VP's respond

[tunger88]

VP Cheney finally replied to my mail sent back in March after two months. This is what the letter said:

 

"Thank you for contacting VP Cheney for assistance in dealing with an agency of the Federal government. The VP has asked me to respond.

 

We are forwarding your matter to the Department of State. That agency will review the facts and either start a case, reopen your old case, or explain their previous decision on your former case, as applicable. We have requested that they respond directly to you with a copy to us for our files, and we expect this to be done at the earliest possible opportunit.

 

Thank you for contacting the VP. Best wishes."

 

 

Has anyone gotten any responses from the VP. Please share

[chinadave2001]

This is one of several responses from the vice-president that I have seen posted on the board. While it is a standard response, at least they eventually answer. Noone has ever responded to any of the emails that I sent to the oval office.....

Dave

[Mick]

Yes, I think I have seen responses similar to this from Cheney posted on the board before. However, this one seems to have a new twist that is possibly encouraging. I don't recall seeing one before that states they expect DOS to send them a copy of their response to you. Further, they state that they want the response to be timely. We'll see. Maybe I am grasping at straws, but this seems like a generally positive response.

[Myles]

Aloha from Hawaii,

When I made a telephone call to Rep. Abercrombie's office I learned

that most offices are expected to respond in 30 days. So a question

sent to Guangzhou from Washington DC is expected to be answered in

30 days. It may not be answered. This probably explains the long

response times to any questions if they are answered at all.

Myles aka Annakuen'GG

[Guest Long_strider]

According to the Congressional office I spoke with, they said.the US Consulate is mandated by law to respond to Congressional inquiries within 30 days.

 

If the law did not exist, the response would be longer, if at all.

 

Mi

[Guest Long_strider]

It's 10 days time to respond, not 30. Sorry for the mis-information.

 

Mi

[AZwolfman]

received reply from the White House. See PREVIOUS POST TOPIC HERE.

[Guest Long_strider]

Another correction.....

 

According to 9 FAM 701

 

"It is most important to answer promptly inquiries from Members of Congress. Posts may respond to inquiries by telegram, email, a letter or fax. Posts are reminded that congressional inquiries must be answered within 3 working days. Implicit in the use of a congressional telegram is a desire for a prompt reply, preferrably within 2 working days."

 

 

So this is the timeline straight from their manual....

[warpedbored]

Another correction.....

 

According to 9 FAM 701

 

"It is most important to answer promptly inquiries from Members of Congress.  Posts may respond to inquiries by telegram, email, a letter or fax.  Posts are reminded that congressional inquiries must be answered within 3 working days.  Implicit in the use of a congressional telegram is a desire for a prompt reply, preferrably within 2 working days."

 

 

So this is the timeline straight from their manual....

I've written my congressmen and senators twice and have never heard a peep out of any of them and its been well over a month since the first time. Our glorius leaders here in Oregon are pretty much worthless anyway.

Carl

[rocksplit]

... "a desire for a prompt reply, preferrably within 2 working days"

 

that definitely would be preferred , and even if it's just prefered

but I can live without preferance as long it works.

 

I am happy when and otherwise hopeful that it sometimes does!

 

My Congressmen has no reply from GZ since he inquired at the end of March

[tunger88]

Well, finally a response from DOS. Nothing special. Sort of what I was expected. All BS. At least they took their time punch in my case number and look it up on the computer.

 

"This is in response to your letter of March 17 to the Vice President requesting info about the financee visa application of XXX. We apologize for the delay in answering your letter.

 

Let me assure you that we fully understand that delays in visa issuance are seriously complicating the lives of applicants and of those who are waiting for their arrival. Your fiancee's case is currently pending completion of required security-related vetting through an interagency clearance process. Changes to this process made in July 2002, together with communications problems, computer issues, and vastly increased work volumes, have had the effect of delaying many clearances.

 

We are working with the relevant agencies to cmplete all clearance requests. We are also working with technical experts here in Washington in an attempt to find new ways to expedite the clearance process.

 

Unfortunately, Ms. XXX's clearance will not be processed as quickly as most others are. The FBI has placed a hold on the process. We expect that a significant amount of time may be required before this issue is resolved and before we are able to resume work on this case. When her clearance process has concluded, the Consulate will notify her.

 

We hope this information is helpful.

 

 

Lisa Piascik

Director

Office of Public and Diplomatic Liasion

Visa Services"

 

 

I think 9 months since the initial so-called BACKGROUND CHECK started would qualify as SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.

[Guest R2D2]

Another correction.....

 

According to 9 FAM 701

 

"It is most important to answer promptly inquiries from Members of Congress.  Posts may respond to inquiries by telegram, email, a letter or fax.  Posts are reminded that congressional inquiries must be answered within 3 working days.  Implicit in the use of a congressional telegram is a desire for a prompt reply, preferrably within 2 working days."

 

 

So this is the timeline straight from their manual....

I've written my congressmen and senators twice and have never heard a peep out of any of them and its been well over a month since the first time. Our glorius leaders here in Oregon are pretty much worthless anyway.

Carl

Except for the Gov. He will respond and take action if it is the Dr. Gov.

[christy]

Hi, All,

 

It is interesting to read in your latest response from DOS saying that FBI is the one placed "HOLD". When I called and talked to KC, she kept on telling me that there is no way she can tell which agency has placed "HOLD". So, is that okay for them to lie to us?? Also, I remeber seeing someone posted a message here a while ago, and mentioned that he called FBI about the hold case, and FBI denied itself being the agency that placed hold, anyone else saw that post?

 

Christy

[SBS]

Hi, All,

 

It is interesting to read in your latest response from DOS saying that FBI is the one placed "HOLD".  When I called and talked to KC, she kept on telling me that there is no way she can tell which agency has placed "HOLD".  So, is that okay for them to lie to us??  Also, I remeber seeing someone posted a message here a while ago, and mentioned that he called FBI about the hold case, and FBI denied itself being the agency that placed hold, anyone else saw that post?

 

Christy

yes it surprised to see FBI in their reply. we were always told there is another agency but never memtion FBI really

 

glad we know FBI is the real agency behind now

[Kaige]

Months ago, last November when I called the FBI they were doing the checks, but the person whom I spoke with had no idea of what department was handling it, only to tell me we were in there computer and this is all the info she had, also I had another person at the FBI check for several days only to find she and her co - worker could only go so far in the computer files, so only some people have access to the information