Many people, desiring to save money, try to handle their immigration matters on their own. They may have a relative in the Philippines being processed for an immigrant visa, and when they have any questions, they call or email the National Visa Center (NVC) for advice and guidance on what to do and how to do it.
While the NVC can be very helpful in processing immigrant visa cases, it is important to remember that they are not your “attorney,” who can offer legal advice and/or represent you. In many cases, the public deals with the NVC’s “contractors,” similar to people at a call center who can perhaps answer routine questions, but it is really not their role or function to offer legal advice or represent you.
I know of many people who relied on the NVC in connection with their immigration matter, but later on, their visa was refused. For example, in one case, the family e-mailed the NVC, pointing out that one of their children was “aging out,” and seeking assistance or guidance in connection with the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). The NVC e-mailed back, acknowledging the inquiry, and advising that the case was “currently under review for applicability of the Child Status Protection Act”.
Thinking that the NVC was acting on the case, the family sat back and waited for further word. Unfortunately, the CSPA requires that if a child is eligible, the child must “seek to acquire” a visa within one year. That is accomplished by the filing of certain documents within one year of visa availability. But, because the family was relying on, or waiting for, the NVC’s further action, they did nothing else, and that year went by. The child was ultimately refused a visa because the child did not “seek to acquire” the visa within one year. The State Department stated that e-mailing the NVC for assistance was not enough to satisfy the requirement.
Another person e-mailed the NVC about “opting–out” of the automatic conversion provisions (when the petitioner naturalizes), enabling the person to remain in the faster F-2B category (single child of immigrant), vs the slower F-1 category (single child of a US citizen). While the NVC acknowledged the e-mail, nothing further was done. Years later, the visa was issued in the F-1 category, rather than F-2 B. However, one of the derivative children had “age out,” but would have been eligible under the CSPA, if the family had properly accomplished the opt-out provisions. Again, the State Department stated that the proper way to “opt out” was to file a request with the Department of Homeland Security, and that inquiries and questions to the NVC were not enough.
My point is that if you want legal advice, it is always best to consult an attorney. The various governmental agencies are not there to provide legal advice and/or represent you. Furthermore, if you sit back and wait for a government agency’s advice, deadlines may be missed, and the government may not recognize your reliance on its advice as excusing you from compliance with the law.
For the people who were trying to “save money” by seeking “free” advice from the NVC, how do they now explain to their children who were left behind that they really got their money’s worth? If you have a legal problem, seek legal advice from an attorney.
* * *
Michael J. Gurfinkel is licensed, and an active member of the State Bar of California and New York. All immigration services are provided by, or under the supervision of, an active member of the State Bar of California. Each case is different. The information contained herein including testimonials, “Success Stories,” endorsements and re-enactments) is of a general nature, and is not intended to apply to any particular case, and does not constitute a prediction, warranty, guarantee or legal advice regarding the outcome of your legal matter. No attorney-client relationship is, or shall be, established with any reader.
WEBSITE: www.gurfinkel.com
Call Toll free to schedule a consultation for anywhere in the US:
(866)-GURFINKEL
Four offices to serve you: LOS ANGELES · SAN FRANCISCO · NEW YORK · PHILIPPINES
