【转载】多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check

avatar 735
ciz
16596
4

哥前两天返签“又”被 Check 了,由于时间紧张哥不淡定的到处找相关资料,最后终于找到一份有意义的材料,拿来跟地里的哥们姐们 share share。

等哥龙过了,哥要再讨论讨论中信返签被 Check 后来又要求面谈的亲身案例。

转自 rrurl.cn

基本:F1 学生 Check 一次四年有效。

Stephen A. Edson 的 Testimony(原文中的链接已经失效):

rrurl.cn

相关 Media Notes:rrurl.cn

另外一份相关文档:05 年的 GAO, p.15

rrurl.cn

====================

发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa

标 题: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-序
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 09:28:55 2010, 美东)

事情过去两周了,应签友要求,写写经过,罗哩罗嗦,回馈本版。

abstract:
在多伦多返签F1被check,经过2天斗争申述,推翻check决定,马上领到签证。同时解
救一批同在多伦多被check的同胞。申述的根据是F1学生check一次4年有效。

introduction
F1,第一次去多伦多返签。2005,2007,2009在中国返签过3次,最近一次是2009年1月
在成都被check。

因为check一次管4年,所以这次应该在Toronto不用再被check。保险起见,还带了DOS
那些check一次管4年的文件。没想到还是3.22号在Toronto被check了。当时据理力争,
差点
跟VO吵起来,VO死活不理,说check一次管4年对别人有效,但是对中国人没效。最后差
点被保安拖出了。

回来后,越发感觉倍受侮辱,于是给总统办公室,副总统办公室,国务卿办公室,DOS
总部,美国驻ottawa大使馆,美国驻toronto领事馆,包括我所在州的senator,
congressman写信抗议,抗议DOS的规矩没有被执行,抗议受到不该有的国籍歧视。

Toronto的总领事迫于压力,在check当天下午开始回信,语气友好,但是态度坚决,说
check有理,说check就是对中国人只有1年有效。我据理力争,引用DOS领导和发言人记
录,而且抓住Toronto总领事前后矛盾之处狠批,最后Toronto总领事取消check,通知
马上取visa,耗时2天。

后来得知,几位同期在toronto被check的F1签友,只要是过去4年check过的,也同时被
取消在toronto的check了。算是攒rp了。

把这些经历写下来,希望对后来的同胞们有用,也希望这次之后,Toronto领事馆能够
严格遵守check一次管4年的规定。我也攒攒rp。

--

※ 修改:·potala 于 Apr 9 15:01:26 2010 修改本文·[FROM: 165.123.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 68.83.]


发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa
标 题: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-1.被check
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 09:30:37 2010, 美东)

summary:

F1返美,一年前被check,现在又被check。详情见后。

3.22多伦多返签F1.两个签证官,一白女8号窗口,一黑女5号窗口,都大概二三十的样
子。我是在白女手上被check。

上来简单问了是不是F1,F1第几年,然后就要resume,publication,school letter,
advisor letter,research description, transcript。很详细的要,就是不说其他。

我意识到要被check,忙提醒说去年才被check,
她说,知道,但是已经一年之前的事情了。
我忙说,我有Department of State的信,check一次管4年,
她说: but it depends on your nationality.
然后撕黄条,说需要administrative review,要送到华盛顿。
我继续argue,说check一次管四年,同时想把打好的DOS信塞进窗口,
白女态度很坚决,说不用看,this is final decision。
我接着argue,能不能问问你的advisor,
白女不理,说advisor来了决定也一样,不用见advisor。
然后我开始求情,说三周之后就要去欧洲开会了,万万使不得啊,
白女说generally we don't recommend buying tickets before you get your
visa.
然后白女威胁说你再argue就叫保安了。
然后俺就出来了。

感觉身为chinese被歧视和羞辱,愤怒。

--

※ 修改:·potala 于 Apr 9 10:01:24 2010 修改本文·[FROM: 165.123.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 165.123.]


发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa
标 题: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-2.我要申述
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 09:31:26 2010, 美东)

回来后详细查了DOS关于check一次管4年的规定,完全跟国籍无关。原文是这么写的:

"International students (F visas) who have received a Visas Mantis clearance
and been issued a visa will benefit from having that clearance be valid for
up to the length of the approved academic program, to a maximum of four
years."

