Tag Archives: State/CA

Snapshot: Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa Ineligibilities FY2020*

December 16, 2021 By in Consular Work, Immigration, Snapshots, State Department, U.S. Missions, Visas Tags: , , , , , ,

 

Via state.gov, partial stats on IV and NIV ineligibilities by Grounds for Refusal Under the Immigration and Nationality Act) Fiscal Year 2020*
The full document is available here (PDF).

3 Listed total ineligibility findings pursuant to the 2017 E.O. on Immigration are not directly comparable to refusal counts provided in the Department of State’s Quarterly/Monthly Report of Implementation of Presidential Proclamation (P. P.) 9645. Refusal statistics in the Quarterly/Monthly Reports do not include applications subsequently issued, and are reported cumulatively from December 8, 2017, the date of full P. P. 9645 implementation, through the end of the stated reporting period, rather than by fiscal year as in the table above. Counts of monthly new subject applications provided in the Quarterly/Monthly Reports include not only applications found ineligible on P. P. 9645-grounds, as above, but also those issued pursuant to an exception or waiver or refused on non-P. P. 9645 grounds. President Biden signed PP 10141 on January 20, 2021, ending the travel restrictions under P. P. 9645.

 

###

 

 

 

State/OIG Announces Review of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Program

December 10, 2021 By in Consular Work, NEA|Near East Asia, Oversight, SCA | South Central Asia, State Department, U.S. Missions, Visas Tags: , , , , , , ,
On December 7, 2021, an un-dated announcement tweeted by @StateOIG indicates that the Office of the Inspector General for the State Department is initiating a review of the Afghan SIV Program:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Audits, is initiating a review of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Program. The primary objectives of the review are to assess and describe (1) the number of SIV applications received and processed and their processing times; (2) the adjustments made to processing SIV applications between 2018 and 2021; (3) the status and resolution of recommendations made by the Department of State Office of Inspector General in its reports Quarterly Reporting on Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program Needs Improvement (AUD-MERO-20-34, June 2020) and Review of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (AUD-MERO-20-35, June 2020); (4) the status of SIV recipients; and (5) the totality of OIG reporting on the SIV Program in a capping report.
The review will be conducted at the Bureaus of Consular Affairs; Near Eastern Affairs; Population, Refugees, and Migration; and South and Central Asian Affairs and at selected domestic facilities and overseas posts including the Afghanistan Affairs Unit in Doha, Qatar. The review will include interviews of appropriate officials, an assessment of pertinent documents, and analyses of data.
The announcement also notes that State/OIG “will be coordinating and deconflicting with other members of the inspector general community to ensure efficiency and to leverage interagency resources in performing this important oversight work.”

###

MSPB: Issues of performance and misconduct may overlap #precedentialdecision

December 9, 2021 By in Career Employees, Court Cases, State Department Tags: , , , , ,

 

This is a Precedential Court Decision for readers tracking precedence and types of cases.
Tribunal: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 2021-1686
MSPB Docket Number: DE-0752-19-0297-I-2
Issuance Date: October 29, 2021
Adverse Actions; Performance and Misconduct; Harmful Error; Penalty/Frequently Repeated Offenses

The petitioner was a Passport Specialist for the agency, who in 2016 served a 3-day suspension for making inappropriate comments at work, and in 2018 served a 5-day suspension for failure to follow instructions and failure to protect personally identifiable information. Nevertheless, the petitioner received a fully successful performance rating for calendar year 2018.

On May 9, 2019, the agency removed the petitioner based on four charges:

(1) failure to follow instructions (eleven specifications), (2) failure to protect personally identifiable information (one specification), (3) failure to follow policy (five specifications), and (4) improper personal conduct (one specification). Some of this conduct occurred during the 2018 rating period.

The petitioner filed a Board appeal, and the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming his removal. The administrative judge credited the agency’s distinction between issues of performance and misconduct, the former involving employees who “can’t do” and the latter involving employees who “won’t do.” Finding that the charges “presented an issue of misconduct more than performance,” the administrative judge declined to consider the 2018 performance evaluation as a rebuttal to the charges. He found that the agency proved its charges and established nexus and that the removal penalty was reasonable under the circumstances. The initial decision became final, and the petitioner sought judicial review.

Holding: Issues of performance and misconduct may overlap. The existence of a fully successful performance evaluation does not necessarily bar discipline for matters covered by that evaluation, but it still must be considered in determining whether the employee committed the offenses charged and the reasonableness of the penalty imposed.

