DV 2020 All Selectees

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

I asked this question here twice and it was ignored
Why do you guys want to believe an interpretation from Curtis an Extortionist who thrives in Trumps chaos and would propagate it for his selfish financial gain and ignore a response from two official government agencies????

Is Curtis the mouthpiece of the US travel State Department?

I'm still patient and optimistic

@Britsimon answered me on his blog. Thanks
But I still want to believe that statement on the exception means more than how people have rushed to interpret it

Who has analyzed the presidential proclamation extension?
We are all focused on the extension dates and no one is analyzing the context within the proclamation

Any link on its analysis please. I will appreciate

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

Yeah, I thought I’d misunderstood when I saw that but it seems it was the embassy that misunderstood.

Have the embassies misunderstood a directive from their bosses???

 

[SusieQQQ]

Have the embassies misunderstood a directive from their bosses???

You’re assuming they got a directive and were not just interpreting it themselves. You may well remember a number of occasions this past year when different embassies interpreted the ban differently. Embassies have been known to give people wrong information before. The original PP excluded DV, the extension extended it, saying DV are not subject to PP10014 when the actual visas have annotations that say they are seems a bit strange don’t you think? Something seems inconsistent to me. Where does it say the extension excludes DV but still applies to the other immigrant visas?

I didn’t go searching through the internet, can you reproduce what you mean by an exception to section 2? What did Simon say about it? It is slightly annoying when people make reference to various things without links or reproducing what they are talking about. Wasn’t section 2 just the original exceptions, so now it’s repeated? No new exceptions.

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

You’re assuming they got a directive and were not just interpreting it themselves. You may well remember a number of occasions this past year when different embassies interpreted the ban differently. Embassies have been known to give people wrong information before. The original PP excluded DV, the extension extended it, saying DV are not subject to PP10014 when the actual visas have annotations that say they are seems a bit strange don’t you think? Something seems inconsistent to me. Where does it say the extension excludes DV but still applies to the other immigrant visas?

I didn’t go searching through the internet, can you reproduce what you mean by an exception to section 2? What did Simon say about it? It is slightly annoying when people make reference to various things without links or reproducing what they are talking about. Wasn’t section 2 just the original exceptions, so now it’s repeated? No new exceptions.

The annotations were stamped when there was an ongoing proclamation hence they were not exceptions then

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

This is the exception in the new proclamation

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

The exception is valid on the date of the proclamation as quoted above

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

From above this is a new proclamation from the title as shown and its dated 31st December 2020 as shown

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

View attachment 2225
From above this is a new proclamation from the title as shown and its dated 31st December 2020 as shown

According to my interpretation and analysis, those who had visas before this latest proclamation are exceptions

My interest is, who has interpreted this clause to please share or provide a link from somewhere it's been analyzed which is not Curtis Morrison

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

Let's remember that the exception in the proclamation doesn't mention a specific date but it makes reference to the date which the proclamation is made

The latest proclamation is dated 31st December 2020

I'll still believe in the embassies who issued visas and are official mouthpieces of the US government

These are my personal views and not being forced on anyone.

I hope I get responses analyzing the proclamation

 

[Britsimon]

Thank you very much for the response Brit! One more question if you don't mind. Do you think is there any chance that some of the lawyers who work on multiple DV cases can reach Biden or someone in the administration and figure out whether they're going to cancel the ban ASAP or not? I mean does that sounds realistic or figuratively speaking the administration and the lawyers are too far from each other?

It's not a matter of being too far from each other. Biden is not stupid, he has telegraphed some moves (such as the day 1 Muslim ban removal) but he won't commit to everything. And he's pretty busy right now. Frankly he has far more important things on his mind. Just be patient.

 

[Britsimon]

Let's remember that the exception in the proclamation doesn't mention a specific date but it makes reference to the date which the proclamation is made

The latest proclamation is dated 31st December 2020

I'll still believe in the embassies who issued visas and are official mouthpieces of the US government

These are my personal views and not being forced on anyone.

I hope I get responses analyzing the proclamation

Your interpretation is incorrect and you are letting your emotion drive your logic.

CM answered correctly. The embassies were incorrect. The general exception is people that had the visas prior to April 23rd. The only other exceptions would be case by case NIEs.

 

[ivanrom]

Let's remember that the exception in the proclamation doesn't mention a specific date but it makes reference to the date which the proclamation is made

The latest proclamation is dated 31st December 2020

I'll still believe in the embassies who issued visas and are official mouthpieces of the US government

These are my personal views and not being forced on anyone.

I hope I get responses analyzing the proclamation

I doubt Trump had such an intention to allow anyone to enter, but maybe you're right and by mistake, he created a loophole in the proclamation.

 

[Britsimon]

I doubt Trump had such an intention to allow anyone to enter, but maybe you're right and by mistake, he created a loophole in the proclamation.

There is no such loophole. It is simply a matter that the PP was published very late just before a long weekend, and some embassies either did not get or did not read the communication. The way the thing was implemented was, as usual, a Trumpian lesson in how not to do government.

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

Your interpretation is incorrect and you are letting your emotion drive your logic.

CM answered correctly. The embassies were incorrect. The general exception is people that had the visas prior to April 23rd. The only other exceptions would be case by case NIEs.

I am a very logical person and base my analysis on facts
You are mentioning a date which is not mentioned in any proclamation
Let's try and accommodate diversity in opinions not brushing them aside
Much respect to you as an opinion leader in matters DV
But I believe in my analysis that the exception is valid on the day of the proclamation which in this case is 31st December 2020 until proven otherwise by an official government agency in words

I don't advise traveling before the official interpretation.

 

[Britsimon]

I am a very logical person and base my analysis on facts
You are mentioning a date which is not mentioned in any proclamation
Let's try and accommodate diversity in opinions not brushing them aside
Much respect to you as an opinion leader in matters DV
But I believe in my analysis until proven otherwise by an official government agency in words

Good grief Fran. The latest proclamation is an amendment of 10014 and 10052 (which was an amendment of 10014). The wording is very clear and the new PP does not contain the whole text it would need to have to be a complete proclamation because it specifically changes certain sections of the previous proclamations. 10014 has the April 23 date as the effective date and describes the exclusion I mentioned as of that date.

My interpretation is the same at Curtis', and by the way that is the same interpretation by Kuck/Siskind/Joseph as discussed on their meeting this evening. I honestly don't understand how you could read it any other way. And by the way - that is exactly what is happening at the border - so I guess their interpretation is the same too.

It's not a question of diversity of opinions, it is simple fact - and you have the statement in words of the official government agency, you are just determined to ignore them.

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

Good grief Fran. The latest proclamation is an amendment of 10014 and 10052 (which was an amendment of 10014). The wording is very clear and the new PP does not contain the whole text it would need to have to be a complete proclamation because it specifically changes certain sections of the previous proclamations. 10014 has the April 23 date as the effective date and describes the exclusion I mentioned as of that date.

My interpretation is the same at Curtis', and by the way that is the same interpretation by Kuck/Siskind/Joseph as discussed on their meeting this evening. I honestly don't understand how you could read it any other way. And by the way - that is exactly what is happening at the border - so I guess their interpretation is the same too.

It's not a question of diversity of opinions, it is simple fact - and you have the statement in words of the official government agency, you are just determined to ignore them.

Thanks @Britsimon
I'll still await directions from travel state

And thank you always again and again for your invaluable support and being ever present

 

[FRAN 2020AF30XXX]

View attachment 2222

I still want to believe the second paragraph of this communication from US Embassy in Fiji
The context has the extension proclamation and an annotated visa
It's not a generic response

 

[SusieQQQ]

Have the embassies misunderstood a directive from their bosses???

According to my interpretation and analysis, those who had visas before this latest proclamation are exceptions

My interest is, who has interpreted this clause to please share or provide a link from somewhere it's been analyzed which is not Curtis Morrison

I don’t interpret it the same as you. Neither of us are lawyers.