Daily Archives: August 17, 2021

26,500: Total Number of Principal Afghan SIVs For Issuance After 12/19/2014 Per FY2020 NDAA

August 17, 2021 By in Congress, Consular Work, Hotspots, Snapshots, State Department, Trends, U.S. Missions, US Embassy Kabul, Visas Tags: , , , ,

 

 

The State Department’s Press Briefing of August 16 is all about Afghanistan. Excerpt below on SIVs:

We have spoken to our effort on behalf of SIVs, so-called Special Immigrant Visa applicants. You ask why we didn’t – why we haven’t done more. Let me just offer a bit of context. Through the course of this program, the United States has resettled, brought to their new lives, more than 75,000 Afghans who have in various ways assisted the United States Government over the years. The Special Immigrant Visa program provides – well, as it was initially conceived and legislated by Congress, it provides a visa to the United States. When this administration recognized that the security situation was becoming – was quickly evolving, many weeks ago we launched Operation Allies Refuge. This was something that was never envisioned in any SIV program, including the one we had in Afghanistan or the one we had in Iraq; that is to say, a gargantuan U.S. effort not only to process, adjudicate, and to grant visas to these so-called special immigrants but to actually bring them to the United States with a massive airlift operation.

It’s been through that operation that 2,000 Afghans have been able to reach the United States. Most of those Afghans have now been able to start their new lives through resettlement agencies. Just – it was a month or so ago we recognized that the need could be even greater for Afghans who are vulnerable, who may be at risk. That is precisely why we initiated a so-called Priority 2, P-2 refugee status program that went beyond – beyond the statutory definitions of who could apply for and be eligible for the SIV program, to include those brave Afghans who not only have helped the U.S. Government over the years but have helped the American people.

We know that there are other vulnerable Afghans – some for the work they have done, some for the things they have said, some for nothing more than their gender – and we are also working and planning to bring as many as we can to safety.

Right now, we are, again, in the process of re-establishing control over the airport. The military has been able to surge resources and will surge additional resources to the theater to allow us to bring, on a large scale, a number of these Afghans who will be able to start new lives in the United States or who will be able to reach safety elsewhere in the world. We are committed to that. We have been flexible. We have been ambitious in our effort to do just that.

Note that FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act  (NDAA) amended the SIV program for Afghanistan and put a limit to the total number of principal Afghan applicants who could be granted a special immigrant visas after December 19, 2012 originally at 22,500. The Congressional Research Service indicates that the State Department has taken the position that the total number of SIVs available after December 19, 2014 is actually 26,500. That number matched the data provided by State to State/OIG when it reviewed the Afghan SIV program in 2020.
CRS also says that the FY2021 CAA, enacted on December 27, 2020, “rewrote the existing statutory visa cap language (which provided 22,500 visas) to authorize a new total of 26,500, an increase of 4,000 visas.”
According to the US Embassy Kabul Consular Section cited by State/OIG, it is common for an SIV applicant to have approximately five derivative family members (one spouse and four children) who qualify to receive SIVs.  If State has already issued 75,000 SIVs, approximately 15,000 principal applicants were already issued visas. Which means, there are 11,000 visas for principal applicants still available;  after that, Congress will need to fix the cap if it wants additional visas to be issued.

Sources: State/OIG/Review of the Afghan SIV 2020 and CRS Report June 21, 2021

 

###

 

United States Sends Help After 7.2. Earthquake in Haiti

August 17, 2021 By in Americans Abroad, Disasters, Federal Agencies, Hotspots, Realities of the FS, State Department, U.S. Missions, USAID, WHA|Western Hemisphere Tags: , , , , ,

 

 

Related news:

 

 

D/Secretary Sherman Swears-in Jose Fernandez as Under Secretary For State/E

August 17, 2021 By in Functional Bureaus, State Department, Top Ranks, Under Secretary of State Tags: , , , ,

 

 

 

EEOC Reasonable Accommodation Case Gets Damage Award of $50K

August 17, 2021 By in Awards, Career Employees, EEOC, Functional Bureaus Tags: , , , ,

 

Via EEOC Appeal 2019003637 (June 16, 2020):
Commission Increased Award of Damages to $50,000.
The Agency found that Complainant was denied reasonable accommodation, and awarded him $2,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages.   The Commission increased the award to $50,000 on appeal.  The Commission found that Complainant’s pre-existing knee injury was aggravated when the Agency denied Complainant access to a closer parking lot and required that he walk up a steep hill to and from his building even though his work restrictions on file limited his walking and restricted him from climbing steep hills.  The Commission considered statements from Complainant’s wife and two coworkers, who indicated that Complainant’s behavior changed following the denial of accommodation.  These individuals noted Complainant was no longer a “happy-go-lucky guy,” had sleepless nights, became disengaged from his family, and was a “different person” after the discrimination.  The Commission concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support an award of $50,000, which was consistent with awards in similar cases.  The Commission affirmed the Agency’s denial of past pecuniary damages finding that Complainant had not provided any documentation to support his purported personal costs associated with the discrimination.  Lowell H. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal 2019003637 (June 16, 2020).
Details below from EEOC Appeal:

During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Motor Vehicle Operator, GS-8, at the Agency’s Operations Division in Washington, D.C.

On January 3, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency discriminated against him based on disability (torn left medical collateral ligament (MCL) in left knee, torn left rotator cuff and left toe)2 when:

1. Complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation;

2. on August 17, 2017, Complainant received a memo regarding disciplinary action;

3. on September 20, 2017, Complainant received a Letter of Warning; and

4. Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment, characterized by, but not limited to heightened scrutiny regarding his requests for leave, inappropriate language, and yelling.

Complainant was diagnosed with these conditions following a December 17, 2016 work-related injury. The injuries restricted Complainant to driving no more than four hours a day, limited Complainant’s use of his left arm to handle luggage, and limited walking to no more than twenty-five feet (including no climbing of steep hills).

On November 7, 2018, following an investigation, the Agency issued a final decision concluding that Complainant had established a failure to accommodate his disability in connection with parking privileges, the approval of leave requests, and the issuance of a letter of warning. For relief, the Agency ordered, among other remedies, a supplemental investigation into his claim for compensatory damages.

On April 10, 2019, the Agency issued a final decision on compensatory damages. The Agency rejected Complainant’s request for $300,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages. Instead, the Agency awarded Complainant $2,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages. In reaching this amount, the Agency reasoned that Complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to support that he suffered any long or short term physical or mental harm due to being denied his preferred parking arrangement, denied consideration of his leave requests, or being issued attendance-related discipline. With respect to his parking assignment, the Agency noted that Complainant indicated that his parking assignment at Navy Hill “aggravated” his pre-existing knee injury, without explaining the extent or type of aggravation he experienced. The Agency also disputed Complainant’s claim that he missed “a few sessions of therapy,” and indicated that the Agency’s November 7, 2018 decision only determined that Complainant was denied leave for one medical appointment. Finally, the Agency indicated that Complainant’s request for $300,000 is more akin to a request for punitive damages, even though punitive damages are not permitted on a federal-sector complaint.

The Agency awarded $2,000 in nonpecuniary damages. We find, however, that that an award of $50,000 is more consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases.

###