المحرر موضوع: كل ما يخص الفورمة 7001 و دائرة المظالم موضوع شامل  (زيارة 8301 مرات)

0 الأعضاء و 1 ضيف يشاهدون هذا الموضوع.

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
السلام عليكم
طبعا الاخوة و الاخوات الي كتبوا مواضيع بخصوص الفورمة 7001 و على رأسهم الاخ العزيز (زيطة) ان شاء الله ما قصروا لانه كتبوا الكثير عن هاي الفورمة لكن اكثر الكتابات كانت عن كيفية املاء الفورمة و ارسالها بالاضافة الى الاشارة عن بعض الايميلات الي تجي من دائرة المظالم حين استلام الفورمة و قبولها و اعطاء الكيس النمبر و ارسال اشعار الى المتقدم بالطلب انه تم ارسال طلب من دارة المظالم الى دائرة الهجرة و الى هذا الحد لا نعرف ما الذي سوف يحصل بعد ذلك و لا نعرف ما الذي تقوم به دائرة المظالم حين استلام الفورمة و لا نعرف كيف تقوم باعدادها لذلك انا صارلي فترة ابحوش بالموضوع و الحمد لله صارت تحت ايدي شوية معلومات بالتاكيد راح تكون مفيدة للجميع
لذلك انا سوف اقوم باستعراض هاي المعلومات و بعدين راح نتناقش بيها حتى تتكون عندنا صورة واضحة
راح ابدأ وياكم بهذا العنوان مع الاشارة الى فقرة التوصيات من دائرة المظالم
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Recommendation Regarding the Adjudication of Applications for Refugee Status
EMERGENT OR DENIED REFUGEE APPLICATIONS:
EXPEDITING CASES, ARTICULATING REASONS FOR DENIAL, AND
ISSUING GUIDANCE FOR REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS:
1. Publicly state, on the USCIS website and through stakeholder groups, the criteria by which USCIS expedites certain emergent refugee cases and how to access that expedited process.
2. Clearly state the reason for denying a refugee application:
(a) Identify issues of concern during the applicant’s interview to enable the applicant to address, at that time, any potential grounds for denial; and
(b) Articulate in the Notice of Ineligibility for Resettlement clear and case-specific information regarding the grounds for denial.
3. Issue guidance on how to file a Request for Reconsideration for a denied refugee application:
(a) Provide a tip sheet on relevant supporting documents outlining the information applicants could include; and
(b) Publish mailing address(es) for Request for Reconsideration submissions.
4. Acknowledge receipt of each Request for Reconsideration.
REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS
• Stakeholders described a lack of transparency surrounding how to request an expedited review of emergent cases and how those requests are evaluated, and additionally, how to file a Request for Reconsideration after denial of an application.
• The Ombudsman has learned that although required, not all refugee officers consistently inform the applicant during the interview of a potentially adverse determination and provide an opportunity for rebuttal at that time.
• Ad hoc lines of communication exist, but applicants do not have access to a public process to confirm receipt or status of Request for Reconsideration submissions.
• The Notice of Ineligibility for Resettlement often lacks case-specific information, leaving applicants and their representatives without notice of specific areas of concern. This can result in an inefficient use of resources spent on developing and adjudicating overly inclusive and unwieldy Requests for Reconsideration.
هذا مجرد اشارة حول فقرة التوصيات تحت هذا العنوان و بعد قليل سوف ابدأ بتنزيل الكلام الرئيسي الذي تحت هذا العنوان
هذا الموضوع راح يكون شامل ان شاء الله و انا بدوري ابحث عن معلومات و انزلها بهذا الموضوع وز بعدين نتناقش بيها
تحياتي




غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Recommendation Regarding the Adjudication of Applications for Refugee Status
EMERGENT OR DENIED REFUGEE APPLICATIONS:
EXPEDITING CASES, ARTICULATING REASONS FOR DENIAL, AND
ISSUING GUIDANCE FOR REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION
April 14, 2010
Part of the privilege of serving as the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman is the responsibility to identify new steps that can be taken to improve the delivery of citizenship and immigration services and the implementation of existing laws. Today we do so with the goal of increasing transparency, consistency, and efficiency for those who seek refugee status as well as for those who administer this critical benefit.
As we carry out our mission in the area of refugee processing, we have many partners who play an important role: stakeholders who work in the interest of refugee rights; attorneys, many pro bono, and other representatives who provide legal advice and services to those seeking refugee status; and other critical non-governmental organizations, including those that are faith-based. In addition, the Ombudsman’s staff works with various governmental partners with central roles in refugee services.
Those seeking refugee status are among the most vulnerable populations in the world. The recommendations made here touch on certain elements of the process that people experience when seeking refugee status.
In advance of and apart from the recommendations made here, USCIS has recently instituted meaningful innovations to enhance its administration of refugee status adjudications. Those steps already taken, coupled with these recommendations, represent continuous opportunity to strengthen the delivery of services for applicants seeking refugee status.
I thank my staff for their work in researching and developing this review. We welcome your feedback on these recommendations and suggestions for future areas of focus. We can be reached at CISOmbudsman@dhs.gov.
Thank you,
January Contreras
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
April 14, 2010
Part of the privilege of serving as the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman is the responsibility to identify new steps that can be taken to improve the delivery of citizenship and immigration services and the implementation of existing laws. Today we do so with the goal of increasing transparency, consistency, and efficiency for those who seek refugee status as well as for those who administer this critical benefit.
As we carry out our mission in the area of refugee processing, we have many partners who play an important role: stakeholders who work in the interest of refugee rights; attorneys, many pro bono, and other representatives who provide legal advice and services to those seeking refugee status; and other critical non-governmental organizations, including those that are faith-based. In addition, the Ombudsman’s staff works with various governmental partners with central roles in refugee services.
Those seeking refugee status are among the most vulnerable populations in the world. The recommendations made here touch on certain elements of the process that people experience when seeking refugee status.
In advance of and apart from the recommendations made here, USCIS has recently instituted meaningful innovations to enhance its administration of refugee status adjudications. Those steps already taken, coupled with these recommendations, represent continuous opportunity to strengthen the delivery of services for applicants seeking refugee status.
I thank my staff for their work in researching and developing this review. We welcome your feedback on these recommendations and suggestions for future areas of focus. We can be reached at CISOmbudsman@dhs.gov.
Thank you,
January Contreras
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Recommendation Regarding the Adjudication of Applications for Refugee Status
an RFR. They cited lack of transparency in requesting USCIS to expedite an exigent refugee case. Those not knowledgeable about how to request expeditious review, when facing an imminent threat, remain in the standard queue.

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
هنا كلام عن نموذجين كيف تم التعامل معهم بمعالجة ملفات راح تلكوهن امام عبارة case problem
CASE PROBLEM: Pro bono counsel contacted the Ombudsman in August 2009 regarding a pending refugee case for an Iraqi whom counsel stated had been employed for three years with a U.S. civil society organization and was in imminent danger of being killed, due to that affiliation. The applicant had just been deported from a third country back to Iraq; third country officials cited that a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) application the applicant had pending, at the time, demonstrated intent to immigrate to the United States. Subsequently, however, the SIV application was denied because of the employer’s funding category. The applicant’s hiding place had been located by persons who painted, in blood, “Death to Traitors/Death to [applicant’s name]” on the door. The Ombudsman facilitated interagency collaboration to expedite this case. The applicant was assisted to another country in September 2009. USCIS processed the case expeditiously and the applicant arrived in the United States in early December 2009.
Regarding the latter concern, stakeholders cite insufficient information on which case-specific grounds USCIS makes adverse determinations, and on how and where to file an effective RFR, as well as the lack of confirmation of RFR receipt by USCIS. 6 They further report that conflicting information on the RFR filing process is given by refugee-processing components. These issues adversely impact applicants, the organizations that serve them, and USCIS itself as the agency must respond to inquiries and adjudicate RFRs that may include irrelevant or redundant information.
CASE PROBLEM: Two Iraqi siblings were denied refugee status in March 2009. Their pro bono attorney contacted the Ombudsman for assistance in June 2009. According to counsel, his clients’ family had suffered numerous threats, including a partial destruction of the family home by grenades. The lawyer stated that because the applicants received information on only the general grounds for their denials, he prepared and submitted two 70+ page RFRs on their behalf, with multiple exhibits “to cover everything and anything.” In addition, because the applicants were not provided specific instructions on where to send the RFRs, the attorney sought assistance from the Ombudsman’s office. The Ombudsman’s office liaised with USCIS and the RFRs were reviewed immediately. The siblings are scheduled to arrive in the United States in April 2010.
The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS:
(1) Present on the USCIS website and to stakeholder groups the criteria by which it expedites certain emergent refugee cases and how to access that process.
(2) Clearly state the reason for denying a refugee application:
(a) Identify with particularity potentially adverse determinations arising during the interview to enable the applicant to address, at that time, any potential grounds for denial; and
(b) Articulate in the “Notice of Ineligibility for Resettlement” clear and case-specific information regarding the grounds for denial.
6 In FY 2009, USCIS received 2,522 RFRs. Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 5, 2009).

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
(3) Issue guidance on how to file a “Request for Reconsideration” of a denied refugee application:
(a) Provide a tip sheet on relevant supporting documents with the “Notice of Ineligibility for Resettlement” outlining the information applicants could include; and
(b) Publish mailing address(es) for “Requests for Reconsideration.”
(4) Acknowledge receipt of each “Request for Reconsideration” submitted.
Instituting these recommendations would expedite processing for certain refugee applicants, add transparency to the adjudication process, lessen customer confusion and streamline USCIS operations.
BACKGROUND
Methodology. The Ombudsman reviewed refugee processing generally, with a special focus on Afghani and Iraqi persons, two nationalities comprising the majority of all refugees currently assisted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) worldwide.7 Iraqi nationals are among the larger groups admitted to the United States in the past two fiscal years.8 The Ombudsman observed the multi-stage refugee processing conducted in Amman, Jordan, by visiting all relevant entities: the UNHCR initial screening facility; the Department of State (DOS) /Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) overseas processing entity (OPE), the USCIS circuit rider interviewers,9 and state-side U.S. government officials as they conducted security checks.10
Since March 2009, the Ombudsman has frequently assisted with individual case problems for refugees of all nationalities, including emergent cases where Afghani and Iraqi applicants’ lives, health, or family unity were threatened or severely compromised due to overlong processing times. The Ombudsman conducted a public teleconference on refugee processing.11
7 UNHCR, “2008 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons,” p. 3 (June 19, 2009). The United Nations General Assembly established UNHCR in 1950 to coordinate global aid and assistance for refugees. See Additionally, the Ombudsman met with a number of stakeholders: U.S. law school clinical programs that represent refugee applicants, law firms that provide pro bono services to
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c2.html (accessed Mar. 24, 2010).
8 In accordance with INA § 207, and after consultations with relevant government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and Congress, the President annually determines the number of refugees to be admitted and sets processing priorities for the refugee program. In 2009, this determination allocated 37,000 principal admissions to refugees from the Near East/South Asia regions (which include Afghanistan and Iraq) out of 80,000 total admissions; in 2008, the corresponding figures were 28,000 out of 80,000 total admissions. “Presidential Determination No. 2008-29: Fiscal Year 2009 Refugee Admissions Numbers and Authorizations of In-country Refugee Status,” 73 Fed. Reg. 58,865 (Oct. 7, 2008) and “Presidential Determination No. 2008-1: Fiscal Year 2008 Refugee Admissions Numbers and Authorizations of In-Country Refugee Status,” 72 Fed. Reg. 58,991 (Oct. 18, 2007), respectively; see also INA §§ 101(a)(42) and 207.
9 Short-term assignments or details of USCIS officers to a designated processing station are termed “circuit rides.”
10 The majority of Iraqi applicants are interviewed and given medical screenings in Amman, Jordan, and Damascus, Syria. However, the Refugee Assistance Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110181 (Jan. 28, 2008), expanded the P-2 “direct-access” refugee program for persons of “special humanitarian concern” to include Iraqi nationals. Whereas typical refugees apply for designation as a refugee to the UNHCR office in the country to which they have fled, Iraqi P-2 applicants may also seek refugee status determination directly from the DOS Refugee Processing Center administered by PRM in Iraq, and other locales. Then, applicants file a Form I-590 (Registration for Classification as Refugee), and USCIS interviews them. Certain Iraqis may also avail themselves of the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 41-44.
11 Ombudsman Teleconference, “Refugee Processing--How Is It Working For You?,” (Feb. 25, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=6ea25869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=2dd6dbbb86c3e110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed Mar. 23, 2010).

