• 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 2022 OC Selectees

Syd2022 said:
I disagree with this statement.
Those that joined Jesse’s lawsuit are aware that the lawsuit does not necessarily give preferential treatment for an interview. Those that didn’t know there’s a risk that by not joining they may miss out as there is the possibility only named plaintiffs get an interview.

Commenting that the fair thing to do is “FIRST start accepting named plantiffs on the lawsuit” suggests that money should buy your way in and tough luck to those that can’t afford to buy their way in.

I may be the only one with this view but I don’t think a society where money and power “buy” you what you want is a FAIR society. Irrespective of whether it’s a DV lottery, access to medical care, access to everyday needs.

As a named plantiff in any lawsuit, I would be happy to see the ball get rolling for anyone whether it was my case of not. It’s called paying it forward for the greater good of all.

Right now the world needs more kind spirited unselfish people who are happy to pay it forward like @Britsimon does every day.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
I'm not quite sure what stage of the process the lawsuits are up to, but as far as I'm aware, none of them have resulted in a judgement of any kind yet that would benefit the named plaintiff's so it makes sense to me that the first lot of interviews that Sydney offer are chosen without those people being taken into account.

I don't know how it works and maybe Jesse can give some insight here but do KCC even have a list of the named plaintiff's at this stage or are they only simply aware of impending legal action?
 
Ryanscr said:
Couldn't agree more.
I'm not quite sure what stage of the process the lawsuits are up to, but as far as I'm aware, none of them have resulted in a judgement of any kind yet that would benefit the named plaintiff's so it makes sense to me that the first lot of interviews that Sydney offer are chosen without those people being taken into account.

I don't know how it works and maybe Jesse can give some insight here but do KCC even have a list of the named plaintiff's at this stage or are they only simply aware of impending legal action?
Click to expand...
None have resulted in any judgements yet because they have up to 60 days to respond, then more waiting time based on their response and jesses response to that response etc. So it's more of a 'lets start doing people so that it looks like we are doing something when we do go before the judge', so yeah wont be special treatment for named plaintiffs just them starting like regular to show they are doing work.

Second part Im not sure on but Sydney is aware they are have the lawsuit against them (I assume they receive a copy of the lawsuit too? meaning they would have names and case numbers if thats the case). Would be unusual to have a lawsuit against you but not have a copy of it. Jesse also said theres a chance that they start picking off low case numbers from the suit to make them look better (this hasnt happened but it implies that they do indeed know who those people are).
 
Syd2022 said:
I disagree with this statement.
Those that joined Jesse’s lawsuit are aware that the lawsuit does not necessarily give preferential treatment for an interview. Those that didn’t know there’s a risk that by not joining they may miss out as there is the possibility only named plaintiffs get an interview.

Commenting that the fair thing to do is “FIRST start accepting named plantiffs on the lawsuit” suggests that money should buy your way in and tough luck to those that can’t afford to buy their way in.

I may be the only one with this view but I don’t think a society where money and power “buy” you what you want is a FAIR society. Irrespective of whether it’s a DV lottery, access to medical care, access to everyday needs.

As a named plantiff in any lawsuit, I would be happy to see the ball get rolling for anyone whether it was my case of not. It’s called paying it forward for the greater good of all.

Right now the world needs more kind spirited unselfish people who are happy to pay it forward like @Britsimon does every day.
Click to expand...
Of course, and if we start seeing mass 2NLs issued for Sydney, like what we are now seeing for EU and a month or two from now hundreds are scheduled for interview in Sydney and not one of them are named plaintiffs on the lawsuit will you still be saying what you are saying now? Because correct me if I am wrong but your lawyer even wrote into his retainer agreement that his clients were entitled to a partial refund of the money they paid IF DOS scheduled interviews for them within a period of time, which has now passed. Not only has DOS denied you an interview and partial refund of your money, when they do decide to have cases transfered to Sydney, none of them (at this stage) are named plaintiffs, WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, like they were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't forget what the word was your lawyer recently used on YouTube to describe DOS, his words not mine like it or not.

I hope you, all other plaintiffs and all other AU selectees get their 2NLs, but as I have said from day one, and I am entitled to my opinion, it's called free speech, something embraced in the U.S. paying plaintiffs should always first benefit from any lawsuit if the lawsuit caused the benefit. If you don't support polite free speech then perhaps the U.S. isn't for you.

--------------------------
2022OC5XX
DS 260 submitted November 2021
No documents requested or submitted
Ready to be scheduled for interview December 2021
Current as of January 2022
 
090521@0411 said:
Of course, and if we start seeing mass 2NLs issued for Sydney, like what we are now seeing for EU and a month or two from now hundreds are scheduled for interview in Sydney and not one of them are named plaintiffs on the lawsuit will you still be saying what you are saying now? Because correct me if I am wrong but your lawyer even wrote into his retainer agreement that his clients were entitled to a partial refund of the money they paid IF DOS scheduled interviews for them within a period of time, which has now passed. Not only has DOS denied you an interview and partial refund of your money, when they do decide to have cases transfered to Sydney, none of them (at this stage) are named plaintiffs, WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, like they were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't forget what the word was your lawyer recently used on YouTube to describe DOS, his words not mine like it or not.

I hope you, all other plaintiffs and all other AU selectees get their 2NLs, but as I have said from day one, and I am entitled to my opinion, it's called free speech, something embraced in the U.S. paying plaintiffs should always first benefit from any lawsuit if the lawsuit caused the benefit. If you don't support polite free speech then perhaps the U.S. isn't for you.

--------------------------
2022OC5XX
DS 260 submitted November 2021
No documents requested or submitted
Ready to be scheduled for interview December 2021
Current as of January 2022
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct you are entitled to free speech as am I. I was just exercising my freedom of speech right to politely disagree with your points. There was no malice in my post at all. Just to clarify though, I did not actually personally disclose whether I was a named plaintiff or not.

Oh, and to answer your question, yes I would still be saying what I am saying now; If I do something, I do it for the greater good of all, not just for myself. I completely respect though that not everyone one feels the same way.

Have a wonderful day and best of luck with your journey.
 
090521@0411 said:
Of course, and if we start seeing mass 2NLs issued for Sydney, like what we are now seeing for EU and a month or two from now hundreds are scheduled for interview in Sydney and not one of them are named plaintiffs on the lawsuit will you still be saying what you are saying now? Because correct me if I am wrong but your lawyer even wrote into his retainer agreement that his clients were entitled to a partial refund of the money they paid IF DOS scheduled interviews for them within a period of time, which has now passed. Not only has DOS denied you an interview and partial refund of your money, when they do decide to have cases transfered to Sydney, none of them (at this stage) are named plaintiffs, WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, like they were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't forget what the word was your lawyer recently used on YouTube to describe DOS, his words not mine like it or not.

I hope you, all other plaintiffs and all other AU selectees get their 2NLs, but as I have said from day one, and I am entitled to my opinion, it's called free speech, something embraced in the U.S. paying plaintiffs should always first benefit from any lawsuit if the lawsuit caused the benefit. If you don't support polite free speech then perhaps the U.S. isn't for you.

--------------------------
2022OC5XX
DS 260 submitted November 2021
No documents requested or submitted
Ready to be scheduled for interview December 2021
Current as of January 2022
Click to expand...
Joining a lawsuit is what some us felt was the best chance for us to be interviewed, for others they felt comfortable in their chances without it. Either way we all want the same thing - an interview date.

You know there is not a single person in the lawsuit that isn't thrilled about the interviews happening? No one wants to "jump the cue", we don't care that non plaintiffs are ahead, we just want an interview by September. And if anything, it's nice knowing that the lawsuit actually has caused this movement - you're welcome.

We have such a long road ahead still but after literally only 4 interviews scheduled, you have come barreling out the gate promoting this "Us V Them" rhetoric trying to pin people against each other. Its not nice and not at all in the spirit of this forum.

You are more than entitled to your opinion (USA, Freedom, F**K yeah) but you know what? Your just sound like a nasty asshole who clearly can't read a room, which is not something to be proud of.
 
AusOC said:
Joining a lawsuit is what some us felt was the best chance for us to be interviewed, for others they felt comfortable in their chances without it. Either way we all want the same thing - an interview date.

You know there is not a single person in the lawsuit that isn't thrilled about the interviews happening? No one wants to "jump the cue", we don't care that non plaintiffs are ahead, we just want an interview by September. And if anything, it's nice knowing that the lawsuit actually has caused this movement - you're welcome.

We have such a long road ahead still but after literally only 4 interviews scheduled, you have come barreling out the gate promoting this "Us V Them" rhetoric trying to pin people against each other. Its not nice and not at all in the spirit of this forum.