1. The court explained that performance and conduct issues “may overlap.” In this case, the petitioner’s performance plan required that he follow instructions, and some of the specifications under the failure to follow instructions charge occurred during the period covered by the 2018 performance evaluation. Therefore, the administrative judge should have considered that evaluation in assessing that charge.

2. Nevertheless, the administrative judge’s failure to consider the 2018 performance evaluation did not constitute reversable error because the petitioner failed to show that it likely affected the outcome of the Board’s decision. The petitioner did not dispute that any of the events underlying the charges occurred, and five of the eleven specifications of failure to follow instructions occurred outside the 2018 performance year.

3. Even assuming that the administrative judge erred in failing to consider the 2018 performance evaluation in assessing the penalty, the petitioner did not show harmful error. First, the deciding official considered the evaluation in reaching his penalty determination, in the context of his thorough Douglas factor analysis. Second, even if the evaluation suggested that the 2018 specifications of failure to follow instructions were not serious in and of themselves, their seriousness was magnified in light of the petitioner’s prior discipline for similar infractions and his continued failure to follow instructions after the 2018 appraisal period ended.

Read in full here.

 

###

US Embassy Ethiopia Urges U.S. Citizens to Depart Now Using Commercial Air

November 22, 2021 By in AF |Africa, Americans Abroad, Consular Work, Functional Bureaus, Hotspots, Realities of the FS, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , ,

 

On November 21, the US Embassy in Addis Ababa sent another Security Message alerting U.S. citizens of the availability of commercial flights out of the country and urging their departure from Ethiopia.
“The security situation in Ethiopia continues to deteriorate.  The U.S. Embassy urges U.S citizens in Ethiopia to depart now using commercially available options. Although the Embassy continues to process emergency passports and repatriation loans, and to provide other emergency services, the Embassy is unlikely to be able to assist U.S. citizens in Ethiopia with departure if commercial options become unavailable. Please see information on What the Department of State Can and Can’t Do in a Crisis.
U.S. citizens wishing to depart Ethiopia, currently have multiple options via commercial flights from Bole International Airport. If you have difficulty securing a flight or need assistance to return to the United States, please contact AddisACS@state.gov for guidance. The Embassy can also provide a repatriation loan for U.S. citizens who cannot afford at this time to purchase a commercial ticket to the United States. If you are a U.S. citizen and delaying your departure because your non-U.S. citizen spouse or minor children do not have immigrant visas or U.S. passports, please contact us immediately.  Similarly, if you are a non-U.S. citizen parent of a U.S. citizen minor but do not have a valid U.S. visa or other document valid for entry to the United States, please contact us.”
The Level 4-Do Not Travel Advisory released on November 6 notes that “The Department of State urges U.S citizens in Ethiopia to depart now using commercially available options. The U.S. Embassy is unlikely to be able to assist U.S. citizens in Ethiopia with departure if commercial options become unavailable. Although seats on commercial flights currently remain available, we cannot predict when demand will exceed capacity. Please see information on What the Department of State Can and Can’t Do in a Crisis.”
The Department’s What the Department of State Can and Can’t Do in a Crisis” is helpful to U.S. citizens but does not include information on the almost non-existence assistance available to “green card” holders (legal permanent residents) and potential difficulties related to dual nationals.
If U.S. “green card” holders or U.S. permanent residents are arrested overseas (a potential reality given the reported targeted detentions of individuals), 7 FAM 400 on arrest and detention notes specifically that consular officers “do not have the right to demand consular access and visitation for U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident Aliens (LPRs)” overseas. It adds that LPRs (who are not U.S. citizens) must “turn to the country of their nationality or citizenship to request and receive consular services.”
Also see 7 FAM 416.3; 7 FAM 416.3-1  Dual National Arrestees In The Non-U.S. Country Of Nationality. “It is a generally recognized rule, often regarded as a rule of international law, that when a person who is a dual national is residing in either of the countries of nationality, the person owes paramount allegiance to that country, and that country has the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.  Thus, in the absence of agreements to the contrary between the United States and the country of second nationality, if a dual national encounters difficulties in the country of the second nationality while residing there, the U.S. government’s representations on that person’s behalf may or may not be accepted.”
###
Related posts:
Related items:

Snapshot: PP9645 and PP9983 – Affected Nationalities, Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Visas

November 1, 2021 By in Biden, Consular Work, Foreign Policy, Functional Bureaus, Snapshots, State Department, Trump, U.S. Missions, Visas Tags: , , , , , ,

 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed a Presidential Proclamation (P.P. 10141) titled “Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to the United States.”  This proclamation ended the travel restrictions under Presidential Proclamations 9645 and 9983 under Trump and directed the State Department to pursue the processing of visa applications for individuals from affected countries consistent with applicable law and visa processing procedures.  Guidance on State’s implementation of P.P. 10141 can be found here. Pursuant to President Biden’s Proclamation, the visa restrictions under Proclamations 9645 and 9983 are no longer applicable.
Below is a CA report on the affected nationalities for both nonimmigrant and immigrant visas from December 8, 2017 t0 January 20, 2021. The full report is available here.

###

USG to End Travel Restrictions on 11/8/21 EST, Announces Global Vaccination Requirement

November 1, 2021 By in Appointments, Consular Work, State Department, U.S. Missions, Visas Tags: , , ,

 

A week from today, the United States will officially end the travel restrictions imposed under four Presidential Proclamations. In its place, the U.S. Government will require a global vaccination requirement for all adult foreign national travelers coming to the United States. The State/CA announcement notes that “does not necessarily mean that your local U.S. embassy or consulate is able to immediately schedule all affected applicants for visa interviews.”
Via travel.state.gov:
On October 25, President Biden announced a Presidential Proclamation titled “A Proclamation on Advancing the Safe Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-19 Pandemic.”  This proclamation, which takes effect at 12:01 am Eastern Standard Time on November 8, 2021, will end the travel restrictions under Presidential Proclamations (P.P.) 9984, 9992, 10143, and 10199 as they relate to the suspension of entry into the United States of persons physically present in Brazil, China, India, Iran, Ireland, the Schengen Area, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.  In place of these restrictions, the President announced a global vaccination requirement for all adult foreign national travelers.   This proclamation applies to persons aboard a flight scheduled to arrive in the United States that departs after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on November 8, 2021.  More information about this global vaccination requirement, including details on exceptions and waivers due to humanitarian concerns, is available at Non-U.S. citizen, Non-U.S. immigrants: Air Travel to the United States | CDC.
Pursuant to President Biden’s proclamation, as of November 8, the Department can process visa applications for individuals physically present in the affected countries.
Please note that the rescission of these P.P.’s does not necessarily mean that your local U.S. embassy or consulate is able to immediately schedule all affected applicants for visa interviews. Please see the embassy/consulate website for information on what services they are offering at this time and instructions on how to apply for a nonimmigrant visa.

###

CA Appointment Eligible Family Members Subject to Suitability Review Determination

October 26, 2021 By in Appointments, Diplomatic Security, Functional Bureaus, Security, Spouses, Staffing the FS, State Department Tags: , , , , , ,

 

The State Department made an administrative change to 3 FAM 8210 to add supplementary guidance on the Suitability and Security Clearance Determinations process in 3 FAM 8215.1. It now includes suitability determination requirement for Appointment Eligible Family Members (AEFM) working for Consular Affairs.
3 FAM 8215  Suitability and Security Clearance Determinations
3 FAM 8215.1  Suitability Determination
(CT:PER-1063;   09-14-2021)
(State Only)
(Applies to Appointment Eligible Family Members Only)

a. In all cases, individuals to be appointed under a family member appointment will be subject to appropriate investigation to determine suitability for employment.
b. Except as noted in c. below, in the event that information is developed that raises a question of suitability for employment, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s Office of Personnel Security and Suitability (DS/SI/PSS) will refer the case to the Personnel Review Panel (as established under 3 FAM 2150), which will make a suitability determination as to whether an individual may be appointed under a family member appointment.
c.  In all cases, individuals to be appointed to positions under the Consular Affairs Appointment Eligible Family Members Program will be subject to a suitability determination by a Suitability Review Panel (SRP), as stipulated in 3 FAM 2215.1a.

3 FAM 2215.1  Suitability Review Panel
(CT:PER-1062;   09-14-2021)
(State Only)
(Applies to all Foreign Service applicants)

a. A Suitability Review Panel (SRP) makes suitability determinations for appointment of career candidates in the Foreign Service, for the reappointment of a career member to the Foreign Service, for the recall of a career member to the Foreign Service (except in cases where the recalled individual is also the subject of a Presidential or other political appointment), for Civil Service candidates converting to the Foreign Service and for limited non-career appointments to the Foreign Service.  A Suitability Review Panel does not make determinations for family member appointments, except for individuals to be appointed to positions under the Consular Affairs Appointment Eligible Family Members Program.  A Suitability Review Panel will also review the candidacies of any current Foreign Service employee converting to another skill code if derogatory information arises prior to the candidate’s conversion.  Except as provided below, candidates, except those applying for a position with Diplomatic Security (DS), who have been found suitable for appointment by a SRP within the previous two years do not require a new suitability review.

b. After the medical examination clearance has been issued, and the background investigation, which is not more than three years old, is received, a candidate’s entire file (except the medical records) is reviewed and evaluated by a SRP to determine the candidate’s suitability for the Foreign Service under the standards set forth in 3 FAM 2215.  DS will re-submit applicants to the qualifications panel (3 FAM 2216.2-3) if they are found to have falsified information on their application or are found to have other disqualifying factors.

c.  Suitability Review Panels for the Department of State must consist of two or more assessors from the Board of Examiners, or, in the case of Diplomatic Security or Medical Specialist candidates, one of the assessors may be a subject matter expert appointed to the Suitability Review Panel (SRP) by the Director of GTM/TAC/BEX.  In the case of a candidate for appointment to the Senior Foreign Service, the SRP must consist of at least three Assessors who are career Senior Foreign Service Officers (FSO).  The majority of the officers on the Senior Foreign Service Officer SRP, including the panel chairperson, must be career Senior FSOs.

d. Candidates found suitable for appointment will have their names forwarded to the Office of the Registrar in the Bureau of Global Talent Management (GTM/TAC/REG).  Prior to appointment in the Foreign Service, the Department of State may, at its discretion, elect to review once again the candidate’s suitability for employment should information become available that the Suitability Review Panel had not previously had access to that raises questions about the Suitability Review Panel’s original suitability determination.

e. The candidacy of any candidate who is not found suitable for appointment by a Suitability Review Panel will be terminated and the candidate will be informed of the termination and the right to appeal in writing.  An unfavorable suitability determination for a Foreign Service candidacy, other than a candidacy for a Diplomatic Security position based solely on reasons found in 3 FAM 2215.2-6 (15), terminates other pending Foreign Service candidacies.  An unfavorable suitability determination for a Diplomatic Security candidacy solely under 3 FAM 2215.2-6 (15) may not necessarily terminate other pending, non-DS Foreign Service candidacies.

f.  Candidates, other than candidates for Diplomatic Security positions whose candidacy was terminated solely under 3 FAM 2215.2-6 (15), not found suitable for appointment by a Suitability Review Panel are ineligible to apply for Foreign Service positions for a period of two years from the date of the unfavorable suitability determination.  Candidates for Diplomatic Security positions whose candidacy was terminated solely under 3 FAM 2215.2-6 (15) will remain eligible to apply for non-Diplomatic Security positions.

3 FAM 2215.2  Suitability Standards for Appointment to the Foreign Service
3 FAM 2215.2-1  Applicability
(CT:PER-1062;   09-14-2021)
(State/USAID)
(Applies to all Foreign Service Applicants)

This section applies to all applicants for employment in the Foreign Service.  This section does not apply to family member appointments, except for individuals to be appointed to positions under the Consular Affairs Appointment Eligible Family Members Program.  Standards of conduct for continued employment in the Foreign Service are found in 3 FAM 4130.

Read more: 3 FAM 2210 Appointments (CT:PER-1062;   09-14-2021)
(Office of Origin:  GTM/TAC)

Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability Defense on Visa Processing Stopage Fails

October 12, 2021 By in Consular Work, Court Cases, Functional Bureaus, State Department, U.S. Missions, Visas Tags: , , , , ,

 

 

There is a separate case not included in the recent court cases summary by the State Department. See below what the  Court says about visa processing or the absence of it, and the consular non-reviewability doctrine (see PHILIP KINSLEY, et al., v. BLINKEN et al.  Civil Action No. 21-962):
“While the Court concurs with Defendants that some Plaintiffs lack standing or have claims that are now moot, it also concludes that, as to the nine remaining Plaintiffs, their claims are justiciable, and State acted improperly in suspending visa issuance based on the Proclamations.”
[…]
Defendants believe that “Plaintiffs cannot challenge the actions of the Secretary of State to implement a proclamation issued by the President under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).” Id. at 20. They argue that the Supreme Court has “long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a  fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Def. MTD/MSJ at 20. In particular, they suggest that the “principles underlying [the doctrine of consular non-reviewability] similarly preclude review of the Secretary’s decision to implement a proclamation issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) because the President suspended entry, and thus determined that a class of noncitizens were ineligible for a visa.” Def. MTD/MSJ at 21.
This is familiar territory. This Court and others in this district have already rejected similar arguments rooted in the doctrine of consular non-reviewability because that doctrine only applies once a decision has been reached on a specific application. See Milligan v. Pompeo, 502 
F. Supp. 3d 302, 317 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[T]he doctrine [of consular non-reviewability] however, is not triggered until a consular officer has made a decision with respect to a particular visa application.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Tate v. Pompeo, 513 F. 
Supp. 3d 132, 142 (D.D.C. 2021), dismissed sub nom. Tate v. Blinken, No. 21-5068, 2021 WL 3713559 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 2021) (“The D.C. Circuit has held that the consular non-reviewability does not apply where plaintiffs ‘do not challenge a particular determination in a particular case of matters which Congress has left to executive discretion’ but instead improperly promulgate rules in violation of statute.”) (internal citation omitted); Gomez v. Trump, 485 F. Supp. 3d 145, 176 (D.D.C. 2020), amended in part, 486 F. Supp. 3d 445 (D.D.C. 2020), and amended in part sub nom. Gomez v. Biden, No. 20-1419, 2021 WL 1037866 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2021) (“District courts in this jurisdiction consistently have held that when the suit 
challenges inaction, as opposed to a decision taken within the consul’s discretion, there is jurisdiction.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Given this repeated determination, there is no reason that the “principles underlying [the consular non-reviewability] doctrine” would preclude the Court from reviewing implementation of policy relating to the Proclamations. Nor does Plaintiffs’ challenge risk “diminish[ing] the 
President’s ability to exercise his broad authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to exclude non-citizens.” Def. MTD/MSJ at 22. Even a successful suit would affect only whether visa applications must be adjudicated, not whether visas should actually be issued or individuals allowed to enter once they have received a visa. The Court thus finds the Department’s no-visa policy reviewable.

###

Court Orders @StateDept to “Reserve” Diversity Visas From FY20/FY21, State/CA Guidance to Follow

October 12, 2021 By in Consular Work, Court Cases, Functional Bureaus, Huh? News, State Department, U.S. Missions, Visas Tags: , , , , , ,

 

Via State/CA:
The Department of State is aware of the various court orders regarding the reservation of DV-2020 and DV-2021 diversity visas, which are briefly summarized below. We will publish public guidance on this website regarding the Department’s plan for complying with these orders as it becomes available.
On August 17, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Gomez v. Biden ordered the Department to “process DV-2020 applications in random order until all 9,905 diversity visas have been granted.” However as of September 30, 2021, the Court had not issued a final order establishing a time frame for processing.
On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Rai v. Biden ordered the Department of State to “reserve 966 diversity visa numbers of applicants awaiting adjudication at the twenty-seven embassies and posts previously subject to Proclamations 9984 and 10143 and Defendants’ regional No-Visa Policy.”
On September 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the Goodluck v. Biden-related matters ordered the Department of State to “reserve 6,914 diversity visas for adjudication pending final judgment in the Goodluck-related matters.”
On September 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the Goh v. Biden ordered the Department of State to “to make 481 diversity visas available for adjudication” and to “adjudicate those diversity visas by the close of Fiscal Year 2022.”
In the GOH decision, the Court writes:
“The court (once again) appreciates the efforts of State Department officials and employees  who have processed diversity visas to comply with the court’s injunction, but those efforts “do not obviate the need for additional relief.” Id. Unless additional relief is granted, the shortfall of visas issued for Fiscal Year 2021 from the historic average will be dramatic. Some of that shortfall is no doubt due to the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic is not the primary culprit. That would be the State Department’s complete cessation of adjudicating diversity visa applications for five months and its unlawful deprioritizing of those applications when adjudications resumed.”
Below are the related court orders:
Civil Action No. 2020-1419 GOMEZ et al v. TRUMP et al
Civil Action No. 2021-0863 RAI et al v. BIDEN et al
Civil Action No. 2021-1530 GOODLUCK et al v. BIDEN, JR. et al
Civil Action No. 2021-0999 GOH et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE et al

 

###

So CA/OCS May Survive a Funding Crunch Only to Fall Apart at the Seams?

