Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TO UMESH AND EASY-CSPA -- CSPA

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TO UMESH AND EASY-CSPA -- CSPA

    tHE COMMUNICATIONS you recieved from the NVC are standard proceedures and nothing yet is unsual.

    This is the proceedure:

    When petition's visa number became current, the NVC send a packet to the beneficiary or beneficiaries. It contain Agent Choice, Form 1-864, Form DS-230 and etc plus the fee of the primary beneficiaries and every individuals listed on line #17 of Form 1-130. The NVC WILL NOT process the petition unless it has all the above requirements.

    After the requirements are completed, the whole package is sent to the local consulate. The local consulate send the applicants to thier authorized clinic or hospital for medical, then soon after the medical record is recieve by the consul handling the case, a notice for interview is sent out.

    After 9/11, interview is hell, there are many thing the consul will require to prove family affiliation.

    Now, I am saying this to inform you that unless the regs is not yet out, the NVC will not diviate from the original standard proceedures.

  • #2
    tHE COMMUNICATIONS you recieved from the NVC are standard proceedures and nothing yet is unsual.

    This is the proceedure:

    When petition's visa number became current, the NVC send a packet to the beneficiary or beneficiaries. It contain Agent Choice, Form 1-864, Form DS-230 and etc plus the fee of the primary beneficiaries and every individuals listed on line #17 of Form 1-130. The NVC WILL NOT process the petition unless it has all the above requirements.

    After the requirements are completed, the whole package is sent to the local consulate. The local consulate send the applicants to thier authorized clinic or hospital for medical, then soon after the medical record is recieve by the consul handling the case, a notice for interview is sent out.

    After 9/11, interview is hell, there are many thing the consul will require to prove family affiliation.

    Now, I am saying this to inform you that unless the regs is not yet out, the NVC will not diviate from the original standard proceedures.

    Comment


    • #3
      Boni:

      It has been standard operating procedure for the NVC to drop over age 21 derivatives from the letter they send out.

      Are you saying that there is actually some clerical error and easy_cspa's case has really not been processed taking the CSPA into consideration.

      I undersatnd your point about the regs. IS it possible that because the State Dept and INS were to jointly formulate the regs, NVC may have advance knowledge?

      One thing is certain, it is not over till it is over. Amit has not come on the board ( to my knowledge ) and substantiated his claims by giving us actual details of his case.

      Comment


      • #4
        President,

        A note to furthe clarify stuff.....

        The first time they sent the visa bills the names of BOTH the children were dropped as they had crossed 21. (DS 230 ) forms were sent only for 2 people (primary beneficiary & spouse)

        Then the letters were sent.

        Then NVC sent the visa bills AGAIN and this time the children were included. NO DS 230 forms were sent. But the letter from NVC said NOT to use the old forms. New forms would be sent at a later date after the visa bills were paid.

        easy_cspa

        Comment


        • #5
          It is very clear on the cspa that those secondaries under Sectin 3 can not be a traveling companion.

          Those who aged out but considered below 21 after the "reduced by" process, has yet to seek LPR in one year of the date the visa became current.

          Also those on "rettention", they have yet to wait the automatic convertion and start the process of applying for visa.

          The function of the NVC is
          to see to it that before the package is sent to the local consulate, all the requirements including the payment of the fees are completed. By then, it is now the pererogatives of the consulate to grant the visa or not.


          If I were you, I will not pay the fees for those derivatives under section 3 and wait for the regs to come out, or better yet,writh the NVC about your dilemna.

          Comment


          • #6
            tO TELL you the truth, I am a bit confused of EASY-CSPA's situation.

            My question is: why does the NVC has gone that far to require payment of the fees before a new form is send? I do not questioned the wisdom behind it, but it appears to me that there is something they are expecting to come out relative to the most awaited regs.

            But,I have still my doubts.

            Warning ! !, fees are not refundable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Boni,

              One should plan to apply because besides the financial downside there's a lot to gain.Let me walk you down my line of thought......

              First of all, I agree that the consulate can reject the application.

              But according to the DOS cable, the consulate is required to get an advisory opinion on cases pertaining to Section 3 of CSPA (see paragraph 13)

              And any applicant even if rejected (primary or secondary beneficiary) the "final determination" is not deemed to be made for that applicant. (see paragraph 17 )

              Thus the only risk is financial.

              The important question here, is if the acceptance of visa fees results in an immigration number being being released for the applicant. In my opinion if the derivate applicant has a valid immgration number then the consulate cannot deny the visa under 221(g)(DOS cable, paragraph 13). (They however can deny the visa for other reasons e.g fraud, public charge, medical grounds, insufficient documents etc....)

              The problem arises if the consular officer deems the primary beneficiary is fradulently trying to bring the "aged-out" child to the US. I however dont see this happening because one can always carry letters to NVC etc stating the true age of the child. If the primary beneficiay has asked the NVC if the aged-out child is elligible and if in response NVC has sent the visa bill then fraud can be ruled out !!!

