pregnant and applying for B2 tourist visa

[HFM181818 750]

Law is actually silent on the specific requirements for the finding of a public charge; it merely talks about what can go into the decision. The FAM is more than policy -- it is the implementing regulations for the law. One of the goals of consular sections around the world is consistency in the application/interpretation of the law; hence, the FAM is to be the guiding force in the application of the law. If a finding of denial under 212(a)(4) is questioned and an advisory opinion is sought from the Visa Office, they will not uphold a finding if the only issue is that someone did not pay a hospital bill. It does not rise to the level required.

USCIS also agrees with the interpretation of what benefits rise to public charge. Look at the "Definition of Public Charge" section and the "Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration" on the following USCIS Fact Sheet (https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/public-charge-fact-sheet) and you will see that it mirrors the 9 FAM information. And, the first thing under the "Not Subject" list is having used received Medicaid (unless it was for long-term care).

once again, the FAM is not law....and a finding of 212 A 4 is a finding of fact..i.e., the applicant, for a fact, ran up a bill that American taxpayers paid...the Visa Office does not interpret fact finding...I denied numerous applicants under this section of law, and after attorneys whined, my decision stood....because it was a finding of fact. The American taxpayers were out a bunch of $$$; someone needed to repay them (and me).

If USCIS really 'followed' this stuff, they would not deny admission to arriving, very pregnant aliens...but yet...they do.....and sometimes they deny them later when they return to repeat the same process.....who is right?

So, do you really want a bill for medical procedures to arrive at your doorstep, to be paid by you? I doubt it. One of my responsibilities was to ensure that no visa applicant would be scamming bennies from the American taxpayers....and I promise you, I took that responsibility seriously ...and, none of my denials under A4 were ever overturned....ever.....I protected you, you did not protect me (and likely would not)...

the same went for findings of fraud.....the FAM tries to water down the law; I merely followed the law, and when challenged, I prevailed...because policy does not trump law....period.

Edited April 5, 2016 by HFM181818

[jan22 3,064]

once again, the FAM is not law....and a finding of 212 A 4 is a finding of fact..i.e., the applicant, for a fact, ran up a bill that American taxpayers paid...the Visa Office does not interpret fact finding...I denied numerous applicants under this section of law, and after attorneys whined, my decision stood....because it was a finding of fact. The American taxpayers were out a bunch of $$$; someone needed to repay them (and me).

If USCIS really 'followed' this stuff, they would not deny admission to arriving, very pregnant aliens...but yet...they do.....and sometimes they deny them later when they return to repeat the same process.....who is right?

So, do you really want a bill for medical procedures to arrive at your doorstep, to be paid by you? I doubt it. One of my responsibilities was to ensure that no visa applicant would be scamming bennies from the American taxpayers....and I promise you, I took that responsibility seriously ...and, none of my denials under A4 were ever overturned....ever.....I protected you, you did not protect me (and likely would not)...

the same went for findings of fraud.....the FAM tries to water down the law; I merely followed the law, and when challenged, I prevailed...because policy does not trump law....period.

And, once again...I did not say the FAM was law, I said it was implementing regulations; again, the law is actually silent on what benefits rise to the level of being a public charge, hence, the need for the implementing regulations used by both visa and immigration officers. I have not seen where you have said how recently you adjudicated visas, but the regulations have been clarified as recently as 2012-2015. Your view might have been upheld in the past; is should not be now.

And, once again, you make assumptions about other posters without knowing a thing about them. I have chosen not to announce this on this forum before, because I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge and desire to assist people shown by the long-term posters in this forum. They have more direct knowledge of immigrant visa law than many consular officers and have "lived" it. But, I have found many of your posts to be harsh -- almost to the point of bullying -- and opinionated and somewhat dated in terms of how officers work today and am concerned about the credibility you are given because of your constant self-applauding comments about your consular career.

So, I am now "outing" myself. I, too, was a career consular officer who made it to the ranks of the Senior Foreign Service and have been retired about a year. I, too, adjudicated thousands of visa applications in my career and trained hundreds of officers to do the same. (Many people on the forum may not realize that most consular officers do not actually do much adjudication after their first couple of assignments -- rather, they manage the officers who do so. There are no career visa adjudicators, other than a few Civil Service officers on the US-Mexico border and some non-career appointments who can only serve a total of five years.) The attitudes you espouse here are not way we now train officers. Is there a lot of fraud in our non-immigrant visa applicant pool? Definitely. Should the visa be denied to those people? Definiely. However, should people be given the chance to epxlain their situation and expect to be listened to? Definitely. Should I be able to condescend to people on a public forum because of my experiences that make my opinions better than theirs? Definitely not.

