Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, P.C.
Choosing the legibility country (Egypt or Saudi Arabia .. Which is best ?)
- Thread starter pharma123
- Start date
Qewty
Registered Users (C)
Your application is based on your country of birth, not citizenship (unless you are using your spouse or parents country for chargeability - note that parents have particular rules). So it does not matter what citizenship you have.
Other forum members, please confirm I am correct here please
Q
Other forum members, please confirm I am correct here please
Q
Your application is based on your country of birth, not citizenship (unless you are using your spouse or parents country for chargeability - note that parents have particular rules). So it does not matter what citizenship you have.
Other forum members, please confirm I am correct here please
Q
my parents are egyptian as well
Qewty
Registered Users (C)
I would ask one of our other forums members to advise re parent's chargeability please as I know there are very strict rules on this which I do not want to get wrong In the meantime Pharma, please read up on how to use parents for chargeability just to be sure you can
Raevsky can probably advise you, or Britsimon, regarding difference between the countries chances. If they are the same region, I suspect it is a minor difference. Just my thoughts.
Good luck to you!
Q
In the meantime Pharma, please read up on how to use parents for chargeability just to be sure you can Raevsky can probably advise you, or Britsimon, regarding difference between the countries chances. If they are the same region, I suspect it is a minor difference. Just my thoughts.
Good luck to you!
Q
This is the "classic" rule for alternative chargeability through parents.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
70 NO. 20 Interpreter Releases 683
Interpreter Releases
May 24, 1993
*683 VISA OFFICE DISCUSSES ALTERNATE STATE
CHARGEABILITY FOR IMMIGRANT VISAS
Copyright ? 1993 Federal Publications Inc.
In recent correspondence the State Department
discussed a little known provision of the INA
providing for alternate state chargeability for
immigrant visa applicants. Cornelius D. Scully, III,
the Director of the Office of Legislation, Regulations
and Advisory Assistance at the State Department's Visa
Office, discussed alternate chargeability in response
to an inquiry from Boston, Massachusetts attorney
Donal Eoin Reilly. Mr. Reilly asked about alternate
chargeability in the context of the AA-1 immigrant
visa lottery program. Both letters are reproduced in
Appendix II of this Release.
In his February 16, 1993 inquiry, Mr. Reilly noted
that the Irish Immigration Center (IIC) in Boston
receives many inquiries regarding the availability of
AA-1 visas from young adults who were born in England
or elsewhere, but whose parents were born in Ireland.
Mr. Reilly asked whether these sons or daughters, over
21, can seek alternate chargeability through their
parents. He also asked whether there is any age limit
for applicants seeking such alternate chargeability.
Mr. Reilly specifically asked about the effect on this
issue of INA ?202(b)(4). That section provides that
for immigration purposes, the foreign state to which
an immigrant is chargeable is determined by birth
within such foreign state, except that an alien born
in any foreign state in which neither of his parents
was born and in which neither of his parents had a
residence at the time of such alien's birth may be
charged to the foreign state of either parent.
In his March 15, 1993 reply, Mr. Scully noted that
?202(b)(4), the so-called "missionary clause," has not
been of much significance since the abolition of the
old national origins quota system in 1965. An alien
can claim the benefits of ?202(b)(4) at any time in
his or her lifetime, Mr. Scully said, whether or not
his or her parents have been applicants for visas and
whether or not the parents are still living. The alien
may claim alternate state chargeability in connection
with any immigrant visa petition, family, employment
or other.
There are two situations in which the missionary
clause is available to a visa applicant, Mr. Scully
continued. The first is where an applicant was born in
a third country while his or her parents were there
temporarily, either passing through or visiting
temporarily. Years later, the applicant can be
chargeable to the parents' home country for
immigration purposes.
The second situation involves a long-term presence by
the parents in the country of the applicant's birth,
but pursuant to "orders of a foreign principal." "Such
cases are the true 'missionary clause' cases and
require more detailed inquiry," Mr. Scully said. For
example, if two married natives of Ireland lived and
worked in the Philippines for 10 years in the past,
and during that time a son was born to them, the son
can benefit under the missionary clause if one of his
parents was working for an entity, such as a
multinational corporation, that had assigned the
parent to the Philippines. It does not matter if the
parents are no longer living at the time the son
applies for a visa. The only effect of their death
might be to *684 complicate the process of gathering
evidence in support of the son's application.
Other cases that have been held to fall within the
missionary clause have involved children of religious
workers assigned to third countries by their
denomination and children of diplomats and other
government officials stationed abroad.
"I have to emphasize that the benefits of the
'missionary clause' are not available to children born
of parents who migrated on their own to a third
country in which the child was born," Mr. Scully
added. Thus, for example, a child born in Canada or
the United Kingdom after his or her parents migrated
there in search of better employment opportunities
would not benefit from the missionary clause.
For more on alternate state chargeability in general,
see Solomon, "Priorities And Preferences: Keeping
Place In The Immigrant Visa Line," 92-06 Immigration
Briefings (June 1992).
END OF DOCUMENT
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
70 NO. 20 Interpreter Releases 683
Interpreter Releases
May 24, 1993
*683 VISA OFFICE DISCUSSES ALTERNATE STATE
CHARGEABILITY FOR IMMIGRANT VISAS
Copyright ? 1993 Federal Publications Inc.
In recent correspondence the State Department
discussed a little known provision of the INA
providing for alternate state chargeability for
immigrant visa applicants. Cornelius D. Scully, III,
the Director of the Office of Legislation, Regulations
and Advisory Assistance at the State Department's Visa
Office, discussed alternate chargeability in response
to an inquiry from Boston, Massachusetts attorney
Donal Eoin Reilly. Mr. Reilly asked about alternate
chargeability in the context of the AA-1 immigrant
visa lottery program. Both letters are reproduced in
Appendix II of this Release.
In his February 16, 1993 inquiry, Mr. Reilly noted
that the Irish Immigration Center (IIC) in Boston
receives many inquiries regarding the availability of
AA-1 visas from young adults who were born in England
or elsewhere, but whose parents were born in Ireland.
Mr. Reilly asked whether these sons or daughters, over
21, can seek alternate chargeability through their
parents. He also asked whether there is any age limit
for applicants seeking such alternate chargeability.
Mr. Reilly specifically asked about the effect on this
issue of INA ?202(b)(4). That section provides that
for immigration purposes, the foreign state to which
an immigrant is chargeable is determined by birth
within such foreign state, except that an alien born
in any foreign state in which neither of his parents
was born and in which neither of his parents had a
residence at the time of such alien's birth may be
charged to the foreign state of either parent.
In his March 15, 1993 reply, Mr. Scully noted that
?202(b)(4), the so-called "missionary clause," has not
been of much significance since the abolition of the
old national origins quota system in 1965. An alien
can claim the benefits of ?202(b)(4) at any time in
his or her lifetime, Mr. Scully said, whether or not
his or her parents have been applicants for visas and
whether or not the parents are still living. The alien
may claim alternate state chargeability in connection
with any immigrant visa petition, family, employment
or other.
There are two situations in which the missionary
clause is available to a visa applicant, Mr. Scully
continued. The first is where an applicant was born in
a third country while his or her parents were there
temporarily, either passing through or visiting
temporarily. Years later, the applicant can be
chargeable to the parents' home country for
immigration purposes.
The second situation involves a long-term presence by
the parents in the country of the applicant's birth,
but pursuant to "orders of a foreign principal." "Such
cases are the true 'missionary clause' cases and
require more detailed inquiry," Mr. Scully said. For
example, if two married natives of Ireland lived and
worked in the Philippines for 10 years in the past,
and during that time a son was born to them, the son
can benefit under the missionary clause if one of his
parents was working for an entity, such as a
multinational corporation, that had assigned the
parent to the Philippines. It does not matter if the
parents are no longer living at the time the son
applies for a visa. The only effect of their death
might be to *684 complicate the process of gathering
evidence in support of the son's application.
Other cases that have been held to fall within the
missionary clause have involved children of religious
workers assigned to third countries by their
denomination and children of diplomats and other
government officials stationed abroad.
"I have to emphasize that the benefits of the
'missionary clause' are not available to children born
of parents who migrated on their own to a third
country in which the child was born," Mr. Scully
added. Thus, for example, a child born in Canada or
the United Kingdom after his or her parents migrated
there in search of better employment opportunities
would not benefit from the missionary clause.
For more on alternate state chargeability in general,
see Solomon, "Priorities And Preferences: Keeping
Place In The Immigrant Visa Line," 92-06 Immigration
Briefings (June 1992).
END OF DOCUMENT
You have to apply the memo to figure out if you could use chargeability through parents. What you mentioned so far is not enough.
But even if you do, chances of being selected from Saudi Arabia are more significant (about 0.89%) than from Egypt (about 0.44%). Even though Africa in general has more chances to win than Asia, Egypt has been cut in DV-13 and probability to win from Egypt is about 1/4 of chances from general Africa. Those are my calculations for DV-13. Chances for DV-14 or DV-15 could be different, and I could also be mistaken, but I believe my calculations are right.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...VWWnJoV1BZSTF0R0JGeVRSTFE&usp=drive_web#gid=2
dear Britsimon
please help me to understand this link.
In 2013 only 5457 people got interview from Asia region?Next in column c we can see jump on case numbers,is that holes?i have tried a lot to understand what the process actually is but couldnot.so could you please expess all the process in brief!
dear Britsimon
please help me to understand this link.
In 2013 only 5457 people got interview from Asia region?Next in column c we can see jump on case numbers,is that holes?i have tried a lot to understand what the process actually is but couldnot.so could you please expess all the process in brief!
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Yes, taking the Asia region as an example, there were 5457 interviews at consultes. That means this data ignores applicants who adjusted their status in the USA - but since AoS accounts for very few cases (around 5% I believe) we can simply ignore those cases.
OK so your next question is why the highest case number is so much higher than the number of inteviewees. So yes that is the "holes theory" as it has been called. I still call it a theory, because we don't have 100% proof BUT I personally think it is absolutely correct. The holes theory says that USCIS initially selected a large number of "winners". they assigned the case numbers (within the regions) to each winner. Then they perform some fraud checks - mainly looking for duplicate or otherwise suspicious entries. They immediately disqualified some entries and those entries result in holes in the numerical order. The disqualified entries were never even informed that they were "winners".
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Be very careful with a decision about that. The NORMAL thing is that nativity decides you country of chargeability. As Raevsky points out there are exceptions, but they have specific rules - and can require additional proof that you may or may not be able to get. In your case you are also deciding (as SusieQQQ pointed out) between two countries in different regions so getting it wrong may get you disqualified.
Personally, in your situation I would go with nativity - Saudi Arabia.
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
Nationality is NOT a basis for chargeability. Read the instructions/rules!
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
You tell them where you want it - usually where you live. Doesn't matter what your chargeability is (for example I know AF people who have interviewed in UK and Asia...) Also remember you have to have your medicals in the same country you interview in.
samershahin
Registered Users (C)
I guess and its my interpretation to this issue, you should apply as Egypt, similar to my case I am Jordanian Nationality and Ethnicity is from Jordan- Middle east region, but Born in Nigeria, my Chargeability cannot be reasoned to be from Nigeria, as I lived there till the age of 4, and my Parents are from Jordan as well. So in my opinion go for the nationality and place of birth/Origin of your parents which is a match with your Ethnicity.
My understanding or interpretation, they cannot ask you to apply for your ethnicity in the Application forms, instead they would ask for the Chargeability to assure the Diversity.
Don't take my words as final/correct, but its only my understanding to this whole Diversity process.
My understanding or interpretation, they cannot ask you to apply for your ethnicity in the Application forms, instead they would ask for the Chargeability to assure the Diversity.
Don't take my words as final/correct, but its only my understanding to this whole Diversity process.
Last edited by a moderator:
samershahin
Registered Users (C)
I genuinely think you should apply as Egyptian, you are a native Egyptian in background, Ethnicity, parents, Nationality, origin, I think in your case being born in Saudi Arabia is not a sufficient reason to change your region to Asia, remember you will be interviewed and the Consular Officer will notice your dialect, and he is familiar that many expats are born on Saudi Arabia, but not eligible to change the chargeability to Asia, but still you can interview there as your post Embassy, that's my Opinion that I Think it suits you.
that's completely against the rules/instructions !!!
they say your country of chargeability is your country of birth (no matter how many years you stayed there )
correct me if i am wrong
Sm1smom
Super Moderator
You have completely missed it here. Changeability IS NOT based on ethnicity. There's a big difference between nativity and ethnicity.
In your particular case, I hope you've gathered enough documents to prove that your parents were temporarily residing in Nigeria as at the time of your birth. Without that, I don't see how any CO will issue you with a DV visa.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Samershahin, Your statements concerning your eligibility are a little concerning - and I want to point it out so you have time to prepare and so that others understand the issues.
As I understand it, you were born in Nigeria. Your parents were/are both Jordanian and after the age of 4 you have resided in Jordan. So - you application should have been based on your nativity (Nigeria) UNLESS your parents were in Nigeria because they had been sent there by a multinational organization.