FY2023 & FY2024 Background Check & NNCP (AP durumu / İdari işlem)

[akincetin]

Bu ileti silindi!

[gucarslan]

AP'ye kaldığımda neden "REFUSED" görünüyorum?

---

cevap her zaman olduğu gibi forumda.

bu iletimde neden bu şekilde göründüğünü detaylıca açıkladım;

Spoiler

ÖNEMLİ BİLGİ

travel state, 5 mayıs 2020'de CEAC statülerinin sistemde görüntülenmesi ile alakalı bir güncelleme yayınladı.

bu güncellemeye istinaden;

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/visas-ceac-case-status-change.html

ilgili güncellemede aktarılan bilgiye istinaden;

vize başvurunuzdan / mülakatınızdan hemen sonra CEAC statünüz olumlu olsa da dosyanin durumu "red / refused" olarak görünebilir. eskiden daha sık kullanilan "idari işlem AP" statüsü artık coğunlukla "red / refused" olarak görünüyor, fakat vize basildiktan sonra statu degisip "issued" dönüşür.

bu sebeple, mülakatınız sonrası CEAC statünüzü kontrol ederken "refused" ibaresi ile karşılaşırsanız telaş yapmayın, statünüz güncellenecektir.

bu bilgiler ışığında statünüz sistemde aşağıdaki sıralama ile görülecektir;

at NVC in Transit Ready Refused AP Issued

[akincetin]

Bu ileti silindi!

[Hakkı Alkan]

Herkese selamlar. 17 Ekim’de medya vizem (I) “onaylandı” denilerek konsolosluktan ayrıldım.

7 Aralık’a kadar “Approved” yazan kısım, 7 Aralık’ta “Refused” oldu.

14 aralıkta mavi kağıt ve pasaport geldi. Halen de refused yazıyor.

5 yıl süresi olduğu için son 10 yılda 2 kez yenilenmişti bu vize. Nerdeyse her ay da Amerika’ya gittim iş için. Bu duruma gerçekten çok şaşırdım. İsim benzerliği mi, rastgele mi, vs bir fikrim de yok.

Gerçekten de yıpratıcı bir süreç. Umarım herkese güzel haber gelir.

Not: Bu platform, gördüğüm en aktif platform. Emeği geçenlere teşekkür ederim.

[gucarslan]

@Hakkı-Alkan merhaba,
bu durum aslında sizinle alakalı değil. son dönemde türkiye'den yapılan başvurular ne yazık ki ciddi bir denetimden geçiyor.
konsolosluk memuru, görüşme sonrası vizenizi onayladıktan sonra NVC'den bir visa number talebinde bulunur.
NVC , konsolosluk memuru vizesini onaylasa dahi o kişiye bir vize numarası tahsis etmeyebilir.
kısaca konsolosluk vizenizi onaylasa bile, NVC ben bu kişiye vize vermemem diyebilir.
aslında yaşadığınız konu tam olarak bu..
"Refused" yazma sebebini de yukarıdaki iletimde detaylıca açıklamıştım..

peki ilgili durum sonrası DS5535 formu aldınız mail ile?
çünkü bu durum sizin AP sürecinizin ilerleyişini belirleyecek.

[Hakkı Alkan]

@gucarslan maalesef almadım. Buralarda yazanları da okuyunca Spam klasörüne de baktım. Herhangi bir mesaj yok. Bekliyoruz bakalım:) yardımlarınız için çok teşekkür ederim. Buraları takipte kalacağım.

[gucarslan]

@Hakkı-Alkan anladım..
bu baktığınızda iyi bir durum da olsa gözünüzden kaçmış bir mail olma olasılığı yüzünden tekrar bir kontrol etmenizde fayda var.
mülakata girdiğiniz konsolosluğa;

ad-soyad, dosya numaranız, doğum tarih bilgilerinizin de içinde olduğu bir mail atın lütfen.
mail başlığı "dosya numaranız / AP Process" olsun.

Dear Consular Officer,
After my interview at your consulate, I received information from you that I was in the AP process, but I did not receive the DS5535 form, which I thought would be necessary to continue my process.
I would like information on whether I should fill out the relevant form or not.
Thanks

ad-soyad
doğum tarihi
dosya numaranız"

bol sabırlı beklemeler

[thunder_74]

iki yıl oldu, bakalım daha ne kadar sürecek.

[alendelon1]

@thunder_74 2 yıl 2 ay ile artırıyorum, aramıza Hakkı Alkan da dahil olmuş, bu süreç beni şaşırtmaya devam ediyor:))

[hulyarslan]

@alendelon1 sizin vize türünüz neydi acaba ?

[dilanoztrk]

Merhaba,

Ben Kasım ayında mülakata girdim, mülakatta vizem onaylandı.
Daha sonra pasaportum 1 ay kadar gelmedi, geldiğinde reddedilmiş olarak görünüyordu. Pasaportun arasında ekteki kağıt da vardı.
221g maddesi uyarınca reddedildiği yazıyordu. Bu maddeyi araştırdım, eksik belgeyle ilgili olduğu yazıyordu. Pasaportum geleli 1 ay oldu ancak eksik belge için kimse bana ulaşmadı.

Böyle bir durum yaşayan oldu mu acaba? Bu durumda vize reddedilmiş mi oldu ya da eksik belge bilgisi gelince süreç tamamlanır mı?

Çok teşekkürler

[gucarslan]

@dilanoztrk merhaba, öncelikle lütfen sürecinizi imzanıza taşıyın.
vize başvurunuz reddedilmedi, sadece idari işlem (AP) sürecindesiniz ve bu işlemin sonuçlanmasını bekliyorsunuz.
lütfen bu başlığı detaylıca inceleyin. muhtemelen NNCP'ye takıldınız soyadınızdan dolayı.

FY2023 & FY2024 Background Check & NNCP (AP durumu / İdari işlem)

mülakatınız sonrası herhangi bir mail aldınız mı, doldurmanızı istenen bir form? (DS5535)
lütfen mailinizin spam klasörü dahil bütün kısımlarını kontrol edin.

[dilanoztrk]

@gucarslan merhaba, dönüşünüz için çok teşekkür ederim.
Mülakat sonrası herhangi bir mail almadım. Sadece şöyle bir nokta var; randevuyu evlenmeden önce eski soyismimle aldım ancak randevuya gittiğimde kimliğim ve pasaportum yeni soy ismimle değişmişti. Benden eski pasaportumu almadılar bundan kaynaklı bir durum olabilir mi acaba?

[gucarslan]

@dilanoztrk elbette hayır, dediğim gibi soyadınız ile alakalı bir durum bu.
NNCP'den başka bir sebebi olacağını zannetmiyorum.

[dilanoztrk]

@gucarslan tamamdır çok teşekkürler

[dpdemir]

Nedir bu 221 (g)? Neden benim basima geldi? Simdi ne olacak? diye dusunenler icin yetkili bir agizdan yapilan son derece faydali ve aciklayici bilgiler oldugu kanaatindeyim. Incelemenizi tavsiye ederim. Bilgileri, Curtis Morrison adli gocmen avukatinin X hesabindan aldim.
Ozetle, bekleyen AP dosyasi 66,000 imis. Bu islemlere bakan gorevli sayisi sadece 37 imis.
Ilk giren, ilk cikar gibi bir kural da yokmus. Dosyalarin yuzde 75’i 120 gun icinde, yuzde 90 ustu de 24 aydan once sonuclanmis.

By Curtis Lee Morrison

In early January, the State Department filed an explosive declaration from Carson Wu with the Visa Office that provides amazing insights on how Secretary Blinken’s post-interview administrative processing for visa applicants is not working, and importantly, why it is not working.

Among the revelations from the declaration, only 37 State Department analysts are responsible for the national security vetting of DS-5535 responses, causing a backlog to explode. Currently, 66,000 visa applicants are stuck in administrative processing.

Secondly, Mr. Wu declares that “SAO requests can be neither addressed nor resolved in a first-in-first-out basis.” This revelation exposes the lie that government attorneys have been consistently telling federal judges across the US: that visa applicants in AP who are filing mandamus lawsuits are attempting line-skipping in front of others in a queue or line. There is no queue.

This lie serves as the foundation for US Attorney Matthew M. Graves's office recently urging a federal judge to send a hostile message to the immigrant families: that filing mandamus lawsuits in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, presumably regardless of the length of delay, “will not result in the prioritizing any noncitizen’s application.” See: X.

The lawsuit that caused the State Department to file this incredibly informative declaration was filed by Jesse Bless, the former Director of Federal Litigation at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

I have linked that original declaration here so you can see all the revelations, but have included the text below for the benefit of those viewing with language translators:

Declaration of Carson Wu

1. I am employed by the Department of State (Department) in the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Visa Services Office as the Acting Director of the Office of Screening, Analysis and Coordination (SAC). I joined the Department in 2004 as a Foreign Service Officer, serving in China, Thailand, India, Brazil, Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, and Washington, DC. I have been in my current position since 2022.

2. SAC is the Department’s office with primary responsibility for screening noncitizens who apply for U.S. visas for potential security-related grounds of visa ineligibility. SAC coordinates with other bureaus within the Department, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and other U.S. government partners on matters involving national security, technology transfer, counterintelligence, human rights violations, and U.S. sanctions. After coordinating with these other interested agencies, SAC analysts provide consular officers with Security Advisory Opinions (SAO) responses related to grounds of visa ineligibility and inadmissibility under section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The following declaration explains the SAO process and is based on information acquired by me in my official capacity in the performance of my official functions.

Background Interagency Vetting Process

3. After September 11, 2001, the Department along with its federal intelligence agency and law enforcement partners engaged in a years-long effort to improve the collection, sharing, and utilization of terrorist identity and other critical national security information to inform the vetting of, inter alia, foreign nationals applying for immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to the United States. In response to numerous Executive Branch, Congressional, and Department initiatives, the Department in coordination with multiple federal partners has developed, implemented, and continuously refined a watch-listing and vetting enterprise in support of the Department’s highest priority - to protect national security and the traveling public.

4. One of the lessons that the U.S. government internalized after September 11, 2001, is that it is essential to the national security of the United States that the security vetting apparatus, which supports a consular officer’s decision to issue or refuse a visa, must have and review all necessary information to reach the right conclusion. Thus, the screening, analysis, and coordination, which underpins the SAO process, requires that each interested agency must have sufficient time to ensure the Department, which is the United States’ first line of defense for the entry of foreign nationals who are applying for visas, has confidence in its recommendations to a consular officer regarding security-related grounds of visa ineligibility. Accordingly, the Department cannot truncate or circumvent the decision-making process.

5. The Department requires personal interviews for most applicants, employs analytic interviewing techniques, and incorporates multiple biographic and biometric checks in the visa process. Underpinning the process is a sophisticated global information technology network that shares data within the Department and with other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

6. Every security-related visa review, from counterterrorism and counterproliferation, to espionage, requires the application of highly specialized subject matter expertise across multiple federal agencies, as well as the latest in automated review. When automated processes or the determination of a consular officer indicate a possible match between a visa application and derogatory information held in U.S. government records, an interagency process is launched to determine 1) whether the visa applicant is truly a match to the record, and 2) whether the information is both reliable and of a nature that will support a finding of ineligibility under the terrorism or other national security grounds in Section 212(a)(3) of the INA.

Consular Officer Identifies Potential Security-Based Visa Ineligibility

7. The Department views every visa decision as a national security and public safety decision. Therefore, the Department applies its security screening process to every visa applicant in all visa classifications.

8. Security screening begins when a visa applicant submits an online application form, whether a DS-160 for nonimmigrant applicants or a DS-260 for immigrant visa applicants. Consular officers, as well as our intelligence and law enforcement partners, analyze data in advance of the visa interview, including the detection of potential non-biographic links to derogatory information that is an indicia of potential visa ineligibilities.