Edited April 6, 2016 by jan22

[HFM181818 750]

far too many folks, even in the Consular Corps, were far too lenient when dealing with potential visa cheats, thanks in no small part to the DoS' efforts to water down the INA....I did not water down the INA....and had many 'discussions' with VO/LA....and prevailed 100% of the time...because at the end of the day, the law prevailed, not the watered down opinion of a few folks in CA....might it have cost me a promotion? No doubt....but....the law is the law....not the opinion of someone in a back corner cubicle who thinks it should be something different....the DoS wanted, just like politicians, to play both sides of the fence....something that is near impossible to do successfully...especially when compared side by side to the INA (that would be the law)....I did not buy into that baloney....

the law states 'X'; the Dept preferred 'Y'....hmmm....who wins??? easy....the law....because, when I stood by the law, no one could really take issue with my decisions....how could they argue otherwise??? They could not. They tried (to persuade me), but failed.

They made side-ways threats....when I stuffed the law into their faces, there was considerable silence.....I never lost these decisions, because I stood behind the one and only one issue that mattered at day's end......the law....not some 7th floor interpretation of said law, but the actual law....and many more senior officers were (no doubt) annoyed, but had no foundation (other than thinly veiled threats of suppression of advancement) of any other law(s) that supported their views.....and thus, they had to concede......something that the SFS does not like to do....oh well....we either have laws and abide by them or we make them up as we go.......which one is the proper course of action?

I did not care if some applicant was unhappy with my decision, or if some sleaze bag immigration attorney disagreed with my decision or methods...because, under the law (the INA), I was abiding by the law....made decisions according to law, at times perhaps in contrast to the DoS's 'let's be kind to everyone' policies (the FAM)....but supported by the INA....a few tried to put my neck into the guillotine....but failed.

[HFM181818 750]

I don't doubt that today, CA has encouraged new officers to 'be nice'...to 'issue, issue, issue...'...because issuing visas has far less down time responding to inquiries, keeps everyone happy, with far less work on Friday afternoons...but is disingenuous to the American people....handing out visas like candy is not only contrary to the INA, but is just plain stupid....of course, many 'behind kissers' who made their way into the SFS, arrived there due to their pursed lips....but whose ethics were left at the door....we either abide by the INA or we don't....but the INA, last time I checked (10 minutes ago) is LAW, whereas the FAM is mere policy....giving out free passes to almost anyone and everyone who shows up at the interview window makes a mockery of our laws....and this method is common at posts in which somebody wants a promotion....but whose ethics leave a lot to be desired....

[Boiler 46,096]

Hang on, I need to get the popcorn.

[Pitaya 2,577]

Be sure to share your popcorn.

[MacUK 983]

Hang on, I need to get the popcorn.

Any bets on who'll win between Judge Jan and Judge Dredd?

I fear this thread will be culled before this is done with. It'll be 'To be continued' and then we'll have to wait ages for the next episode

[jan22 3,064]

Although it might put me more at risk of being further labelled as a "behind kisser" or something equally professional by an embittered, unpromoted former officer who obviously is always 100% right, I will not respond further in this thread, other than to repeat that receiving public funds in a hospital does NOT rise to a finding of 212(a)(4), contrary to the always perfect former (how many years ago now?) official. (And, BTW, HFM -- this will not mean much to anyone outside the Department, but I never worked on the 7th floor -- all of my experience was out in the field, overseas, supervising visa and ACS officers on a daily basis and NOTHING I ever did or allowed them to do could be questioned from an ethical standpoint.)

Of course, it does not mean a visa will/should be issued, as past actions can be taken into account in terms of credibility, as I believe Boiler pointed out earlier. The applicant gets denied easily under Section 214(b), which is more than just an assumption of immigrant intent; it also takes into account the visa not being appropriate/permissible/legal for what you intend to do in the US. It is not appropriate/legal to intent to receive public benefits (even if they are benefits that do not rise to a finding of a public charge according to implementing regulations) on a visitor visa, so the visa is denied.

(Hope this gave you all time to finish your popcorn....if it's hot, buttered popcorn, could you share, please?)

Edited April 6, 2016 by jan22

[Boiler 46,096]

Got a bit cold waiting, you could tell what the 7th Floor meant, most large organisations have them.

[HFM181818 750]

Far from embittered, I enjoyed a very successful career before 'aging out' (before I had enough time to pursue the SFS)...perhaps disappointed would be more accurate, combined with the comment on ethics...which was being disappointed when a cg was poised to be considered for the SFS, some suddenly started managing by 'the silence of the fax machine'...which means 'encouraging' their troops to be more lenient so as to reduce the number of phone calls, letters and faxes from people unhappy with some visa decision made....