You are more than entitled to your opinion (USA, Freedom, F**K yeah) but you know what? Your just sound like a nasty asshole who clearly can't read a room, which is not something to be proud of.
Click to expand...
Yes the truth really does hurt doesn't it? you shouldn't fear the truth because the truth fears no one.

The lawsuit caused Sydney to accept 3 or 4 cases for interview? Evidence please?

Everyone on the lawsuit is pleased Sydney accepted 3 or 4 cases that are non plaintiffs? Evidence please?

I promote Us v them? Evidence please?, and bear in mind the recent comments of the following lawyers on YouTube when describing DOS:

Jessie: Rouge.
Impact: processing less DV cases now than pre Covid.
Curtis: Biden is anti immigration.

Seems to me it's the lawyers who are promoting the us v them scenario, and why shouldn't they, after all that's what the front page of the complaints will actually say, if you bothered to read it, and given the comments I have read on this thread where people had to reapply for the CORRECT police certificate because they ordered the wrong one when the SYD Consulate's reciprocity page specifically states which one to order, or other know nothings who have to unlock their DS260 because they didn't include their high school education when the DS260 specifically asks for this information confirms to me some on this thread, including some who claim to be on the lawsuit, are not capable of properly reading anything.

I don't need to fight DOS, yet, unlike probably the majority of bedwetters on this thread, I reached out to many DOS posts to see if they would accept my case, and one did, provided KCC will reassign, I have already applied for the visa to enter that country (a $400 investment even if it isn't used) so I can move quickly if KCC cooperates, if KCC plays hardball, i can too, through the courts.

As for your use of profanity against me, I won't publicly reply, and therefore I won't say it takes one to know one. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to PM me.

--------------------------
2022OC5XX
DS 260 submitted November 2021
No documents requested or submitted
Ready to be scheduled for interview December 2021
Current as of January 2022
 
090521@0411 said:
Yes the truth really does hurt doesn't it? you shouldn't fear the truth because the truth fears no one.

Everyone on the lawsuit is pleased Sydney accepted 3 or 4 cases that are non plaintiffs? Evidence please?
Click to expand...
Do you really expect people to just come forward and take a bunch of screenshots of private chats just to prove to you that we are all happy that Sydney has some movement? Plaintiff or not everyone except you seems to be happy that there is some sort of movement... if you're going to be on here (yes you have freedom of speech) you should at least be supportive since that is what everyone else is here for. No one is hurt by whatever "truth" you are talking about, everyone had all of the information to make a decision when they decided to join the law suit or not. No one here is upset or hurt by anything, everyone is positive from what I have read the last 70 pages.


I'm honestly not sure what you are even doing on this forum if you are just here to argue with people and not listen to anyone. If you aren't here to actually listen to anyone else are you just purely here to bother people? Its great you have your own solution to your case so best just to stick with your approach and let everyone else do it the way they would like to do it, hopefully everyone is able to get their interview one way or another.
 
Oh man, why is there always someone who likes to pick at scabs. As said above - read the room and take the unremitting negative vibe elsewhere. If you can't add anything useful, then really silence is fine.

The 4 cases scheduled are April interviews. I'm sure they would not have happened with the lawsuit. I'm really intrigued how/where they actually conduct the interviews.

There is a small chance they add some more April interviews, but at this point (after the the VB), the next thing will most likely be for May interviews. Now, the 2NLs appear to be following an alphabetical pattern (which cracks me up). A couple of days ago they were sending May 2NLs to Ankara, Abidjan, Abu Dhabi and then today we see Beirut. I picture Morgan Miles singing the Sesame street Alphabet song to organize his team. But the point is we will probably not see Sydney activity until late this month, early next month (although again, we could perhaps see some special April fill ins, and those might come out of order).

Anyway, just thought this info might be useful and helpful rather than useless and unhelpful.
 
Britsimon said:
Oh man, why is there always someone who likes to pick at scabs. As said above - read the room and take the unremitting negative vibe elsewhere. If you can't add anything useful, then really silence is fine.

The 4 cases scheduled are April interviews. I'm sure they would not have happened with the lawsuit. I'm really intrigued how/where they actually conduct the interviews.