October 7, 2021 By in 71st Secretary of State, Americans Abroad, assistant secretaries, Consular Work, Coronavirus, Foreign Service, Functional Bureaus, Hotspots, Leadership and Management, Realities of the FS, State Department, Top Ranks, Trends, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , 1 Comment

 

The largest public facing bureau of the State Department is the Bureau of Consular Affairs. For those who may need more familiarity, the major sub-divisions within this bureau are passport services (PPT), visa services (VO) and overseas citizen services (OCS). The identification and repatriation of remains of Americans overseas are handled by OCS. Evacuations of American citizens during natural disasters and civil unrest are also handled by OCS.  When somebody goes missing overseas, or becomes a victim of crime, these cases are handled by CA/OCS. In addition to the recent Afghanistan evacuations, the bureau also managed the massive COVID repatriation around the globe.
Consular operations are mostly fee-based; you pay for visa processing, passport issuance, notarial services and so on.  With the Trump travel bans and the subsequent COVID travel restrictions, passport and visa fee collection significantly cratered. At the same time, CA undertook two massive repatriation and evacuation.
In a congressional hearing in 2020, the State Department projected a $1.4 BILLION loss which was about 50 percent of Consular Affair’s revenue in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020. It also projected comparable losses in FY2021 and FY2022. We’re sure the numbers are available internally, but we have yet to see publicly the cost of the global COVID repatriation and the Afghanistan evacuation.
During that same 2020 hearing, CA’s top official told Congress that services for American citizens “will not be put out of business.” We’re now wondering if the OCS directorate was saved from the funding crunch only to fall apart at the seams. Let’s consider a few things that we’ve learned:
STAFFING
–The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (CA/OCS – DAS) recently sent a memo to staff acknowledging that the long hours and lack of sleep has taken an “unacceptable health toll”.
— The  Director of the Office of American Citizens Services and Crisis Management (CA/OCS/ACS) abruptly retired, reportedly one year into a two year tour and only months after making the Senior Foreign Service.
— The Managing Director of CA/OCS took a week off after acknowledging to the staff that the MD’s well-being had been put at risk, and indicated the need for some time off “to regroup.”
— Several of the staff who flew into Afghanistan are reportedly still struggling with what they saw.
— Staffers who made the thousands of phone calls to US citizens in Afghanistan have reportedly been traumatized by what they hear.
— During the inbound call phase early in the operation these staffers reportedly “suffered abuse at the hands of the US public, self-identified military callers who blamed the Task Force for Afghans left behind, and congressional staff who called in to yell at phone bank workers.”
A FOREVER TASK FORCE AFTER THE END OF A FOREVER WAR
— The Task Force continues – until when?
— “We are still staffing 24 hour task force support, which is just wearing people out.”
LEADERSHIP OBSESSES OVER NUMBERS AS EXHAUSTION BITES
— The Leadership is reportedly “totally focused” on the numbers. “All that matters in the Bureau is the number of people called, put on lists, and flown out.  Getting everyone out who wants out is a great goal, but from the top it is clearly just numbers.”
— “A/S and PDAS are only focused on this, basically never in SA17. Everyone is exhausted.”
— Somebody noted to us that “The idea that “around 100″ citizens remain in Afghanistan is absurd, as we never knew how many were there in the first place. And if it is such a low number who are posts from Mexico to Pakistan calling?”  Initially these posts were apparently calling the same folks who had reached out to the US over and over to try to determine who is ready to go. It was relayed to us that most of the times, State didn’t actually have a flight for them to get on or a solution to their problems (no passport, can’t leave family), leading to some testy exchanges.
— Department leadership allegedly “appears blind to the fact that the obsession with getting the number of American Citizens  in Afghanistan to zero has crippled OCS.”
For those who agree that the US should rightfully obsess in a zero AmCit number in Afghanistan, we should point out that the United States left thousands of U.S. citizens stranded in Yemen in 2015 and the show ponies in Congress did not care to interrupt their beauty sleep. (see Stranded in Yemen: Americans left to find own way out, but exactly how many more AmCits are left there?;  Yemen Non-Evacuation: Court Refuses to Second-Guess Discretionary Foreign Policy Decisions; For U.S. Citizens in Yemen, a New Website and a New Hashtag Shows Up: #StuckInYemen).
REALITY CHECK
— “CA is ill prepared to continue on this path, and a second major crisis would be almost impossible for the Bureau to address.”
— “CA and OCS people need a break.”
— “COVID is still an issue around the world, regular OCS work doesn’t go away, so fewer people have to handle that and these are the same people that did the COVID repatriations.”
— “It’s not just OCS though, the SIV cases are still out there, and posts everywhere are short staffed, tired, and working under a variety of local restrictions”
— “CA needs what it always needs: money, staff, training, and a Department leadership that values more than a visa referral or a quote for the Secretary.”
Well, now you know.
How soon before we hear about the leadership tenets and taking care of people?

 

Related posts: