shout out "H..O..L..D..." --- it has to be singled out to be fixed manually...

     

    Outside that factory to the buyer, it is pending... <_<

    well... not exactly... a buyer outside a factory waits for A car....

    A visa applicant waits for HIS/HER visa, not just any visa coming out the GZ assembly line... .. So a hold case won't affect other cases, just THAT case. Unlike the Toyota/Ford line <_<

    I didn't meant to imply that, ok, the ford focus has to be taken out of the assembly line and sent to the FORD factory...

  8. Who is still ON-HOLD?

    in General Visa Discussion & First Steps

    Posted

    Are pending and hold two different issues and if so ; why??

    My read on this situation is that "pending" means the case is still in process through normal channels. Thus many people recieve the pending response for either DOS or GZ. The "on hold" is a different thing. From the copies of it that have been posted, it clearly states that a government agency has placed the case on hold and that processing will take longer. <_< <_< :blink:

    What I've found out is that if you call the DOS info line 1225, they can

    only tell you pending/cleared.

     

    "On-Hold" is something found out by the CA officers who spent the

    time tracing down your case...at the least, "On-Hold" is something

    that either GZ or DOS info line cannot see... ;) ;) ;) only shows

    pending on their screen :blink: :angry:

  9. SARS

    in General Visa Discussion & First Steps

    Posted

    Is it because of SARS or the war in middle east?

     

    I read an article in WSJ calling all other countries to "isolate" and force China to take measures to prevent SARS from spreading...

    I would be interested in hearing more about this article and it's contents. Did anyone read it? :angry: :angry:

    Here is a chinese version of that article:

    http://www.wenxuecity.com/BBSview.asp?SubI...ect&MsgID=17680

     

    CDC SARS website:

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/

  12. Who is still ON-HOLD?

    in General Visa Discussion & First Steps

    Posted

    Is there any approval for people "on hold". I couldn't get anything out of CA except something like "a federal agency has placed a hold on you case and it will need a significant amount of time..."

     

    Gone the August-Black-Hole Gang, here comes the March-On-Hold Gang!

     

    If there are many people here received this, we should do something... :angry: :angry:

  13. From the senator's office

    in General Visa Discussion & First Steps

    Posted

    I don't know if this is the "normal" or 'regular" format or length of letters from Congress to gov't officials...I am reading a sense of dis-satisfaction about the progress/recommendations that Maura Harty is supposed to make...

     

    I have faxed him and the committe chair a letter about my "on-hold" situation :( :( don't know if that will help though :angry: :angry:

     

    Charles Grassley (202) 224-6020

    Sen. Orrin Hatch, Chair Judiciary Committee, US Congress (202) 224-6331

  14. From the senator's office

    in General Visa Discussion & First Steps

    Posted

    http://www.senate.gov/~grassley/releases/2.../p03r01-02b.htm

     

     

    For Immediate Release

    Thursday, Jan. 2, 2003

     

     

    Grassley to Powell: Change Needed in Bureau of Consular Affairs

     

    WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley has sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell expressing concern with several serious problems in the Bureau of Consular Affairs' non-immigrant visa processes.

     

    "Full reform at the Bureau of Consular Affairs is a must. I've been promised that this will happen, but I'm disappointed to learn that more than a year after the tragic events of Sept. 11, we're still waiting," Grassley said. "Visa issuing is one of the first lines of defense against terrorists getting into the United States. A massive change is necessary in the Consular Affairs' visa issuance practices and policies."

     

    In September, Grassley requested the Inspector General at the Department of State to conduct a review of the non-immigrant visa issuing policy and procedures. Grassley asked for a thorough and detailed review, stating "we need to get to the bottom of this and figure out how to keep the terrorists out."

     

    Here is Grassley's letter to Secretary of State Powell.

     

    January 2, 2003

     

    Honorable Colin Powell Secretary of State

    2201 C Street NW

    Washington, DC 20520

     

     

    Dear Secretary Powell:

     

    I write to express my concern about a recent State Department Inspector General report that found continued and serious flaws in the Bureau of Consular Affairs' (CA) non-immigrant visa processes, and to seek assurances that the visa issuance process will reflect a greater regard for national security.

     

    As you know, I have been concerned about the CA's visa issuance processes and conducted oversight in an attempt to fix the problems. Among other things, I directed my staff to interview Maura Harty, your choice to head CA, before I decided to support her confirmation. I also drafted an amendment to the homeland security legislation that gives the new Secretary of Homeland Security a greater role in overseeing the visa issuance process. This amendment was accepted and is now law. Finally, I requested that the Inspector General investigate the visa issuance process and report to me his findings and recommendations.

     

    The findings of Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin's report, entitled "Review of Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance Policy and Procedures," trouble me greatly.

     

    The report states that prior to September 11, 2001, "the visa process was seldom considered a major element of national security. . . despite the fact that after the first attack on the World Trade Center, Congress mandated the issuance of machine readable visas and CLASS name checks worldwide . . . [and] the Visas Viper Programs." What concerns me, however, is that even in the post-September 11 world, there were no "immediate and dramatic changes in CA's direction of the visa process. . . . A fundamental readjustment by the Department leadership regarding visa issuance and denial has not taken place," according to the report.

     

    In my view, the redacted, public version of the report, which I will confine my remarks to, finds that security aspects of the visa issuance process are fragmented, without standards or oversight and present a continued risk.

     

    Personal appearance waivers, which allow an applicant to skip the very important interview with the CA officer, can be a dangerous gap in security. Unfortunately, the policy for granting these waivers is willy-nilly – each post according to its own. I am heartened by Asst. Secretary Harty's written response that new (and hopefully stricter) policies for granting waivers will be issued soon.

     

    Visa referrals present an even greater potential danger, and the report finds there is little accountability. The referral system allows other officials at posts to recommend that an applicant's interview and some security checks be waived when the official feels the applicant's admission is "in the government's interest." Essentially, this is a "get into the country free" card, a guarantee.

     

    The report also found that officials with no business in visa issuance seek to influence the matter. The report stated this was "common in missions with small consular sections." This is a serious matter that should command the department's attention immediately.

     

    When visa issuing posts employ foreign travel agencies, standards for selection, oversight and training are all over the map, or sometimes non-existent. Moreover, some applications processed by travel agencies have received little scrutiny from CA officers.

     

    Alarmingly, fraud prevention efforts, databases and personnel are not integrated into the visa issuing process. In light of the search for several foreign-born men who slipped into the United States – who apparently are connected to an investigation of fake identification documents and who may have ties to terrorism – fixing this problem should be a high priority.

     

    The portion of the report dealing with the Visas Viper program, which is a watchlist of persons deemed a national security risk, is classified. Suffice it to say, the program has problems and needs to be improved.

     

    Until I was informed of Asst. Secretary Harty's written response to the report, the only change that I was aware of at CA was that the former director, Mary Ryan, resigned, and the Visa Express program was terminated.

     

    I appreciate Asst. Secretary Harty's pledge to implement the recommendations, and in some cases even to go beyond what the report calls for. I am concerned, though, that an attitude of unproductive finger pointing persists. Asst. Secretary Harty, in her response to the report, writes: "CA and at times the Department are faulted in isolation for actions or inactions that are but a piece of a total picture that includes the entire national security and immigration policy apparatus of the United States government."

     

    I did not request a report to examine the total picture, or even the national security and immigration policy apparatus of this government. I requested the Inspector General to investigate the visa issuance process. The numerous problems found were not the result of legislative action or regulations imposed by other agencies. The problems were in the practice, process and protocols (or lack thereof) of issuing non-immigrant visas by CA officers.

     

    Whatever CA has done since the attacks of September 11, 2001, I think we both can agree that there is much more to do to improve national security.

     

    My concern about the Inspector General's report brings me to the confirmation of Maura Harty as Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs. My staff was promised by Assistant Secretary Harty, prior to Senate confirmation, that she was a force for reform and an agent for change in the CA bureau. Specifically, she promised that she fully understood the importance of visa issuance in the post-September 11, 2001 world, and promised that she would use General Accounting Office reports as a blueprint for change in the CA office.

     

    I will hold Assistant Secretary Harty to these assurances, and I think a serious change is necessary in the CA bureau's visa issuance practices and policies. Although Assistant Secretary Harty has been in her position for only a few months, I expect to learn of reforms in the near future. In any event, based on Assistant Secretary Harty's assurances, I expect her to embrace the Inspector General's recommendations, and that she will begin to implement serious change at CA.

     

    I appreciate that in Assistant Secretary Harty's response she agreed with most recommendations, and that some are already underway. To reassure me, however, I ask that you direct her to respond to me, in writing, explaining which of the 19 recommendations she will undertake or already is; the time line for implementing these recommendations; and an explanation for why she is not carrying out any recommendations.

     

    I anticipate that such a response can be made by Monday, January 20, 2003. If department officials feel a briefing for my staff, in addition to the written response, would be fruitful, I would appreciate that as well. Your office should contact Kathy Nuebel, at (202) 224-3744, or John Drake, at (202) 224-5315, of my staff if there are any questions.

     

    Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley

    Ranking Member

    Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs

     

    cc: The Honorable Maura Harty

    Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs

  19. Called DOS today

    in General Visa Discussion & First Steps

    Posted

    Resubmission is only related to the Black hole people.  

    I believe Mick already answered your question.

     

    http://candleforlove.com/forums/index....3aeb2867df3cdbb

    true, but not 100%: they (GZ) are very reluctant to resub anything, if they believe what they did at the first was correct and a resub won't help.

     

    However, you might want to really push the envelope if you really really want to them to do so, they will...though would be better if you wait 90 days and start to make noise, that's what I did, and I don't really know if it is helping as I am still waiting...

×
×
  • Create New...