March Holer's

[Guest Long_strider]

Ok, all of us March Holers!

 

I suggest that we write a collective email to Harty at DOS with our expressed concern about the long delays in name checks and the fact that others submitted after us are receiving their clearances. This is not about a "back log". This is about poor management of the process. Maybe they assigned our name check process to the Keystone Cops!

 

Anyone Interested in a joint email?

 

 

Mi

[tparrent]

count me in

[Guest Long_strider]

Here is a suggested first draft......Suggestions?

 

 

Case Number: GUZXXXXXXXXXX Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXXX DOB XXXXXX

Petitioner email for individual response:

 

Case Number: GUZXXXXXXXXXX Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXXX DOB XXXXXX

Petitioner email for individual response:

 

Case Number: GUZXXXXXXXXXX Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXXX DOB XXXXXX

Petitioner email for individual response:

 

 

 

 

Dear Assistant Secretary Harty

 

The above identified individuals have had their name check process initiated for a Security Advisory Opinion involving a visa petition by the US Consulate in Guangzhou China on or about 3/24/03. It many instances we have already waited 8-12 months in the petition process because of numerous delays in process by various service centers, most notably the BCIS service center in Nebraska. Now we are facing another long wait of an undeterminable nature as the SAOs are processed. We have individually contacted the long distance DOS information line and been placed on hold 30- 90 minutes before we have received the curt response of “still pending.” We have attempted to email or call the US Consulate and had virtual no contact by phone because of the limited hours of contact and frequent hang-ups. Our emails are sometimes answered with limited responses that seldom address our original question. Many of us have also received email responses from Kathryn Cabral that are virtually identical in verbiage, stating that there are delays and backlogs and asking us to be patient. In frustration, we have contacted Senators and Congressman who, after lengthy waits, have also received “boilerplate” response from the US Consulate in Guangzhou stating, there is a backlog and we are working on it, again expressing us to be patient.

 

At the same time we have seen others who submitted their petition after us, had their name clearance submitted after ours and received responses sooner. Ours are still pending.

 

We grow understandably frustrated with the limited communication, boilerplate responses and what appears to be a less then ideal process. We recently read in a press release about a presentation that you made dated, April 16th, that “80% of the name checks were taking 2 weeks.” Our experience is that this is less than an accurate assessment. We grow increasing distrustful of the process and the people who offer us “canned” response that do not address our concerns. We do not wish to be “lost in the process” only to re-surface at some point in the distant future after many additional frustrating emails, letters, and phone calls. We have no desire to clog the phones, or tie up government employees time with endless calls, letters, or emails. Their time is as important as ours. Additionally, we have no desire to “point fingers”, blame others, or engage in name calling. We simply wish to have direct , clear answers that are relevant to our requests.

 

Would you please respond to each of the petitioners listed above with the following information?

 

1. Please identify the current point in the process where each of the above petitions are.

 

2. Please be specific, generalities are not particularly useful in addressing our lack of knowledge about the

Process.

 

3. Please tell us on an individual petition basis, what needs to be completed prior to the completion of the

Security Advisory Opinion. Please be specific if all agencies have completed the name check or if there

are some still pending.

 

4. Based upon the many name clearances recently conducted and completed in recent 3 months, please tell

us the average time period for the name clearance process until completion. this will allowus to gauge more accurately where we stand in this process.

 

5. Please tell us what Consular Affairs and The State Department is doing to address and correct this

problem so that it will not continue to be a less than satisfying experience for future petitioners.

 

6. If we can help you in this improving the process by advocating to our Representatives, Senators or

others for additional resources or in some other ways, please tell us. We are an Army of several who

have pencils sharpened for writing and votes ready to cast.

 

 

Thank you for you thoughtful and prompt consideration of our request

 

 

Sincerely,

[tparrent]

Looks real good except "Our experience is that this is less than an accurate assessment." you are coming pretty close to calling her personally a liar. I think I would phrase it as "If the 80% figure is accurate, can you tell us what is happening with the other 20%? Are they lost or are they undergoing additional checks for some reason?"

[Guest Long_strider]

Yes Tom, I agree.....but if the shoe fits....

 

 

How about....

 

It appears that we are in the other 20% minority, having gone now almost 8 weeks . Can you tell us what are the specfic reasons for delays for this 20%? Are they "lost", or undergoing additional name checks?

[jameschun321]

great letter long_strider. Count me in. When do you think we should send this letter out?

 

JC

[Guest Long_strider]

I suggest that we send it Friday am. This will give us some time to collect more interested parties.

 

We should designate one person to send the email with all the names and info. Maybe pm that person with the individual info. If people would prefer not to disclose this info, they can copy the letter and send their own version. But I think that we should agreed on the timing of sending the collective emails for maximum impact.

 

Mi

[avastar]

Count me in guys, but I have one small comment and one large. At the beginning of the second sentence it should be "In many instances..." instead of "It many instances...". And unfortunately, she is probably correct about the 80% taking 2 weeks. She is including all the nonimmigrant visas/namechecks that are being applied for and that get approved within a couple weeks, as ours legally should be. The 20% are those of us who have been diverted to immigrant visas and the actual immigrant visas being applied for. More than likely the nonimmigrants are getting the attention of DOS and we are getting farmed out to the contractors and the sx386's.

[chinadave2001]

Count me in too!

dave

[rocksplit]

Long strider,

 

Good. Thank you.

 

Count me in! Daniel

[Dan]

Count me in too.

 

Lisa and I go back to the original "black hole" group. My second Notice of Action (NOA) was in August of 2002. For newbies, this is the notice that gets forwarded on to the Consulate, the notice that begins the remainder of the process.

 

Lisa had her interview December of last year where she was given the infamous "you're approved for a visa, but must wait for your security clearance" paper. She was re-submitted for clearance in December, January, February, April, and twice in May (once by GZ, once by the State Dept) ... but it's been nothing but silence. We've been waiting nearly six months for us since her visa was approved. Subsequently, I can truly understand and appreciate what everyone here feels, and more so.

 

We MUST continue to be heard. The vocal ones from last year have virtually all been cleared. Sadly, there are still some stragglers from last summer - Lisa and I amongst them.

 

As a helpful note, faxes may have more impact than net-based communication. E-mail, even though addressed directly to Ms. Harty or Cabral, is NOT answered by them. Instead it's read, filtered, and replied to by contract staff. Moreover, e-mail is easily deleted. Faxes leave a paper trail, a trail whose existence cannot be denied, especially since most fax machines print out a status report at the conclusion of the transmission.

 

In any event .. you have my support 110%.

 

Dan

[Guest Long_strider]

Second Draft. We either can fax or email on Friday am or Thurday evening for Friday delivery.

 

 

 

 

Case Number: GUZXXXXXXXXXX Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXXX DOB XXXXXX

Petitioner email for individual response:

 

Case Number: GUZXXXXXXXXXX Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXXX DOB XXXXXX

Petitioner email for individual response:

 

Case Number: GUZXXXXXXXXXX Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXXX DOB XXXXXX

Petitioner email for individual response:

 

 

 

 

Dear Assistant Secretary Harty

 

The above identified individuals have had their name check process initiated for a Security Advisory Opinion involving a visa petition by the US Consulate in Guangzhou China on or about 3/24/03. Some have had their name check process submitted much earlier. In many instances we have already waited 8-15 months in the petition process because of numerous delays by various service centers, most notably the BCIS service center in Nebraska. Now we are facing another long wait of an undeterminable nature as the SAOs are processed.

 

We have individually contacted the long distance DOS information line and been placed on hold 30- 90 minutes before we have received the curt response of “still pending.” We have attempted to email or call the US Consulate in Guangzhou and had virtual no contact by phone because of the limited hours of contact and frequent hang-ups. Some have personally visited the Consulate to attempt to obtain answers with little success. Our emails are sometimes answered with limited responses that seldom address our original question. Many of us have also received email responses from Kathryn Cabral that are virtually identical in verbiage, stating that there are delays and backlogs and asking us to be patient. Our patience wears thin. In frustration, we have contacted Senators and Congressmen who, after lengthy waits, have also received “boilerplate” response from the US Consulate in Guangzhou reiterating, there is a backlog and they are working on it, again exhorting us to be patient.

 

At the same time we have seen others who submitted their petition after us, had their name clearance submitted after ours and received responses sooner. The excuse of "backlog" does not explain the inherent unfairness of the situation. Other "unnamed" factors influence the delays.

 

Ours are, sadly, still "pending."

 

We grow understandably frustrated with the limited communication, boilerplate responses and what appears to be a less then ideal process. We recently read in a press release about a presentation that you made dated, April 16th, in which you stated, “80% of the name checks were taking 2 weeks.” It appears that we are in the 20% minority and wonder why there are continuing delays. We grow increasingly questioning of the process and the people who offer us automated response that simply do not address our concerns. We do not wish to be “lost in the process”, adrift, only to re-surface at some point in the distant future after many endless and frustrating emails, letters, and phone calls. We have no desire to clog government phone lines and faxes, or tie up government employees time with endless calls, letters, or emails. Their time is as precious as ours. Additionally, we have no desire to “point fingers”, blame others, or engage in name calling. We simply wish to have direct , clear answers that are relevant to our requests.

 

Would you please respond to each of the petitioners listed above with the following information?

 

1. Please identify the current point in the process where each of the above petitions are.

 

2. Please be specific, as generalities are not particularly useful in addressing our lack of knowledge about the process.

 

3. Please tell us on an individual petition basis, what needs to be accomplished prior to the completion of the Security Advisory Opinion.

 

Please be specific if all agencies have completed the name check or if there

are some still pending.

 

4. Based upon the many name clearances recently conducted and SAOs completed in past 3 months, please tell us the average time period for the name clearance process until completion. This will allow us to gauge more accurately where we stand in this process.

 

5. Please tell us what Consular Affairs and The State Department is doing to address and correct this troublesome problem so that it will not continue to be a less than satisfying experience for future petitioners.

 

6. If we can help you in this improving the process by advocating to our Representatives, Senators or others for additional resources or in some other ways, please tell us. We are an Army of several who have pencils sharpened for writing and votes ready to cast.

 

 

Thank you for you thoughtful and prompt consideration of our request.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Tparrent

ChinaDave

Avastar

rocksplit

Dan

Jameschun321

long_strider

[chinadave2001]

Second Draft.  We either can fax or email on Friday am or Thurday evening for Friday delivery.

 

 

 

 

Let's do both - fax and e-mail.

dave

[Guest Long_strider]

For those of you who would like to join in with the collective email letter and wish to include the info, please pm or email me. Sent each of you a PM

 

Or ...

Feel free to use the letter on your own in a modifed version if you wish, instead of sending me the info.

 

I will send the letter to Harty on Thursday evening (9 pm Pacific time) by email and fax for those of you who wish to be included.

 

Mi

[rocksplit]

Very good

 

I agree to fax and e-mail. Certiefied return receipt might be overkill, but why take any changes. In my case Gz has been a good teacher

 

Let's hope for light and soon smiles

 

A Candle for Love! Thank you