text:
U.S. Visa Denied? Here are Your Options
If your visa is denied, you may be confused and frustrated. And consular officers may be unwilling or unable to properly explain the grounds for refusal and your options for overcoming the refusal. How can an attorney help?
Visa processing at U.S. embassies and consulates is a subspecialty within immigration law which is critically important but often neglected even by immigration lawyers.[1] Lawyers may shy away from visa processing for several reasons. Consular officers have nearly absolute authority to make decisions as they see fit, while applicants have no right to administrative appeal,[2] and lawyers have no right to be present at the consular interview.[3] But clients are best served by lawyers with expertise in consular processing.[4] Our firm uses opportunities that exist under law to present visa applications as persuasively as possible to consular officials and to obtain review of visa denials to the extent allowed by law.[5]
Schedule a consultation with an immigration lawyer in Beijing, Shenyang, Shanghai, or Los Angeles; or by phone, Skype, WeChat, or FaceTime. Our goal is to become your trusted legal adviser.
This article begins by explaining the grounds for visa refusals and the related notification which the consular officer should provide. Then, the article discusses requests for reconsideration or resubmission applications, supervisorial review at the consular post, advisory opinions from the Visa Office, judicial review, waivers, and other strategies for overcoming refusals.
1. Visa Refusals
1.1 Grounds for Refusal
212(a) Refusals
214(b) Refusals
221(g) Refusals
1.2 Notification of the Grounds of Refusal
Contents of the Notification
Exceptions to the Notification Requirement
2. Reconsideration or Resubmission of Applications
3. Supervisorial Review at the Consular Post
4. Advisory Opinion from the Visa Office
5. Judicial Review
6. Waivers
6.1 Section 212(d)(3) Nonimmigrant Visa Waivers
6.2 Immigrant Visa Waivers for Fraud or Misrepresentation
6.3 Immigrant Visa Waivers for Unlawful Presence
7. Other Strategies
7.1 National Visa Center Inquiry
7.2 AILA-Visa Office Liaison
7.3 Humanitarian Parole
An applicant whose visa has been refused needs to understand precisely why. The strategy for challenging the denial will depend on the particular denial grounds. With certain exceptions, consular officer should notify the applicant orally and in writing of the grounds of refusal. If the consular officer has not done so—or the applicant has not understood—the lawyer's role may be to inquire further with the consular officer about the grounds of refusal.
An applicant whom the consular officer has determined falls within the "grounds of inadmissibility" will be refused a visa under a subsection of "212(a)." These grounds of inadmissibility are a set of rules prohibiting the admission to the U.S. of certain classes of persons for crimes, medical reasons, security, because they would likely become public charges, for prior immigration violations, and other miscellaneous grounds.[6] There are exceptions and waivers available to many of the grounds.
Section 214(b) of the Act requires consular officers to "presume" that certain nonimmigrant visa applicants are immigrants unless they prove to the officer's satisfaction that they meet each of the requirements for a particular nonimmigrant visa. This applies to applicants for B1/B2 (visitor for business or pleasure), F-1 (student), and J-1 (exchange visitor) visas, among others. The 214(b) ground for refusal does not apply to H-1, L-1, or immigrant visa applicants. Consular posts often issue boilerplate refusal notices citing 214(b) as the basis for denial. The most common basis for issuance of a 214(b) letter is that the applicant failed to prove an unabandoned foreign residence or nonimmigrant intent. There is no waiver of this ground of ineligibility.[7] This ground of ineligibility is not permanent, meaning that the fact that a visa applicant was unable to establish nonimmigrant status at one time would not preclude the applicant from subsequently qualifying for a visa by showing a change in circumstances.[8] For more about proving nonimmigrant intent, see https://lawandborder.com/proving-nonimmigrant-intent/ .
An application will be subject to a "quasi-refusal"[9] under INA § 221(g) if a final determination is deferred by the consular officer. An applicant who has been refused under 221(g) need not complete a new visa application form or pay the visa application fee again, if less than one year has elapsed since the latest refusal. (If the delay is due to U.S. Government action, there is no time limit). When the reason for the deferral has been addressed, the visa application form is to be retrieved from the post's files, the new information noted, and the visa either issued or refused.[10] Specific reasons for deferral include:
Suspension of Action on Petition: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has exclusive authority to adjudicate visa petitions. So in a case where the nonimmigrant or immigrant visa application is based on an underlying petition approved by USCIS, the consular officer may suspend action and return the petition, with a report of the facts, for reconsideration by USCIS if the officer knows or has reason to believe that approval of the petition was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or other unlawful means, or that the beneficiary is not entitled, for some other reason, to the status approved.[11] Once the petition is returned by the consular officer, any consular actions on the case would be frozen. The documents to be returned to the USCIS include the original petition along with all supporting documents.[12] Upon receiving these materials, the USCIS adjudications officer may issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke requiring the petitioner to re-establish eligibility for the benefit sought. USCIS must have "good and sufficient cause" in order to revoke an approved petition.[13] If USCIS decides to reaffirm the approval of the petition, the visa application should be immediately resubmitted with the consulate for visa approval. This process can take several months or longer.[14] Filing a new petition with USCIS may be a faster option.
Additional evidence is required: The application will be refused if it appears to the officer that the documentary evidence doesn't prove eligibility for a visa. In this case, the Consulate will provide a refusal sheet. The applicant may be required to submit additional documents. The applicant has up to a year to submit the documents. Once the Consulate receives the additional documents, the consular officer should review them and adjudicate the case.
Withdrawal of the application: If an applicant withdraws a visa application while it is pending adjudication, the case should not be deleted but should be refused 221(g) with case notes indicating why the action was taken.[15]
Administrative Processing: If the officer has reason to believe[16] that the applicant is ineligible for a visa under any provision of law, the officer will begin an investigation or request an advisory opinion from the State Department in Washington, DC. The 221(g) refusal letter will state that "administrative processing" is necessary.[17] Examples of circumstances when an advisory opinion will be requested from Washington include certain cases where the applicant may have access in the U.S. to sensitive technologies,[18] where a question exists regarding the interpretation or application of law or regulation,[19] or where the applicant may be inadmissible for membership in a communist or totalitarian party.
Family Member Case Deferred Because Principal Applicant Denied: When a principal applicant is denied, derivative family members should be refused under section 221(g) because they can only accompany or follow to join the principal, not precede the principal to the U.S.
An applicant will be considered to have "overcome" a 221(g) refusal where the applicant been issued the visa upon presenting additional requested evidence or upon completion of administrative processing.[20]
Once a visa application has been properly submitted, a consular officer must either approve or refuse the visa.[21] A visa can be refused only upon a ground specifically set out in the law or regulations.[22] The officer should notify the applicant of the refusal.
The consular officer is required to provide timely notice of the decision to an applicant when a visa is denied.[23] The notice should
be provided orally and in writing[24];
"list the specific provisions of law" under which the [applicant] is inadmissible;"[25]
state the factual basis for the refusal[26]; and
state, if applicable, that the refusal was based on a finding of inadmissibility made by the Department of Homeland Security.[27]
The requirement to notify the applicant of the grounds of refusal is subject to the following statutory exceptions:
Crime-related reasons for refusal: The requirement does not apply to a person found inadmissible for crime-related reasons.[28]
Security-related reasons for refusal: The requirement does not apply to a person found inadmissible for security-related reasons.[29] An applicant refused a visa for security grounds will not be told the reasons for refusal, but instead only be given a reference to the applicable statutory or regulatory section.[30]
Waiver by Secretary of State: The Secretary personally may waive the requirement for an individual or class of inadmissible persons.[31]
Despite those statutory exceptions, the Department of State still expects that written notices will still be provided to the applicant unless the consular officer has received specific approval from the Department not to provide a notice in a specific case or group of cases.[32] The Attorney General has mandated that "an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally. I strongly encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information."[33] When posts explain the basis for refusal, certain information is not releasable by the consular post:
Classified information is not releasable.[34]
Law enforcement sensitive / sensitive but unclassified (SBU)[35]: This term refers to information the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings, would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, would disclose techniques, procedures, or guidelines for investigations or prosecutions, or could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual's life or physical safety.[36]