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
(3) Issue guidance on how to file a “Request for Reconsideration” of a denied refugee application:
(a) Provide a tip sheet on relevant supporting documents with the “Notice of Ineligibility for Resettlement” outlining the information applicants could include; and
(b) Publish mailing address(es) for “Requests for Reconsideration.”
(4) Acknowledge receipt of each “Request for Reconsideration” submitted.
Instituting these recommendations would expedite processing for certain refugee applicants, add transparency to the adjudication process, lessen customer confusion and streamline USCIS operations.
BACKGROUND
Methodology. The Ombudsman reviewed refugee processing generally, with a special focus on Afghani and Iraqi persons, two nationalities comprising the majority of all refugees currently assisted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) worldwide.7 Iraqi nationals are among the larger groups admitted to the United States in the past two fiscal years.8 The Ombudsman observed the multi-stage refugee processing conducted in Amman, Jordan, by visiting all relevant entities: the UNHCR initial screening facility; the Department of State (DOS) /Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) overseas processing entity (OPE), the USCIS circuit rider interviewers,9 and state-side U.S. government officials as they conducted security checks.10
Since March 2009, the Ombudsman has frequently assisted with individual case problems for refugees of all nationalities, including emergent cases where Afghani and Iraqi applicants’ lives, health, or family unity were threatened or severely compromised due to overlong processing times. The Ombudsman conducted a public teleconference on refugee processing.11
7 UNHCR, “2008 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons,” p. 3 (June 19, 2009). The United Nations General Assembly established UNHCR in 1950 to coordinate global aid and assistance for refugees. See Additionally, the Ombudsman met with a number of stakeholders: U.S. law school clinical programs that represent refugee applicants, law firms that provide pro bono services to
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c2.html (accessed Mar. 24, 2010).
8 In accordance with INA § 207, and after consultations with relevant government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and Congress, the President annually determines the number of refugees to be admitted and sets processing priorities for the refugee program. In 2009, this determination allocated 37,000 principal admissions to refugees from the Near East/South Asia regions (which include Afghanistan and Iraq) out of 80,000 total admissions; in 2008, the corresponding figures were 28,000 out of 80,000 total admissions. “Presidential Determination No. 2008-29: Fiscal Year 2009 Refugee Admissions Numbers and Authorizations of In-country Refugee Status,” 73 Fed. Reg. 58,865 (Oct. 7, 2008) and “Presidential Determination No. 2008-1: Fiscal Year 2008 Refugee Admissions Numbers and Authorizations of In-Country Refugee Status,” 72 Fed. Reg. 58,991 (Oct. 18, 2007), respectively; see also INA §§ 101(a)(42) and 207.
9 Short-term assignments or details of USCIS officers to a designated processing station are termed “circuit rides.”
10 The majority of Iraqi applicants are interviewed and given medical screenings in Amman, Jordan, and Damascus, Syria. However, the Refugee Assistance Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110181 (Jan. 28, 2008), expanded the P-2 “direct-access” refugee program for persons of “special humanitarian concern” to include Iraqi nationals. Whereas typical refugees apply for designation as a refugee to the UNHCR office in the country to which they have fled, Iraqi P-2 applicants may also seek refugee status determination directly from the DOS Refugee Processing Center administered by PRM in Iraq, and other locales. Then, applicants file a Form I-590 (Registration for Classification as Refugee), and USCIS interviews them. Certain Iraqis may also avail themselves of the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 41-44.
11 Ombudsman Teleconference, “Refugee Processing--How Is It Working For You?,” (Feb. 25, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=6ea25869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=2dd6dbbb86c3e110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed Mar. 23, 2010).

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
USCIS is one of several international and U.S. government entities comprising the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.21 The USCIS Refugee Affairs Division (RAD), under the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate (RAIO), is responsible for adjudicating Forms I-590, conducting the refugee interviews and determining, with DOS, whether to issue travel documents to beneficiaries of approved I-730 (Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition).22 International Operations officers, also under RAIO leadership, along with RAD officers in some instances, decide the outcome of RFRs.23 The USCIS refugee corps conducts interviews worldwide, often inside refugee camps or in secured buildings in urban areas.
When USCIS denies a refugee application, it issues the Notice formally notifying applicants whether USCIS denied status based on statutory or discretionary grounds, or both. 24 Prior to October 12, 2009, the Notice had nine line-items; then, it was expanded to include additional line-items and more room for officer comments. These categories or “grounds” for adverse determination are listed alongside separate checkboxes. The list now includes the following four broad categories: “Special Humanitarian Concern,” “Persecution of Others,” “Firm Resettlement,” and “Other Reason(s).” Specific line-items were added to the checklist beneath the standing grounds of: “Refugee Claim,” “Admissibility,” and “Credibility.”
USCIS stated it revamped the Notice to provide additional transparency to the applicant regarding his or her denial. Agency training reminded officers to indicate why the claim was not found credible and to record how the credibility issues were identified, and that applicants must be given an opportunity to explain any credibility issues identified.25
In certain international regions, staff at the OPE deliver the Notice at a “counseling session.” Staff conducting counseling sessions may discuss applicant perceptions of the cause for the denial and the RFR process. Yet, staff members do not have access to the interviewing officer’s notes and, therefore, may not be familiar with the case-specific grounds for the denial to provide information about how the grounds for denial were identified. Furthermore, some international regions do not provide the counseling session forum at all. Iraqi P-226 applicants in Baghdad, Iraq, or in Istanbul, Turkey, receive the Notice by email only.
The Notice itself also provides an opportunity to build transparency into the process by giving the applicant an expanded view into the grounds for a denial. However, the new Notice’s checkboxes for grounds do not necessarily help applicants understand the factual basis that caused the adverse determination. Although the Notice provides space for notes and additional information, stakeholders have found that portion is not normally utilized by USCIS. In the course of this study, the Ombudsman has only once encountered a Notice that included an explanation written by a USCIS official. Stakeholders and applicants report that the spaces are
21 Other major entities include: PRM, which supervises all refugee processing at overseas processing entities (OPE), and the ORR, which contracts with voluntary organizations that receive arriving refugees into the United States and equips them with housing, language and vocational training (or recertification for professionals with foreign licensure), transportation, access to federal benefits and psycho-social support for a time-limited period.
22 Specially-trained detailees from other USCIS components may also conduct such interviews, as do officers from the International Operations Division.
23 After USCIS adjudicates refugees’ applications, some face extended processing delays due to security screening by other U.S. government agencies.
24 Unlike denial letters issued to applicants and petitioners filing for other immigration benefits, USCIS’ Notice is not a formal denial letter, but its effect is the same: it states the agency’s decision not to grant the benefit.
25 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Oct. 2, 2009).
26 See Footnote #10.

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
ملاحظة الي يكدر يترجم هاي المعلومات بواسطة كوكل اكون ممنون لان ما عندي ترجمة كوكل بالمتصفح مالتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
routinely left blank.27 As noted, USCIS addressed this lack of transparency by expanding three categories to
include line-items with checkboxes for officers to indicate the general factual basis for the decision.
Another endorsement of transparency exists in the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM). The AFM states
that a denial notice must contain:
…a description…[of] both the documentation submitted by the applicant or
petitioner, and the other evidence which is contained in the case file. If the
applicant cannot reasonably be presumed to be already aware of the evidence, he
or she must be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence before a decision is
made.28
The AFM further states, “n many cases, there may be more than one reason for the denial, in which case
normally all should be discussed.”29
The revised October 2009 Notice states that “during the interview, the USCIS officer informed you of concerns
about the credibility of your testimony and provided you an opportunity to explain….” The addition of this
statement reflects the direction from RAD that such dialogue is intended to be a part of standard interview
practice in these cases.30 However, refugee applicants and stakeholder groups, including pro bono counsel,
continue to inform the Ombudsman that the Notice is often the first communication of any problem with the
application.
RAD has told the Ombudsman that all refugee officers are directed to inform the applicant during the interview
of a potentially adverse determination to provide an opportunity for rebuttal at that time. Yet, stakeholders
report that this practice is neither consistent nor common.31 Without detail about the grounds for a negative
outcome or a chance to address concerns at the interview, applicants and their counsel must speculate about
what led to the denial.
Changes may already be afoot to address these issues. USCIS reports that, after hearing from stakeholders and
the Ombudsman, RAD conducted training for refugee officers in January 2010 reminding officers to provide
this opportunity to applicants during the interview. Moreover, the interview sheet has checkboxes wherein
officers must confirm, on the interview notes, having conducted a discussion about any potentially adverse
determinations. This sheet is placed in the file. All refugee files are subject to 100 percent post-interview,
supervisory review.
Coordinators of pro bono services for refugees say the problem persists. Representatives from a large
organization told the Ombudsman that the October 2009 Notice is “still too hard to understand without the
‘Immigration and Nationality Act’ beside one of us for reference, much less could one of our non-English
27 Information provided to the Ombudsman (May 19, 2009).
28 Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM), Chapter 10.7(b)(3)-(4), Preparing Denial Orders (Mar. 2010); Subpart (4) limits explanatory
expectations: “In some cases, however, when the statutory basis for the denial is clear and incontrovertible, a discussion of
discretionary issues may be unnecessary.”
29 AFM, Chapter 10.7(b)(4) Preparing Denial Orders (Mar. 2010).
30 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 11, 2010).
31 Information provided to the Ombudsman (May 19, 2009, Dec. 5, 2009).

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
speaking applicants use it to prepare an RFR.”32 Another said, “It takes weeks and weeks of work to assemble
one of these RFRs for clients, because I don’t know enough about why they were denied in the first-place.”33
Human Rights First issued a report in March 2010, after seeing these new Notices, saying “the information
[refugees] receive is not sufficient for them to meaningfully appeal.”34 The report calls for “increasing
transparency and accountability… [by] requiring written Notices of Ineligibility for Resettlement describing the
basis for the denial.”35
C. The Request for Reconsideration (RFR)
USCIS provides no formal appeal process for denied refugee applications, but as a matter of policy, allows
RFRs for those seeking additional review of denied applications. This is an exercise of agency discretion and
not an entitlement under the law. Perhaps owing to the discretionary nature of the process, applicants view its
operation as vague, while stakeholders express concerns regarding the lack of USCIS guidance on how to
prepare a meaningful RFR and where to send it.
Currently, the DOS contractor handling refugee matters in Iraq, the International Organization on Migration
(IOM), Baghdad Info Center, sends to inquiring Iraqi applicants a one-page sheet entitled “What do I do if DHS
Denies my Application for Refugee Status?”36 The information on this sheet is more detailed than the RFR
information USCIS provides on the Notice. The IOM sheet states the RFR must be typed or computergenerated,
have an original signature in blue ink, be written in both Arabic and English, must only be
accompanied by supporting evidence that mentions the applicant’s name directly, must contain specific
identifying information on every page submitted, must not repeat what was said in the interview nor contradict
anything said therein and that the RFR must be “no more than two or three pages.”37 USCIS has stated it will
accept hand-written RFRs, in English, and with as much written material the applicant or representative deems
necessary.38
Another reported source of frustration is the absence of tracking capabilities coupled with no published process
for individuals to inquire about the status of a pending RFR. In addition, stakeholders report extensive waiting
periods, sometimes exceeding a year. USCIS has worked to address processing times and reported, as of
November 2009, cycle times of 2.6 months.39 The IOM sheet on RFRs states “[t]he review process generally
takes between three months to a year.”40 Case problems received by the Ombudsman continue to reflect
extensive waiting periods. Among RAD’s FY 2010 “Planned Initiatives,” is an examination “of the
realignment of all or part” of the RFR workload.41 The Ombudsman encourages such proactive steps and
further encourages USCIS to implement related findings that would enhance customer service.
32 Information provided to the Ombudsman (Feb. 25, 2010).
33 Information provided to the Ombudsman (Mar. 25, 2010).
34 Human Rights First, “Renewing U.S. Commitment to Refugee Protection: Recommendations for Reform on the 30th Anniversary
of the Refugee Act” (Mar. 15, 2010), p. 21.
35 Id. at 4.
36 Email to a stakeholder from Baghdad Info Center (Oct. 8, 2009).
37 Id.
38Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 11, 2010).
39 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 5, 2009).
40 Email to a stakeholder from Baghdad Info Center (Oct. 8, 2009).
41 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 24, 2010).

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
speaking applicants use it to prepare an RFR.”32 Another said, “It takes weeks and weeks of work to assemble
one of these RFRs for clients, because I don’t know enough about why they were denied in the first-place.”33
Human Rights First issued a report in March 2010, after seeing these new Notices, saying “the information
[refugees] receive is not sufficient for them to meaningfully appeal.”34 The report calls for “increasing
transparency and accountability… [by] requiring written Notices of Ineligibility for Resettlement describing the
basis for the denial.”35
C. The Request for Reconsideration (RFR)
USCIS provides no formal appeal process for denied refugee applications, but as a matter of policy, allows
RFRs for those seeking additional review of denied applications. This is an exercise of agency discretion and
not an entitlement under the law. Perhaps owing to the discretionary nature of the process, applicants view its
operation as vague, while stakeholders express concerns regarding the lack of USCIS guidance on how to
prepare a meaningful RFR and where to send it.
Currently, the DOS contractor handling refugee matters in Iraq, the International Organization on Migration
(IOM), Baghdad Info Center, sends to inquiring Iraqi applicants a one-page sheet entitled “What do I do if DHS
Denies my Application for Refugee Status?”36 The information on this sheet is more detailed than the RFR
information USCIS provides on the Notice. The IOM sheet states the RFR must be typed or computergenerated,
have an original signature in blue ink, be written in both Arabic and English, must only be
accompanied by supporting evidence that mentions the applicant’s name directly, must contain specific
identifying information on every page submitted, must not repeat what was said in the interview nor contradict
anything said therein and that the RFR must be “no more than two or three pages.”37 USCIS has stated it will
accept hand-written RFRs, in English, and with as much written material the applicant or representative deems
necessary.38
Another reported source of frustration is the absence of tracking capabilities coupled with no published process
for individuals to inquire about the status of a pending RFR. In addition, stakeholders report extensive waiting
periods, sometimes exceeding a year. USCIS has worked to address processing times and reported, as of
November 2009, cycle times of 2.6 months.39 The IOM sheet on RFRs states “[t]he review process generally
takes between three months to a year.”40 Case problems received by the Ombudsman continue to reflect
extensive waiting periods. Among RAD’s FY 2010 “Planned Initiatives,” is an examination “of the
realignment of all or part” of the RFR workload.41 The Ombudsman encourages such proactive steps and
further encourages USCIS to implement related findings that would enhance customer service.
32 Information provided to the Ombudsman (Feb. 25, 2010).
33 Information provided to the Ombudsman (Mar. 25, 2010).
34 Human Rights First, “Renewing U.S. Commitment to Refugee Protection: Recommendations for Reform on the 30th Anniversary
of the Refugee Act” (Mar. 15, 2010), p. 21.
35 Id. at 4.
36 Email to a stakeholder from Baghdad Info Center (Oct. 8, 2009).
37 Id.
38Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 11, 2010).
39 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 5, 2009).
40 Email to a stakeholder from Baghdad Info Center (Oct. 8, 2009).
41 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 24, 2010).

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
Within 90 days of receiving the Notice, an applicant or representative may request review of the denial either by alleging clear service error or by presenting new evidence unavailable at the time of the interview. These grounds are identical to those for filing a Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal or Motion) requesting review by the Office of Administrative Appeals of an adverse USCIS decision.42 However, there are critical differences between the two notices. The RFR has no fee and is not statutorily required, whereas the I-290B is required both by law and by implementing regulations and carries a fee of $585.43 While I-290B filers are usually issued a receipt notice on Form I-797 (Notice of Action)44 and are able to inquire about the status of their motion, RFR applicants receive no formal acknowledgement of receipt by USCIS and are unable to track the progress of their case.
Although the less formalized process for RFRs has its challenges, the approach benefits applicants who miss the 90-day appeal window. The Ombudsman has learned of USCIS routinely accepting RFRs well beyond 90 days, when requests are accompanied by an appropriate explanation by the applicant or representative. Stakeholders report receiving from USCIS or IOM varying information regarding submission deadlines.45
On balance, disadvantages of the lack of a formal RFR receipt process outweigh benefits, as refugee applicants and stakeholders are left to infer whether USCIS has received RFRs timely and is acting on them. Anxieties and duplication of efforts result. Stakeholders reported that lack of a receipt notice leads them to email anyone they know at USCIS to confirm receipt.46 Applicants reported multiple filings when unaware whether the RFR was ever received or is under consideration. The Ombudsman suggests that lack of systematic notices of receipt imposes greater resource demands on USCIS staff than would a published, standardized process whereby applicants could be assured of receipt and processing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To increase transparency, consistency and efficiency within refugee processing, to deliver visible expedite criteria for emergent cases and to standardize and streamline the RFR process, the Ombudsman recommends that USCIS:
(1) Present on the USCIS website and to stakeholder groups the criteria by which it expedites certain emergent refugee cases and how to access that process.
DHS and DOS PRM have stated they have “specific procedures” for handling limited numbers of expedited/emergency cases,47 and that these cases have “occasionally been processed in a very short time.”48
42 Form I-290B is used to file an appeal or motion within 30 days of receipt of a USCIS decision not otherwise under the appellate jurisdiction of the Board of Immigration Appeals. See also Ombudsman Recommendation #42, “Motions Matter: Improving the Filing and Review Process for Motions to Reopen and Reconsider” (May 15, 2009).
43 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3, 103.5.
44 Ombudsman Recommendation #42, “Motions Matter: Improving the Filing and Review Process for Motions to Reopen and Reconsider” (May 15, 2009), p. 8.
45 Case problems the Ombudsman received in the summer of 2009 complained that IOM instructed applicants to submit RFRs well in advance of a 90-day deadline; in several cases, according to attorneys, denied applicants were told to submit RFRs within two-weeks of receiving the Notice.
46 Thirteen-months after filing, the applicant had received no confirmation of receipt or adjudication by USCIS. December 2009 case problem submitted to the Ombudsman.
47 See UNHCR Department of International Protection, “Resettlement Handbook--U.S.A. Country Chapter” (June 2004 revision), p. 5. Additionally, practitioners note awareness of a 2001 working group to develop a protocol for emergency resettlement cases referred by UNHCR. Information received by the Ombudsman, (Feb. 18, 2010).
48UNHCR, “Resettlement Handbook,” p. 5.

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
هنا هاي الفقرات تتحدث عن تسريع الملفات expedite
Figure 1: Humanitarian Case Problem Expedite Criteria
1) ACUTE, UNSTABLE MEDICAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE WORSENING DUE TO LACK OF ACCESS TO CARE OR TO ADVANCED/YOUNG AGE OR CHRONIC INFIRMITY.
Please describe as explicitly as possible how the condition has worsened and if there is a grave prognosis.
2) EXTREMELY DANGEROUS LIVING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN LIVING ALONE, OR ARE LIVING IN AREAS OF HEIGHTENING VIOLENCE AND/OR THEY ARE IN HIDING.
Please send any documentation/news-clips describing the specific dangers, including recent changes or any anticipated escalations of danger.
3) FAMILY SEPARATION.
In certain instances, families are not resettled together. Please state when a portion of the family arrived in the United States and/or how long family members have been separated from the portion awaiting final decision on a pending case.
4) DEPORTATION STATUS – IMMINENT OR CARRIED OUT.
Please state current country of location (or, if in Iraq, having been deported already from a neutral country) and, if available, official correspondence or dates of meetings where officials stated deportation is imminent.
The Ombudsman regularly receives assistance from relevant agencies with requests for expedited processing on humanitarian cases. USCIS could significantly enhance the transparency of refugee processing while also increasing efficient use of resources by publicizing guidance that describes under what circumstances and how any needful applicants may access such relief when meeting defined exigent circumstances.
(2) Clearly state the reason for denying a refugee application:
(a) Identify with particularity potentially adverse determinations arising during the interview to enable the applicant to address, at that time, any potential grounds for denial.
Based on the Ombudsman’s review, USCIS policy does not match agency practice in this area. Despite the fact that the current USCIS standard for interviewing officers requires them to notify applicants of the reason for denial, cases consistently lack such identification. Furthermore, the UNHCR Refugee Status Determination Handbook, section 602, states that all persons denied resettlement must be notified of grounds for denial and provided with an opportunity to respond during the interview process. USCIS issued internally a Refugee Officer Manual, during the first quarter of FY 2010, and plans to post redacted portions for the public by the third quarter of FY 2010.52 Such developments, if implemented consistently, will foster greater transparency and efficiency for both applicants and USCIS.
(b) Articulate in the “Notice of Ineligibility for Resettlement” clear and case-specific information regarding the grounds for denial.
Persons seeking protection can apply both abroad as refugees and domestically as asylees. Asylum-seekers are persons who have already arrived in the United States, but who assert claims similar to those of refugees. In the affirmative asylum context, USCIS conducts interviews; often those applicants receive copies of the officer’s
52 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 5, 2009).

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
Figure 1: Humanitarian Case Problem Expedite Criteria
1) ACUTE, UNSTABLE MEDICAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE WORSENING DUE TO LACK OF ACCESS TO CARE OR TO ADVANCED/YOUNG AGE OR CHRONIC INFIRMITY.
Please describe as explicitly as possible how the condition has worsened and if there is a grave prognosis.
2) EXTREMELY DANGEROUS LIVING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN LIVING ALONE, OR ARE LIVING IN AREAS OF HEIGHTENING VIOLENCE AND/OR THEY ARE IN HIDING.
Please send any documentation/news-clips describing the specific dangers, including recent changes or any anticipated escalations of danger.
3) FAMILY SEPARATION.
In certain instances, families are not resettled together. Please state when a portion of the family arrived in the United States and/or how long family members have been separated from the portion awaiting final decision on a pending case.
4) DEPORTATION STATUS – IMMINENT OR CARRIED OUT.
Please state current country of location (or, if in Iraq, having been deported already from a neutral country) and, if available, official correspondence or dates of meetings where officials stated deportation is imminent.
The Ombudsman regularly receives assistance from relevant agencies with requests for expedited processing on humanitarian cases. USCIS could significantly enhance the transparency of refugee processing while also increasing efficient use of resources by publicizing guidance that describes under what circumstances and how any needful applicants may access such relief when meeting defined exigent circumstances.
(2) Clearly state the reason for denying a refugee application:
(a) Identify with particularity potentially adverse determinations arising during the interview to enable the applicant to address, at that time, any potential grounds for denial.
Based on the Ombudsman’s review, USCIS policy does not match agency practice in this area. Despite the fact that the current USCIS standard for interviewing officers requires them to notify applicants of the reason for denial, cases consistently lack such identification. Furthermore, the UNHCR Refugee Status Determination Handbook, section 602, states that all persons denied resettlement must be notified of grounds for denial and provided with an opportunity to respond during the interview process. USCIS issued internally a Refugee Officer Manual, during the first quarter of FY 2010, and plans to post redacted portions for the public by the third quarter of FY 2010.52 Such developments, if implemented consistently, will foster greater transparency and efficiency for both applicants and USCIS.
(b) Articulate in the “Notice of Ineligibility for Resettlement” clear and case-specific information regarding the grounds for denial.
Persons seeking protection can apply both abroad as refugees and domestically as asylees. Asylum-seekers are persons who have already arrived in the United States, but who assert claims similar to those of refugees. In the affirmative asylum context, USCIS conducts interviews; often those applicants receive copies of the officer’s
52 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 5, 2009).

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
interview notes.53 Applicants for asylum at a port-of-entry listen to and sign off on the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection officer’s comments, and then receive a copy. Conversely, USCIS refugee officers do not
release their interview notes. Resource limitations abroad may challenge USCIS’ capacity to extend asylee
procedures to refugee applicants. However, without accurate reference to the contents of the interview that may
have served to undermine their case, refugee applicants cannot meaningfully address the grounds for an adverse
decision.
The exact number of approvals of RFRs is unclear. USCIS reports that RFRs are frequently determined in
favor of the applicant.54 However, the information sheet from the IOM Baghdad Info Center tells stakeholders,
“[t]he RFR overturn rate is extremely low.”55 Without specific information on how to prepare RFRs, attorneys
and individuals spend hours discussing and compiling overly-inclusive requests in an effort to address what
they infer the problem to have been.56 Lengthy filings burden USCIS adjudicative resources, further taxing
already limited resources abroad.
(3) Issue guidance on how to file a “Request for Reconsideration” of a denied refugee application:
(a) Provide a tip sheet on relevant supporting documents with the “Notice of Ineligibility
for Resettlement” outlining the information applicants could include.
General guidance on RFR filing is located at the bottom of the Notice. It states the grounds discussed in
Recommendation 2(a), and notes that USCIS will accept one request within 90 days of receipt of the Notice.
The Notice fails to specify the information USCIS requires to make its decision. As detailed above, the IOM
sheet on RFRs has information that is at odds with stated USCIS practices. A standard tip sheet could list the
types of documentary evidence USCIS considers pertinent to RFR decision-making. If the applicant must
establish relationship, credibility, or associations, the tip sheet could present examples of what USCIS considers
relevant to each determination (See Figure 2, page 12).
53 USCIS RAIO Asylum Division, “Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual” (Nov. 2007), p. 30. The Ombudsman recognizes that,
like asylum applicants, refugee applicants can experience emotional intensity, even distress, when recounting to the interviewer the
story that forms their claim of persecution. Stakeholders report that asylum interview notes help representatives and applicants
formulate meaningful responses in defensive asylum applications referred to the courts when USCIS denies their affirmative request.
Similarly, interview notes could help refugees formulate a meaningful and concise RFR.
54 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 24, 2010).
55 “What do I do if DHS denies my application for refugee status?” Information received by the Ombudsman (Oct. 11, 2009).
56 For example, a handbook prepared by one law school clinic to train its pro bono affiliates to represent denied refugees directs
extensive questioning of the client about interviewer focus and demeanor, and states that a request made pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act is the only way to discern the cause of denial. FOIA request processing averages 63 days for “expedited requests,”
231 days for “simple requests,” and 339 for “complex requests.” Of the expedited requests in FY 2008, 13 were granted and 1,687
denied. “Freedom of Information Act, Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report: USCIS,” p. 3.

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
Figure 2: Examples of Information to Include in a Tip Sheet
TO ESTABLISH OR SUPPORT
PROVIDE
BONA FIDES OF RELATIONSHIPS
BIRTH CERTIFICATES, BAPTISMAL RECORDS, AFFIDAVITS, MARRIAGE OR DEATH CERTIFICATES, ETC.
CREDIBILITY
AFFIDAVITS, COURT RECORDS, MEDICAL RECORDS, OR TRAVEL RECORDS
CLAIMED ASSOCIATIONS
PROOF OF MEMBERSHIP IN CLUBS OR SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS
This is not a new concept, as USCIS already provides such specific guidance to filers for other immigration benefits whose submissions are incomplete; the agency sends them a detailed “Request for Evidence.” Doing so in the RFR process could add a level of transparency for the applicants allowing them to focus on documentation that actually is critical to the review. As importantly, this could build greater efficiency into the system by reducing the amount of unnecessary documentation that USCIS must sift through to make a final determination.
(b) Publish mailing address(es) for “Requests for Reconsideration.”
Currently, USCIS provides on the Notice no mailing address for RFR submissions, nor is information on where to file an RFR available on its website. This omission generates uncertainty leading stakeholders to adopt a “shotgun approach” filing strategy. The Ombudsman observed that they regularly send duplicate RFRs not only to the Washington, D.C. address from which the Notice was sent, but also to known overseas locations: the embassy in the country of the applicant’s interview, the OPE where the refugee was interviewed, or the USCIS office in Athens, Greece, whose Director signed the Notice. The IOM sheet on RFRs provides a submission address distinctive from other addresses provided by USCIS. Such multiple or misdirected filings not only increase costs for certified or airmail deliveries; they also impose burdens on USCIS by requiring redundant administrative functions. The Ombudsman presents in Figure 3 (page 13) the RFR filing addresses provided by USCIS and urges the agency to make this information available via its website and for inclusion in RFR instructions.

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
Figure 3: RFR Filing Location by Country of Interview
SUBMIT AN RFR FOR A REFUGEE CASE INTERVIEWED IN
ALGERIA, BAHRAIN, EGYPT, IRAQ, JORDAN, LIBYA, MOROCCO, OMAN, SAUDI ARABIA, SYRIA, TUNISIA & QATAR
KUWAIT, LEBANON, PAKISTAN, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES & YEMEN
VIA EMAIL USCIS.Amman@dhs.gov USCIS.Athens@dhs.gov
VIA MAIL FROM THE US
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, USCIS/DHS AMERICAN EMBASSY, DOS 6050 AMMAN PLACE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20521-6050
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, USCIS/DHS PSC 12008 BOX 25 DPO, AE 2009842
VIA MAIL FROM OUTSIDE THE US
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, USCIS/DHS C/O AMERICAN EMBASSY, DOS P.O. BOX 354
AMMAN, 11118 JORDAN
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, USCIS/DHS C/O AMERICAN EMBASSY, DOS VASILISSIS SOFIAS 91, 10160 ATHENS, GREECE
VIA EXPRESS MAIL
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, USCIS/DHS C/O AMERICAN EMBASSY, DOS AL UMAWYEEN STREET, ABDOUN AMMAN, JORDAN
(SAME AS ABOVE)
(4) Acknowledge receipt of each “Request for Reconsideration” submitted.
Applicants and petitioners for the majority of USCIS immigration benefits may check their case status online by inputting a receipt number. Currently, however, there is no mechanism for applicants or their representatives to even verify receipt of an RFR. Much less, they are not assigned a receipt number, perhaps because there is no receipt of funds by USCIS, to facilitate case tracking. Providing acknowledgement of receipt is, therefore, consistent with USCIS case handling practice in general, and particularly appropriate to assure refugee applicants that denials of their cases are under consideration.

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
ادري الموضوع طويل لكن المعلومات الي بيه كثيرة و مفيدة تتطلب جهد من الجميع بترجمتها و مناقشتها و على فكرة عندي بعد غير هاي المعلومات فانا اريد اسردها كلها حتى تتكون عندنا صورة واضحة
لكن حتى الامور تكون سهلة علينا اكثر الي يكدر يترجمها بواسطة كوكل خل يترجمها حتى تكون اسهل و حتى الي ما يعرف انجليزي راح يفهمها
تحياتي

غير متصل Emerald

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 784
  • الجنس: أنثى
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
    • http://uploads.ankawa.com/
عاشت ايدك اخي على المجهود والمعلومات المفيدة



تحياتي اختك
Emerald من سورية

غير متصل ام راما

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز
  • *
  • مشاركة: 1149
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
تسلم وعاشت ايدك على المجهود
اختك ام راما

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
عاشت ايدك اخي على المجهود والمعلومات المفيدة



تحياتي اختك
Emerald من سورية

بالخدمة اختي العزيزة

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
تسلم وعاشت ايدك على المجهود
اختك ام راما
ايدج العايشة اختي العزيزة

غير متصل أبو أياد

  • عضو مميز
  • ****
  • مشاركة: 1174
  • الجنس: ذكر
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
عاشت ايدك على هذا الجهد المميز وهذه الدراسة المستفيضة للموضوع

تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
عاشت ايدك على هذا الجهد المميز وهذه الدراسة المستفيضة للموضوع

تحياتي
ايدك العايشة اخي العزيز ابو اياد
انا صارلي فترة ابحوش بالموضوع و توصلت الى النتيجة الاتية
اولا حينما يتم ارسال الفورمة الى دائرة المظالم تقوم دائرة المظالم باعطاء رقم قضية و فتح ملف جديد للمتقدم بالطلب و تقوم بدراسة الصعوبات الي يواجها الشخص و بعدين تروح على موقع دائرة الهجرة تتطلع على الكيس الرئيسي من خلال رقم ال A file فتتطلع على تفاصيل الملف من طأطأ الى سلام عليكم من ناحية المحلف و قراره و التجييك الامني و الى اخره من التفاصيل الثانية و يشوفون وين المشكلة و شنو سبب التأخير
طبعا هاي اثناء اعداد الملف و اعطاء الكيس النمبر لذلك يدزون رسالة ال 45 يوم عمل متواصل على الملف
ثانيا بعد الاطلاع على تفاصيل القضية من من ناحية دائرة الهجرة و وزارة الامن الداخلي تقوم دائرة المظالم باعداد دراسة على الملف و هذا معنى فترة ال 45 يوم حيث هذه الدراسة تتضمن اعداد توصيات في كيفية معالجة الملف و سرعة انجازه و تلعب دائرة المظالم ايضا دور المحامي حيث تقوم باجراء دراسة مستفيضة حول الملف و توضيح الامور الى دائرة الهجرة
ثالثا بعد اعداد هاي الدراسة و استكمال التوصيات بكيفية معالجة القضية و سرعة انجازها تقوم دائرة المظالم بارسال هذه الدراسة الى دائرة الهجرة و هو ما يعرف برسالة الستين يوم حيث تقوم دائرة الهجرة بالاطلاع على هذه الدراسة للملف و هذه التوصيات بعدها سوف تتخذ الاجراء المناسب خلال فترة الستين يوم او اقل و من ثم اعلام دائرة المظالم بالنتيجة و بعدين دائرة المظالم راح ترجع تراسل صاحب الطلب و اعلامه بالنتيجة
هذا كل ما متوفر عندي لحد الان من معلومات يعني نكدر نكول هاي زبدة البحوشة ;D
و ان شاء الله اي معلومة احصل عليها مراح اتاخر بيها عليكم
الاخ العزيز ابو اياد اكيد رأيك مطلوب بهذا الكلام و اذا عندي اي تعديل او معلومة اضافية ياريت تنورنا بيها
تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
ملاحظة
دائرة المظالم من اولوياتها الملفات المعلقة يعني جماعة التعليق من ناحية المحلف و الملفات المرفوضة و الملفات المتأخرة بسبب التجييك الامني و  بامكان اصحاب الاستئناف تقديم طلب استئناف عن طريق دائرة المظالم و الفورمة 7001
ملاحظة اخرى
دائرة المظالم تقوم بانجاز الملف خلال فترة اشهر قصيرة يعني لا يظل بالكم خلال اشهر بسيطة و تتعالج ملفاتكم
يعني حسب ما شفت من نموذيجين قامت دائرة المظالم بمعالجتها خلال اشهر و شفت كذلك ملاحظة ما اتذكر اذا بنفس هاي المعلومات الي نزلتها او غيرها الملاحظة تكول كيس من الكيسات سووا عليه دراسة ما يقارب سبعين صفحة و تم انجازه خلال اشهر
يعني كسر بجمع الجماعة شغلهم زين و لا بأس بيه يعني اكو نتيجة من وراهم بحيل الله
تحياتي


غير متصل أبو أياد

  • عضو مميز
  • ****
  • مشاركة: 1174
  • الجنس: ذكر
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
ملاحظة
دائرة المظالم من اولوياتها الملفات المعلقة يعني جماعة التعليق من ناحية المحلف و الملفات المرفوضة و الملفات المتأخرة بسبب التجييك الامني و  بامكان اصحاب الاستئناف تقديم طلب استئناف عن طريق دائرة المظالم و الفورمة 7001
ملاحظة اخرى
دائرة المظالم تقوم بانجاز الملف خلال فترة اشهر قصيرة يعني لا يظل بالكم خلال اشهر بسيطة و تتعالج ملفاتكم
يعني حسب ما شفت من نموذيجين قامت دائرة المظالم بمعالجتها خلال اشهر و شفت كذلك ملاحظة ما اتذكر اذا بنفس هاي المعلومات الي نزلتها او غيرها الملاحظة تكول كيس من الكيسات سووا عليه دراسة ما يقارب سبعين صفحة و تم انجازه خلال اشهر
يعني كسر بجمع الجماعة شغلهم زين و لا بأس بيه يعني اكو نتيجة من وراهم بحيل الله
تحياتي




انشاء الله وتخلصون جماعة التعليق والله اني متفائل قريبا تكتمل عدكم خانة المحلف او يرسل اليكم باعادة مقابلة محلفين لغرض حسم ملفاتكم ولكن هناك ملاحظة ان العمل على ملفات التعليق سيأخذ وقت اكبر بالمعالجة بس انشاء الله نتيجة تظلمكم محسومة باذن الله

تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
ملاحظة
دائرة المظالم من اولوياتها الملفات المعلقة يعني جماعة التعليق من ناحية المحلف و الملفات المرفوضة و الملفات المتأخرة بسبب التجييك الامني و  بامكان اصحاب الاستئناف تقديم طلب استئناف عن طريق دائرة المظالم و الفورمة 7001
ملاحظة اخرى
دائرة المظالم تقوم بانجاز الملف خلال فترة اشهر قصيرة يعني لا يظل بالكم خلال اشهر بسيطة و تتعالج ملفاتكم
يعني حسب ما شفت من نموذيجين قامت دائرة المظالم بمعالجتها خلال اشهر و شفت كذلك ملاحظة ما اتذكر اذا بنفس هاي المعلومات الي نزلتها او غيرها الملاحظة تكول كيس من الكيسات سووا عليه دراسة ما يقارب سبعين صفحة و تم انجازه خلال اشهر
يعني كسر بجمع الجماعة شغلهم زين و لا بأس بيه يعني اكو نتيجة من وراهم بحيل الله
تحياتي




انشاء الله وتخلصون جماعة التعليق والله اني متفائل قريبا تكتمل عدكم خانة المحلف او يرسل اليكم باعادة مقابلة محلفين لغرض حسم ملفاتكم ولكن هناك ملاحظة ان العمل على ملفات التعليق سيأخذ وقت اكبر بالمعالجة بس انشاء الله نتيجة تظلمكم محسومة باذن الله

تحياتي

ما اتصور تصير اعادة للمقابلة حتى لو الملف تعليق لانه لو اكو نقطة معينة تستوجب الاعادة جان عدناها من زمان
نعم قد ملفاتنا تاخذ وقت يم دائرة المظالم لكنه ليس بالكثير قياسا بالوقت الي اخذته منا اي او ام و ما حصلنا من وراهم نتيجة
يعني القصد انه ملفات المعلقين يدرسوها بشكل اوسع و لهذا تتطلب وقت لكنه ليس بالكثير
تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
بحوشة جديدة في غاية الاهمية تشرح عملية معالجة الملف من قبل دائرة المظالم من بداية التقديم الى الانتهاء من معالجة الملف
و هاي البحوشة هسه راح انزلها كما هي و بعدين اقوم بترجمتها
ombudsman s case assistance process
helping individuals and employers reslove problems with USCIS
individuals and employers can request the ombudsman s assistance by taking the following steps
STEP 1 fill out and sign form DHS 7001,case problem submission worksheet,which allows the ombudsman s office to share confidential information with USCIS
STEP 2 include on form DHS 7001 all USCIS receipt numbers related tothe application or petition
STEP 3 make copies of important docdumentationsuch as
A- paperwork submitted to USCIS
B-  documents received from USCIS .and
C-  any other documentation important to the applicant or petition
STEP 4  submit the signed form DHS 7001 and any related documentation to the ombudsman s office by on of the following
هاي الفقرة مو ذات اهمية اذكرها لانه عبارة عن الايميلات و الفاكس و هي موجودة ما بية حيل انقلها لان دا انقل الكلام لان ما اكدر انسخه
هسه نجي على الفقرات الاربعة التالية
after receiving a request for assistance,the ombudsman office
STEP 1  acknowledges receipt of the inquiry
STEP 2  reviews the inquiry to make sure that we are able to help
if we are not able to help we may provide information to the customer on the appropraite government office to contact
STEP 3  if we are able to help,the ombudsman office
A-  researches USCIS databases for current status of the application or petition
B-  identifies customer issue s
C-  reviews laws,regulations,policies,and procedures
D-  makes a recommendation to the appropriate USCIS field office or headquarters office on how to reslove the case
E-  follows up with USCIS until the issue is resolved
STEP 4   ensures the individual or employer is contacted with the result of the inquiry and current statusof the application or petition
اتصور هاي البحوشة في غاية الاهمية فهي مختصرة و غنية بالمعلومات في كيفية معالجة الملف من قبل دائرة المظالم
طبعا تعبت من نقلتها لان الكتابة كانت غير قابلة للنسخ و صغيرة كلش فتعبت كلش على ما نقلتها و ان شاء الله بعدين اترجمها بس ارتاح شوية
تحياتي
 

غير متصل ** AL SHAEEA **

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3236
  • الجنس: ذكر
  • رأس الحكمــــــــة مخافــــــــــــــــة اللـــــه
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
شكرا اخي سنكل مان على المجهود الرائع وارجو من حضرتك اجاوبني لان بعثتلك على الخاص واكون ممنون

اخوك / ابو عبد الرحمن



قال الله تعالى: (وَمَنْ يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَلْ لَهُ مَخْرَجاً*وَيَرْزُقْهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لا يَحْتَسِب )

غير متصل snsoon572

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 256
  • الجنس: ذكر
  • ومن يتق الله يجعل له مخرجا ويرزقه من حيث لا يحتسب
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
تسلم وعاشت ايدك على المجهود الجبار والرائع
اخي الحبيب
 يا ريت تساعدني في ملئي الفورما اكون لك شاكر


اخوك
ابو عبد الله
أخـوك
أبــو عـبـد الله

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
شكرا اخي سنكل مان على المجهود الرائع وارجو من حضرتك اجاوبني لان بعثتلك على الخاص واكون ممنون

اخوك / ابو عبد الرحمن

الشكر لله اخي العزيز
اخي العزيز جاوبتك على رسالتك عالخاص
تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
تسلم وعاشت ايدك على المجهود الجبار والرائع
اخي الحبيب
 يا ريت تساعدني في ملئي الفورما اكون لك شاكر


اخوك
ابو عبد الله
اهلا و سهلا بيك اخي العزيز ابو عبد الله
اخي العزيز ياريت لو تدخل لموضوع الاخ زيطة لان بيه معلومات غنية بكيفية مليء الفورمة و حتى بيه صور توضيحية
لكن يحتاجلك برنامج adobe على حاسبتك حتى تكدر تفتح الاستمارة الالكترونية و تمليها و بصراحة انا ما اعرف شلون طريقة تنزيل هذا البرنامج فالافضل تسأل اهل الاختصاص بالحاسبات
بالنسبة لمليء الستمارة مو فد شي صعب بس يحتاجلك واحد يكون موجود يمك لغته الانجليزية زينة حتى يكدر يكتبلك ستيتمنت طبعا حسب حالتك و قصتك و الى اخره من التفاصيل
فهسه انت اولا تحتاج برنامج على حاسبتك و تحتاج شخص يكون يمك لغته الانجليزية زينة و لازم قبل كلشي تتطلع على التفاصيل بموضوع الاخ زيطة و تشوف شلون املاء الفورمة بشكل صحيح و الى اخره من التفاصيل
تحياتي

غير متصل sparky

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 2166
  • الجنس: ذكر
  • || الدين النصيحه ||
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
    • --الدين النصيحه --

عاشت ايدك اخي سنكل
بالنسبه لترجمتها على الكوكل فاذا تبعثلي الويبسايت فبامكاني ترجمته وغير عن ذلك قبامكانك عمله وكالتالي
 فهذا اللينك الذي يحوي الترجمه لاي ويبسايت من اي لغه بالعالم الى اي لغه تريدينها وبضمنها العربيه وكل ماعليكم عمله هو ان تعملوا كوبي وبيست لعنوان الويبسايت المراد ترجمته في المكان المعني ومن ثم تحديد اللغه التي تريدون ترجمتها اليه كأن يكن العربيه :-

http://translate.google.com/manager/website/add?hl=e
ولقد حولت وعلى موضوع الاخ الكريم زيطه الفورم بصيغة الوورد دوكيومنت لتسهيل الموضوع وكذلك ليتمكن اكبر عدد من الاخوه الزوار والاعضاء من الفورم ولنا الشرف في ان نكون خدام لكل طيب لان في ذلك الاجر من الله سبحانه وتعالى وبفضل الدعوات الطيبه المباركه من الجميع لنا ولكم وللجميع بالفرج القريب
 
-- لو تجري جري الوحوش غير رزقك ماتحوش --
-- واحدنا مثل عود البخور ..يحترق ومايطلع منه غير بس ريحة المسك والعنبر --

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي

عاشت ايدك اخي سنكل
بالنسبه لترجمتها على الكوكل فاذا تبعثلي الويبسايت فبامكاني ترجمته وغير عن ذلك قبامكانك عمله وكالتالي
 فهذا اللينك الذي يحوي الترجمه لاي ويبسايت من اي لغه بالعالم الى اي لغه تريدينها وبضمنها العربيه وكل ماعليكم عمله هو ان تعملوا كوبي وبيست لعنوان الويبسايت المراد ترجمته في المكان المعني ومن ثم تحديد اللغه التي تريدون ترجمتها اليه كأن يكن العربيه :-

http://translate.google.com/manager/website/add?hl=e
ولقد حولت وعلى موضوع الاخ الكريم زيطه الفورم بصيغة الوورد دوكيومنت لتسهيل الموضوع وكذلك ليتمكن اكبر عدد من الاخوه الزوار والاعضاء من الفورم ولنا الشرف في ان نكون خدام لكل طيب لان في ذلك الاجر من الله سبحانه وتعالى وبفضل الدعوات الطيبه المباركه من الجميع لنا ولكم وللجميع بالفرج القريب
 
شكرا اخي العزيز سباركي على تعاونك ويانا انت دائما سباق في فعل الخير
انا حاولت على الاربط الي دزيته الي و ما عرفتله يريد مني اسوي اكاونت  و نا ما اريد اسوي اكاونت
بالنسبة للويب سايتات ما حافظها عندي انا اتصفح و شكو شي الكاه مفيد انزله هنا و بعد ما اتذكر من وين جبته  الا بعض الشغلات احفظها عندي بس هاي المعلومات الاخير جبتها من مكان غير قابل للنسخ و الكتابة جانت صغيرة كلش فلكيت هاي الفقرات المفيدة و نقلتها
لكن انا ما عندي مترجم كوكل على المتصفح مالتي لكن بامكان اي من الاخوة اي يترجم اي شي عن طريق كوكل اذا عنده بس الفقرات الاخيرة انا راح اترجمها بعد شوية
تحياتي

غير متصل امل الوصول

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 840
  • الجنس: أنثى
  • ياربي تحمي اولادي وعائلتي من كل شر
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
الله يساعدك اخي المحترم سنكل مان و منور الموضوع صغيرة قبل الجبيرة مقصرت و الله يبارك بيك ويسهل سفرك وسفرنا .
ربي اشرح لي صدري ويسر لي امري

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
راح انطيكم ترجمة ملخصة عن النقاط الثمانية
بالنسبة للنقاط الاربعة الاولى
ombudsman s case assistance process
helping individuals and employers reslove problems with USCIS
individuals and employers can request the ombudsman s assistance by taking the following steps
STEP 1 fill out and sign form DHS 7001,case problem submission worksheet,which allows the ombudsman s office to share confidential information with USCIS
STEP 2 include on form DHS 7001 all USCIS receipt numbers related tothe application or petition
STEP 3 make copies of important docdumentationsuch as
A- paperwork submitted to USCIS
B-  documents received from USCIS .and
C-  any other documentation important to the applicant or petition
STEP 4  submit the signed form DHS 7001 and any related documentation to the ombudsman s office by on of the followin
الخطوة الاولى: املاء و توقيع الاستمارة 7001 التي تسمح لدائرة المظالم لمشاركة المعلومات مع دائرة الهجرة
الخطوة الثانية: الاستمارة 7001 تتضمن الارقام الي تم استلامها سواء رقم ال IZ او رقم الa file ههذا المقصود من هاي الارقام
الخطوة الثالثة: نسخ من الوثائق المهمة مثل ورقة قرار التاجيل و الى اخره من الوثائق
الخطوة الرابعة: ارسال الاستمارة و الوثائق الى دائرة المظالم عبر الايميل او الفاكس او اون لاين
هاي ترجمة مختصرة للمقصود من كلامهم للخطوات الاربعة الاولى
هسه نجي للخطوات الاربعة الثانية
after receiving a request for assistance,the ombudsman office
STEP 1  acknowledges receipt of the inquiry
STEP 2  reviews the inquiry to make sure that we are able to help
if we are not able to help we may provide information to the customer on the appropraite government office to contact
STEP 3  if we are able to help,the ombudsman office
A-  researches USCIS databases for current status of the application or petition
B-  identifies customer issue s
C-  reviews laws,regulations,policies,and procedures
D-  makes a recommendation to the appropriate USCIS field office or headquarters office on how to reslove the case
E-  follows up with USCIS until the issue is resolved
STEP 4   ensures the individual or employer is contacted with the result of the inquiry and current status of the application or petition
بعد تصفح الاستمارة و الطلب من قبل دائرة المظالم راح تسوي الخطوات التالية
الخطوة الاولى: دائرة المظالم تقوم بارسال اشعار الى المتقدم بالطلب انه تم استلام الاستمارة
الخطوة الثانية: راح يتصفحون الطلب و يدرسوه حتى يتاكدون انهم قادرين على المساعدة و اذا هم غير قادرين على المساعدة ربما يقومون بارسال معلومات الى المتقدم بالطلب  بخصوص دائرة اخرى بامكانها مساعدته حتى يكدر يتصل بيهم
الخطوة الثالثة: اذا دائرة المظالم قادرة على المساعدة راح تتخذ الاجراءات الاتية
1- راح يبحثون بالداتا بيس مال دائرة الهجرة حتى يشوفون حالة الملف شنو
2- تحديد المشاكل الي يواجها الملف
3- يقومون بدراسة القوانين و المعالجات
4- راح يسوون توصيات الى دائرة الهجرة في كيفية حل مشاكل الملف
5- راح يتابعون وي دائرة الهجرة الى ان المشكلة يتم حلها
الخطوة الرابعة : التاكد انه صاحب الطلب راح يتم الاتصال بيه لاعلامه بالنتيجة و حالة الملف


غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
زبدة البحوشة ;D
اخواني اخواتي الاعزاء كسر بجمع العملية كالاتي
اول ما يدز الشخص الاستمارة راح يتصفحوها و يتصفحون بقية الوثائق و بعدما يتأكدون كلشي تمام راح يدزون اشعار الى صاحب الطلب انه تم استلام الاستمارة مالتك بعدها من خلال رقم ال IZ او رقم ال A file لصاحب الطلب راح يدخلون على الداتا بيس مال الهجرة حتى يشوفون شنو وضع الملف و شنو المشاكل الي يعاني منها بهالاثناء اذا شافوا يكدرون يساعدون بالقضية راح يدزون كيس نمبر لصاحب الطلب مع اشعار مثل اشعار ال 45 يوم و طبعا هي مو 45 يوم كاملة و انما كحد اقصى لان على الاغلب دا يسووها خلال اسبوعين او ثلاثة
المهم خلال هاي ال 45 يوم راح يسوون دراسة على الملف من ناحية المشاكل الي بالملف و شنو سبب تاخيره و بنفس الوقت راح يدرسون القوانين المناسبة و بعدها راح يسوون توصيات بكيفية معالجة الملف و من ثم ارسالها الى دائرة الهجرة
هنا من يدزون الدراسة و التوصيات الى دائرة الهجرة راح يدزون رسالة الى صاحب الطلب انه تم ارسال ملفك الى دائرة الهجرة و سوف يتم الرد عليه خلال فترة اقصاها 60 يوم
طبعا الدراسة مثل ما كلنا تتضمن توصيات بكيفية معالجة الملف و تسريعه و دائرة الهجرة راح تقوم بدراسة توصيات دائرة المظالم و متابعتها و راح يقومون باعطاء النتيجة لدائرة المظالم خلال ستين يوم و دائرة المظالم بدورها راح تعطي النتيجة الى صاحب الطلب
تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
الله يساعدك اخي المحترم سنكل مان و منور الموضوع صغيرة قبل الجبيرة مقصرت و الله يبارك بيك ويسهل سفرك وسفرنا .
اهلا و سهلا بيج اختي العزيزة
ربي يحفظج و يحفظ اولادج و يسهل عليكم و تسافرون
شكرا عل الدعاء اختي العزيزة
تحياتي

غير متصل sparky

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 2166
  • الجنس: ذكر
  • || الدين النصيحه ||
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
    • --الدين النصيحه --
سلمت الانامل التي نقلت كل هذه التفاصيل
كفيت ووفيت يابطل - سنكل مان -
-- لو تجري جري الوحوش غير رزقك ماتحوش --
-- واحدنا مثل عود البخور ..يحترق ومايطلع منه غير بس ريحة المسك والعنبر --

غير متصل عيني بعين الله

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 146
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
حبيبي السنكل مان المحترم

جازاك الله خير الجزاء

يا رب ينصرك و يحميك و يسرع سفرك

اخوك

ابو محمد

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي

سلمت الانامل التي نقلت كل هذه التفاصيل
كفين ووفيت يابطل - سنكل مان -
بالخدمة اخي العزيز سباركي

غير متصل question

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 309
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
شكرا على المعلومات اخ single man بس ردت اسال لمن  يروح لدائرة الهجرة يطلع من التجييك الامني ؟
طبعا انته رفعت روحنا المعنوية

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
شكرا على المعلومات اخ single man بس ردت اسال لمن  يروح لدائرة الهجرة يطلع من التجييك الامني ؟
طبعا انته رفعت روحنا المعنوية
الشكر لله اختي العزيزة
من يروح الملف لدائرة الهجرة حسب توصيات دائرة المظالم المفروض تتم معالجة اي مشكلة مأخرة الملف سواء من ناحية دائرة الهجرة او من ناحية التجييك الامني او من ناحية iom
يعني المفروض حتى التجييك الامني يصير عليه تسريع و اعطاء نتيجة خلال فترة وجيزة
تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
حبيبي السنكل مان المحترم

جازاك الله خير الجزاء

يا رب ينصرك و يحميك و يسرع سفرك

اخوك

ابو محمد
شكرا الك اخي العزيز

غير متصل question

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 309
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
شكرا على المعلومة او بارك الله بيك الله يسهل امورك ويسرع ملفك وتسافر عن قريب ان شاء الله

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
شكرا على المعلومة او بارك الله بيك الله يسهل امورك ويسرع ملفك وتسافر عن قريب ان شاء الله
شكرا جزيلا على الدعاء

غير متصل INVISIBLE

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 215
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
اخي سنكل مان مشكور على مجهودك الله يبارك بيك
سؤالي هو كل واحد عنده كيس نمبر يكدر يملي الفورمة لو بس siv

تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
اخي سنكل مان مشكور على مجهودك الله يبارك بيك
سؤالي هو كل واحد عنده كيس نمبر يكدر يملي الفورمة لو بس siv

تحياتي
اخي العزيز على حد علمي هاي الاستمارة لجماعة iom و لحد الان ما شفت واحد من جماعة siv سواها و العلم عند الله
تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
بحوشة جديدة ;D
Urban Justice Center
Memorandum
To: IRAP
From: Writ of Mandamus Team, IRAP
Date: May 11, 2009
Re: Jurisdiction, Venue, and Duty Requirements of Potential Mandamus/APA Claim
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. What are the requirements for jurisdiction for a writ of mandamus or a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act for a delayed application for refugee status?
2. What are the requirements for venue?
3. Is the government lawfully required to adjudicate an Iraqi’s application for refugee status?
4. What is the standard of judicial review for claims of unreasonable delay in processing Iraqi refugee applications?
BRIEF ANSWERS
1. Subject matter jurisdiction for a writ of mandamus is found in district courts under the Mandamus Act and for the Administrative Procedure Act through federal question jurisdiction. If the claim of a non-discretionary duty is not patently without merit or wholly insubstantial, the court should have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.
2. Venue is governed by the general venue statute and in this case is limited to where the defendant resides. There is considerable precedent against construing the venue statute to allow a suit solely because the government has an office in a district.
3. Courts have not considered whether DHS has a duty to adjudicate refugee applications. However, courts have issued writs of mandamus compelling DHS to adjudicate naturalization applications that have been delayed due to security checks. When applied to the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act, which requires DHS to establish refugee processing mechanisms so that refugees can apply and interview for refugee status, the precedent could suggest that DHS has a duty to adjudicate applications within a reasonable time.
4. A refugee applicant must first demonstrate that DHS owes him a pre-existing legal duty to adjudicate his application, and that the delay in adjudication constitutes constructive finality and ripeness warranting judicial intervention. Although there is no apparent precedent for mandamus in a refugee case, analogous immigration cases suggest that periods of two and four years may constitute unreasonable delay.
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
BACKGROUND
In May 2007, Mr. an Iraqi citizen interpreter working for in Iraq, fled to with his family to Amman, Jordan due to a fear of persecution stemming from his association with the United States mission in Iraq. In June 2007, Mr. registered with the UNHCR in Jordan. In August 2007, he was referred to the IOM, the United States government’s overseas processing entity for refugee applications in Jordan. Between August 2007 and February 2008, IOM prepared Mr. Registration for Classification as Refugee (form I-590) on the basis that he had entered Jordan as a refugee in May 2007. USCIS interviewed Mr. in connection with his application on February 3, 2008 in Amman, Jordan. In March 2008, Mr. and his family underwent a medical examination. In April 2008, Mr. received a letter from USCIS stating that their decision regarding his application was deferred pending verification of documents presented in his interview and his security review. In August or September 2008, IOM contacted Mr. and told him to prepare for travel to the United States. However, in October 2008, IOM contacted Mr. and said that he had to undergo another security review. At the request of IOM, Mr. attended a three-day orientation session beginning on October 28, 2008 for refugees being resettled to America. Since that date, Mr. and his attorney have made multiple inquiries about the status of his case. According to Ms. , who responded to an e-mail inquiry on March 19, 2008, the SAO was requested on September 26, 2008, but it has not yet cleared. On March 12, 2008, Mr. and his attorney filed a Case Problem Submission Worksheet (form DHS-7001) with the USCIS Ombusdman’s Office. In an undated letter, received by Mr. attorney on April 8, 2009, the a representative of the USCIS Ombudsman’s Office indicated that Mr. case was delayed pending security reviews by agencies outside of USCIS and DHS.
ANALYSIS
I. Jurisdiction
In the United States, the common law writ of mandamus has been codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1361. This provision explicitly provides the district courts with original subject matter jurisdiction over such writs, stating simply: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Although some courts have conflated the jurisdictional test for mandamus with an evaluation of the merits,1 subject matter jurisdiction is a separate issue. The test should be whether the petitioner’s “claim is plausible enough to engage the court’s jurisdiction,”2 and courts have applied the test used in the Supreme Court case Bell v. Hood to determine whether the court had jurisdiction.3 The test holds that “where a complaint in federal court is so drawn as to seek recovery
1 See Ahmed v. Department of Homeland Security, 328 F.3d 383, 386 (7th Cir. 2003), for a discussion of the distinction and examples of cases conflating the two. See also, American Immigration Law Foundation, Practice Advisory: Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case, Aug. 15, 2005, http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_081505.pdf.
2 Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 387.
3 323 U.S. 678, 628-683 (1946); See Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-7 (“Unless the claim is so frivolous that it fails the Bell v. Hood test, the district court has jurisdiction under § 1361 to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the court must entertain the suit, except: (a) where the alleged claim appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, or (b) where it is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”4 While the APA does create a cause of action, it does not independently create subject matter jurisdiction.5 The Supreme Court has held that 28 USC § 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction to claims under the APA.6 Courts have applied the same Bell v. Hood standard to APA cases, finding jurisdiction under § 1331 where the claim is not “patently without merit.”7 Additionally, courts have interpreted the APA with rules of statutory construction favoring judicial review: “First, congressional intent to limit federal jurisdiction, generally, must be clear and convincing in order to preclude judicial review. Second, there is a general presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative acts. Lastly, we ordinarily resolve ambiguities in favor of the aliens and find jurisdiction to hear the grievance.”8
In suits attempting to compel the government to adjudicate an application for lawful permanent resident status, the government has invoked 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) as a statutory bar to jurisdiction. The relevant portion states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory) . . . no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . (ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security . . . .” Refugee processing falls within the relevant subchapter and grants broad discretion to the Attorney General: “*T+he Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion and pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, admit any refugee who is not firmly resettled in any foreign country, is determined to be of special humanitarian concern to the United States, and is admissible (except as otherwise provided under paragraph (3)) as an immigrant under this chapter.”9 However, courts have drawn a distinction between an agency’s discretion to make a decision and a discretionary authority to
relief have been satisfied.”); Coal Operators & Assocs., Inc. v. Babbitt, 291 F.3d 912 (6th Cir.2002); Griffith v. Bell-Whitley Community Action Agency, 614 F.2d 1102, 1105 (6th Cir. 1980).
4 Madler v Artoe, 494 F.2d 323, 325 (1974 7th Cir.)
5 See Califano v. Sanders 430 U.S. 99, 107 (1977).
6 Califano, 430 U.S. at 105; see also Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 891 n.16 (1988) (“*I+t is common ground that if review is proper under the APA, the District Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331”).
7 See Kim v. Ashcroft, 340 F.Supp.2d 384, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
8 Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492, 496-97 (7th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). See also, Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 84, (2nd Cir. 2008) (“In determining whether a suit can be brought under the APA, ‘*w+e begin with the strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action.’) (quoting Bowen v. Mich. Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986))
9 INA § 207(c) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)). In Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, The 11th Circuit held that decisions as to whether or not to admit refugees outside the United States are not subject to judicial review. Id. at 1505 (“Contrary to the extensive procedures provided for with regard to aliens within the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1157, which applies to refugees seeking admission from outside the United States, makes no provision for judicial review. Section 1157, as amended, gives the Attorney General discretion, within numerical limits, to permit refugees who are overseas to immigrate to the United States. No judicial review is provided for. The extensive procedures set out in section 1252(b) and the procedures for judicial review provided for pursuant to section 1105a, along with the absence of procedures for judicial review provided in section 1157, demonstrate a Congressional intent to preclude judicial review at the behest of aliens beyond the borders of the United States.)
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
withhold or otherwise delay adjudication.10 Absent a specific statutory grant of discretion in regards to timing, courts have held that the reasonableness of the delay may come under judicial review.11 Moreover, courts have held that the inaction or delay does not constitute a “decision or action” on an immigration matter, thereby falling outside of Section 1252(a)(2)(B).12 Additionally, at least one court has read Section 1252 as applying solely to orders of removal.13
Jurisdiction in mandamus cases for decisions made overseas has also been challenged based on the doctrine of consular non-reviewability.14 Because a refugee applies to the consulate and a consular official will have a role in the decision on whether to grant refugee status, it could be argued that the doctrine applies in this case. The doctrine of consular non-reviewability is “well-settled in established principles of national sovereignty… *w+ere the rule to be otherwise, federal courts would be inundated with claims of disappointed and disgruntled off-shore aliens seeking review of consular officers' denials of their requests....”15 However, in the context of visas, which consulates issue, courts have drawn a distinction between delays in issuing visas and an appeal of a substantive decision.16 As the court in Patel v. Reno writes, “Normally a consular official's discretionary decision to grant or deny a visa petition is not subject to judicial review. However, when the suit challenges the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision taken within the consul's discretion, jurisdiction exists.”17
In sum, determining jurisdiction for a writ of mandamus or claim of unreasonable delay under the APA in this case closely parallels the initial argument on the merits over whether DHS has a statutory duty to adjudicate an application or whether it is purely discretionary. As discussed below, there is evidence that supports finding a duty and the complaint should pass the standard of not being “wholly insubstantial or frivolous” or “patently without merit.”
II. Venue
Venue for writs of mandamus is not addressed separately from other civil actions, but instead falls under the general district court venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This section states:
10 See, e.g., Zhou v. FBI, 2008 WL 2413896 at *3 (D.N.H.) (“Nothing in the INA explicitly commits the pace of adjudication to the discretion of the Secretary or explicitly gives the Secretary discretion to withhold adjudication. Accordingly, the pace of adjudication is outside the reach of the jurisdictional bar.”); Duam v. Zamberry, 2007 WL 626116 at *2 (W.D.Pa.) (“Although the speed of processing may be “discretionary” in the sense that it is determined by choice, and that it rests on various decisions that Defendants may be entitled to make, it is not discretionary in the manner required by the jurisdiction-stripping language of *8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)+.”)
11See, e.g., Zhou 2008 WL 2413896 at *3, Duam v. Zamberry, 2007 WL 626116 at *2.
12See, e.g., Elhaouat v. Mueller, 2007 WL 2332488 at *2 (E.D.Pa.) (“In other words, an agency hasn't taken a discretionary action (or made a discretionary decision) by not acting.”)
13 See Debba v. Heinauer, 2009 WL 146039 (D.Neb.) (“Because § 1252 concerns orders of removal, this Court does not interpret § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) as limiting judicial review of any of the Attorney General's duties under the INA except those involving orders of removal. Dr. Debba's case does not involve an order of removal, but a delay in the review of his application for adjustment of status.”)
14 See e.g. Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1998); Raduga USA Corp. v. U.S. Department of State, 440 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1147-48 (S.D. Cal 2006); Doan v. INS, 990 F.Supp. 744, 746-47 (E.D. Mo. 1997).
15 Doan 990 F.Supp. at 1147 (quoting Romero v. Consulate of United States, Barranquilla, Colombia, 860 F.Supp. 319 (E.D.Va.1994)).
16 See Patel 134 F.3d at 932-33; Raduga 440 F.Supp.2d at 1149.
17 Patel 134 F.3d at 931-32.
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.18
Such actions may also be joined with other actions per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as if the United States were not a party. Because the plaintiff resides outside the United States, no property is at issue, and there is no available evidence pointing to events taking place in the United States, the case will have to rely on the defendant’s residence to provide proper venue. DHS and USCIS have their headquarters in the District of Columbia, so venue is proper there. However, DHS and USCIS have offices throughout the country, including in Connecticut, leaving open a possibility of joining the local office and suing within the 2nd Circuit. Whether venue is proper depends on how the court interprets the residence requirement. There seems to be support for a broad understanding of the residence requirement in the Supreme Court case, Stafford v Briggs, where the Court wrote: “An officer of the Government while so employed may have numerous mandamus-type suits naming him or her as a party. Without doubt, under § 1391(e), venue lies in every one of the 95 federal districts, and suits may be pending in a dozen or several dozen at any one time. Even though the burden of defending multiple suits while in office may be onerous, the United States Attorney in each of the districts and the Department of Justice carry that burden.”19 However, neither the Supreme Court nor lower courts have held that the presence of a government office suffices to provide residency under the statute. Although the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has not ruled on the issue, several cases in district courts within the 2nd Circuit have held against a broad understanding of government residence.20 The court in Hartke stated, “The venue statute was not intended to permit forum-shopping, by suing a federal official wherever he could be found, or permitting test cases far from the site of the actual controversy. The statutory reference to the district in which a defendant “resides” may not reasonably be construed to include every district where some subordinate has an office.”21 Courts in other circuits have also ruled that the venue statute should not be construed to permit a government agency to be sued wherever it has offices.22 The American Law Reports entry on the construction and application of 28 U.S.C.A. §
18 28 U.S.C. 1191(e) (2006).
19 444 U.S. 527, 544 (1980).
20 See, e.g., Caremark Therapeutic Services v. Leavitt, 405 F.Supp.2d 454, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“A federal agency does not reside in a district merely by virtue of having an office in that district.”) Davies v. Defense Logistics Agency, 825 F.Supp. 105 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (“I find no reason to contort the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) to require that a federal agency be deemed to reside in a judicial district with which it has no other contact other than the fact that a regional office operates there.”); Hartke v. FAA, 369 F.Supp. 741 (E.D.N.Y. 1973).
21 Hartke 369 F.Supp. at 746.
22 See Superior Oil Co. v. Andrus, 656 F.2d 33 (3rd Cir. 1981) (“We believe there is a fundamental distinction between the terms ‘resides’ and ‘may be found’”); Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. v. FTC, 580 F.2d 264, 267 (7th Cir.
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
1391(e) cites only to the Hartke case as evidence that government agencies must be sued where they are headquartered unless the case qualifies under one of the other venue prongs.23 Therefore, while there is no explicit bar to claiming venue for this case in the 2nd Circuit under the general venue statute, there is scant support in case law to use against a motion to transfer venue. The benefits of bringing in the claim in the 2nd Circuit must be weighed against the possible costs and the likelihood of transfer.
III. Duty
As noted above, a writ of mandamus will only issue if the agency is found to have a “duty owed to the plaintiff.”24 The relevant section of the APA states: “The reviewing court shall—(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”25 Although the use of “or” implies that any action unreasonably delayed may be compelled, in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Supreme Court wrote, “*T+he only agency action that can be compelled under the APA is action legally required. This limitation appears in § 706(1)'s authorization for courts to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld.”26 In a footnote, the Court continued, “Of course § 706(1) also authorizes courts to ‘compel agency action ... unreasonably delayed’-but a delay cannot be unreasonable with respect to action that is not required.”27 Therefore, in order to succeed under the APA or have a writ of mandamus issue DHS must be found to have a statutory duty to adjudicate a refugee’s application within a reasonable time. The test for determining a whether a writ of mandamus should be issued is conceptually similar to the test for APA relief so courts do not perform a separate analysis for each.28 The INA’s broad grant of discretion to the Attorney General, “*T+he Attorney General may, in the Attorney General's discretion and pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, admit any refugee….,” makes it virtually impossible to locate a mandatory duty. 29 However, the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act uses more direct, compulsory language: “The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish or use existing refugee processing mechanisms in Iraq and in countries, where appropriate, in the region in which (1) aliens described in section 1243 [of this note] may apply and
1978) (“To hold that a federal agency can be sued Eo nomine wherever it maintains an office would, as a practical matter, render subsections (2), (3), and (4) superfluous.”) Kings County Economic Community Development Association v. Hardin, 333 F.Supp. 1302, 1303-04 (N.D. Cal. 1971) (“The wording of § 1391(e) would indicate that the government is now deemed to be ubiquitous . . . all that really need be done to sue in any district in the United States is to name as “a defendant” a subordinate departmental official residing there . . . .This Court is unwilling to so interpret § 1391(e). Venue . . . is in nearly all areas of the law limited to districts which have some contact with the parties or subject matter involved in the action.”).
23 Jean F. Rydstrom, Construction and Application of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(e) Providing for Venue and Process in Civil Actions Against Federal Officers, Employees, or Agencies, 9 A.L.R. Fed. 719 (originally published in 1971, updated weekly).
24 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
25 5 U.S.C. § 706
26 542 U.S. 55, 63 (2004).
27 Id. at n.1.
28 See, e.g., Burni v. Frazier, 545 F.Supp.2d 894, 903 (D. Minn. 2008) (“As a preliminary matter, this Court finds, as have other courts, that analysis of jurisdiction and relief under the Mandamus Act and APA is coextensive, and that there is no need to perform a separate analysis under the two acts”); Aslam v. Mukasey, 531 F.Supp.2d 736, 742 (E.D. Va. 2008) (“*A+ suit to compel agency action under the APA is conceptually similar to a petition for mandamus based on agency delay.”).
29 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c).
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
interview for admission to the United States as refugees.”30 Section 1243 indicates that “Iraqis who establish to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that they are or were employed in Iraq by … (B) an organization or entity closely associated with the United States mission in Iraq that has received United States Government funding through an official and documented contract, award, grant, or cooperative agreement” are among the intended beneficiaries of the statute.31 Unlike the original INA, which provided only that the Attorney General may allow refugees to enter, the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act requires DHS to ensure that specific Iraqis can apply and interview for refugee status. To allow for DHS to withhold a decision indefinitely runs counter to the statute’s purpose to alleviate the refugee crisis and aid specific subsets of Iraqis like those who were affiliated with the U.S. mission. Based on the above, a duty to adjudicate an application is best located in the Iraqi Refugee Crisis Act. The existing refugee applicant processing regulations are as follows:
(a) Forms. Each applicant who seeks admission as a refugee shall submit an individual Form I-590 (Registration for Classification as Refugee). Additionally, each applicant 14 years old or older must submit completed forms G-325C (Biographical Information) and FD-258 (Applicant Card).
(b) Hearing. Each applicant 14 years old or older shall appear in person before an immigration officer for inquiry under oath to determine his/her eligibility for admission as a refugee.
(c) Medical examination. Each applicant shall submit to a medical examination as required by sections 221(d) and 234 of the Act.
(d) Sponsorship. Each applicant must be sponsored by a responsible person or organization. Transportation for the applicant from his/her present abode to the place of resettlement in the United States must be guaranteed by the sponsor.32
Although the statutes and regulations do not explicitly state that DHS must adjudicate an application or provide a time frame for adjudication, an Executive Branch agency, in the absence of a particular time frame, courts have held agencies to the APA’s standard of reasonableness.33 The APA
30 Pub.L. 110-181, § 1242 (emphasis added).
31 Pub.L. 110-181, § 1243.
32 8 C.F.R. § 207.2. The other regulations cover eligibility, waivers of inadmissibility, approved applications, waiting lists and priority handling, control over refugee numbers, derivatives of refugees, physical presence in the United States, and termination of refugee status. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 207.1 – 207.9.
33 See, e.g., Aslam. 531 F.Supp.2d at 743 (“The INA mandates no particular time frame in which the Secretary must complete his review of adjustment of status application. Nevertheless, as an agency of the Executive Branch, the Department of Homeland Security is subject to the catchall time requirement of the APA.”). But see Burni 545 F.Supp.2d at 903-04. Although the court decides to “*join+ a growing number of district courts in concluding that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate adjustment of status applications once they have been submitted and that the APA requires the applications to be adjudicated in a reasonable time,” they acknowledge that “*d+istrict courts
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
standard states: “With due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.”34 Although there is no direct precedent to cite for a mandamus/APA action for refugee processing, the naturalization cases provide support for such a duty: “CIS simply does not possess unfettered discretion to relegate aliens to a state of 'limbo,' leaving them to languish there indefinitely. This result is explicitly foreclosed by the APA."35 And as the district court in Elhaouat v. Mueller noted, “Norton did not hold, however, that the presence of a specific time frame was sine qua non for a Section 706(1) action. And as the Court has repeatedly emphasized, imposing such a requirement would effectively nullify the APA's overarching imperative that agencies conclude matters presented to them within a reasonable period of time.”36 Based on the precedent from naturalization cases, the requirements of the APA arguably make adjudication of a refugee’s application within a reasonable time a statutory duty.
IV. Standard of Review
1. Legal Basis for Reviewing Unreasonable Delays
The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) empowers a reviewing court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); see also 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (“With due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it”). This judicial discretion is limited by doctrines of “finality” and “ripeness.” The former doctrine stems from the APA, which only permits review for “final agency action” or where otherwise permitted by statute. 5 U.S.C. § 706. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, it generally requires that reviewed decisions “mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and result in “legal consequences.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997). The latter doctrine, meanwhile, requires that the court weigh “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967). While these doctrines normally limit the review of agency action that has not yet completed the decision-making process, the D.C. Circuit has asserted that, “At some point administrative delay amounts to a refusal to act, with sufficient finality and ripeness to permit judicial review.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hardin, 428 F.2d 1093, 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1970). Precisely when this occurs appears to be at the discretion of the court, in invoking the above tests.
Upon a finding of constructive finality and ripeness along these lines, a court may review the timeliness of the agency’s response and at times compel a decision or urge expedition. The D.C. Circuit has previously described this authority as follows:
around the country are split on the issue of whether jurisdiction lies to entertain a claim for failure to timely adjudicate an adjustment of status application.”
34 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (emphasis added).
35 Kim. v. Ashcroft, 340 F.Supp.2d 384, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); see also Young Tang v. Chertoff, 493 F.Supp.2d 148, 150 (D. Mass. 2007) (“The duty to act is no duty at all if the deadline is eternity.")
36 2007 WL 2332488 at n.10 (E.D. Pa.).
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
[W]hen delay is extremely lengthy or when exigent circumstances render it equivalent to a final denial of petitioners' request, . . . the court can undertake review as though the agency had denied the requested relief and can order an agency to either act or provide a reasoned explanation for its failure to act. When agency recalcitrance is in the face of a clear statutory duty or is of such magnitude that it amounts to an abdication of statutory responsibility, the court has the power to order the agency to act to carry out its substantive statutory mandates. . . . And even when agency delay or recalcitrance does not rise to a level that justifies either of the above courses, [the APA] empowers the court to evaluate the pace of the agency decisional process and to order expedition if the pace lags unreasonably.
Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 740 F.2d 21, 32 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (citations and quotations omitted).
However, in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 545 U.S. 55 (2004), the Supreme Court unanimously established a high threshold for the two latter forms of relief. The Court indicated that these APA provisions were simply intended to codify existing standards for writs of mandamus, and thus should be interpreted in light of the requirements that such writs only be issued to compel a “precise, definite act . . . about which *an official+ had no discretion whatever” under the original statutory authority. Id. at 63 (citations and quotations omitted). Consequently, the Court finds that “a claim under [5 U.S.C.] § 706(1) can proceed only where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take. These limitations rule out several kinds of challenges.” Id. This same limitation similarly applies to situations of delay, as the Court maintains that “a delay cannot be unreasonable with respect to action that is not required.” Id. at n.1.
Combined, these doctrines yield two high thresholds that a plaintiff must pass before they can challenge agency inaction or delay. First, under Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, they must identify a pre-existing legal obligation outside of the APA that requires them to eventually act on the pending decision (though not necessarily within a specified timeframe). Second, once they identify this underlying obligation, the plaintiffs must establish that the delays they have experienced are egregious enough to justify constructive finality and ripeness and warrant the court’s intervention, either to review and expedite the agency’s decisionmaking process or to compel the agency to make a decision.
2. Demonstrating Unreasonable Delay
While determining whether or not a given delay passes the standard necessary for a writ of mandamus—as required under Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance above—remains largely at the discretion of the court, the D.C. Circuit provided a set of factors that warrant consideration in Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984), derived from its prior precedent on delays and related issues of review. Therein it stated the following:
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
Although this court has decided several cases involving claims of unreasonable delay, we have not articulated a single test for when the writ should issue. On reading these cases together, however, one can discern the hexagonal contours of a standard. Although the standard is hardly ironclad, and sometimes suffers from vagueness, it nevertheless provides useful guidance in assessing claims of agency delay: (1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a rule of reason; (2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason; (3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; (4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority; (5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and (6) the court need not find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.
Id. at 79-80 (citations and quotations omitted). The central element of this test is the “rule of reason” described in the first factor, which has been described as a means of ensuring that “the interests of regulatory beneficiaries can be protected from the adverse effects of delays in agency action.” Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Commissioner, FDA, 740 F.2d 21, 32 (D.C. Cir. 1984). These adverse effects have been described in Potomac Electric Power Co. v. ICC: “excessive delay saps the public confidence in an agency's ability to discharge its responsibilities and creates uncertainty for the parties, who must incorporate the potential effect of possible agency decisionmaking into future plans.” 702 F.2d 1026, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Factors two, three, and five arguably are factors that aver against a finding of reasonableness, on the basis of a statutorily required timeframe, associated risks to human welfare, and the interests of the applicants. Factor four avers in favor of a finding of reasonableness by encouraging the court to evaluate the other compelling interests facing the agency. Factor six rules a particular requirement—impropriety by the agency—as either a necessary or sufficient factor for establishing unreasonable delay.
A cursory survey of precedent that has invoked this standard reveals no cases related to refugee applications. However, there have been a number of cases filed by individuals applying for permanent resident status or other immigration-related status adjustments who have been held up for a significant period by security clearances and background checks. These are reasonable analogies to the situation faced by refugee applicants—particularly because the security checks involved are similar to those required for refugee status, see Daraji v. Monica, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76205 (E.D. Pa. 2007), at *3 n.2—and thus may inform evaluations of the unreasonableness of delay in their applications. In one recent case, Daraji v. Monica, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4288 (E.D. Pa. 2008), the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania surveyed several recent decisions on the matter, and found that a number of
Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
courts applying the TRAC v. FCC standards to residency status cases have found a delay of two years to be “presumptively unreasonable.” Id. at *15. The District Court for the District of Columbia came to a similar conclusion in Liu v. Novak, 509 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2007), regarding a four year delay in another plaintiff’s application for permanent residency. In that case, the court interestingly maintained that the government’s failure to provide information favoring a finding of reasonableness under TRAC v. FCC factor four was determinative in its conclusion. See id. This appears to represent a shift in the burden for persuasion away from the plaintiff and towards the government once the former establishes a case against reasonableness.
3. Application to Mr. Case
In the case at hand, Mr. seems well suited to make an argument against reasonableness under the TRAC v. FCC test given the twenty month delay in his application for resettlement. Under the first factor’s “rule of reason,” the interests of Mr. and his family are clearly suffering from the government’s delay, as it inhibits them from relocating out of Jordan or seeking better conditions elsewhere while his application for resettlement is pending. While there is no statutorily mandated timeline for completion to fall under factor two, the fact that Mr. is disabled and that he and his family are living in near-destitute conditions without access to many basic social services strongly argues against a finding of unreasonableness on the basis of human welfare concerns under factor three. And the exceedingly limited legal rights provided to Mr. and his family remain in Jordan effectively compromises any number of his interests, providing ample basis for satisfying factor five. And while there is insufficient evidence to launch an allegation of impropriety under factor six, the government has publicly provided little to no information under factor four regarding what impact expediting Mr. file will have on its other institutional interests. While this case may on its face seem a strong one, it is weakened somewhat by the fact that most relevant and analogous precedent addresses delays of significantly greater length, from two to four years. That said, the fact that Mr. and his family are facing far worse conditions than the typical applicant for permanent residency may aver in favor of a slightly lower duration requirement for unreasonable delay in his case.
That said, the high threshold issues of finality, ripeness, and an underlying legal obligation face major obstacles to Mr. case. While a case can be made under the first two considerations that the hardship faced by Mr. and his family warrant findings of constructive finality and ripeness, there appears to be a limited statutory basis upon which he can rest an argument that the government has an underlying legal obligation to complete his application. (This topic is addressed in a companion memorandum.) While Mr. has the makings of a reasonable—if not strong—case under conventional doctrines of unreasonable delay, an inability to identify such an obligation would likely prevent it from ever reaching court

غير متصل ** AL SHAEEA **

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3236
  • الجنس: ذكر
  • رأس الحكمــــــــة مخافــــــــــــــــة اللـــــه
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
تعيش اخي single man  وبارك الله بيك



قال الله تعالى: (وَمَنْ يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَلْ لَهُ مَخْرَجاً*وَيَرْزُقْهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لا يَحْتَسِب )

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
بحوشة جديدة ;D
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 1 Overview of the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (Ombudsman’s Office), established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, assists individuals and employers in resolving problems with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The Ombudsman’s Office addresses individual case inquiries and recommends ways to fix systemic issues to improve immigration services.1
The Ombudsman’s Office is:
• Independent. The Ombudsman’s Office is an independ¬ent office within Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters that reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of DHS. It is not a part of USCIS.
• Confidential. The Ombudsman’s Office treats informa¬tion received from stakeholders and customers as con¬fidential. It does not disclose such information without prior consent.
• Impartial. The Ombudsman’s Office works in an im¬partial manner to improve USCIS’ delivery of immigra¬tion services.
Case Assistance
Individuals and employers seek case assistance from the Ombudsman’s Office by submitting Form DHS-7001, Case Problem Submission Worksheet. The Ombudsman’s Office evaluates the case matter, legal authorities, and selected USCIS electronic information systems, and then may make a rec¬ommendation to USCIS to resolve the matter. See Figure 1: Ombudsman’s Office Case Assistance Process.
During the April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 reporting period, the Ombudsman’s Office opened 3,247 case inquiries.
Systemic Issues
The Ombudsman’s Office identifies systemic issues through:
• Individual complaints and requests for case assistance;
• Discussions with applicants, petitioners, employers, non-governmental organizations, including community and faith-based organizations, and immigration profes¬sionals; and
• Information received from USCIS and other government officials.
The Ombudsman’s Office may then make formal recommen¬dations to the USCIS Director. By statute, USCIS must respond in writing within 90 days to such formal recommendations.
In addition to issuing formal recommendations, the Om¬budsman’s Office utilizes informal channels to monitor many areas and help shape developments. Among the issues the Ombudsman’s Office addressed with USCIS during the reporting year were stakeholder concerns about relief for victims of the earthquake in Haiti; national training needs

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
عاشت ايدك اخي على المعلومات,عندي سوال حسب معلوماتك ومعلومات الاخوة الي يشاركون بالموضوع اني حابه اقدم على الفورمه لاختي هي بسوريا واني في اميركا هل استطيع ان اذكر بالفورم اني استطيع التكفل بكل طلباتها بعد ان اشرح الوضع الصعب الي ديمرون به في سوريا وهل من معلومات يمكن ان اضيفها بالفورم تساعد في تحريك ملفهم
اهلا و سهلا بيج اختي العزيزة
اختي الكريمة اكو طريقتين بالتقديم على هاي الاستمارة
الاولى اون لاين و هاي انتي تكدرين تسويها لاختج بس بصراحة ما اعرف شلون لكن حتى اذا سويتيها اون لاين لازم يرجعون يدزون ايميل لاختج يدزولها الفورمة حتى توقعها يعني ما سوينا شي
فالطريقة الثانية افضل و هي انه اختج ترسل ايميل بيه الفورمة و موقعتها بالاضافة الى قرار التاجيل و لكن بالنسبة للستيتمينت بما انه اختج ضعيفة بالانجليزي انتي اكتبيلها الستيتمينت و دزيه الها بيصغة بيدي اف حتى ترسله وي المرفقات
الطريقة بكتابة الستيتمينت اول مرة تذكرين شوكت قدمت و شلون و تواريخ المقابلات و الفحصوصات يعني فد نبذة عن التقديم و بعدين تشرحين التاخير من الاي او ام و شنو جوابهم الها و بعدين تشرحين معاناتها و التهديد الي تعرضتله بالسابق و انه ظروفها صعبة و الى اخره و انه تطلبون من دائرة المظالم انه تعالج الملف
بامكانج الرجوع الى موضوع الاخ زيطة راح تلكين نموذج بكيفية املاء الاستمارة ضروري جدا تتاكدين من انه الحقول املائها يكون صحيح
الاستمارة غير قابلة للخزن بعد املائها يعني لازم تمليها و رأسا تنزليها على ورق و بعدين اختج توقع عليها و تسويلها سكان بصيغة بي دي اف
ملاحظة مهمة لازم من ترسل الايميل تكتب كليشة مرتبة انه هي بسوريا و ليس بامكانها تقديم الاستمارة اون لاين لانه الموقع ما يفتح
هاي الملاحظة كلش ضرورية حتى يفهمون و يقبلون الاستمارة
تحياتي

غير متصل نيوتن

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 641
  • الجنس: ذكر
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
عاشت ايدك اوبارك الله بيك وان شاء الله السفر القريب
عندي سؤال اكو واحد قدم الفورمة 7001 او صار تغيير بملفه

نيوتن 103 بغداد

غير متصل Sound of Soul

  • اداري
  • عضو مميز متقدم
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 13023
  • الجنس: أنثى
  • اردت العيش كما تريد نفسي فعاشت نفسي كما يريد زماني
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
    • http://www.ankawa.com/forum/index.php/board,53.0.html


مجهود يستحق الاشادة
عاشت ايدك اخونا سنكل مان
تحياتي
ساوند .

http://www.ankawa.org/vshare/view/10418/god-bless

ما دام هناك في السماء من يحميني ليس هنا في الارض من يكسرني
ربي لا ادري ما تحمله لي الايام لكن ثقتي بانك معي تكفيني
http://www.ankawa.com/forum/index.php/topic,603190.0.html
ايميل ادارة منتدى الهجرةsound@ankawa.com

غير متصل Sound of Soul

  • اداري
  • عضو مميز متقدم
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 13023
  • الجنس: أنثى
  • اردت العيش كما تريد نفسي فعاشت نفسي كما يريد زماني
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
    • http://www.ankawa.com/forum/index.php/board,53.0.html


تم تثبيته في فهرسة المواضيع المهمة
http://www.ankawa.com/forum/index.php/topic,603190.0.html


http://www.ankawa.org/vshare/view/10418/god-bless

ما دام هناك في السماء من يحميني ليس هنا في الارض من يكسرني
ربي لا ادري ما تحمله لي الايام لكن ثقتي بانك معي تكفيني
http://www.ankawa.com/forum/index.php/topic,603190.0.html
ايميل ادارة منتدى الهجرةsound@ankawa.com

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
عاشت ايدك اوبارك الله بيك وان شاء الله السفر القريب
عندي سؤال اكو واحد قدم الفورمة 7001 او صار تغيير بملفه

نيوتن 103 بغداد
اخي الكريم بغض النظر عن اذا واحد صار عنده تطور او لا لحد لان ما شفنا و لا رسالة بعد رسالة الستين يوم
لكن يقال انه الاخ تمكين حصل عنده تطور و استلم رسالة
لكن هم خل افيدك بشغلة
دائرة الهجرة شبه ملزمة بمعالجة الملف خلال فترة الستين يوم حسب توصيات دائرة المظالم و بعد الستين يوم لازم تنطيهم نتيجة
تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
شكرا جزيلا اختي العزيزة ساوند على تثبيت الموضوع
تحياتي

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
هذا رسم توضيحي عن كيفية معالجة الملف بدائرة المظالم هدية الى الجماعة الي مقدمين على الاستمارة 7001  ;D
تحياتي

غير متصل mike67

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 617
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
    • البريد الالكتروني
 ياجماعة الخير
 اني دزيت الاستماره 7001 يوم 18 / 3 /2013 واليوم اجاني ال اي زت نمبر وكالولي انه راح يدرسون الملف مالتي
 وراح ينطوني الجواب خلال 60 يوم


 طبعا شكري للاخ زيطه لان هو الي ساعدني بارسال الاستماره

 واطلب من الاخ سنكل مان ابداء الراي فيما يتعلق بحالة ملفي  مع الشكر الجزيل مقدما

     تحياتي
     مايك67

غير متصل single man

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 3043
  • اللهم صل على محمد و ال محمد
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
ياجماعة الخير
 اني دزيت الاستماره 7001 يوم 18 / 3 /2013 واليوم اجاني ال اي زت نمبر وكالولي انه راح يدرسون الملف مالتي
 وراح ينطوني الجواب خلال 60 يوم


 طبعا شكري للاخ زيطه لان هو الي ساعدني بارسال الاستماره

 واطلب من الاخ سنكل مان ابداء الراي فيما يتعلق بحالة ملفي  مع الشكر الجزيل مقدما

     تحياتي
     مايك67

اهلا و سهلا بيك اخي العزيز
مبروك على الكيس نمبر
هسه امورك تمام
بس فترة ال 45 يوم صارت 60 بس اطمئن خلال 45 توصلك رسالة الستين يوم
تحياتي

غير متصل The Lost Soul

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 89
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
تحية للاخوه والاخوات المتواجدين وللذين يردون على تساؤلي كل المحبه .
في حال الرفض عن طريق منظمة IOM هل يؤثر ذلك على حالة التقديم الى SIV؟ علماً ان التحديث على الاجراأ ت الامنية لم تتم على ملفي منذ 9 اشهر؟
ارجوا الرد مع التقدير
تحية وتقدير للاخ SINGLE MAN مع احترامي للجميع .

غير متصل Leroy Jethro Gibbs

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 223
  • الجنس: ذكر
  • أتبكي وربك الله ؟
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
موضوع مفيد ورائع جدا



قبل أن تتفوه بأي كلمة غير لائقة , أعلم انك تتحدث بلسان ستة الالاف عام من الحضارة

غير متصل Baguncero

  • عضو مميز
  • ****
  • مشاركة: 1429
  • IOM Since 2008
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
أحترامي للأخ سنكل مان وللجميع
هذا 7001 طلع فاشوشي لأن جاوبوني قبل 8 شهور  انتة تحت التجييك الأمني ومنكدر كلشي نسويلك ولازم تنتظر
وهاي آني خشيت بالسنة السادسة تجييك أمني

شكرآ ولا تعبون نفسكم

غير متصل ميمي2010

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 2726
  • اللهم صلى وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه
    • MSN مسنجر - ma_iraq201111@yahoo.com
    • ياهو مسنجر - ميمي2010
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
اخواني بعد ما نملئ هاي الأوراق لأي عنوان نرسلها  ياريت الي عنده معلومة يفيدنه
اللهم صلى وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم
عدد حروف القرآن حرفا حرفا
وعدد كل حرف ألفا ألفا
وعدد صفوف الملائكة صفا صفا
وعدد كل صفا ألفا ألفا
وعدد الرمال ذرة ذرة
وعدد كل ذرة ألف ألف مر

غير متصل baghdad antigen

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 679
  • الجنس: ذكر
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
اخواني بعد ما نملئ هاي الأوراق لأي عنوان نرسلها  ياريت الي عنده معلومة يفيدنه

السلام عليكم اختي الكريمه .. الاوراق ترسل الى الايميل التالي :
 cisombudsman@hq.dhs.gov

و طبعا حبيت اذكرج انه اكو مكان توقيع بنهايه الورقه الثانيه مال الفورم لازم توقعون بي
اني بوكتها طبعت الفورم وقعتها و بعدين رجعت سحبتها سكنر
اتمنالك الموفقيه و السفر القريب باذن الله

غير متصل ميمي2010

  • مبدع قسم الهجرة
  • عضو مميز جدا
  • *
  • مشاركة: 2726
  • اللهم صلى وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه
    • MSN مسنجر - ma_iraq201111@yahoo.com
    • ياهو مسنجر - ميمي2010
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
مشكور اخويه العزيز على الأميل والتوضيح بارك الله بيك
وان شاء الله ربك يفرجها علينا جميعا
أختك ميمي
اللهم صلى وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم
عدد حروف القرآن حرفا حرفا
وعدد كل حرف ألفا ألفا
وعدد صفوف الملائكة صفا صفا
وعدد كل صفا ألفا ألفا
وعدد الرمال ذرة ذرة
وعدد كل ذرة ألف ألف مر

غير متصل baghdad antigen

  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 679
  • الجنس: ذكر
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
تدللين اختي العزيزه و ان شاء الله تفرج عليكم و نسمع بشارة سفركم باقرب وقت