Dv lottery visa Denial based on misplaced photos

[stanley.brian 0]

Somewhere in the many pages of either this or the parallel thread on the other forum he mentioned that the CO did get a legal in house opinion before denying - the denial did not happen immediately after the interview - so I'm guessing this step has already been taken.

One can only seek an advisory opinion AFTER the visa has been denied. So I am not sure why you are replying in such a presumptuous manner as if you are an expert on USA immigration law.

read here: http://lawandborder.com/options-after-a-consular-officer-denies-your-visa-application/

Edited June 27, 2016 by stanley.brian

[jan22 3,056]

One can only seek an advisory opinion AFTER the visa has been denied. So I am not sure why you are replying in such a presumptuous manner as if you are an expert on USA immigration law.

read here: http://lawandborder.com/options-after-a-consular-officer-denies-your-visa-application/

Speaking of being presumptuous when you're not an expert -- A lawyer (or applicant) can only ask for an advisory opinion after the visa is denied. A consular officer can consult with the legal experts in the Visa Office at any time they think it is necessary to ensure they are accurately and appropriately applying the law to a case. Since the OP said that the officer did that it this case, it is holding out false hope that an advisory opinion would result in any different answer than what the officer already had gotten (and most assuredly documented in the case) from the Visa Office.

And, BTW, the cited FAM section, per part (d) only refers to cases of derivatives who were not included on the original application -- not all aspeccts of DV proessing. "If post believes a case merits issuance despite apparent failure to apply with THIS (emphasis added) instruction..." limits it to the requirement to list spouse and all unmarried minor children on the original application.

Edited June 27, 2016 by jan22

[stanley.brian 0]

Speaking of being presumptuous when you're not an expert -- A lawyer (or applicant) can only ask for an advisory opinion after the visa is denied. A consular officer can consult with the legal experts in the Visa Office at any time they think it is necessary to ensure they are accurately and appropriately applying the law to a case. Since the OP said that the officer did that it this case, it is holding out false hope that an advisory opinion would result in any different answer than what the officer already had gotten (and most assuredly documented in the case) from the Visa Office.

And, BTW, the cited FAM section, per part (d) only refers to cases of derivatives who were not included on the original application -- not all aspeccts of DV proessing. "If post believes a case merits issuance despite apparent failure to apply with THIS (emphasis added) instruction..." limits it to the requirement to list spouse and all unmarried minor children on the original application.

As you seem to enjoy taking a swipe at me for pinpointing an error of judgement by Susieqqq then I must pinpoint that your english is very appalling as you have misspelt the words "aspect" and "processing" in your post even after you re-edited the post and therefore are clearly not a learned person.

I cited the 9 fam because I wanted to reference the fact that there is a possibility to get an advisory opinion as a recourse for those whose visas have been denied. I also did reference a web link where it states that a lawyer can also seek an advisory opinion from the Advisory Opinions Division (AOD) of the state of Department's office regardless of whether it touches on derivatives not included in the original application or otherwise

I would suggest you carefully analyze my post rather than selectively picking aspects of the post to suit your argument as that is just prejudiced. You are in no position to be advising people here to drop their case as you are not a qualified attorney and even if you are the American immigration law is very complex and intricate that its not possible to make a hasty conclusion that someone's case has no merit based on your limited knowledge.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

As you seem to enjoy taking a swipe at me for pinpointing an error of judgement by Susieqqq then I must pinpoint that your english is very appalling as you have misspelt the words "aspect" and "processing" in your post even after you re-edited the post and therefore are clearly not a learned person.

I cited the 9 fam because I wanted to reference the fact that there is a possibility to get an advisory opinion as a recourse for those whose visas have been denied. I also did reference a web link where it states that a lawyer can also seek an advisory opinion from the Advisory Opinions Division (AOD) of the state of Department's office regardless of whether it touches on derivatives not included in the original application or otherwise

I would suggest you carefully analyze my post rather than selectively picking aspects of the post to suit your argument as that is just prejudiced. You are in no position to be advising people here to drop their case as you are not a qualified attorney and even if you are the American immigration law is very complex and intricate that its not possible to make a hasty conclusion that someone's case has no merit based on your limited knowledge.

Jan22 is an ex-Consular Officer, so he knows what he is talking about.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

One can only seek an advisory opinion AFTER the visa has been denied. So I am not sure why you are replying in such a presumptuous manner as if you are an expert on USA immigration law.

read here: http://lawandborder.com/options-after-a-consular-officer-denies-your-visa-application/

Gee, I just made a comment, and I specifically said i "guessed " it had been done, I'm not sure what was "presumptuous". But if it's after the visa was denied I don't see how it would work as there is no appeal process available after a DV denial if it's through consular processing.

Edit: I see we have had a proper informed opinion respond, thanks jan22.

Edited June 27, 2016 by SusieQQQ

[jan22 3,056]

As you seem to enjoy taking a swipe at me for pinpointing an error of judgement by Susieqqq then I must pinpoint that your english is very appalling as you have misspelt the words "aspect" and "processing" in your post even after you re-edited the post and therefore are clearly not a learned person.

I cited the 9 fam because I wanted to reference the fact that there is a possibility to get an advisory opinion as a recourse for those whose visas have been denied. I also did reference a web link where it states that a lawyer can also seek an advisory opinion from the Advisory Opinions Division (AOD) of the state of Department's office regardless of whether it touches on derivatives not included in the original application or otherwise

I would suggest you carefully analyze my post rather than selectively picking aspects of the post to suit your argument as that is just prejudiced. You are in no position to be advising people here to drop their case as you are not a qualified attorney and even if you are the American immigration law is very complex and intricate that its not possible to make a hasty conclusion that someone's case has no merit based on your limited knowledge.

LOL -- I was not aware that being a good typist when in a hurry was an indication of being a "learned person"! For that reason, I won't point out your errors which are likely typos. I "took a swipe at you" because of your personalization regarding SuzieQQQ's lack of knowledge and qualifications in her response, not for pointing out what you considered to be her lack of/error in judgment.

And, speaking of selecting specific aspects of a post instead of analyzing the post, I notice you did not address anything in my first paragraph, which indicated that the visa officer had apparently gotten the equivalent of an advisory opinion prior to denying the visa. I didn't advise anyone to drop their case; I questioned encouraging someone holding out hope that another opinion from the same State Department office would result in a different answer.

I will look forward to you posting a link to a case that was issued after Spetember 30 -- if there is such as case, it would have to be based on a very rare set of circumstances and would be interesting to read.

Finally, I usually do not see the benefit in responding to purely personal attacks unrelated to a post discussion, but since in follow-on posts in this thread you cast aspersions on my qualifications in a career of service to my country of which I am quite proud, I will do so this once. I am an "ex" officer because I am retired, having been promoted to the ranks of Senior Foreign Service during my very successful 20+ years of service. (Thanks for the recognition of that, Merrytooth and SuzieQQQ).

Edited June 27, 2016 by jan22

[stanley.brian 0]

check this case. http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=900005560938/Immigration-Odyssey-Ends-in-Kenyan-Mans-Victory

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

Unable to sustain a valid argument you have now resulted to ganging up against me and also softening your words... typical reverse psychology tactics. Fact still remains there is options for those whose visas have been denied. I will send a link of a case where somebody successfully appealed against a denial and won and got a DV visa issued after 30 September.

Gee dude, you really woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

I've seen legal cases where even where USCIS was at fault - AOS cases where appeal is allowed - they have upheld the law that no DV visas can be issued after 30 Sept. Again, I defer to jan22, who apart from superior knowledge doesn't set out to be combative and confrontational. From what you said above you can't seem to handle people talking in a reasonable manner without taking it as some form of insult - that's your problem not mine, bye.

[stanley.brian 0]

LOL -- I was not aware that being a good typist when in a hurry was an indication of being a "learned person"! For that reason, I won't point out your errors which are likely typos. I "took a swipe at you" because of your personalization regarding SuzieQQQ's lack of knowledge and qualifications in her response, not for pointing out what you considered to be her lack of/error in judgment.

And, speaking of selecting specific aspects of a post instead of analyzing the post, I notice you did not address anything in my first paragraph, which indicated that the visa officer had apparently gotten the equivalent of an advisory opinion prior to denying the visa. I didn't advise anyone to drop their case; I questioned encouraging someone holding out hope that another opinion from the same State Department office would result in a different answer.

I will look forward to you posting a link to a case that was issued after Spetember 30 -- if there is such as case, it would have to be based on a very rare set of circumstances and would be interesting to read.

Finally, I usually do not see the benefit in responding to purely personal attacks unrelated to a post discussion, but since in follow-on posts in this thread you cast aspersions on my qualifications in a career of service to my country of which I am quite proud, I will do so this once. I am an "ex" officer because I am retired, having been promoted to the ranks of Senior Foreign Service during my very successful 20+ years of service. (Thanks for the recognition of that, Merrytooth and SuzieQQQ).

So much sarcasm in your response. Anyways I noticed you misspelt "september"... let me guess you were again in a hurry and typing from your phone as well.

Ok first of all the case officer is unlikely to have received an advisory opinion as such an opinion is sought AFTER denial and mostly sought by the applicant's attorney rather than a consular officer.

In regards to the link I mentioned here it is http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=900005560938/Immigration-Odyssey-Ends-in-Kenyan-Mans-Victory

I am not sure what you mean by "I usually do not see the benefit in responding to purely personal attacks unrelated to a post discussion" when you are the one that contradicted my earlier post when i was trying to offer the distraught man who wrote this post hope

[Merrytooth 5,748]

A Kenyan immigrant has achieved victory in his decade-long quest to fix a bureaucratic snafu that almost led to his deportation.

This month immigration officials approved Charles K. Nyaga for a green card, a goal that was achieved after a host of legislative efforts by Sen. Saxby Chambliss failed, but a move made by Nyaga's brother more than 10 years ago came to light to save the day.

The system doesn't always work, said Nyaga's lawyer, Charles H. Kuck of Atlanta, "but in this case, it did."

Nyaga's saga started on two tracks in 1997. That's the year his brother Kenneth, a U.S. citizen, filed a family member visa application for Nyaga, who came to the United States to attend technical college.

That year Nyaga also won a State Department lottery that distributes about 110,000 diversity visa applications among would-be citizens from countries underrepresented on American immigration rolls. Nyaga submitted his application in February 1998, eight months before the deadline. But immigration officials failed to process it -- other than sending his fingerprints to the FBI -- before it expired at midnight on Sept. 30, 1998, the end of the federal fiscal year.

Immigration officials said they were overworked, but U.S. District Court Judge Orinda D. Evans didn't accept that excuse, ordering the government to complete the process. In 2003, a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to reverse, saying immigration officials didn't have the authority to revive Nyaga's application after it had expired. That case was Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906 (2003).

In February 2004, when he was chairman of the Senate immigration subcommittee, Chambliss submitted a bill that would have allowed officials to reconsider some visa applications like Nyaga's that had expired due to government inaction. But a month later Atlanta Immigration Judge William A. Cassidy ordered Nyaga to leave the country within 60 days. The judge stayed the order pending Nyaga's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which ultimately upheld the order.

Nyaga testified on Capitol Hill in April 2004 when the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration was looking into fraud and abuse in the diversity visa program. But Chambliss' bill failed to get through Congress.

Chambliss tried again the following year, attaching his proposal to an emergency Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill. Chambliss also tried a couple of so-called private bills, designed to help only Nyaga, in 2005 and 2007, but they didn't get out of committee.

In an example of the darkest hour coming just before the dawn, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents came to arrest Nyaga and his wife last September. Kuck said last week when Nyaga called from ICE custody that day, one of Kuck's associates found buried in Nyaga's case file the receipt from the family visa application filed by Nyaga's brother.

"It had become forgotten in the annals of time that this was there," said Kuck. Nyaga said in the back of his mind he had still "vaguely remembered something like that" but it had seemed his case was "almost irredeemable."

The line for family visas is years long, said Kuck, but, amazingly, the application was set to reach the front of the line the following month, in October 2007. "We pulled out the file and were looking for some other documents," said Kuck, "and it was right there. It was one of those 'Oh my God' moments."

Nyaga, now 50, said when Kuck told him the news, "It was unbelievable, because it was almost a desperate situation at that time."

Kuck said Nyaga was in custody only one day. "We were able to get him released right away with Sen. Chambliss' intervention," he said.

For those who are unable to read the article through the link.

The article suggested the person eventually gotten his Green Card through Family-Based Visa (F4 sibling visa), not through DV lottery

[Boiler 45,551]

I had assumed Jan was a she?

Anyway I thought only Lawyers could get an advisory opinion. not that it seems relevant in this case.

[stanley.brian 0]

For those who are unable to read the article through the link.

The article suggested the person eventually gotten his Green Card through Family-Based Visa (F4 sibling visa), not through DV lottery

true. but the moral of the story here is that he dint give up. He could have been deported or have left the country then they probably would have closed the case there and not discovered that family visa petition made by his brother. Also the guy who started this post mentioned his got a daughter who is a US citizen so maybe she could be the saving grace for him.

[jan22 3,056]

I had assumed Jan was a she?

Anyway I thought only Lawyers could get an advisory opinion. not that it seems relevant in this case.

Sorry, Boiler -- the Jan22 tag is not based on my name; it is from something that has special meaning to me personally. Profile is correct -- male.

You're right, it is usually lawyers who get advisory opinions -- but there is nothing to prevent an individual who can put together a sufficiently coherent case from doing so on their own case. It would require the same legal details to question the interpretation of a specific portion of law, and the ability to negotiate the system to find the right State Department office, but is not outside the realm of possibility for an individual.

And, an officer can request an advisory/legal opinion on a case at any time during their processing of the case -- and do so when they are unsure how to apply the law in a specific instance.

Edited June 27, 2016 by jan22

[jan22 3,056]

check this case. http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=900005560938/Immigration-Odyssey-Ends-in-Kenyan-Mans-Victory

Which is about an adjustment of status obtained via an F4 petition, not the DV application which had been denied.

Edited: Sorry -- was typing this post as stanley.brian was responding to another post acknowledging it was not a DV-based case and his reason for posting the link here anyway.

Edited June 27, 2016 by jan22

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Also the guy who started this post mentioned his got a daughter who is a US citizen so maybe she could be the saving grace for him.

Ah yes, his daughter who is a US Citizen can petition for him to immigrate once she is 21 years old.

He should not give up, just continue to wait for another 19 years and 4 months.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Merrytooth