The dreaded DS-5535 thread for Montreal. Post here and support each other (split)

[Redie 124]

Just now, Jorgedig said:

Generally, you do that when initially requesting help.   Senators and congresspeople have links for that on their websites.

 

And they don’t “take your case.”   They are not offering legal representation.   They are obligated to provide assistance to any  constituent with issues with federal agencies, in the form of an inquiry.

Actually,  they are not obligated to take your case. I approached 3 different state reps. The first one would not even inquire while in AP. The second one only would inquire after 90 days in AP. The third one I contacted did inquire  on my behalf but only received a generic response back from the consulate.

[SalishSea 17,810]

1 minute ago, ice-qube said:

True, but to what degree are they even "obligated" (in most technical meaning of this word) to do an inquiry? i feel the obligation is in fact merely conventional and discretionary, in operational sense.

I suppose if it was a frivolous request, they could decline.   If a USC or LPR living within their constituency asks for help, they are supposed to provide it.   They have staff for this.   Again, it will be in the form of making an inquiry.

[ice-qube 649]

1 minute ago, Redie said:

Actually,  they are not obligated to take your case. I approached 3 different state reps. The first one would not even inquire while in AP. The second one only would inquire after 90 days in AP. The third one I contacted did inquire  on my behalf but only received a generic response back from the consulate.

Yeah exactly. There is no technical obligation on them, alas.

[ice-qube 649]

Just now, Jorgedig said:

I suppose if it was a frivolous request, they could decline.   If a USC or LPR living within their constituency asks for help, they are supposed to provide it.   They have staff for this.   Again, it will be in the form of making an inquiry.

I agree man, but I am contending there is no technical obligation, it is actually a matter of convention and norms rather than some statutory or administrative obligation.

[SalishSea 17,810]

9 minutes ago, Redie said:

Actually,  they are not obligated to take your case. I approached 3 different state reps. The first one would not even inquire while in AP. The second one only would inquire after 90 days in AP. The third one I contacted did inquire  on my behalf but only received a generic response back from the consulate.

Again, there is no “taking the case,” lol.   They are not going to bat for people one way or another.   They’re making an inquiry to a federal agency with which a constituent needs help.   I’m not surprised they won’t inquire while in AP.  And the generic responses they get are usually whatever the beneficiary would get.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Jorgedig

[SalishSea 17,810]

1 minute ago, ice-qube said:

I agree man, but I am contending there is no technical obligation, it is actually a matter of convention and norms rather than some statutory or administrative obligation.

Really?   So you don’t think elected officials in the US are required to help their constituents with federal agencies, if able?

[ice-qube 649]

Just now, Jorgedig said:

Really?   So you don’t think elected officials in the US are required to help their constituents with federal agencies, if able?

The question you are posing is pretty vague and depends on definitions of words. What does it mean to be "required' or "obligated" under *law*, rather than convention? That is what it turns on. I cannot definitively say they are or are not by law, but by convention yes; but if just by convention, that also means there is no particular legal or administrative penalty for *not* doing so, nor a legal or administrative remedy for a complainant to seek if they did not do so. Making a statement that they are 'obligated', implicitly under law, requires some evidence that I am not certain exists (although not prepared to say doesn't exist).

[Redie 124]

2 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Again, their is no “taking the case,” lol.   They are not going to bat for people one way or another.   They’re making an inquiry to a federal agency with which a constituent needs help.   I’m not surprised they won’t inquire while in AP.  And the generic responses they get are usually whatever the beneficiary would get.

Yes I understand there is no “taking the case” maybe I should not have used that wording. They will only inquire on your behalf if they are willing to. 

[ice-qube 649]

Just now, Redie said:

Yes I understand there is no “taking the case” maybe I should not have used that wording. They will only inquire on your behalf if they are willing to. 

Yes, this. There is nothing that compels them to make the inquiry. And they do not make the inquiry as an advocate, per se.

[SalishSea 17,810]

1 minute ago, ice-qube said:

The question you are posing is pretty vague and depends on definitions of words. What does it mean to be "required' or "obligated" under *law*, rather than convention? That is what it turns on. I cannot definitively say they are or are not by law, but by convention yes; but if just by convention, that also means there is no particular legal or administrative penalty for *not* doing so, nor a legal or administrative remedy for a complainant to seek if they did not do so. Making a statement that they are 'obligated', implicitly under law, requires some evidence that I am not certain exists (although not prepared to say doesn't exist).

Okay, lol.  I'm done here.  I am a USC, and in my experience, they have been very willing to help me with federal agencies, such as the IRS.

 

Your experience is obviously different.

 

 

Just now, ice-qube said:

Yes, this. There is nothing that compels them to make the inquiry. And they do not make the inquiry as an advocate, per se.

I don't believe anyone was suggesting they would advocate.

 

 

[ice-qube 649]

Just now, Jorgedig said:

Okay, lol.  I'm done here.  I am a USC, and in my experience, they have been very willing to help me with federal agencies, such as the IRS.

 

Your experience is obviously different.

 

 

OK, and that is great. I am glad that they help you; it is both good for you and good for the way they look when serving their constituents. Of course, this does not address what I said, which was in regards to whether they are "obligated" to do so. That was the crux of the matter under discussion.

[ice-qube 649]

4 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Okay, lol.  I'm done here.  I am a USC, and in my experience, they have been very willing to help me with federal agencies, such as the IRS.

 

Your experience is obviously different.

 

 

I don't believe anyone was suggesting they would advocate.

 

 

I believe you were opposing the language that @Redie and @Federico used, e.g., "taking the case", and you are very correct in that--this is what I am agreeing with you on, they do not act as advocates (like a lawyer would).

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

1 minute ago, ice-qube said:

OK, and that is great. I am glad that they help you; it is both good for you and good for the way they look when serving their constituents. Of course, this does not address what I said, which was in regards to whether they are "obligated" to do so. That was the crux of the matter under discussion.

It's their duty to represent and advocate for their constituents.

The specific protocols followed to perform such duties and how successful they are at it is another matter. 

[SalishSea 17,810]

7 minutes ago, ice-qube said:

OK, and that is great. I am glad that they help you; it is both good for you and good for the way they look when serving their constituents. Of course, this does not address what I said, which was in regards to whether they are "obligated" to do so. That was the crux of the matter under discussion.

Splitting hairs.

 

Maybe those on this thread would have more luck if the USC/LPR petitioner was the one to reach out, vs. the intending immigrant.  Elected US officials have no obligation (implied or otherwise) to help people who do not live within their constituency.

[Federico 147]

37 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Generally, you do that when initially requesting help.   Senators and congresspeople have links for that on their websites.

 

And they don’t “take your case.”   They are not offering legal representation.   They are obligated to provide assistance to any  constituent with issues with federal agencies, in the form of an inquiry.

I didn’t fill out the privacy act release because I am not expert contacting senator  I would really was appreciated if you have told me that when I asked for help

 

I didn’t said they are offering u legal representation, when I said “they take your case” I mean some reps/senators don’t take your case at least you been waiting for a certain period of time, and they are not obligated because if they are why some of them even don’t answer or just response things like “this is a security concert we can’t do nothing on that.

 

It looks like you are confused.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Federico