jai kumar garg
New Member
The short answer to the question, "Does a Presumption of Intent to Immigrate, INA 214(B), Violate Human Rights"? is No.
With all due respects and regards!
I truly agree by the “NO” to the “Presumption”…..and add…..
1. When Club’s in India displayed “Dogs and Indians not allowed” it was presumed a dog and an Indian were not fit to join the club. There was no Human Rights violation.
2. When M.K.Gandhi was presumed to be a colored man not fit to travel in the First class compartment train at Pietermaritzburg. There was no Human Rights violation.
3. When Rosa Parks was asked by the bus driver to vacate her seat for the whites. There was no Human Rights violation.
The violation became effective when:-
1. One had to prove you were not a dog or an Indian to be allowed into the club.
2. Or Gandhi was thrown out from the first class compartment.
3. Or when Rosa Parks got arrested for her refusal to vacate the seat for a white man.
My question was and still is:-
“Does 214 (b) violates Human Rights with no provisions of appeal in the US?”
A. Till the moment I did not get the 214 b booklet I did not even know if any such law existed, for an applicant to satisfy the presumed assumption, that I was open to be called a liar, if I was an intending immigrant; when I had specifically applied on the DS-160 for a B1-B2 nonimmigrant Visa . There was no Human Rights violation. (true)
B. The moment I am refused the visa and given the 214 b duly certified by a US embassy official, it violated my human right by certifying that I had lied, for I had immigrant intent on a non immigrant visa. A confirmation for me to seek and ask:-
“Does 214 (b) violates Human Rights with no provisions of appeal in the US?”
Thank you, for being kind enough to have replied. I have no wish to defame any one, will accept being called a liar too; But think, how many people go to the US embassies and get to be called liars and don’t even know about it
With all due respects and regards!
I truly agree by the “NO” to the “Presumption”…..and add…..
1. When Club’s in India displayed “Dogs and Indians not allowed” it was presumed a dog and an Indian were not fit to join the club. There was no Human Rights violation.
2. When M.K.Gandhi was presumed to be a colored man not fit to travel in the First class compartment train at Pietermaritzburg. There was no Human Rights violation.
3. When Rosa Parks was asked by the bus driver to vacate her seat for the whites. There was no Human Rights violation.
The violation became effective when:-
1. One had to prove you were not a dog or an Indian to be allowed into the club.
2. Or Gandhi was thrown out from the first class compartment.
3. Or when Rosa Parks got arrested for her refusal to vacate the seat for a white man.
My question was and still is:-
“Does 214 (b) violates Human Rights with no provisions of appeal in the US?”
A. Till the moment I did not get the 214 b booklet I did not even know if any such law existed, for an applicant to satisfy the presumed assumption, that I was open to be called a liar, if I was an intending immigrant; when I had specifically applied on the DS-160 for a B1-B2 nonimmigrant Visa . There was no Human Rights violation. (true)
B. The moment I am refused the visa and given the 214 b duly certified by a US embassy official, it violated my human right by certifying that I had lied, for I had immigrant intent on a non immigrant visa. A confirmation for me to seek and ask:-
“Does 214 (b) violates Human Rights with no provisions of appeal in the US?”
Thank you, for being kind enough to have replied. I have no wish to defame any one, will accept being called a liar too; But think, how many people go to the US embassies and get to be called liars and don’t even know about it