One in particular practically declared the INA off limits and made people bury their noses in the FAM for all manner of guidance, ignoring the salient fact that the FAM is not law....and he/she often 'read between the lines' from the FAM, trying to find anything in there that gave the least bit of wiggle room so that officers could issue ... issue...issue...and stop the phone from ringing....which I found sad at the very least.

Not surprisingly he/she and I were often at odds, especially over 6Ci findings...something the Dept considers heretical...discouraging officers from actually applying that law and instead, encouraging the 'easy, deny under 214b, next case', method of adjudicating...and more than one CG believed that if an applicant failed to get a visa, they could not be found ineligible for fraud/misrep....oops...not true....as the INA specifically states, "

INA § 212(a)(6)©(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation

In general.-Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible."

According the law, merely trying to get a visa using fraud/misrep trips the wire....but some of these other consular managers believed otherwise, and the FAM, of course, tries to water this law down even further, making it a challenge to refuse applicants under the law ('you spend too much time denying them under 6C - just refuse 'em under 214b and move on..')...which first, sends a rather wimpy message to the visa applicants, in that no matter what sort of baloney one tries with which to get a visa, nothing terrible will happen to you (in spite of finger waving by the Dept, while saying how serious they supposedly are about combatting fraud) and second, the same applicants will reappear soon, armed with other baloney and try again, often hoping to slip by a new CO...one saves a lot of time by ridding the applicant pool of these types by enforcing 6Ci rather than interviewing them 8 more times....

so the 'ethics' issue is one of either abiding by the law or by the FAM...but the FAM is just an interpretation of the LAW, just like every TV evangelist's interpretation of the bible....forgetting that the FAM is not law.

When managers prevent officers from really doing their job, that's what I had a problem with....but I was a very persistent individual, and when I thought/believed I was right, according to INA, I made my decisions accordingly...and fought off resistance from LA and wimpy bosses....

I kept track of decisions of mine that were overturned by a weak consular manager....more than 97% of those applicants either disappeared (on B2/J1/F1) visas), never arrived for their phony jobs (EB3's) or H1Bs, or never married to their supposed Amcit fiancé (disappearing at the baggage carousel..(K1) ....

Yet I was one often turned to with tough cases, because these same managers respected (generally) my interviewing/investigation skills...but they caved when faced with a phone call from a congressional staffer or some fluffed up immigration attorney...and the only real reason I could see for such cowardly responses was a desire to keep the home office happy and not generate too many groundless complaints about our collective decision making....

I did not run my shop the same way.....and along the way, the officers I trained were by and large much more thorough and accurate, easily fast enough and enjoyed their consular work far more than some had at previous assignments...and I did not mind phone calls and faxes - in fact, I looked forward to them.

I am, however, truly sorry if I offended you (jan22) personally....my commentary was (and is) largely directed at some folks and a bureaucracy that, IMHO, needed some fine tuning....

Edited April 6, 2016 by HFM181818

[Shiobhan 235]

And, once again...I did not say the FAM was law, I said it was implementing regulations; again, the law is actually silent on what benefits rise to the level of being a public charge, hence, the need for the implementing regulations used by both visa and immigration officers. I have not seen where you have said how recently you adjudicated visas, but the regulations have been clarified as recently as 2012-2015. Your view might have been upheld in the past; is should not be now.

And, once again, you make assumptions about other posters without knowing a thing about them. I have chosen not to announce this on this forum before, because I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge and desire to assist people shown by the long-term posters in this forum. They have more direct knowledge of immigrant visa law than many consular officers and have "lived" it. But, I have found many of your posts to be harsh -- almost to the point of bullying -- and opinionated and somewhat dated in terms of how officers work today and am concerned about the credibility you are given because of your constant self-applauding comments about your consular career.

So, I am now "outing" myself. I, too, was a career consular officer who made it to the ranks of the Senior Foreign Service and have been retired about a year. I, too, adjudicated thousands of visa applications in my career and trained hundreds of officers to do the same. (Many people on the forum may not realize that most consular officers do not actually do much adjudication after their first couple of assignments -- rather, they manage the officers who do so. There are no career visa adjudicators, other than a few Civil Service officers on the US-Mexico border and some non-career appointments who can only serve a total of five years.) The attitudes you espouse here are not way we now train officers. Is there a lot of fraud in our non-immigrant visa applicant pool? Definitely. Should the visa be denied to those people? Definiely. However, should people be given the chance to epxlain their situation and expect to be listened to? Definitely. Should I be able to condescend to people on a public forum because of my experiences that make my opinions better than theirs? Definitely not.

Clap clap, from the travel industry