9. When a visa applicant appears before a consular officer to make a visa application, the consular officer collects the visa applicant’s fingerprints and confirms biographical data provided. Additionally, the applicant is required to answer the officer’s questions related to the applicant’s eligibility for a visa.

10. Before a visa may be issued, consular officers are required by statute to perform a check of automated lookout systems, which are used to help officers identify noncitizen visa applicants about whom the U.S. government may have information that indicates a possible basis of visa ineligibility.

11. All visa applicant data is screened against the Department’s Consular Lookout and Support System (“CLASS”), an online database containing approximately 36 million records of persons, including those found ineligible for visas and persons about whom exists derogatory information, drawn from records and sources throughout the U.S. government. CLASS is populated, in part, through an export of the Terrorist Screening Database and the federal terrorism watchlist. CLASS employs sophisticated name-searching algorithms to identify matches between visa applicants and derogatory information contained in CLASS.

12. The Department also runs all visa applicants’ biographic data against the Consular Consolidated Database (“CCD”), the Department’s internal automated visa application record system, as a secondary check for derogatory information regarding visa applicants, and to flag prior visa applications, refusals, and issuances. The CCD contains more than 181 million immigrant and nonimmigrant visa records dating back to 1998. This robust searching capability, which takes into account variations in spelling and naming conventions, is central to maintaining visa security.

13. In addition, all visa applicants are subjected to an interagency counterterrorism review before their visas can be issued. The Department employs a suite of biographic and biometric reviews, which check each applicant against U.S. government counterterrorism holdings and which vet applicants against other partner data.

14. In 2013, in coordination with multiple interagency partners, the Department launched the Kingfisher Expansion counterterrorism visa vetting system (“KFE”). While the precise details of KFE vetting cannot be detailed due to classification and because disclosure would harm national security, KFE supports a sophisticated comparison of multiple fields of information drawn from visa applications against multiple intelligence community and law enforcement agency databases in order to identify terrorism concerns. If derogatory information exists about an applicant, the consular officer receives a “red-light” response to one of the automated lookout systems.

15. When a consular officer encounters a “red-light,” the consular officer is required to take prescribed steps necessary to assess properly whether the applicant has incurred a ground of visa ineligibility. If the ground of ineligibility implicated by information from a lookout system relates to security-related grounds at INA section 212(a)(3), then the officer is required to refuse the application under INA section 221(g) and to request a SAO from SAC, which initiates an interagency security review.

16. National Security Presidential Memorandum-9. The National Vetting Center is intended to enhance interagency collaboration to provide U.S. agencies with valuable, relevant information to help adjudicators make informed decisions critical to ensuring the safety of the American people. The National Vetting Center will provide a common technology platform and process to allow for a coordinated and comprehensive review of relevant information. This process will streamline the transfer of unclassified applicant and traveler information to classified environments, where it is compared against highly restricted information held by national security partners.

17. The Department has been actively involved in working with the National Vetting Center to shift security vetting of visa applicants from the KFE vetting system discussed above to the National Vetting Center. The Department transferred the national security vetting of nonimmigrant visa applicants to the National Vetting Center in October 2022, with immigrant visa vetting to follow sometime in 2024. The Department anticipates that moving security vetting to the National Vetting Center will create efficiencies in the vetting process that will ultimately benefit all visa applicants and also enhance border security by providing more robust screening of applicants.

18. Consular officers are also required to request SAOs for reasons other than a systems lookout. During the interview, consular officers also pursue case-relevant inquiries pertaining to the applicant’s identity, qualifications for the particular visa category in question, prior visa applications or travel to the United States, and any information pertaining to possible grounds of visa ineligibilities, including security-related grounds of ineligibility under INA section 212(a)(3). The Department provides guidance to officers on certain factual predicates that may require additional security review. In any case where an officer uncovers facts that would require additional security vetting, the officer is required to submit an SAO to initiate additional security vetting. Officers also have discretion to request SAOs in any case where the officer concludes additional vetting is warranted.

