• 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.

Supreme Court allows Trump's travel ban to partially take effect

SALAMA said:
Hi every body
the travel ban will end in September 28 and just there are two days for this fiscal year to finish, do you think after October the embassies in the countries effected by the EO will issue visas for DV 2017 selectees? do you think these two day enough to issue visas for persons their passports are received by Embassys and the passports still kept in embassy until today ? was there any cases happend in issuing visas after October for DV selectees?
Click to expand...


None of us can know what will happen. This has never happened before. However, the one thing that is certain as that processing cannot go on after September 30, NO cases will be approved after that time.
 
Xarthisius said:
There's been a new development: https://www.aclu.org/news/groups-file-federal-lawsuit-over-diversity-visa-denials
I have no idea if they have a chance to succeed.
Click to expand...

Hm, some of those quotes don't stand a chance. Like the ones about the "promise" - and the guy who sold everything - the selectee letters always say visas are not guaranteed. There is never a promise. I hope they have a stronger case on the discrimination side because no one ever won a DV case on the basis that they should have got a visa just because they were selected. And even in cases where the DOS was found to have erred, no visas can be issued after FY end. So they'll need to get this heard and won PDQ.
 
Wow, that complaint is VERY badly researched. It has no hope of winning, based on the arguments laid out. I'm amazed that the lawyers are so I'll informed (and I normally have low expectations of immigration lawyers regarding DV cases).
 
White House expands travel ban, restricting visitors from eight countries

In short: Chad and North Korea added, Sudan removed. Venezuela added, but restrictions will only affect leadership and their family members. Iran still on the list, but Students can get visas, after extra screening.

Restrictions will not affect anyone who already holds a U.S. visa.
The new rules will go into effect Oct. 18

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ef7cfe-a140-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html
 
Last edited:
saabe said:
White House expands travel ban, restricting visitors from eight countries

In short: Chad and North Korea added, Sudan removed. Venezuela added, but restrictions will only affect leadership and their family members. Iran still on the list, but Students can get visas, after extra screening.

Restrictions will not affect anyone who already holds a U.S. visa.
The new rules will go into effect Oct. 18

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ef7cfe-a140-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html
Click to expand...

This is the key part for DV winners:
The new rules vary per country, barring entry into the United States of immigrants and non-immigrants from Chad, Libya and Yemen, on business, tourist or business-tourist visas. It bars entry of Iranian citizens, as immigrants or non-immigrants, but provides an exception for Iranian students, provided they receive extra screening. The proclamation bars immigrants and non-immigrants from North Korea and Syria. It bars immigration by citizens of Somalia.
 
Britsimon said:
Given that visas have run out - probably not.
Click to expand...

hi brit i saw your post related this matter in your blog

i was speaking with a winner whose in AP bcs of the ban.... up to now his passport in the embassy since more than 3 month

he called the embassy before 2 days and there reply was " no new about your visa"

wouldnt that be easy if they just told him the visas has ran out or anything so he can take his passport

could that be a lil hope for him ?
 
leawe said:
hi brit i saw your post related this matter in your blog

i was speaking with a winner whose in AP bcs of the ban.... up to now his passport in the embassy since more than 3 month

he called the embassy before 2 days and there reply was " no new about your visa"

wouldnt that be easy if they just told him the visas has ran out or anything so he can take his passport

could that be a lil hope for him ?
Click to expand...

As I explained in the article you read each embassy is allocated the visas for the month of interviews. If some of those cases are refused, the embassy might be able to reallocate those unused visas. But that is the only hope because KCC are not allocating any more visas.

By the way, if the person was affected by the ban, that person is still banned under the same terms as the old ban UNLESS they are from Sudan.
 
@Britsimon

Hello Britsimon

I have read your latest post regarding the ban and I am surprised with your assessment ( or lack there of) of the ban impact on high case numbers, specifically on Asia. With Iran at 4500 selectees and Yemen at over 1K, wouldn't you say that gives high case numbers in Asia an important push. Or are you careful because the ban can be suspended by the sepreme court during the year ?
 
Last edited:
Sihem said:
@Britsimon

Hello Britsimon

I have read your latest post regarding the ban and I am surprised with your assessment ( or lack there of) of the ban impact on high case numbers, specifically on Asia. With Iran at 4500 selectees and Yemen at over 1K, wouldn't you say that gives high case numbers in Asia an important push. Or are you careful because the ban can be suspended by the sepreme court during the year ?
Click to expand...

I'm careful because of two things.

1. As you say - we don't know if this ban will be challenged and will survive. As I have mentioned in my article the new order is worded in a much smarter way. They have described, for each country, the rationale behind the ban. If Trump and his team had never mentioned "Muslim ban" and simply presented this - it would have been much harder to attack. So - they question is whether the courts will allow some to connect the first ban with this, or whether they treat this as a totally new (and therefore more reasonable) order.
2. We don't know whether KCC will hold back visa bulletin progress in order to protect the position of the Iranian and Yemeni selectees. We have seen them do something like that before - although recent background checking has meant that Iranians who are interviewed in the second half of the year have very small chance of clearing AP in time - so KCC may be more pragmatic about their approach nowadays.

Both those factors are realistic possibilities and impossible to predict. And BOTH would be very impactful, so "wait and see" and a conservative approach is the only "smart" answer.
 
Britsimon said:
2. We don't know whether KCC will hold back visa bulletin progress in order to protect the position of the Iranian and Yemeni selectees. We have seen them do something like that before -
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response and the new post today. Regarding KCC holding back visa bulletin progression, how would they do that ? Can you elaborate on that please ?
 
Sihem said:
Thank you for your response and the new post today. Regarding KCC holding back visa bulletin progression, how would they do that ? Can you elaborate on that please ?
Click to expand...

It would just be seen as normal VB progression, rather than fast. Fast is what we will see if KCC decide the 6k banned selectees are not eligible for a visa.
 
Given the composition of the court, the chances of them striking down this iteration of the travel ban really seem slim, as in many ways it seems to simply reiterate the Obama-era approach to countries who do not fully cooperate with the US demands regarding visa screening, only using extreme sticks instead of carrots.
On the other hand, there might be two additional factors, that might discount each other. On the one hand, the ban does not flatly deny the possibility to dual-citizens gaining a visa, and it seems safe to assume that at least part of the 6000 selectees have dual citizenship. On the other hand, is seems likely that the ban would create a substantial chilling effect, disincentivizing the application of people from these countries, even if they can formally apply, in light of the costs involved and the diminished chances of success.

Another general factor that might be taken into consideration is the effect of the "extreme vetting" policy, in place since June, regarding all consular processing of visas. Now, some will say that this changes nothing, as the vetting has always been strict, and it cannot possibly become stricter. Well, this is precisely what I thought when I came to renew my visa stamp this summer. This was my fourth interview within the past six years, and so far it was always relatively short, and I had the visa in hand within several days. This time it was clear from the start that they intended to be as nitpicking as possible, requiring documentation of every little detail, and taking every "red flag", even the remotest, to require AP, including issues that were not even discussed in past interview, despite being listed in our forms, like the horrible crime of holding a bachelor's degree in chemistry! One might reasonably expect much more APs this cycle, however it may effect the process.
 
DanE1978 said:
Given the composition of the court, the chances of them striking down this iteration of the travel ban really seem slim, as in many ways it seems to simply reiterate the Obama-era approach to countries who do not fully cooperate with the US demands regarding visa screening, only using extreme sticks instead of carrots.
On the other hand, there might be two additional factors, that might discount each other. On the one hand, the ban does not flatly deny the possibility to dual-citizens gaining a visa, and it seems safe to assume that at least part of the 6000 selectees have dual citizenship. On the other hand, is seems likely that the ban would create a substantial chilling effect, disincentivizing the application of people from these countries, even if they can formally apply, in light of the costs involved and the diminished chances of success.

Another general factor that might be taken into consideration is the effect of the "extreme vetting" policy, in place since June, regarding all consular processing of visas. Now, some will say that this changes nothing, as the vetting has always been strict, and it cannot possibly become stricter. Well, this is precisely what I thought when I came to renew my visa stamp this summer. This was my fourth interview within the past six years, and so far it was always relatively short, and I had the visa in hand within several days. This time it was clear from the start that they intended to be as nitpicking as possible, requiring documentation of every little detail, and taking every "red flag", even the remotest, to require AP, including issues that were not even discussed in past interview, despite being listed in our forms, like the horrible crime of holding a bachelor's degree in chemistry! One might reasonably expect much more APs this cycle, however it may effect the process.
Click to expand...

All good points. The increase in APs is one aspect of recent changes, but we have also seen longer periods of AP for more countries - and that happened prior to June.

Until DV2016/2017 the *average* time of cases on AP was quite short. If you heard of someone on AP for 5 and 6 months, you could pretty much put money on the case being an Iranian selectee. Now there are 5/6/7 month AP timelines for several more countries, and again - this is outside of the banned countries and not just since the new "administration".
 
[/QUOTE]
Britsimon said:
2. We don't know whether KCC will hold back visa bulletin progress in order to protect the position of the Iranian and Yemeni selectees. We have seen them do something like that before - although recent background checking has meant that Iranians who are interviewed in the second half of the year have very small chance of clearing AP in time - so KCC may be more pragmatic about their approach nowadays.
Click to expand...

Britsimon said:
It would just be seen as normal VB progression, rather than fast. Fast is what we will see if KCC decide the 6k banned selectees are not eligible for a visa.
Click to expand...

@ Britsimon, interestingly, it has been highlighted in the comments section of your blog that people are selected according to the country of birth not of nationality so the case can arise that a selectee is born in a banned country but is national of a non banned country or they have dual citizenship.

So KCC can not really decide that all selectees from the banned countries are not eligible for a visa. Each case has to be considered on it is own merits. I guess the question would be whether KCC will decide this is done at interview level (which means progression wont be affected really, there will be however lots of refusals or APs ?) or at a prescreening level before sending 2NL and not send 2NL to affected selectees ? (after all, they have the nationality/ citizenship information in the DS260, dont they ?) What do you think ? Can they do that ?

And one more question please, what happens to the visa number when a case is refused or in AP. I have read that at the end of each month the un-allocated visa are sent back to KCC ? Is that correct ? Do you have a post regarding this ?
 




@ Britsimon, interestingly, it has been highlighted in the comments section of your blog that people are selected according to the country of birth not of nationality so the case can arise that a selectee is born in a banned country but is national of a non banned country or they have dual citizenship.

So KCC can not really decide that all selectees from the banned countries are not eligible for a visa. Each case has to be considered on it is own merits. I guess the question would be whether KCC will decide this is done at interview level (which means progression wont be affected really, there will be however lots of refusals or APs ?) or at a prescreening level before sending 2NL and not send 2NL to affected selectees ? (after all, they have the nationality/ citizenship information in the DS260, dont they ?) What do you think ? Can they do that ?

And one more question please, what happens to the visa number when a case is refused or in AP. I have read that at the end of each month the un-allocated visa are sent back to KCC ? Is that correct ? Do you have a post regarding this ?[/QUOTE]

"it has been highlighted" - yes - I highlighted it! I emailed KCC about it - but got a "non answer". There is, therefore, in my mind some "debate" about how DV cases would be treated since the ban talks about the ban apply to "a national" of an affected country, but various scenarios could make that confusing.

How they will process is not a mystery, however. KCC won't disqualify anyone. If someone has submitted their DS260 and is current, they will be scheduled - regardless of the ban. The embassy "may" contact people beforehand or adopt special procedures on the day of the interview BUT someone from a banned country is allowed to have their interview if they want. There is the possibility (although rare/unlikely) of waivers, although the exception based on bona fide family relationships ends on October 18th (but is available until then).

Yes embassies "account for" their allocated visas at the end of each month. They send back visas that were unused from refused or AP cases (although they can redistribute those visas within their cases during, and before the end of the month.
 
Hi @Britsimon

related to my above comment

up to now a DV2017 winner who was in AP bcz of the ban he did not got his passport back from the embassy

last sunday he sent an email to the embassy inquiring about his case but he got no reply

yesterday he called the embassy they've told him there is no update !! will notify u with any updates

he checked online still same status"AP"

DV2017 is history now there is no more visas.....is there explanation for this case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top