There is a small chance they add some more April interviews, but at this point (after the the VB), the next thing will most likely be for May interviews. Now, the 2NLs appear to be following an alphabetical pattern (which cracks me up). A couple of days ago they were sending May 2NLs to Ankara, Abidjan, Abu Dhabi and then today we see Beirut. I picture Morgan Miles singing the Sesame street Alphabet song to organize his team. But the point is we will probably not see Sydney activity until late this month, early next month (although again, we could perhaps see some special April fill ins, and those might come out of order).

Anyway, just thought this info might be useful and helpful rather than useless and unhelpful.
Click to expand...
As for where the April interviews will be I think they will most likely be transferred to Melbourne consulate, which is what Syd have been doing for other IV categories in the last few months.
 
Britsimon said:
There is a small chance they add some more April interviews, but at this point (after the the VB), the next thing will most likely be for May interviews. Now, the 2NLs appear to be following an alphabetical pattern (which cracks me up). A couple of days ago they were sending May 2NLs to Ankara, Abidjan, Abu Dhabi and then today we see Beirut. I picture Morgan Miles singing the Sesame street Alphabet song to organize his team. But the point is we will probably not see Sydney activity until late this month, early next month (although again, we could perhaps see some special April fill ins, and those might come out of order).

Anyway, just thought this info might be useful and helpful rather than useless and unhelpful
Click to expand...
Should move the Australian Consulate to Adelaide ;)
 
AusOC said:
As for where the April interviews will be I think they will most likely be transferred to Melbourne consulate, which is what Syd have been doing for other IV categories in the last few months.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have done that for other immigrant categories, so that would be my expectation, but would still like to hear about the arrangements.
 
Britsimon said:
Yes, they have done that for other immigrant categories, so that would be my expectation, but would still like to hear about the arrangements.
Click to expand...
Hi Simon (@Britsimon), The Sydney consulate has confirmed in writing that they will be conducting immigrant interviews in Melbourne to begin with.

"We are temporarily conducting immigrant visa interviews at the U.S. Consulate in Melbourne to address the reduction in services in Sydney. We will accommodate all cases that are backlogged as soon as possible. We are unable to provide estimated wait times and will contact you when your case is scheduled for an interview. Applicants are not required to take any action unless we contact you. When your appointment is scheduled you will be informed whether your appointment will be in Melbourne or Sydney."
This is directly from the Sydney consular office this afternoon.

"If you hold an approved ESTA (Visa Waiver Program), you can apply for entry to the U.S. using that program. However, permission to enter the U.S. and the length of stay will be determined at your first U.S. port of entry. Admission is never guaranteed prior to arrival at a U.S. port of entry. Every foreign traveller must demonstrate that they meet the qualifications of the U.S. visa or approved ESTA (Visa Waiver Program) which they hold. If you intend to remain permanently in the United States, attempting to enter on a non-immigrant visa or under the Visa Waiver Program is not advisable and could result in your involuntary return to Australia."
My husband and I read the last sentence in bold with a completely different meaning. I would love to hear what others think this means. I read it that if you travel to the US on an ESTA and have the intention of moving there permanently at some stage, then its not advisable to travel there on an ESTA. However, my husband reads it, that you can travel there on an ESTA anytime as long as on that particular trip you don't intend to remain their permanently.

Kind regards
Charli
 
Syd2022 said:
Hi Simon (@Britsimon), The Sydney consulate has confirmed in writing that they will be conducting immigrant interviews in Melbourne to begin with.

"We are temporarily conducting immigrant visa interviews at the U.S. Consulate in Melbourne to address the reduction in services in Sydney. We will accommodate all cases that are backlogged as soon as possible. We are unable to provide estimated wait times and will contact you when your case is scheduled for an interview. Applicants are not required to take any action unless we contact you. When your appointment is scheduled you will be informed whether your appointment will be in Melbourne or Sydney."
This is directly from the Sydney consular office this afternoon.

"If you hold an approved ESTA (Visa Waiver Program), you can apply for entry to the U.S. using that program. However, permission to enter the U.S. and the length of stay will be determined at your first U.S. port of entry. Admission is never guaranteed prior to arrival at a U.S. port of entry. Every foreign traveller must demonstrate that they meet the qualifications of the U.S. visa or approved ESTA (Visa Waiver Program) which they hold. If you intend to remain permanently in the United States, attempting to enter on a non-immigrant visa or under the Visa Waiver Program is not advisable and could result in your involuntary return to Australia."
My husband and I read the last sentence in bold with a completely different meaning. I would love to hear what others think this means. I read it that if you travel to the US on an ESTA and have the intention of moving there permanently at some stage, then its not advisable to travel there on an ESTA. However, my husband reads it, that you can travel there on an ESTA anytime as long as on that particular trip you don't intend to remain their permanently.

Kind regards
Charli
Click to expand...
Just a tale of my experience. This is the 3rd year in a row that I have been selected for further processing and therefore the 3rd year in a row that I've filled out forms relating to immigrant intent (DS260 etc). During this time, I've travelled to the U.S. on multiple occasions (on an ESTA for tourism purposes) without any problems. I did get asked a bit more info than usual during 2 of those visits and one of them specifically asked about my intention to immigrate but I just explained that I was waiting for my DV interview and intended to do everything legally in order to not jeopardise that process.
I'm pretty sure that bold text you pointed out is just a bit of a warning for people using the ESTA as a conduit to getting inside the USA with an intention to remain permanently on that particular trip
 
Ryanscr said:
Just a tale of my experience. This is the 3rd year in a row that I have been selected for further processing and therefore the 3rd year in a row that I've filled out forms relating to immigrant intent (DS260 etc). During this time, I've travelled to the U.S. on multiple occasions (on an ESTA for tourism purposes) without any problems. I did get asked a bit more info than usual during 2 of those visits and one of them specifically asked about my intention to immigrate but I just explained that I was waiting for my DV interview and intended to do everything legally in order to not jeopardise that process.
I'm pretty sure that bold text you pointed out is just a bit of a warning for people using the ESTA as a conduit to getting inside the USA with an intention to remain permanently on that particular trip
Click to expand...
Thanks Ryan, maybe it’s just the academic in me that doesn’t like implicit statements that could be read with multiple interpretations. It is ‘bred’/‘knocked out of us well and truly through years of exam writing.
 
Syd2022 said:
Hi Simon (@Britsimon), The Sydney consulate has confirmed in writing that they will be conducting immigrant interviews in Melbourne to begin with.

"We are temporarily conducting immigrant visa interviews at the U.S. Consulate in Melbourne to address the reduction in services in Sydney. We will accommodate all cases that are backlogged as soon as possible. We are unable to provide estimated wait times and will contact you when your case is scheduled for an interview. Applicants are not required to take any action unless we contact you. When your appointment is scheduled you will be informed whether your appointment will be in Melbourne or Sydney."
This is directly from the Sydney consular office this afternoon.

"If you hold an approved ESTA (Visa Waiver Program), you can apply for entry to the U.S. using that program. However, permission to enter the U.S. and the length of stay will be determined at your first U.S. port of entry. Admission is never guaranteed prior to arrival at a U.S. port of entry. Every foreign traveller must demonstrate that they meet the qualifications of the U.S. visa or approved ESTA (Visa Waiver Program) which they hold. If you intend to remain permanently in the United States, attempting to enter on a non-immigrant visa or under the Visa Waiver Program is not advisable and could result in your involuntary return to Australia."
My husband and I read the last sentence in bold with a completely different meaning. I would love to hear what others think this means. I read it that if you travel to the US on an ESTA and have the intention of moving there permanently at some stage, then its not advisable to travel there on an ESTA. However, my husband reads it, that you can travel there on an ESTA anytime as long as on that particular trip you don't intend to remain their permanently.

Kind regards
Charli
Click to expand...
Roughly translated, it simply means don’t plan on entering the US on an ESTA (or any other NIV for that matter) with a preconceived intent of overstaying your authorized stay.
 
Morgan_NZ said:
That is not the link I was provided. The link I was emailed goes direct to the NZ Consulate booking site and starts with . I tried to reschedule myself online when I first needed to and was not able to as the consulate had to approve the reschedule and then I had to sign up online, and now again I have to wait for them to approve the request for access to the online booking calendar which will take 1-2 business days to receive the second email. The process definitely needs refining. To clarify the process and timeline I have gone through for anyone else who may need this information:

- 27 Jan 22 Requested to reschedule with NZ Consulate (unable to enter NZ due to border restrictions and not successful with MIQ lottery).
- 07 Feb 22 NZ Consulate informed me I had to send all HARD/ORIGINAL copies of my documents before they would accept a reschedule.
- 15 Feb 22 Hard copies sent via FEDEX priority from USA and AUS to NZ (2-3 day express shipping).
- 01 Mar 22 Hard copies received by NZ Consulate (Local and customs shipping delays as well as NZ Consulate closure due to COVID effected this timeline).
- 16 Mar 22 NZ Consulate emailed to say I am able to re-schedule appointment now.
- 16 Mar 22 Online application to request an appointment completed at
- 18 Mar 22 (Today) Still awaiting the second email to gain access to online scheduling website, am anticipating this should be received by Mon 21 Mar.

2022OC2XX
Post - Auckland
10 June 21 - DS 260 Submitted
26 Aug 21 - Documents sent to KCC (Unrequested)
23 Dec 21 - Received 2NL
09 Feb 22 - Scheduled Interview Date (Re-schedule in process)
Click to expand...
Thanks for detailed info.
Keep us updated once you manage to reschedule successfully.
 
Just in case anyone is wondering how I went attempting to transfer my current case from Sydney to London.

I told Sydney and London throughout that I was moving to London in a few weeks for a uni internship and what my residential address would be

Feb 08 2022, I requested KCC unlock my DS260 so I could change my address and interview location.
Feb 08, KCC advised my case is ready to be scheduled (CEAC says it’s at NVC) so I need to ask the U.S. Consulate Sydney to transfer it.
Feb 08, I asked Sydney if they could transfer my case to the U.S. Consulate London.
Feb 10, Sydney advised they need London to formally request my case be transferred.
Feb 17, I asked London to accept my case so I can be transferred.
Feb 24, London advised they need me to confirm if I have been "informed that your case is ready to be transferred and adjudicated".
Feb 25, I asked KCC to provide assistance as I was stuck in a loop between consulates.
Mar 1, KCC advised my case is ready to be rescheduled so I need to liaise with Sydney.
Mar 8, I asked Sydney to confirm my case is ready to be transferred and adjudicate it.
Mar 11, Sydney advised I "must first contact the Consulate where you want your case to be transferred. If that Consulate accepts the transfer, they will contact our office. When requesting a transfer, you should advise the Consulate that the U.S. Consulate in Sydney is conducting limited immigrant interviews and that you are requesting your file be transferred to their office for an interview".
Mar 14, London advised “the Immigrant Visa Unit at the Embassy London is not able to consider a case transfer request unless you currently reside in the United Kingdom”.

I can’t live in London for 5-7 weeks waiting to be scheduled an interview appointment so I’m leaving it at Sydney and will just suck it up and travel to the US in April for a wedding and come back to Aus while I wait for Sydney.
 
Syd2022 said:
Hi Simon (@Britsimon), The Sydney consulate has confirmed in writing that they will be conducting immigrant interviews in Melbourne to begin with.

"We are temporarily conducting immigrant visa interviews at the U.S. Consulate in Melbourne to address the reduction in services in Sydney. We will accommodate all cases that are backlogged as soon as possible. We are unable to provide estimated wait times and will contact you when your case is scheduled for an interview. Applicants are not required to take any action unless we contact you. When your appointment is scheduled you will be informed whether your appointment will be in Melbourne or Sydney."
This is directly from the Sydney consular office this afternoon.

"If you hold an approved ESTA (Visa Waiver Program), you can apply for entry to the U.S. using that program. However, permission to enter the U.S. and the length of stay will be determined at your first U.S. port of entry. Admission is never guaranteed prior to arrival at a U.S. port of entry. Every foreign traveller must demonstrate that they meet the qualifications of the U.S. visa or approved ESTA (Visa Waiver Program) which they hold. If you intend to remain permanently in the United States, attempting to enter on a non-immigrant visa or under the Visa Waiver Program is not advisable and could result in your involuntary return to Australia."
My husband and I read the last sentence in bold with a completely different meaning. I would love to hear what others think this means. I read it that if you travel to the US on an ESTA and have the intention of moving there permanently at some stage, then its not advisable to travel there on an ESTA. However, my husband reads it, that you can travel there on an ESTA anytime as long as on that particular trip you don't intend to remain their permanently.

Kind regards
Charli
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info about Melbourne. It was looking pretty hard to defend the position that Melbourne could handle other immigrant visas but couldn't also do DV. As I said, I think that change is almost certainly to do with the lawsuit. Now the question will be what capacity they open up.

Your husband is correct. You cannot adjust status from an ESTA, and in some cases you can make yourself ineligible to adjust from other visa types.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top