A I

Sorry, if that was confusing.

You stated that the State Department table provided clear guidance to the officer. I understood it meant that the officer should have accepted the certificate as provided, since he did provide it, and it is listed in the table as being a valid birth certificate.

I was indeed replying to you, and asking you additional questions on this very subject, as I am now replying to you again. I did use the "quote" button correctly.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Unfortunately, your "understanding" has very little relation to what I wrote. I've looked over this thread very carefully. Actually, in one of your posts before I first posted in this thread, you do make one quite valid point -- but I found that it was buried in a lot of other stuff.

I may be a lawyer, but I am not the OP's lawyer. Also, not only am I not your lawyer, the OP's case is not even your case.

My points to OP are general in nature -- and they are meant to be so. The only specific point I noted was the Reciprocity Table from Kenya -- but this was derived from the general point of looking at those tables as a beginning of figuring out how to respond.

My second point is that RFE's are supposed to be individualized, but they are not. So the "boilerplate" gets in the way because it is not tailored to the individual situation.

ALL that I have told OP is the general information as noted above and that, as a general matter, her case is doable. I have not given specific advice.

Please do not read into my post things I have not said.

A I

Mmm... Something is off. I'm pretty sure I did not write that about myself , because I would never claim to be a lawyer, as I am not one.

Since the OP had a very specific question, and you took time to point him to the table, I expected it had a direct, specific relationship to his question, specially since his submitted document was listed in the table, as a valid birth certificate.

(Based on your answer I was wrong in my assumption that the advice was specific to his case. Thank you for letting me know.)

Since you are still making the effort to respond I'll take advantage and try to learn something by rephrasing one of my original question to see if it makes more sense, and asking it again:

Since he submitted the documentation required on the table, and the agent issued an boiler-plate RFE, as a lawyer, (on hypothetical case, not this one) I would think You would have to assume one of three things:

1) Officer did not like the Birth Cert, and is asking for more proof
2) Officer did not notice the Birth Cert and is asking for it as if it was not there.
3)Something else in which to base your answer to the RFE, but neither 1 nor 2.

If it was you with the case, which one would it be ?

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond.

ian-mstm

You seem to have a poor understanding of the language. The two bits you quoted are *not* related. Since the "valid point" had nothing to do with being a lawyer, it's up to you to figure out what the valid point was.


Give it up... Mr. F. usually doesn't "assume" anything!

Ian

A I

You are right, I give up. My point is that if I don't figure it out, the poster wasted his/her time replying, so why not state the point instead of expecting the intended recipient of the message to get some crypting response ?

I have found that some posters have to try very hard to get a straight specific answer out of some of the generic replies in the forum. I would offer this very one as an example.

Seems like some posters know the answer but refuse to provide it, and won't say why. I'm not saying this is the case, just my perception of many responses as I read way back into the archives.

Clearly my mistake for trying to get a straight answer and clarification out of a very generic reply. Won't happen again.

Folinskyinla

My dear [and favorite] sanctimonious prick:

Thanks for the support. To be honest, it took me years to take to heart the rule to not assume anything. It is OK to make educated guesses and suppositions -- but identify them as such since they may very well be wrong in a particular case.

You may recall my sometimes description of a "deceptively simple question" which is really quite complicated. Although OP stated that the Kenyan authorities "complicated" the issues, I think that it is CIS that "complicated" things by use of a "boilerplate" RFE. I have tried to uncomplicate the path for OP. I also gave some information to give to any lawyer she may consult with [in case they make certain assumptions just like I used to do].

BTW, in times past, an RFE in a case like OP's would have noted the Reciprocity Table language in question and the request would have been tailored to that. Unfortunately, as my colleague JCF has noted, we are currently in a situation of "RFE Hell" and OP has been caught up in it.

If OP had been my client, I probably would have caught the potential problem and addressed it in the initial filing. I'm willing to bet that in the current situation, I would still have received an RFE on that question. I would have then gnashed my teeth, briefly commiserated with JCF and then, in an exercise of anger management answer the damn thing as straight as I could. However, I would have set aside my response for two days so to give me time to edit out the nasty remarks that snuck into my draft and made it twice as long as needed.

