Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Immigration Law Question: Visitor visa denied

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

  • jai kumar garg
    replied
    With due respects Sir (federale86),

    It is needless to reply to the first line of your comment;but would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to put down the real matter for your comments.
    I totally believe that as an intending B1-B2 visitor to theUS, it is the prerogative of the host country (as in this case the US) to allow or not to allow a visa; both morally and legally. The unchallenged discretionof the embassy where one applies:
    A refusal without assigning a reason is excellent as long asone is not assumed to be a liar both morally or legally if we really have any care for human values.
    Moreover,
    The first sentence of INA 214(b) states that: "every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (l) or (v) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall bepresumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)."
    The US Law 214 (b) presumes every nonimmigrant applicant who goes for pleasure and to meet friends….to be an intending immigrant……….etc etc!
    So the moment you apply for a US visa under B1-B2 in DS-160 the Visa officer is bound to consider you a liar applying for nonimmigrant visa under this category, until you can prove it otherwise.
    At interviews, the DS-160 becomes the main document and what they ask you becomes the only source, beside prior intelligence etc…etc, they have on their computers…; for the Visa Officers to develop their assumptions to confirms or reject this immigrant category and decide to give or refuse the visa (all done within a span of around five minutes).
    Morally, it is fine to refuse a visa and also not give the applicant any reason why. So when the VFS help desk says in their public response “…….visa refusal is based on the discretion of the Embassy.” It is good.
    Legally, when you are not even asked to prove your links to your home country and the Vo has a free hand to ask or not even attempt to ascertain this where is the transparency in all this by US law under section 214 (b)?

    Further, when the Visa officer is already bound by law to assume all nonimmigrant applicants as immigrants, and he hardly has time, where does justice and human ethics go? And when there is no appeal in a US court or any US administration process against this biased section 214 (b) of US law…..is it fair to the applicant?
    In any event, the embassy Visa officers are forced into a decision due to law, short time they have and the quantity of people to certify the applicant to be a liar when they reject the applicant's visa and provide him with the 214(b) booklet as reasons that he is an intending immigrant…..!
    Refusal of a visa is no insult; but this certification of applicant to be a liar definitely IS.
    Last edited by jai kumar garg; 10-14-2012, 02:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Aliens applying for a benefit do not have any stake nor any rights to appeal. The decision is discretionary and has been denied as they failed to prove they are not intending immigrants.

    Leave a comment:


  • jai kumar garg
    replied
    Sad! no one replys

    214 (b)
    by Jai K Garg


    Don't shoot me down with your neat coded numbers
    Inhuman measure nice non corrupted style
    I can’t get blown over by US beauties
    For the one I love is already mine.

    Look at you blonde hair with hardly a face
    Heard "why the visit to US" she called out
    I replied "tourism is my intent madam
    Pleasure with friends, no business for sure".

    "Relations! of course carol's my net friend".
    Immediate relations never a niece
    for I had cajoled DS-160 to kindly accept
    But it hadn't bulged from its predefined stand.

    "Ok what you do", I said "cinema-movie"
    "You own it", I said "yes" a bit surprised
    "Since when" was her shot and I cry "childhood"
    "1962" in my consciousness as I blurted it out.

    "What does your friend do" I said "works" loudly
    "Where" and I told what I knew there and then
    Remembered the place, city to name them;
    Seconds begin to tick like a time bomb.

    With clicks she uploaded a coded disaster
    Take this 214-b active and duly registered
    And when you can decode the puzzle reapply
    Public response -New Delhi Discretion-:

    Now left, decry this immigration tag;
    Certification: “courtesy VO's gag"

    Leave a comment:


  • jai kumar garg
    replied
    Flawed Perceptions
    by Jai K Garg


    Incredible thoughts
    unimaginable conjunctures
    section 214 (b) confers the desire
    for immigration to non immigrant applicants?

    Under stated will
    when you assume one leave home for good
    for a barren land not theirs
    to be a non entity, secondary to all;

    Why would one go
    if not for the pleasure and friendship
    force anyone to care for them
    if one is just a pauper in his life with no work;

    What can bind one
    to alien land for even that month
    and seek immigrant status
    when they can't stay from their home within their country.

    Love to respect
    are magic words we always relish
    you can place barriers at will
    Only I know my intent was pure: but how could you?