              Thus, based on my analysis I would advise people to apply.

              easy_cspa

              P.S
              If the visa is denied on grounds of 221(g) the applicant does not have to pay the fee again. He appear again can submit the required proof.

              Comment


              • #8
                I AM TRYING TO ACCESS DOS CABLE, HOW CAN I DO IT. YOUR OPINION INTEREST ME.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Boni:

                  Here is the link



                  http://travel.state.gov/state163054.html

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    THANK YOU PRESIDENT, i GOT IT, I AM STUDYING ITS CONTENTS.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      we have had similar situation of easy_cspa's case.a 28 years old girl who made all the papers needed under the cspa law(which the consulate asked for)and paid the fee and yet her application was rejected although the consulate itself told her to process her application (under the new law)which she did not have an intention to process it because she is over 21.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can u please elobrate your case? Because I have also get visa bills. My age is 23 years. We have not sent fees. So can I send fees now? You told that age out case is rejected by consular. So they are not giving to visa to age-out childrens.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          which fee did you pay? Was it the NVC petition processing fee or the consulate visa fee.

                          I was of the assumption that this was a visa fee because it was the consulate that require it to be paid.

                          When was the visa number became available? I want to know.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            i HAVE READ THE old DOS CABLE and I think it is absolete considering the established majority opinions that the so-called "number of days of pending petition" are the days between the prriority date and the approved date.

                            What caught my atention was the interpretation on Section 8 (EFFECTIVE DATE).Antman23 has asked us several questions on this.

                            It says that the approved petition prior to August 6, 2002, of DV whonever applied for a visa before said date because they aged out will receive no benefit form Sec.3 and cannot apply afterward to recieve the benefit.

                            First of all, an approved petition can not be the basis to apply for a visa, only a petition which became current can.

                            Here the possible scenario:

                            An LPR filed a petition for his wife and a Dv son many years ago. On July 1,2002, the visa number became available. On July 15, 2002, the wife recieved a congratulatory letter from the NVC with a packgage of papers to work on.

                            The son on July 1, 2002, was already 21 years and 1 month old.

                            On July 31, 2002, send the completed papers to NVC. The was not included because he aged out. (Old law govern)

                            On August 4, 2002, the wife recieve a letter from the local consulate to take the medical and to report to the consulate on August 10, 2002, for an interview.

                            August 10, she was interviewed, pay visa fee and was awarded the visa.

                            Under the above example, was the son covered by CSPA? My answer is yes because of the fact that the visa application was finally determined after the effectivity of CSPA.

                            But the son was droped out from the petition, what will do now.

                            Answer: he has to seek LPR status within one year of visa availabitlity (7-1-2002) under the 2a category if he falls under the "reduced by" process, if not, he will fall under the 'RETENTION" process under a 2b category, the automatic conversion process. How this automatic conversion work, let us wait for the regs.

                            I wish to apologize to Ana who seek our advise on CSPA relative to her case. I said she is not covered by CSPA because she was petition as a primary beneficiary. She might fall under category 2a if she qualify under the "reduced by" formula.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              i HAVE READ THE old DOS CABLE and I think it is absolete considering the established majority opinions that the so-called "number of days of pending petition" are the days between the prriority date and the approved date.

                              What caught my atention was the interpretation on Section 8 (EFFECTIVE DATE).Antman23 has asked us several questions on this.

                              It says that the approved petition prior to August 6, 2002, of DV who never applied for a visa before said date because they aged out will receive no benefit from Sec.3 and cannot apply afterward to recieve the benefit.

                              First of all, an approved petition can not be the basis to apply for a visa, only a petition which became current can.

                              Here are the possible scenario:

                              An LPR filed a petition for his wife and a Dv son many years ago. On July 1,2002, the visa number became available. On July 15, 2002, the wife recieved a congratulatory letter from the NVC with a packgage of papers to work on.

                              The son on July 1, 2002, was already 21 years and 1 month old.

                              On July 31, 2002, the wife send the completed papers to NVC. The son was not included because he aged out. (Old law govern)

                              On August 4, 2002, the wife recieve a letter from the local consulate to take the medical and to report to the consulate on August 10, 2002, for an interview.

                              August 10, she was interviewed, pay visa fee and was awarded the visa.

                              Under the above example, was the son covered by CSPA assuming the number of days of the pending petition was 6 months. My answer is yes because of the fact that the visa application was finally determined after the effectivity of CSPA and applying the "reduced by" formula, the child is to be considered below 21 years old.

                              But the son was droped out from the petition, what will do now.

                              Answer: he has to seek LPR status within one year of visa availabitlity (7-1-2002) under the 2a category if he falls under the "reduced by" process, if not, he will fall under the 'RETENTION" process under a 2b category, the automatic conversion process. How this automatic conversion work, let us wait for the regs.

                              I wish to apologize to Ana who seek our advise on CSPA relative to her case. I said she is not covered by CSPA because she was petition as a primary beneficiary. She might fall under category 2a if she qualify under the "reduced by" formula.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X