To OP -- if you are still with us, I have not seen your paperwork but your description strikes me that your petition is not as hopeless as you seemed to think it was. Good luck.

ian-mstm

You're still fairly new in this forum, so I've got to tell you that once you've been here for a while, you'll notice that many of Mr. F.'s reponses are cryptic. I often want to bang my head against a wall attempting to decipher those responses. Indeed, on more than one occasion, I've specifically asked Mr. F. to just state his response clearly and without the cryptic mumbo jumbo! His replies, while always very polite, suggest that he is free to respond in any manner he wants... and that, above all else, he must not give the appearance of creating an attorney/client relationship. This, of course, explains why he very often says, "I may be a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer". Even the appearance of creating that relationship is sufficient to cause him to answer in only the most general terms - and when he wants to be more specific, he'll suggest you read some case study or something. I have come to appreciate that, like Mr. Spock, "it's his way" (James T. Kirk to Dr. Jillian Taylor - STIV:TVH).

Ian

Ohar

Yes, I am still with you. Thanks for your information and I am hopeful things will work out. I made couple of calls to the Kenya Embassy again and this time around they asked to make a request in writing and they'll get in touch with me after verifying with the local authority in Kenya about my documents. That might take couple of weeks but at least it is an attempt on their part- something I didn't have before. I'll keep you all updated on the out come. Once again, thanks.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

What document are you requesting from the Kenyan government? I have just reviewed this thread carefully. The only government document noted in the RFE language you quote in your first post is the very first post is about the unavailability of birth records.

Inasmuch as that particular language from the RFE does not apply to you as per the Reciprocity Table, it would help to clarify exactly what you are seeking from the Kenyan authorities. Are you seeking to have the Embassy "exemplify" the certificate you already have?

You might want to check with that lawyer to make sure you are getting the correct documentation from the Kenyan government.

Good luck.

Ohar

Hi,
Let me write exactly as it says on the RFI. "It appears that the birth certificate for the petitioner....., was a delayed registration. Submit evidence to substantiate this document. Examples of secondary evidence include but not limited to copy of a baptismal cert. or other supporting documentse.g medical and or/school record that shows the child's parent's name and the childs date of birth..."
I have my school records but there is no part that says parents information. I am requesting the Embassy to state that and also write a letter verifying my info on file ( DOB and my moms' name). Am I on the right track ? thanks.
Ohar

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Clue: look at what the Department of State says is necessary to have obtained the delayed B/C in the first place.

Second clue: RFE's are "boilerplate" and one size does NOT fit all.

Also, I seem to remember that you were 10 years old when your birth was registered. And that certificate says you were born in KENYA. Last time I looked Kenya is not part of the United States. A delayed birth certificate to show birth in Texas showing the baby was born at home with a mid-wife in attendance is one thing. Your situation is another.

See that lawyer.

A I

I'm going to take the liberty to help the OP by pasting in the Clue suggested by Folinskyinla:

Here it is from the Kenya table as it relates to Birth Certificates:
====
When a birth has not been registered, application may be made to the Registrar General for late registration of birth. If that office is satisfied with the evidence presented, late registration will be authorized and an official birth certificate can be obtained.
====

No specific documents at all listed, but rather "evidence presented", that is enough to "satisfy the office".

( In my layman read, Evidence could be testimony from Applicant, or video of the birth inside the New York Times press building, so the newspaper date can be seen in the video as it is being printed as proof of the day's date, or anything in between. As long as "the office" is satisfied and registers the birth. This meets my definition of VERY VAGUE.)

True, but at least the officer picked a boiler plate text that seems to have some relation to the evidence, since at least it refers to a Late Registration Birth Certificate.

I find the worst and most confusing RFEs to be the ones for evidence already submitted. They make you wonder if the officer read the file at all, or if some papers fell off the file somewhere on the way.

(Since the officer seems to have used some judgement in selecting the RFE, Since at least the text matches the case, My humble opinion to the OP: I would suggest this is indication that the officer wants to see what the RFE is asking for. Of course, your lawyer will provide a paid, and a more educated opinion)

Ohar

Thanks,
but you got me more confused....you're not been specific with your explanations!

ian-mstm

Mr. F. will *not* be specific with his explanations. Don't expect it. If you are unsure about what has been written here, then it's time for you to consult a lawyer.

Ian

Ohar

Thanks, I'll do so.