    With due respects to you and your country,
    I wonder if your realize as a human i did have a wish to visit the US for pleasure and to meet net friends; not to work or stay there, was denial fair?

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE2
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE2:
    Let me clarify (as S12 would say, for comprehension skills challenged):

    1. Every US Citizen has a STAKE (Ownership) in a Government.
    Every US Citizen does NOT have a STAKE(Ownership) of private business one deals out there.

    Therefore, US Gov owes to its stakeholders an equal treatment ans service, whereas private business doesn't.
    This is one of the main reasons why private company CAN deny you service at whim, but US Gov never does nor can.

    2. Just because you have a Stake(Ownership) of US Gov still does NOT make US Gov work under same regulations and laws as a private business.
    US Supreme Courts specifically drawn lines between Public and Private domains and in those rulings clarified what and why is legal under Private vs Public authority (there were court cases challenging these very concepts and thus some cases ended up in Supreme Court which clearly ruled on these matters).

    Just because you are ignorant of simple facts of US Public/Gov vs Private domains doesn't entitle you pontificate here and call me a daft.

    214.b in fact can be thrown at ya without any further explanations and NO ONE owes you ANY FURTHER explanation , but I already explained reasons for this and it has nothing to do with what you made of it.

    No, you ignorant of facts fool, US Gov does NOT use capricious and arbitrary decisions all the time.
    Moreover, there are specific Federal Court rulings that order specific individuals and entities to reverse their actions BECAUSE it was taken arbitrarily and capriciously.
    It is clear to me that you have never read or searched for any Federal Appeals court cases where these matters were repeatedly clarified.
    Don't think you are in India , Mister, this is NOT India, this is United States of America!

    As to foreign embassies, since Visa matters fall under the 'National Interest' and Foreign Affairs' matters and also due to jurisdictional location (out of reach of US Federal Judiciary) , the employees of said agencies are: a) Vested greater degree of power in exercising a discretion and b) Are not subject to accountability before US Federal Judiciary.
    I already stated this very clearly but you are too ignorant of these concepts to grasp it.

    Irrelevant. No comment.

    US entities located outside of US are NOT subject to US Federal Judiciary and are not under jurisdiction of US Federal Courts.
    You are extremely ignorant of US Laws if you do not know this.
    US Embassies are NOT on US soil , they are on foreign soil!

    Being subject to US Government or subject to US Laws in no way makes them subject to authority of US Judiciary.
    You can NOT sue in US Federal court any action any US embassy employee takes outside of US Federal Court Jurisdiction, period.
    US State Department DOES fully control its' employees, but where did you see me state otherwise?

    Read above and do at least very basic research of US Constitution, Laws and Regulations governing INA, foreign missions abroad and Federal Judicial authority and oversight before you make fool of yourself exposing your ignorance for all to see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    More gibberish from Olde who appears to contradict himself with every sentence he posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Oddly enough admin has chosen to delete almost every other post except this and couple others.

    Now , your reply looks like the ONLY gibberish out there (if you don't count PUSC).

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The post has been deleted by the administrator for violating the discussion board rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    The post has been deleted by the administrator for violating the discussion board rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE2:
    Let me clarify (as S12 would say, for comprehension skills challenged):

    1. Every US Citizen has a STAKE (Ownership) in a Government.
    Every US Citizen does NOT have a STAKE(Ownership) of private business one deals out there.

    Therefore, US Gov owes to its stakeholders an equal treatment ans service, whereas private business doesn't.
    This is one of the main reasons why private company CAN deny you service at whim, but US Gov never does nor can.

    2. Just because you have a Stake(Ownership) of US Gov still does NOT make US Gov work under same regulations and laws as a private business.
    US Supreme Courts specifically drawn lines between Public and Private domains and in those rulings clarified what and why is legal under Private vs Public authority (there were court cases challenging these very concepts and thus some cases ended up in Supreme Court which clearly ruled on these matters).

    Just because you are ignorant of simple facts of US Public/Gov vs Private domains doesn't entitle you pontificate here and call me a daft.

    214.b in fact can be thrown at ya without any further explanations and NO ONE owes you ANY FURTHER explanation , but I already explained reasons for this and it has nothing to do with what you made of it.

    No, you ignorant of facts fool, US Gov does NOT use capricious and arbitrary decisions all the time.
    Moreover, there are specific Federal Court rulings that order specific individuals and entities to reverse their actions BECAUSE it was taken arbitrarily and capriciously.
    It is clear to me that you have never read or searched for any Federal Appeals court cases where these matters were repeatedly clarified.
    Don't think you are in India , Mister, this is NOT India, this is United States of America!

    As to foreign embassies, since Visa matters fall under the 'National Interest' and Foreign Affairs' matters and also due to jurisdictional location (out of reach of US Federal Judiciary) , the employees of said agencies are: a) Vested greater degree of power in exercising a discretion and b) Are not subject to accountability before US Federal Judiciary.
    I already stated this very clearly but you are too ignorant of these concepts to grasp it.

    Irrelevant. No comment.

    US entities located outside of US are NOT subject to US Federal Judiciary and are not under jurisdiction of US Federal Courts.
    You are extremely ignorant of US Laws if you do not know this.
    US Embassies are NOT on US soil , they are on foreign soil!

    Being subject to US Government or subject to US Laws in no way makes them subject to authority of US Judiciary.
    You can NOT sue in US Federal court any action any US embassy employee takes outside of US Federal Court Jurisdiction, period.
    US State Department DOES fully control its' employees, but where did you see me state otherwise?

    Read above and do at least very basic research of US Constitution, Laws and Regulations governing INA, foreign missions abroad and Federal Judicial authority and oversight before you make fool of yourself exposing your ignorance for all to see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    More gibberish from Olde who appears to contradict himself with every sentence he posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Someone12:
    I must have missed that posting of Hudson's in which he told us in which embassy or consulate he has worked....???
    and yet somehow claims to know with a certainty how over several thousand consular officers make decisions...amazing....why hasn't the State Dept reached out to you to run their entire consular operations?
    Visa applicants are NOT entitled to the protection of our Constitution, even if they are standing on the grounds of the embassy..our embassies are not U.S. territories nor states...
    but again...remind all of us in which consulates or embassies you have worked?
    Did you take the consular training course?
    Have you ever worked in the field of immigration law?
    Now, I am pretty sure that you won't answer these questions, for several reasons, not the least of which is you lack the courage to do so.
    But all of us are pretty confident that you have no experience base from which to draw your often erroneous conclusions...nor do you 'know' how a particular visa section's officers make their decisions each and every day...you are just full of baloney. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, according to your own experience, you have not worked in any embassy or consulate either. Additionally, accordign to you, all your experience can be summed up with a short, very short, two year stint as a paralegal whereby you decibed upon yourself that you knew more than the attorney you worked for.

    Any expat who has lived abroad, any person who has had dealings with the U.S. embassy or consulate knows this to be true. There is always at least one foreign service officer that will always make it more difficult than it really should be.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Call me all you want, it is obvious who you are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So, who am I?

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE2
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE2:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    No venom was spewed. Just an observation that the need to post the same diatribe over and over again is a bit manic. Trust me, this forum nor any of its members are worth getting your boxers in a twist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You do not decide what my signature line is and if I want to have it few paragraphs long so it will be.
    It doesn't give you grounds to call my posts a "blathering" (especially when compared to yours). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You're right. It's a free country and if you want to display yourself as ILW's resident idiot, it's your choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    All I can tell is that reading my posts touched your sensitive nerve (why else unprovokedly lash out with personal attacks and name calling).

    Given the fact that I have harsh words about extreme-numb-nut religious Taliban-Puritan dimwits, Mullah-Limbaugh supporters , horse thieves (such as Pat Robertson) and modern incarnation of Bolshevism under the banner of Tea Party , your reaction goes a long way to show your true colors.

    Call me all you want, it is obvious who you are.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE2:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    No venom was spewed. Just an observation that the need to post the same diatribe over and over again is a bit manic. Trust me, this forum nor any of its members are worth getting your boxers in a twist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You do not decide what my signature line is and if I want to have it few paragraphs long so it will be.
    It doesn't give you grounds to call my posts a "blathering" (especially when compared to yours). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You're right. It's a free country and if you want to display yourself as ILW's resident idiot, it's your choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    They were given a reason. All visa application denials are given a written response siting the facts and law on which the denial was based.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE2
    replied
    The post has been deleted by the administrator for violating the discussion board rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    The post has been deleted by the administrator for violating the discussion board rules.

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X