19. Consular officers may not issue a visa unless they are satisfied that the applicant is eligible for the visa. In any case in which a SAO is required, a consular officer must wait for a response, which will provide a recommendation on whether sufficient information exists to support a security-related ineligibility finding.

SAC Resources and Operations

20. SAO requests submitted by consular officers are handled by one of two divisions in SAC: the Counterterrorism Division or the Screening Division.

21. The Counterterrorism Division consults with multiple law enforcement and national security agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Administration, and Department of Defense and other U.S. Government agencies on SAOs regarding possible espionage, terrorism, totalitarian party membership or other national security concerns. It also works closely on SAOs with other interested U.S. agencies.

22. The Counterterrorism Division has 22 analysts, each assigned to review visa applicants from a particular country or region. Staffing this way allows the analysts to develop specialized subject matter expertise on unique security-threats relevant to the country or region covered. On the other hand, there are a limited number of analysts who specialize in each region of the world.

23. The Counterterrorism Division handles approximately 55,000 SAO requests annually, down from approximately 115,000 SAO requests annually before moving nonimmigrant screening to the National Vetting Center platform. At present, the Counterterrorism Division has about 47,000 SAO requests pending.

24. The Screening Division works with relevant Department offices and other U.S. agencies to render SAOs on security-issues other than terrorism and communism. The Screening Division has 15 analysts, each assigned to different areas of specialization.

25. The Screening Division handles approximately 75,000 SAO requests annually. At present, the Screening Division has about 19,000 SAO requests pending.

26. When SAC receives a response from another agency indicating a security-related issue that could provide a basis for visa ineligibility, the SAC analysts must evaluate that information to determine if it rises to the level of a ground of visa ineligibility under 212(a)(3). If the analyst assesses that the derogatory information is sufficient to provide a basis for a visa ineligibility finding, the analyst will prepare a memo for Visa Office management approval, and subsequently will provide a recommendation to the consular officer who is responsible for making the final decision on visa eligibility. In cases where the Department analyst and officials at clearing partner agencies view the derogatory information differently, the matter may need to be elevated to the leadership of the respective agencies for resolution. Until the various agencies agree on the recommendation to provide the consular officer in the SAO, the consular officer cannot reopen the visa application.

27. Further, completion of SAO responses depends on the extent of review and coordination required, the amount of derogatory information, which other agencies have responsive information, the timing of when each partner agency completes its review, and a variety of other factors, such as emergent circumstances such as COVID, SAO request volume, or the need to facilitate travel in the national interest (e.g., for the U.S. government to comply with international obligations to facilitate travel to the United Nations) or to address emerging threats, and foreign policy priorities. Because of the complexity of this process, SAO requests can be neither addressed nor resolved in a first-in-first-out basis. That said, generally, security vetting is concluded in 75 percent of visa cases requiring additional security vetting in approximately 120 days. Security vetting is concluded in over 90 percent of all cases requiring additional security vetting in less than 24 months.

I declare under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

/S/ Carson Wu

January 5, 2024 Carson Wu

Acting Director of Screening, Analysis and Coordination Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Office

United States Department of State

[hulyarslan]

@dpdemir bilgilendirme için çok teşekkür ederiz Deniz Hanım ️

[smyrna16]

AP sürecinde Embassy sitesinde ve CEAC sitesinde güncellenme tarihleri değişiyor mu sizlerde? Mailde gelen Status Check alanında “Website Updated” kısmı birkaç günde bir tarih revize oluyor fakat herhangi bir dönüş olmuyor. Ben de Temmuz ayından beri AP sürecindeyim.

[akincetin]

@smyrna16 merhaba,

en sağlıklı sonuçlara CEAC üzerinden ulaşabileceğimizi belirtmişti sn. @gucarslan Bey.

[hulyarslan]

@smyrna16 vize türünüz ne acaba ?