You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Wrong Country of Birth
- Thread starter halfshin
- Start date
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/2009DVInstructions.pdf
The word disqualify is used 15 times in the instructions mentioned. 13 times it says will disqualify, once will effectively disqualify, and only once may disqualify.
My comment is the following.
1. May disqualify is very much different from will disqualify.
2. All the difference is in details.
3. If none of the countries you can establish a claim for belongs to the same region as the country of eligibility or chargeability on your electronic form, your entry will be disqualified, because you will require a quota from another region to be affected in order for visa to be issued.
4. If you can establish a claim for a country from the same region, it depends on the quota for the country of eligibility.
5. If the quota is close to exhaustion, the entry will most likely be disqualified, because you most likely will require a quota from another country to be affected in order for visa to be issued.
6. If the quota is very far from exhaustion for this country, you have good chances for the entry not to be disqualified, because no quota is going to be affected in order for visa to be issued. In order to issue the visa consul (or CIS officer in order to adjust your status) will have to obtain a visa number from NVC. The visa number will be taken from two quotas - from the quota of the region and from the quota of the country you can establish a claim for.
If you claim alternate chargeability, you must indicate such information on the E-DV electronic online entry form, question #6. Please be aware that listing an incorrect country of eligibility or chargeability (i.e. one to which you cannot establish a valid claim) may disqualify your entry.
The word disqualify is used 15 times in the instructions mentioned. 13 times it says will disqualify, once will effectively disqualify, and only once may disqualify.
My comment is the following.
1. May disqualify is very much different from will disqualify.
2. All the difference is in details.
3. If none of the countries you can establish a claim for belongs to the same region as the country of eligibility or chargeability on your electronic form, your entry will be disqualified, because you will require a quota from another region to be affected in order for visa to be issued.
4. If you can establish a claim for a country from the same region, it depends on the quota for the country of eligibility.
5. If the quota is close to exhaustion, the entry will most likely be disqualified, because you most likely will require a quota from another country to be affected in order for visa to be issued.
6. If the quota is very far from exhaustion for this country, you have good chances for the entry not to be disqualified, because no quota is going to be affected in order for visa to be issued. In order to issue the visa consul (or CIS officer in order to adjust your status) will have to obtain a visa number from NVC. The visa number will be taken from two quotas - from the quota of the region and from the quota of the country you can establish a claim for.
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW. When you come to the interview, in case of a difficulty pursue agressively about my comment number 1. Raise this question on your own, do not wait until consul or CIS officer asks about it. Bring the instructions quoted to the interview. Mark all references to the words will disqualify with transparent yellow marker, but to this one may disqualify - with a red transparent marker. Show this to the officer.
If he does not know what may means or is hesitant about it, use my other comments to clarify the meaning.
If he does not know what may means or is hesitant about it, use my other comments to clarify the meaning.
I know of one case a couple of years ago, when a person put the wrong country of birth (and chargeability as well) down in his wife's DV entry. Her entry won. They were disqualified even before the interview - KCC informed them that their interview will not be conducted.
That could no longer happen. I mean it was illegal from the very beginning, but that was stopped only after a while.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071174.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071174.pdf
If KCC’s facial recognition technicians detect multiple entries before the entrant has been notified of being selected in the lottery, KCC will disqualify the entry and not notify the entrant of the disqualification. In the past, KCC disqualified the entrant and sent a disqualification letter to the entrant regardless of whether the entrant had already been sent a notification letter. Consular Affairs’ legal department requested KCC to cease disqualification of entrants who had already been notified as this could be perceived as an adjudicatory decision by KCC.36 KCC now forwards the information on the facial recognition match to the post so the consular officer can make the decision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
36Only consular officers at a U.S. embassy or consulate can make the adjudicatory decision whether to issue a diversity visa. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1104(A), 1201(a). See also, 8 C.F.R. § 245.2.
Last edited by a moderator:
For the City of Birth I put Soldanesti where is my correct birth place! As I said, I just made a mistake on those countries and was not trying to put fake stuff there.
Thank You
It's a good thing that you put Soldanesti as your city of birth. There are two issues here. First,
- Your application may be disqualified for intentionally providing false or misleading information.
- You included the correct city of birth in Moldova, so you have a very good argument that this was not intentional.
- As raevsky pointed out, you do not gain much by writing Spain instead of Moldova, because both countries are in the EU region and both do not exhaust their yearly quota. This should help.
- Your application may be disqualified because you provided an incorrect country of chargeability. This can happen even if the mistake was completely innocent, because winners are selected depending on the country of chargeability.
- As raevsky points out, the instructions says "will disqualify" for other mistakes such as not including family members, etc. But they say "may disqualify" for country of chargeability. This could mean that the consular officer has the option of deciding what to do in your case. Or it could just be an unintentional difference in wording.
- You might be able to convince the consular officer to switch the country of chargeability and not disqualify you. Since both countries are from the same region this might be possible. It's encouraging that raevsky knows of a case when this happened.
- You're taking a high risk that the embassy will cash you fees and then disqualify your application. But if you genuinely want to settle in the US, I would take that risk. You'll earn more money in the future, but US green cards don't come so easily.
- I would do the interview at a US consulate in Spain. Consulates in some areas in Eastern Europe encounter a lot of fraud, so they may disqualify your application and not even listen to you. Since you've lived in Spain for a while, you have the option of having the interview in Spain.
- Be honest and straighforward with the consular officer. Admit that you've made a mistake, but point out it was unintentional and that you've put the correct city of birth.
- If the officer wants to disqualify you, be persistent but not aggressive. Point out that the instructions leave the consular office some room to make a decision (may vs. will). Point out that you've read on the forums that in some cases consular officers have switched cases of chargeability.
- If the officer refuses, ask him to consult his supervisor. Make this request very politely. Emphasize that this is an unintentional mistake, and ask them to look at your case as a whole. If you're enthusiastic about the lottery and about the United States - say so.
I hope your application won't be disqualified by KCC. Raevsky seems to think KCC no longer disqualifies applicants, but you never know.
Good luck!
Last edited by a moderator:
3. If none of the countries you can establish a claim for belongs to the same region as the country of eligibility or chargeability on your electronic form, your entry will be disqualified, because you will require a quota from another region to be affected in order for visa to be issued.
4. If you can establish a claim for a country from the same region, it depends on the quota for the country of eligibility.
5. If the quota is close to exhaustion, the entry will most likely be disqualified, because you most likely will require a quota from another country to be affected in order for visa to be issued.
6. If the quota is very far from exhaustion for this country, you have good chances for the entry not to be disqualified, because no quota is going to be affected in order for visa to be issued. In order to issue the visa consul (or CIS officer in order to adjust your status) will have to obtain a visa number from NVC. The visa number will be taken from two quotas - from the quota of the region and from the quota of the country you can establish a claim for.
What you are writing in points 3-6 "makes sense", but I'm not sure it corresponds with reality in any way. It all depends on what their regulations and procedures say, and they could emphasize completely different factors from what you are emphasizing.
The procedures for CP (9 FAM) do not have ANY specifics about this type of situation. That means it is just common sense.
In that type of situation everything that makes sense matters. Actually, my opinion is that the consul has to request a visa number from NVC from the correct country and correct region anyway, and should describe why it needs to be a different country from what was requested earlier.
NVC provides the number or denies it. If NVC denies it, consul denies the visa application. If NVC provides it, consul should approve the visa.
Because quotas for regions have to be filled (except maybe for several numbers left due to lack of synchronization for tha last days of the year), changing the region is not possible.
I am not aware of any specifics about NVC procedures how they handle this type of situation. 9 FAM is for consulates only. But the common sense it exactly this.
Anyway, you can always ask the consul what exactly he or she considers while figuring out when may is will and when it is not.
In that type of situation everything that makes sense matters. Actually, my opinion is that the consul has to request a visa number from NVC from the correct country and correct region anyway, and should describe why it needs to be a different country from what was requested earlier.
NVC provides the number or denies it. If NVC denies it, consul denies the visa application. If NVC provides it, consul should approve the visa.
Because quotas for regions have to be filled (except maybe for several numbers left due to lack of synchronization for tha last days of the year), changing the region is not possible.
I am not aware of any specifics about NVC procedures how they handle this type of situation. 9 FAM is for consulates only. But the common sense it exactly this.
Anyway, you can always ask the consul what exactly he or she considers while figuring out when may is will and when it is not.
Last edited by a moderator:
That depends. KCC makes several checks and identifies potential fraud risks. It also encloses all it's findings with the case when sends it to the consulate or USCIS. KCC cannot check for the country of chargeability while doing it's findings, because it does not have information enough to figure out your country of chargeability.Your application may be disqualified for intentionally providing false or misleading information.
On the other hand, listing an incorrect country of chargeability is not really a mistake in biographical data. It is different. It is not knowing US law, which is not required from applicants. A mistake in biographical data could be considered as fraud (in case the applicant could gain anything buy it). But chargeability is a complex term.
So, I do not believe there much risk it would cause turn fraud flag.
I know an opposite case as well. But in both cases the consul's decision was not argued or appealed, and the consul was not tried to be persuaded.It's encouraging that raevsky knows of a case when this happened.
Last edited by a moderator:
The procedures for CP (9 FAM) do not have ANY specifics about this type of situation. That means it is just common sense.
I don't want to start another argument, but there areas where the FAM is incomplete and areas FAM simply does not cover. They have additional policies and procedures, plus local policies and procedures for specific consular posts. Unless you have access to all this information, what you're saying is just a guess.
In that type of situation everything that makes sense matters. Actually, my opinion is that the consul has to request a visa number from NVC from the correct country and correct region anyway, and should describe why it needs to be a different country from what was requested earlier.
NVC provides the number or denies it. If NVC denies it, consul denies the visa application. If NVC provides it, consul should approve the visa.
Has to, should - these are very strong statements. You do not make DoS policies. What is your basis for making these statements?
On the other hand, listing an incorrect country of chargeability is not really a mistake in biographical data. It is different. It is not knowing US law, which is not required from applicants.
I think it's a really bad idea to pursue this line of argument in front of a US consular officer. The instructions are very clear. Claiming that you're not required to follow the instructions is going to get you nowhere very quickly.
I would do what I described in my previous post.
Unfortunately, regarding the chargeability issues the instructions are really very incomplete, even though they seem clear. After reading those "clear" instructions in certain cases you would have completely wrong impression about what your country of chargeability is or could be.The instructions are very clear.
As a very brief introduction look into this - http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=23986&linkid=173528 (I know you love this document).
By saying appears to be ineligible to apply they probably mean the very clear instructions, which "make" the client ineligible contrary to the law.PRACTICE POINTER: Carefully reviewing chargeability provisions may reveal that a client who appears to be ineligible to apply is actually eligible.
That is why what you think as country of chargeabilty is not really relevant to the case at all. The consul decides what your real country of chageability is (or set of countries). If it is not what you have picked as the country of chargeability - that is not your fault in a lot of cases.
Consul knows very well the purpose of instructions is just to give basic approximate knowlegde, not details. Requiring your knowledge of law is counterproductive. That is why they have to service those somehow who followed the instructions for chargeability but disregarded the law (which contradicts them).
At the same time it is good for you to follow the law, even when the law contradicts the incomplete instructions. But your knowing law is not expected. Blindly following those clear instructions in case they contradict the law looks counterproductive as well, especially in case you know the law.Claiming that you're not required to follow the instructions is going to get you nowhere very quickly
The instructions are made so clear on purpose - not to include too many pages. That is why they contradict the law.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is very seldom when 9 FAM is incomplete. It is in fact a very complete document. Usually when a question is not raised there, it is out of consul's jurisdiction.I don't want to start another argument, but there areas where the FAM is incomplete and areas FAM simply does not cover. They have additional policies and procedures, plus local policies and procedures for specific consular posts. Unless you have access to all this information, what you're saying is just a guess.
I do not make DOS policies, I just read them (carefully).Has to, should - these are very strong statements. You do not make DoS policies. What is your basis for making these statements?
Last edited by a moderator:
<<Has to, should - these are very strong statements. You do not make DoS policies. What is your basis for making these statements?>>
I do not make DOS policies, I just read them (carefully).
Well, what is your basis for these statements?
You mean if NVC does not issue a visa number because the quota is not available, the consul would still issue a visa?I'm not sure it corresponds with reality in any way. It all depends on what their regulations and procedures say, and they could emphasize completely different factors from what you are emphasizing
Are you inquiring about the first statement of those or about the second one? I'll answer about the first one for now. Because I do not work for DOS.Well, what is your basis for these statements?I do not make DOS policies, I just read them (carefully).
About the second statement - look at my post http://www.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1914653&postcount=32 It would be extremely difficult to write that if you do not read DOS policies carefully.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me repeat my post.
Has to, should - these are very strong statements. You do not make DoS policies. Where did you get this information from?
In that type of situation everything that makes sense matters. Actually, my opinion is that the consul has to request a visa number from NVC from the correct country and correct region anyway, and should describe why it needs to be a different country from what was requested earlier.
NVC provides the number or denies it. If NVC denies it, consul denies the visa application. If NVC provides it, consul should approve the visa.
Has to, should - these are very strong statements. You do not make DoS policies. Where did you get this information from?
Last edited by a moderator:
I said that is my opinion. I did not say that for sure.
Why is it my opinion? Because 9 FAM does not contain a statement to disqualify on that reason (because of wrong country of chargeability). And if there is no disqualification, the next step has to be to request a visa number from the right country (and the right region). A visa cannot be issued without that.
So, I make a simple and logical assumption. 9 FAM is a complete manual. I derive from it that listing wrong country of chargeability really may effectively disqualify the entry (if NVC cannot satisfy the quota and issue a visa number). That is confirmed by the instructions (the may issue). That is a good sign - my original assumption has a good chance to be correct, because it has a confirmation on the side. And as a side result I get how will differs from may (what exactly could prevent NVC from issuing a visa number). Simple and effective. Then I show you the end result without showing the chain of implications, and you ask me for the source. This is called deductive method of Sherlock Holmes.
Why is it my opinion? Because 9 FAM does not contain a statement to disqualify on that reason (because of wrong country of chargeability). And if there is no disqualification, the next step has to be to request a visa number from the right country (and the right region). A visa cannot be issued without that.
So, I make a simple and logical assumption. 9 FAM is a complete manual. I derive from it that listing wrong country of chargeability really may effectively disqualify the entry (if NVC cannot satisfy the quota and issue a visa number). That is confirmed by the instructions (the may issue). That is a good sign - my original assumption has a good chance to be correct, because it has a confirmation on the side. And as a side result I get how will differs from may (what exactly could prevent NVC from issuing a visa number). Simple and effective. Then I show you the end result without showing the chain of implications, and you ask me for the source. This is called deductive method of Sherlock Holmes.
Last edited by a moderator: