Discussion in 'Lottery Visas - DV' started by EURO2014, Jun 26, 2017.
Explanation? What sort of explanation?
why untill now the embassy holding his passport? ok of course u r not in the embassy u cant tell me exactly y... but any reason or explanation u may know similar to this case
i met to say DV2017 finish, visas no more.... first time he made the interview the consular put him in AP due to missing documents
after he complete his documents the ban was on... so he still in AP
what we are thinking in our local forum is there might be .001% chance for him thts why the embassy didnt give him his passport yet?
bcz he phoned the embasy and they told him no update about ur case...same time we have recorded a lot of winners were in AP then got there passports back rejected before 30-sep from same embassy
There's no chance, DV2017 is over and no more visas can be issued after 30 Sept 2017 by law.
As Susie says, theRE is no chance at all.
Any news on RAISEact bill? When is it approaching Senate?
No time soon.
All visas finished so the passports' of Sudanese people returned to them Yesterday, I wish new dreams for all.
Round and round it goes...
Just the "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" aspect has been included, following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that stayed other aspects of the earlier preliminary injunction while the case is working its way to the Supreme Court. In reality, this will most likely affect few DV applicants who might not have a way to prove an existing bona fide relationship as defined by the US Supreme Court.
Not sure I understand your comment - are you saying that most DV applicants from the "banned" countries could prove a bone fide connection to the US? I personally would be surprised if this is the case, but this is no more than an uneducated guess.
No, my post above expressed the opposite sentiment, in line with your assessment on the matter. Hence my opinion that not much has changed at all for the majority of DV applicants from affected countries listed. One judge in Hawaii will not have much of an impact on the matter, for better or worse.
Got it. In a way it has come full circle - but until last week's judgment of the 9th circuit, the ban was effectively stayed. As Britsimon noted, this could potentially have a tremendous effect on the rest-of-Asia region.
Maybe not appropriate to ask... but does the travel ban mean more chance for other countries' citizen in the region?
Possibly. Time will tell.
The Supreme Court announced today 12/04/2017 that it will permit the full enforcement of President Trump's controversial travel ban.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a federal district court in Maryland had said the president could only block nationals from the designated eight countries if they lacked a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The high court’s decision now puts those rulings on hold.
As mentioned earlier, this had had no impact on DV applicants without bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States in any case. Nevertheless, the order puts an end to the judicial review of those arguments and might affect some folks from Iran et al. with large expatriate communities in the US. It also suggests that the court ultimately will uphold the restrictions as now effectively put in place.
If you question concerns DV-2018 specifically - yes, for folks in DV AS region, primarily due to Iran.
DV CP & DV based AoS for DV-2017:
Chad - 10
Iran - 2,106
Libya - 115
North Korea 0
Somalia - 56
Syria - 128
Venezuela - no change
Yemen - 267.
Iran accounted for 27.5% of AS DV Immigrants in 2017 and 31.3% in 2016. On the other hand minor impact for folks in AF region. It is currently impossible to assess DV-2019 status.
Any feedback from 2018 selectees from banned countries who submitted their DS260, had their case numbers go current and decided to go through with the interview ?
It would be somewhat surprising if any of those interviews actually were being scheduled under these circumstances. However, let's wait and see what, if anything, we'll be hearing back on this.
Interviews are being scheduled. People might have dual citizenship, or qualify for a waiver. It is up to the applicant to decide whether to attend or not.
Apologies if this sounds insensitive, but I am wondering what would be the the embassies/ COs attitude towards cases from banned countries that don't have double citizenship and do not qualify for a waiver: i.e. whether the cases are refused following the interview or put into AP or if people are turned away when submitting documents (before paying the visa fee).
Or maybe this can be deduced from the CAEC data already captured ? @Britsimon, will there be any indication on the above in the CEAC data from cases treated after the supreme court allowing the ban to take effect ?
Separate names with a comma.