Interesting article on visa denials, II

[david_dawei]

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2004,0429-ellis.shtm

[Stephen]

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2004,0429-ellis.shtm

219025[/snapback]

It will improve our national security by allowing the officers who issue visas to focus on preventing terrorists from entering the United States, rather than spending their days terrorizing law-abiding US citizens and their fiancées and spouses.. Here... here... to that one!!

[IluvmyLi]

Perhaps "GUZ Speaks" should read this and possibly update the VO's on the proper procedure before kicking back someone's petition. Speculation isn't good enough to throw out a case.

 

"Perhaps as a result of this inherent conflict, we see advisory cables periodically issued by DOS, cautioning consular officers that DHS/CIS approval of a petition is prima facie evidence of eligibility and that a CO must meet a high evidentiary standard before he or she can recommend revocation of that approval."

[Yuanyang]

I don't know guys, it makes me feel like we could be squeezed hard when the Titans clash.

[ellis-island]

Actually, I've changed my view about giving DHS control of visa issuance.

I'm not so sure it would be a good thing anymore for DHS to take over visa issuance. The system as it is structured now, allows DOS to inform DHS of its questions about the petition approval. And if DHS rules on those questions in favor of the petitioner, those particular objections have been decided. The beneficiary comes back, re-interviews, and if DOS has nothing new on her, she gets her visa.

 

At least with the interplay between the two agencies, DHS/DOS, a beneficiary can overcome a denial. If the appeal is strictly through one agency, DHS, I think it would be more difficult to overcome and more bureaucratic. The upside of a DHS takeover would be that it would probably deny fewer family visas, since they are the ones who are likely to get sued in the US.

 

I've had a lot of experience with it the past few years. If DHS were deciding visa applications, it might deny fewer visas. Or it might not. But the visas it denies, I think would be more difficult to overcome in the review process.

 

So after a lot of hands on time since 2004, I've changed my mind. I'd prefer keeping two agencies involved in the process.

[IluvmyLi]

Actually, I've changed my view about giving DHS control of visa issuance.

I'm not so sure it would be a good thing anymore for DHS to take over visa issuance. The system as it is structured now, allows DOS to inform DHS of its questions about the petition approval. And if DHS rules on those questions in favor of the petitioner, those particular objections have been decided. The beneficiary comes back, re-interviews, and if DOS has nothing new on her, she gets her visa.

 

At least with the interplay between the two agencies, DHS/DOS, a beneficiary can overcome a denial. If the appeal is strictly through one agency, DHS, I think it would be more difficult to overcome and more bureaucratic. The upside of a DHS takeover would be that it would probably deny fewer family visas, since they are the ones who are likely to get sued in the US.

 

I've had a lot of experience with it the past few years. If DHS were deciding visa applications, it might deny fewer visas. Or it might not. But the visas it denies, I think would be more difficult to overcome in the review process.

 

So after a lot of hands on time since 2004, I've changed my mind. I'd prefer keeping two agencies involved in the process.

223430[/snapback]

Seems to me that it doesn't matter what DHS or DOS have to say about the petitioner. If the VO is having a bad day, your screwed.

[georgeandli]

I concur with the last post! I think the problem is with the VO assuming that DHS checks aren't good enough. If you cross the T and dot the I, then all should be good. The 2 agencies are looking at it from two different angles. Fraud versus terror.

[HanLi]

David,

 

thanks for the link....

[Michael and Manyun]

Any time one bureaucrasy takes on another there is only one loser.

 

US.