@Hilal-2 12 yas ve uzerine isteniyor. Tek doz yeterli.
dpdemir tarafından gönderilen iletiler
-
RE: ABD’de Bir İş Teklifi Gerektirmeyen Green Card Başvurusu (EB-2 veya NIW)
-
RE: ABD’de Bir İş Teklifi Gerektirmeyen Green Card Başvurusu (EB-2 veya NIW)
@Hilal-2 Son 1 yil icinde hatirlatma dozu yapilmasi isteniyor. Yani, yaptirmaniz gerekiyor. Sinovac da kabul ediliyor.
-
RE: ABD’de Bir İş Teklifi Gerektirmeyen Green Card Başvurusu (EB-2 veya NIW)
@Hilal-2 Security check veya name check’den idari islemdeyim sanirim. Cunku, hicbir gerekce belirtilmedi. Sadece bekleyeceksiniz denildi. Sicilim temiz. Sanirim sistemlerinde aranan biriyle ismim ortusuyor, bu sebeple idari isleme kaliniyor ve sonuclanmasi uzun suruyor. Cok zor bir surecteyiz evet. Dualariniz icin cok tesekkurler. Buna ihtiyacim var gercekten.
-
RE: ABD’de Bir İş Teklifi Gerektirmeyen Green Card Başvurusu (EB-2 veya NIW)
@Hilal-2 Rica ederim. Umarim hersey sizler icin de yolunda gider. Ben maalesef halen idari islem surecindeyim. Esim uzerinden hak sahibiyim. Esim ve oglum green cardlarini aldilar. Ben ayni gun mulakatta AP’ye yani administrative processing’e kaldim. Boyle sacma bir durum icerisindeyim. Onun sonuclanmasini bekliyorum.
-
RE: ABD’de Bir İş Teklifi Gerektirmeyen Green Card Başvurusu (EB-2 veya NIW)
@Hilal-2 Merhaba, size NVC’den, mulakatiniz su tarih ve saate olusturuldu diye mail gelecek. O mail geldikten sonra doktor muayenesi icin randevuyu doctorun.com sitesinden kendiniz olusturacaksiniz. En erken muayeneden 1 ay oncesine, en gec 2 gun oncesine doktor muayene randevusu alabilirsiniz. Siz, konsolosluk mulakati icin randevu olusturmuyorsunuz, onlar tarih ve saati gonderiyor maille. Bundan sonra siz Ais kaydi olusturup o randevuyu kabul ettiginizi ve pasaportunuzun gorusme sonrasi gonderilecegi adresi bildiriyorsunuz.
- Simdilik sadece mulakat mailinizi beklemelisiniz.
- Devlet hastanesinden su cicegi, kabakulak, kizamik asilarina karsi antikor testi alip bu asilari oldugumuzu belgelemek istedik. Tum bunlara karsi antikorumuz yuksek ciktigi halde, devlet hastanesinden doktorun kase ve imzasiyla alindigi halde kabul etmediler. Sadece e-nabizda kayitli olan asilariniz varsa veya cocuklarinizin bebeklik asi karti varsa onlari kabul ediyorlar. Bosuna ugrasmayin derim. Uygun gordukleri asilari kendileri mutlaka yapiyor.
- Doktor muayesinden 1 ay once canli asi olmamaniz gerekiyor. Daha oncesinde bu asilari saglik ocaginda veya hastanede yaptirip e-nabiz’a isletirseniz kabul ederler. (Benim tetanoz ve Hepatit B asim vardi. Son bir yil icinde yaptirdigim ve e-nabiz’da gorunen. Kabul edildi).
- Covid asisi bu 30 gun kurali disinda tutuluyor. Covid asisini muayeden 2 gun once bile yaptirabilirsiniz. Kendileri Covid asisi yapmiyor. Devlet hastanesinde veya saglik ocaginda yaptirip e-nabiz ciktisini almaniz gerekiyor. Muayenede Covid asi belgesi mutlaka isteniyor.
- Siz istediginiz kadar disarida tamamlayayim deyin, onlar yine de mutlaka asi yapiyorlar. Asi olmadan ayrilani duymadim. Cocugumun tum asilari tam ve kayitli oldugu halde yine de 2 asi yapildi.
Kolayliklar dilerim.
-
RE: Employment Based - mulakat randevu tarihleri - gerceklesenler ve tahminler
@dil kendileri gonderiyor. Siz muayenenizin ardindan ayrilabilirsiniz Ankara’dan. Size de faturayi ve yapilan asilari mail atiyorlar.
-
RE: FY2023 & FY2024 Background Check & NNCP (AP durumu / İdari işlem)
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
SAO requests submitted by consular officers are handled by one of two divisions in SAC: the Counterterrorism Division or the Screening Division.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Screening Division handles approximately 75,000 SAO requests annually. At present, the Screening Division has about 19,000 SAO requests pending.
-
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.
-
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
-
-
RE: Employment Based - mulakat randevu tarihleri - gerceklesenler ve tahminler
@feuerx Turist vizesini iptal etmesi de kotu olmus. Yeni bir gocmen vize verilecekse iptal ediliyor diye biliyordum.
-
RE: Employment Based - mulakat randevu tarihleri - gerceklesenler ve tahminler
@feuerx AP’ye kalanlarda da ayni bu sekilde aciklama gorunuyor. Baska bir yerde okumustum. Red olanlarda daha kisa bir aciklama yer aliyor diye. O nedenle sordum. Su an bende gorunen de ayni bu aciklama ancak bana mulakatta AP’ye kaldigim soylendi ve ardindan bir hafta kadar sonra DS5535 formu maili aldim. Bu AP’ye kalanlara gonderilen ek bilgi talep formu. Yine de maillerini kontrol etsin kardesiniz. Umarim hakkinda en hayirlisi olur.
-
RE: Employment Based - mulakat randevu tarihleri - gerceklesenler ve tahminler
@feuerx Cok gecmis olsun. Bu sekilde bir tecrubeyi ilk kez duyuyorum. Genelde mulakat asamasina kadar gelen basvurular cogunlukla onaylaniyor. Eger, firmanin faaliyet alaniyla, kisinin yaptigi is arasinda bir baglanti yoksa bu daha onceki asamalarda uygun bulunmayip elenmeliydi diye dusunuyorum. (Perm, I-140 gibi) Tum bu asamalari sorunsuz atlatip mulakatta elenmesine aklim ermedi. Turist vizesini muhtemelen green card vizesini onaylayacak diye daha gorusmenin basinda iptal etmistir. Sonrasinda ne olduysa vize vermeme karari aldi memur herhalde. Turist vizesini iptal ettiklerine dair bir mail vs. gelmiyor. Benim de mulakatta vizem iptal oldu. Uzerine “cancel” yazdi memur ama ben AP’ye kaldim. Verilen sari kagitta sadece “Administrative Processing” kismi isaretli.
Ceac’de kontrol ettiginizde “Refused” in altindaki aciklama uzun bir aciklama mi, kisa mi?
Konsolos sozlu ve yazili olarak “revocate” ettigini belirtmis. Idari islem oldugunu dusunmuyorum ama belki karara itiraz hakkiniz vardir. -
RE: B1/B2 Ziyaretçi Vizeleri Mülakat Deneyimleri ve Görüşme Detayları
@Kaan-Özdemir Tebrikler, yolunuz acik olsun. Ayrica, sizi akademik basarilarinizdan dolayi da tebrik ederim. Kendini dogru ifade edebilmenin ne kadar onemli oldugunu anladim sizin bu tecrubenizden.
-
RE: Employment Based Green Card (Is sponsorlugu ile yesil kart basvurulari)
@Duygu-Çelik bizim de PD tarihimiz size cok yakin. 21 Temmuz 2020. Bizim EB3 professional oldugu icin sizden biraz daha once surec tamamlanmis oldu. Ben esim uzerinden hak sahibiyim. Esim ve oglum vizelerini aldilar. Su an green card sahibiler ancak ben ayni gun mulakatta idari isleme birakildim. Simdi de onun sonuclanmasini bekliyorum. Yaklasik 8 aydir ailemden ayri Turkiye’de beklemek zorunda kaldim. En zor kismi da bu oldu benim icin. Yani katmerli sabir gerekiyor. Vardir bir hayir deyip sabirla beklemeye devam ediyorum. Yani, anlatmak istediginiz “sabir” ve “beklemek” kelimelerinin anlamini cok iyi biliyorum. Bundan sonrasi kolay olsun insallah. Su gibi aksin islerimiz.
-
RE: Employment Based Green Card (Is sponsorlugu ile yesil kart basvurulari)
@Duygu-Çelik Rica ederim Umarim en kisa surede sonuca ulasirsiniz.
-
RE: Employment Based Green Card (Is sponsorlugu ile yesil kart basvurulari)
@Duygu-Çelik Merhaba, NVC’ye DS260 formu ve diger istenilen evraklari yukluyorsunuz. Sanirim o asamadadiniz. Yaklasik 2 hafta kadar sonra (bu aralar nasil bilmiyorum, en fazla 1 ay diyelim) NVC’den size yuklediginiz evraklarin kabul edildigi yani DQ oldugunuz ve Ankara’dan uygun bir tarihte sizin icin randevu olusturulacagina dair mail alacaksiniz. O mailin geldigi gun sizin DQ tarihiniz oluyor ve bu DQ tarihine gore Ankara icin mulakat tarihi sirasina girmis oluyorsunuz. Tabi ayni zamanda Priority Date’iniz de her ay aciklanan Visa Bulletin’da current olmasi gerekiyor. Sizin PD’niz current su anda. DQ olunca kisa zamanda randevu alacaginizi dusunuyorum. Bu arada Ceac’de ANK…. ile baslayan dosya numaranizi kontrol ettiginizde mulakat maili alana dek “at NVC” olarak gorursunuz, mulakat aldiginizda “in Transit” ve ardindan “Ready” olur. Dosyaniz size mulakat verilene kadar NVC’dedir. Ilgili mailler hem size, hem avukatiniza hem de isvereninize gelir. Kolayliklar diliyorum.
Isiniz rast gitsin. -
RE: IR-1/CR-1 süreci ve mülakat deneyimleri (ABD vatandaşı ile evlenip Türkiye'de Green Card almak)
@Busra-Akdag Esim ve oglumun vizeleri mulakatta onaylandi ben Ap’ye kaldim. Onlar gittiler. Ben hala vizemi bekliyorum. Bizim vize turumuz sizden farkli ama her vize turunde bu AP’ye kalma durumu olabiliyor.
-
RE: IR-1/CR-1 süreci ve mülakat deneyimleri (ABD vatandaşı ile evlenip Türkiye'de Green Card almak)
@chicallonis1 @notron sebep belirtmediler. Hicbir aciklama yapmiyorlar bu konuda. Sari bir kagit verdiler uzerinde AP isaretli sadece. Ne kadar surer demistim mulakatta. “Couple of months” dedi. 8 ay oldu hala bir ilerleme yok. Bu konuyla ilgili su basliga bakabilirsiniz.
https://yesilkartforum.com/forum/post/305805 -
RE: IR-1/CR-1 süreci ve mülakat deneyimleri (ABD vatandaşı ile evlenip Türkiye'de Green Card almak)
@Nailaysegul nispeten iyi haber. En azindan evraklarinizi eksiksiz gonderdiginizde sureciniz tamamlanacak. 221 (g) yani sadece Administrative processing isaretli kagitla gelmis olsaydi, o zaman koca bir belirsizlik sizi bekliyor olacakti. Su an 8 aydir icinde oldugum durum bu.
-
RE: ABD’de Bir İş Teklifi Gerektirmeyen Green Card Başvurusu (EB-2 veya NIW)
@ktur Nufus kayit ornegi almak icin adimlara basladiginizda altta secenekler cikiyor. Vukuatli belge (olaylari goster) diye bir secenek var, onu isaretliyorsunuz.