搞清楚了check管4年的规定与国籍无关,觉得理直气壮了,决定申述。

申述的第一个问题是,向谁申述。
VO已经吵过了,VO的advisor也不愿意见我,
干脆就向VO的advisor的领导,也就是Toronto总领事去申述吧,
希望上级的压力能改变VO的决定。

后来一想,既然都找领导了,
那一不做二不休,
干脆找领导的领导,领导的领导的领导,领导的领导的领导的领导。
靠,who怕who,要搞就搞大。

既然是慰问领导,我就慰问了以下一些大大小小的领导同志:

...美国总统Obama办公室
...美国副总统Biden办公室
...美国国务卿Clinton办公室
...美国国务院办公室(office of Department of State)
...美国驻Ottawa大使馆
...美国驻Toronto总领事馆
...宾州参议员Senator Specter and Senator Casey
...宾州众议员Congressman Brady

有来信问这些领导同志的email地址,我都是网上google的。

--

※ 修改:·potala 于 Apr 9 10:02:15 2010 修改本文·[FROM: 165.123.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 165.123.]


发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa
标 题: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-3.申述信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 09:32:55 2010, 美东)

我问候领导的方式很原始,就是一封email,标明urgent,
对于领导同志,我都没有群发,
而是一一问候,
表明一个普通纳税人对各级领导的关怀。

Email Title:
Urgent:Help Correct A Mis-Initiated Mantis Check

Email contont:

Hi, Dear President/Secretaty of State/US Embassodor in Ottawa,

A Mantis check for F-1 visa applicant is supposed to be valid for 4 years,
but we had experienced a second Mantis check within 13 months. So we are in
urgent need of your kind help to correct this mis-initiated Mantis Check at
the US Consulate General in Toronto, Canada.

My wife and I are both international students studying in the Ph.D. program
of Department of XXXXX at the University of XXXX. We have been holding F1
visas since the first time we entered US back in 2004.

This morning (Mar.22 ), our F-1 visa renewal applications at the US
Consulate Generate in Toronto, Canada were suspended for Mantis checks.
However, our last Mantis checks was just cleared a little than 1 year ago (
at the US Consulate General in Chengdu, China), and that Mantis clearance
was supposed to be valid for up to 4 years, as long as we stay in the same
academic program, which we do.

For your reference I have quoted the DOS regulation below (copied from 2001-2009.state.gov):

"International students (F visas) who have received a Visas Mantis clearance
and been issued a visa will benefit from having that clearance be valid for
up to the length of the approved academic program, to a maximum of four
years."

So, could you please overview this Mantis check initiated in US Consulate
General in Toronto this morning? Can you possibly correct the unnecessary
Mantis check initiated this morning?

I have enclosed our information here:

Applicant 1:
Name: Potala
Nationality: China
Passport No.: G123456
DOB: **/**/****
Visa Category: F-1
Renewal Application Date: 03/22/2010
Renewal Application Site: US Consulate General in Toronto, Canada
Batch of Visa Office: 657

Applicant 2:
Name: Potala's wife
Nationality: China
Passport No.: G654321
DOB: **/**/****
Renewal Application Date: 03/22/2010
Renewal Application Site: US Consulate General in Toronto, Canada
Batch of Visa Office: 657

Thank you very much!

Sincerely yours,
Potala and Potala's wife

--

※ 修改:·potala 于 Apr 9 10:01:37 2010 修改本文·[FROM: 165.123.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 165.123.]


发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa
标 题: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-4.辩论第1轮
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 09:35:49 2010, 美东)

跟多伦多总领事的辩论总共2轮,开始他坚称check没有错,到最后立即取消了check。

我把这两轮的信都列出来。

第一轮: 多伦多总领事的回信:

Dear Mr. Potala,

The U.S. Embassy in Ottawa forwarded the below email to my attention for a
response.

We are unable to provide the requested relief because the administrative
review that was initiated on your March 22, 2010 application is legally
mandated.

While the information to which you refer below is correct for most
applicants, the controlling regulation on how long a clearance is valid for
nationals of China, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria limits the maximum length
of a clearance to match that of the maximum length of a visa that may be
issued to a national of China, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria.

According to the Department of State Reciprocity Table, the maximum length
of an F-1 visa for a national of China is 12 months. Accordingly, the
validity of the last clearance you received expired on 29 January 2010. Our
Consulate had no discretion on submitting your application for
administrative review.

As advised at the interview, we will notify you when we receive a response
indicating that we may resume processing on your application.

Regards,
AAAA BBBB

Acting Consular Chief
U.S. Consulate General Toronto
_____________________________________________
Sensitive Privacy Act
This email is UNCLASSIFIED_____________________________________________

首先,信是从DOS forward到了Ottawa,再从Ottawa forward到了Toronto,然后才有多
伦多的总领事出面。
直接发给多伦多领事馆的信廖无音信。
找领导还是管用的~

然后,总领事上来就是说条款对中国人无效,而且把中国人跟伊朗人古巴人等同。
这个是明显的误读或者没有读DOS条款。
往大说,就是执法犯法。
是在国务院的规定下另起炉灶,搞地方主义,

我决定逮住这条往死批,
而且,更重要的是,
要在各级领导面前往死批,
你一个小小总领事,还有没有王法了,
还把不把国务院的规定,国务院的各级领导放眼里了?

下面是我的回信。

Hi,
Dear Officers in US Embassy in Ottawa and US Consulate General in Toronto,
Dear DOS officers,

Thanks for your forward of my message and your response.

However, I cannot accept the following explanation from US Consulate General
in Toronto. According to DOS, The valid period for a Mantis check is 4
years for all F and J visa holders. Now there is suddenly a new, unannounced
policy specifically in US Consulate General in Toronto, saying that the
Mantis check is only valid for 1 year for citizens of China, Cuba, Iran and
other countries (see their explanation in the previous email below).

Where does this new unannounced local policy come from? There is no such a
policy in DOS’ webpage or document, nor even from the webpage of US
Consulate General in Toronto. Otherwise if we were informed of this policy
anywhere, we should have not come to Toronto at all. The only information we
were informed is that it is valid for 4 years for any F-1 international
student, from the DOS spokesman and the webpage from the following resources
.

rrurl.cn
rrurl.cn

We therefore strongly reject the new, unannounced, local policy in Toronto
and ask them to respect the DOS policy that each Mantis clearance is valid
for 4 years, without nationality discriminations.

I will continue to bring this issue to the attention of DOS and Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton.

Thanks,
Potala

--

※ 修改:·potala 于 Apr 9 10:01:41 2010 修改本文·[FROM: 165.123.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 165.123.]


发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa
标 题: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-5.辩论第2轮
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 09:39:21 2010, 美东)

第一回合揪住toronto总领事对DOS规定的误读,往死批。
而且在各级领导面前死批。

从他回信看,效果很明显。

第二轮:多伦多总领事的回信:

Dear Mr. Potala,

Please note that the notice you cite below is from a statement from the “
Office of the Spokesman” issued in 2005. It is not a U.S. regulation.
Consular officers around the world are bound by the same U.S. laws and visa
regulations. We do not have specific regulations applicable to Toronto
applicants only.

The message from the “Office of the Spokesman” cited below related to
processing of a certain category of advisory opinion as it existed in 2005.
Even so, the regulation governing processing of Mantis clearances advised
that a Mantis clearance can be valid for up to 48 months, not that the
clearance definitely is valid for 48 months. Each case is individually
reviewed, and processing must be conducted in accord with the requirements
for that application. A clearance will not remain valid if any of the
information about the applicant has changed in the intervening period.

I do note that the previous email contained information regarding the period
of visa validity vice the period of clearance validity. In my haste to
provide a timely response, I inadvertently included unrelated information.
I apologize for any confusion or frustration this may have caused.

We note that you applied for your nonimmigrant visa on March 22, 2010. The
request for an administrative review was submitted that same day. We are
hopeful that we will have a timely response on your application.

Regards,
AAAA BBBB

Acting Consular Chief
U.S. Consulate General Toronto

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

从回信看,
总领事态度软化,
承认先前对DOS规定的解读中附加国籍是不对的,
并且用外交辞令道歉。

但是总领事还是死不悔改,不愿意取消check。
他开始狡辩。
狡辩的根据不外乎是两个:
一个是,这个东西是DOS的发言人的一次发言,根本不是DOS的规定。
另一个是,这个东西出现在2005年,现在不一定有效。

好,又是一系列大大的破绽:

第一,
你先前说,条款是DOS规定,但是跟国籍相关;
现在又说,条款跟国籍无关,但是不是DOS规定。
这个诡辩逻辑很好很强大,
需要在总领事的各级头头面前尖锐指出。
你们执法人员,堂堂总领事,说话有谱没谱?!

第二,
你既然很傲慢,对DOS的发言人的代表发言不当回事,
那好,哥们儿给你来个猛药,
哥们手上有DOS visa office的managing director在某年某月在国会听证会的证词,
你不拿发言人当回事,总不能不拿managing director当回事吧?
而且managinig director就在我cc的一堆领导中。

第三:
你口口声声这个东西2005年的,现在不一定有效,
又是一个很好很强大的诡辩逻辑,
宪法1787年的呢,现在照样有效,
这个2005年的规定,现在没有任何新规定推翻它或者修改它,为啥不能有效?
你们执法人员难道就是这个素质?!

我的回信:

Dear Consular Chief,

Thanks for your timely response. I strongly disagree with your
interpretation of the DOS policy, so I would like to follow up this
discussion and cc the following officials and/or offices:

US President Barack Obama
US Vice President Joe Biden
US Sectary of State Hillary Clinton
Director of Visa office of DOS Stephen Edson
Office of Spokesman of DOS
US Embassy in Ottawa
US Ambassador Michael Wilson in Ottawa, Canada
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter
Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey
Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha

Dear Consular Chief, you have admitted that you have provided unrelated
information that caused confusion and frustration. It’s not only “
unrelated”. It’s wrong and non-exist information, it’s mis-interpretation
of DOS regulation. To better respect DOS regulation, please read it more
carefully once again. For your convenience, I have copied this DOS
regulation below:

“International students (F visas) who have received a Visas Mantis
clearance and been issued a visa will benefit from having that clearance be
valid for up to the length of the approved academic program, to a maximum of
four years”

Here are evidences to show why you are wrong and why the March 22 2010
Mantis check is mis-initiated.

1. The validity of Mantis clearance is NOT dependent on nationality. Your
main reason and the visa officer’s main reason for sending my application
to administrative review is that I am Chinese, so unlike citizens from other
nations, my Mantis clearance is only valid for 12 months. This is totally
WRONG! This is discrimination. This shows how irrespective you are of the
above DOS policy. Therefore, the decision of administrative review based on
your wrong interpretation was mis-initiated and should be relieved
immediately.

2. The above statement is not only from “Office of Spokesman” (2001-2009.state.gov), it is also from a Testimony of Stephen A. Edson, “Managing Director of Office of Visa Services” (travel.state.gov). More importantly, they are both public on the DOS webpage.

3. It is true that those testimony from Managing Direction of Office
of Visa Services and from Office of Spokesman were announced in 2005.
But that does NOT mean they are not effective today. We have many US
laws and policies that were initiated before 1900 and are still
effective today. The US constitution was announced in 1787 and is still
effective and well respected today.

4. DOS regulation is DOS regulation. You previous email admitted there
is such a DOS regulation about the validity of Mantis clearance, but you mis
-interpreted it is only 1 year for citizens from China, Cuba, Iran and
certain countries. After I have pointed out your mis-interpretation, you
started to deny there is a regulation regarding Mantis clearance in your
last email. Please be consistent and RESPECT this DOS regulation in a
correct way.

5. Please don’t play word game. There is no “is” or “may” in the
above DOS regulation. It is clear, unambiguous, and mandatory. Please read
it more carefully once again, and respect it!

6. So far I have provided evidence that my 2009 Mantis clearance should
be valid for 4 years. All evidence I have provided are from DOS official
webpage. But I haven’t seen any evidence from you to support the mis-
initiated Mantis check on March 22, 2010.

Once again, I request your respect of the DOS regulation and immediate
relief the mis-initiated Mantis check initiated on March 22 2010 in Toronto.

I will continue pasting all our conversations to the DOS contact page and to
the office of State Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Thanks,
Potala

--

※ 修改:·potala 于 Apr 9 10:01:46 2010 修改本文·[FROM: 165.123.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 165.123.]


发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa
标 题: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-6.取消check
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 09:39:52 2010, 美东)

前面一轮申述,加上两轮辩论,
在上至总统,国务卿和国务院的各级领导面前,
把toronto总领事的执法犯法,出尔反尔狠狠批了两通。

在第二回合的去信之后不到2小时,
我们收到email通知,check取消,带上护照去取visa。

取到visa一看,check clear的时间还是上次2009年在成都那次
这个也反应确实是check 被多伦多方面取消,而不是华盛顿方面clear。

几天之后,得知同一时期被check的签友,也收到check被取消的通知
而且check clear也是用的上次在中国那次的时间
rrurl.cn

算是攒了人品了。
希望多伦多领事馆以后能够严格遵守check一次管4年的规矩。
这样我的申述斗争就能为更多签友造福。

--

※ 修改:·potala 于 Apr 9 10:01:56 2010 修改本文·[FROM: 165.123.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 165.123.]


发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa
标 题: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-感想
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 09:41:31 2010, 美东)

被迫做了刁民,申述斗争见了成效。不少感想,罗嗦几句:

1. 关于check一次管4年到底是不是DOS规定

尽管DOS发言人(2001-2009.state.gov)和Visa office的managing director (travel.state.gov)都说了 check一次管4年。但是,客观的说,

第一,这个不是成文的硬性规定;
第二,即使它是个规定,VO也还是有最后决定权的,他高兴怎样就是怎样,DOS赋予了
他们这样的权力。

所以,这个check一次管4年的东西还是有很多争议的。

在我的申述中,我对这条规定的坚持也只是辅线,主线则是狠批多伦多这个总领事所表
现的业务不熟,前后矛盾,以及上纲上线的说他对DOS规定对DOS领导不尊重。我觉得是
主线起了作用,可能是toronto总领事被说服了,可能是在领导面前太尴尬了,也可能
被我彻底恶心到了~

2. 申述

申述是有用的,当正当权益受到侵害的时候,当VO大人高高在在,对我等小人物的命运
为所欲为的时候,哀求没有用,忍让没有用,斗争才管用。没人愿意当刁民,我也是被
逼的。

我也试着解释我急着要visa,急着用visa去签欧洲,没有用。白人的游戏规则,不斗争
,不伤着他的切身利益,他是不会关切别人的切身利益的。白人的mercy也就是挂在嘴
边说说而已,知道感恩节来历的人都应该了解。

斗争当然有规则。态度一定要坚决,斗争嘛,不上真刀真枪,难道请客吃饭?不过真刀
真枪归真刀真枪,还应该满脸堆笑,sorry, thank you,please等礼貌用语话不离口
,无他,显示educated而已,比较和谐。

斗争还有策略。白人的长处是滔滔不绝,口若悬河,随处展开,以侃晕制胜。在英语环
境下,这不是我的长处。白人也有短处,正因为随处展开,滔滔不绝,以致往往逻辑混
乱,前后矛盾,言多必失。而逻辑正是我等PhD民工的长处。以己之长供他人之短。静
观其变,让你随处展开,逮着逻辑漏洞,坐实了,踩死了,穷追猛打,其实是可以跟白
人(普通白人)争一争的。

3. 申述到上级部门应该是有用的,但慎用。

扯远了,该打住了。
当有一天,一个中国本科生甚至高中生签证官可以随便刁难美国PhD,随便拒绝他进入
中国平顶山煤矿大学读书的要求的时候,我真的好想申请去做几天中国驻美国签证官。
绿卡还要照申,美元还要照拿,但是真的希望这一天早点到来。

--

※ 修改:·potala 于 Apr 9 10:02:26 2010 修改本文·[FROM: 165.123.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 165.123.]


发信人: potala (天涯宝贝), 信区: Visa
标 题: Re: Re: 多伦多F1返签,申述2天后取消check-感想
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 9 12:44:25 2010, 美东)

是的,是个模糊地带,有的VO执行4年有效,有的VO说中国人只有1年有效,其实VO是有
最终决定权的,所以他怎么说怎么算。

可以argue,但是有风险,前面有人提到,如果当场argue太厉害了,会惹怒VO,瞬间从
check变成拒签。

我的案例算个例。

【 在 LamborghiniA (westwood) 的大作中提到: 】
: 的確這個是不成文的規定
: 去年我在香港也被告之這個文章不過是一個提議 他們自己的工作手冊/指導 里面有說
: 中國公民check valid 一年
: 對于check 可以請求VO 做的就是讓他給你的check更高的priority 可以大大縮短時間
: ,所以會看到同一天check的不同時間clear 比如最快的在一個禮拜以內

--

※ 来源:·BBS 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 165.123.]

  • 4
4条回复