• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

DV 2020 All Selectees

FRAN 2020AF30XXX said:
Have the embassies misunderstood a directive from their bosses???
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
SusieQQQ said:
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.
Click to expand...
The annotations were stamped when there was an ongoing proclamation hence they were not exceptions then
 
Last edited:
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
 
ivanrom said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
FRAN 2020AF30XXX said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
FRAN 2020AF30XXX said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
ivanrom said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Britsimon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
FRAN 2020AF30XXX said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Britsimon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
Have the embassies misunderstood a directive from their bosses???
Click to expand...
FRAN 2020AF30XXX said:
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
Click to expand...
I don’t interpret it the same as you. Neither of us are lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top