Obtained from other government agencies: The consulate may not disclose information obtained from another government agency without the approval of that agency.[37]
Third-party information: Information originating with third parties is confidential.[38]
In all immigrant visa cases, the applicant has one year after refusal to request reconsideration and need not file a new application or pay a new application fee.[39] If more than one year has elapsed, reapplication is required.[40] The Motion to Reconsider should be professionally presented, and include all relevant legal arguments and documentary evidence. For nonimmigrant visa refusals–except INA §221(g) refusals—the only way to obtain "reconsideration" is to complete a new visa application form and resubmit the application.[41]
For nonimmigrant visa applications, the regulations provide that all denials should be reviewed by a supervisor.[42] The Foreign Affairs Manual somewhat contradictorily states that as many refusals as practical, but not fewer than 20%, should be reviewed.[43] The review should take place "without delay; that is, on the day of the refusal or as soon as it is administratively possible," but state that if the applicant has indicated a desire to submit additional evidence, review may be "deferred for not more than 120 days."[44] For immigrant visa applications, the review must take place "on the day of the refusal or as soon thereafter as is administratively possible (no later than 30 days after the refusal, in any event)."[45] There is no time limit for how long a case requiring additional evidence may be deferred before the review is initiated.[46] The supervisor who reviews the visa refusal has three options: (1) affirm the denial; (2) request an advisory opinion from the State Department; or (3) assume responsibility and readjudicate the case.[47] The supervisor cannot reverse an INA § 214(b) refusal (failure to establish nonimmigrant intent) without re-interviewing the applicant.[48] The lawyer's job is to act quickly and professionally in an attempt to persuade the supervisor of the wisdom of re-interviewing the applicant or re-adjudicating the case.
If the lawyer believes the refusing visa officer or the chief consular officer made a mistake of law in refusing an application, the lawyer should consider seeking an advisory opinion from the Advisory Opinions Division (AOD) of the State Department's Visa Office. The AOD will not review assertions that the consular officer made a mistake of fact.[49] All advisory opinion requests are routed through the Office of Public and Diplomatic Liaison, Public Inquiries Division. The Public Inquiries Division reviews all requests to determine whether they involve legal questions. If the request involves a legal question, the Public Inquiries Division will obtain the record from the consulate and forward it along with the inquiry to AOD.[50] Attorneys generally receive at least an interim response within 15 days.[51] The response will not be the actual advisory opinion issued to the consular post but instead a summary of that opinion.[52] Advisory opinions on interpretations of law are binding on consular officers, but consular officers have exclusive legal authority to apply the law to the facts.[53]
The Supreme Court has developed a doctrine of "consular nonreviewability," which dictates that that courts generally have no power to review decisions of consular officers.[54] The principle justification for this doctrine of "consular nonreviewability" is the corollary principal of "plenary power," which holds that the Constitution grants Congress and the President extremely broad power of the admission and exclusion of noncitizens, which leaves little power for the courts.[55] There are a few limited exceptions where court challenges have been allowed. One line of cases, beginning with the 1972 Kleindienst v. Mandel decision, assumes or holds that there is an exception to consular nonreviewability in cases where denial of the noncitizen's visa impacts a U.S. citizen's fundamental rights, requiring that the State Department provide a "facially legitimate and bona fide" explanation for denial of a visa. The citizen's rights which give rise to this review may include First Amendment rights to hear even unpopular perspectives from noncitizens invited to speak and liberty rights to live with noncitizen relatives in the U.S.[56] In another line of cases, the courts may see fit to intervene where the consular officer has failed to issue any decision on an application. In Patel v. Reno,[57] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is mandamus jurisdiction to compel a consular officer to make a decision on a visa application. In that case, the wife and children of a naturalized U.S. citizen were the beneficiaries of an approved immigrant petition that was forwarded to the U.S. consulate. The consular officer, suspecting that the U.S. citizen husband was naturalized under false pretenses by marrying an American citizen while still being married to his wife in India, returned the immigrant petition back to the INS for further investigation and suspended action on the visa applications. It its decision, the Court acknowledged that "[n]ormally a consular official's discretionary decision to grant or deny a visa petition is not subject to judicial review. However, when the suit challenges the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision taken with in the consul's discretion, jurisdiction exists."[58]
For nonimmigrant visa applicants, INA § 212(d)(3) allows for waivers of most grounds of inadmissibility. For immigrant visa applicants, there are waivers of the health-related grounds of inadmissibility, inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation, false claims to U.S. citizenship, criminal grounds of inadmissibility, the J-1 foreign residence requirement, the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility, communist or totalitarian party membership or affiliation, etc.[59] This article will briefly address nonimmigrant visa waivers, immigrant visa waivers for fraud or misrepresentation, and waivers for unlawful presence.
An individual denied a visa under almost any ground of inadmissibility of INA § 212(a) (with the exception of security grounds) can be granted a waiver as a matter of discretion under INA § 212(d)(3).[60] This waiver is a "powerful tool to address some extremely rigid immigration restrictions."[61] The waiver procedure requires obtaining a recommendation by the consular officer and an approval by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Admissibility Review Office (ARO). The requirements for the waiver are that: (a) the ground of inadmissibility must be one that can be waived under INA § 212(d)(3); (b) the applicant meets the requirements for the particular nonimmigrant visa, including the nonimmigrant intent requirement, if applicable;[62] and (c) the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The decision whether to grant a waiver as a matter of discretion is based on the totality of the facts. In particular, the following three factors are relevant[63]: recency and seriousness of the activity or condition causing the inadmissibility; the reasons for the proposed travel to the U.S.; and the positive or negative effect, if any, of the planned travel on U.S. public interests. There is no required form for the waiver application. The contents of the waiver application typically include, but are not limited to,
A legal memorandum and index of exhibits from the lawyer.
The applicant's detailed declaration explaining his or her need to come to the United States and the need for a waiver. The letter should furnish the facts behind the grounds of ineligibility, the date of intended arrival and length of stay in the United States, and the number of intended entries.
Letters of reference from individuals who know the applicant and can attest to his or her good character, contributions to the community, and reputation in the community (e.g., former employers, colleagues, and other individuals).
If inadmissible on criminal grounds, the applicant must provide certified copies of his or her criminal record (arrest report, information or indictment, disposition and sentencing documents). It is also advisable to submit evidence of reform and rehabilitation, such as therapy, employment, education, community involvement, and treatment or counseling.
In appropriate cases, a psychological evaluation.
If ARO approves the waiver, the consular post will issue the visa, which will contain an annotation that it has been issued pursuant to section 212(d)(3). The visa will not be valid for a period longer than the waiver.
An applicant denied an immigrant visa for fraud or misrepresentation may be eligible for a waiver under INA § 212(i). To qualify for the waiver, the applicant must establish that his or her U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent would suffer extreme hardship if the applicant were denied admission.[64] (The waiver is not available based on extreme hardship to the applicant's child.) In addition to the equities presented and the extreme hardship to the family member, USCIS may consider the seriousness of the fraud or misrepresentation. The factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the applicant were denied admission include: the presence of permanent resident or U.S. citizen family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative's ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.[65] A waiver application is filed with USCIS on Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, and should include the following, among other things:
check or money order for the filing fee (currently $585);
documents to establish the relationship with the qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident relative(s);
documents to establish extreme hardship. Each case must be analyzed individually to determine what hardship factors exits and how to document them. This may include declarations from the applicant, the affected family members, and others who are familiar with the family, evidence of any health-related issues; evidence of the financial status of the family; evidence of education issues for the children; and a psychological evaluation, in appropriate cases; and
documents to support a favorable exercise of discretion by the adjudicator. The more serious the fraud or misrepresentation necessitating the waiver, the more positive factors will be required to balance out the negative factors and support a favorable exercise of discretion. Positive factors can include the applicant's rehabilitation, positive attributes, service to the community, and dedication to his or her family. These can be demonstrated by declarations and letters from persons having knowledge about the applicant.
If USCIS approves the waiver, the consulate will schedule another interview for final adjudication of the visa application. If USCIS denies a waiver application, the applicant can file an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days of the decision.[66] No judicial review is available.[67]
The three- and ten-year bars on admissibility for persons previously unlawfully present in the United may be waived for an immigrant visa applicant if USCIS determines that refusing admission to the applicant would result in extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent.[68] (The waiver is not available based on extreme hardship to a child.) The standard application procedure is similar to that described above for the waiver of fraud or misrepresentation. But since March 4, 2013, there has been an alternative procedure for certain immigrant visa applicants who are immediate relatives (spouses, children and parents) of U.S. citizens. They can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States for their consular interview.[69] This new process was developed to shorten the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States. The new process also gives applicants considering leaving the U.S. to apply for the visa abroad some confidence they will qualify for the waiver and visa. Most recently, on July 14, 2015, USCIS has proposed expanding eligibility for provisional waivers of the unlawful presence bars to all applicants who are statutorily eligible and applying for an immigrant visa. This would include applicants who are immediate relatives of permanent residents.[70] This proposal has not yet been implemented.
There are other ways for a lawyer to contact the State Department to question a consular officer's action or inaction. The National Visa Center (NVC) answers telephone requests for general information about nonimmigrant and immigrant visas cases. If action (for example, administrative processing) appears to be taking too long, a telephone call to the NVC may trigger an e-mail from NVC to the post inquiring about the status of the case.[71] This is not a method to question or challenge a visa refusal.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association schedules regular meetings with the Visa Office. Lawyers may submit problems, issues, and complaints to the chair of the AILA/VO Liaison Committee.
Humanitarian parole is an extraordinary measure, used sparingly to bring someone, who otherwise would not be admissible to the United States, for a temporary period of time due to urgent circumstances or a compelling emergency. USCIS may grant parole temporarily if there are urgent humanitarian reasons or if there is a significant public benefit. The period of parole will correspond with the length of the emergency or humanitarian situation.[72] Requests for initial humanitarian parole can only be accepted for individuals who are currently outside the United States, though once granted, the parolee may request an extension from within the United States. The decision to grant humanitarian parole is discretionary. Parole is not an immigration benefit akin to a visa or green card, nor can it be used to circumvent normal visa processes and timelines. Parolees are not authorized to work in the United States and must depart the U.S. on or before the expiration of parole as indicated on Form I-94, Departure Record. Supporting documentation to be filed with USCIS includes, among other things, evidence of the urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit justifying the parole and an explanation as to why the applicant cannot obtain a visa.
If your visa is denied, you may be confused and frustrated. But there may be strategies available to overcome the denial. A lawyer with expertise in consular processing may be able to assist in pursuing reconsideration or resubmission of an application, supervisorial review at the consular post, an advisory opinion, judicial review, a waiver, or other strategies. Contact our law firm to schedule a consultation.
Andrew T. Chan, The Lawyer's Role in Consular Visa Refusals, in The Consular Practice Handbook 167 (2012). ↑
In the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress does not empower the Secretary of State grant or refuse visas. Those powers are reserved for consular officers. INA § 104(a). This statute has been interpreted by the State Department to mean that there is no administrative appeal of a visa denial. ↑
Andrew T. Chan, The Lawyer's Role in Consular Visa Refusals, in The Consular Practice Handbook 167 (2012). The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual provides that each consular post has discretion to establish its own policies regarding the extent to which attorneys may have physical access to the post or attend visa interviews. 9 FAM 40.4 N12.4. ↑
Andrew T. Chan, The Lawyer's Role in Consular Visa Refusals, in The Consular Practice Handbook 167, 168 (2012). ↑
See generally INA § 212(a). For more details about the grounds of inadmissibility, see https://lawandborder.com/grounds-of-inadmissibility/ . ↑
9 FAM 41.121 N1. ↑
9 FAM 40.6 N1. ↑
9 FAM § 41.121 PN 1.3 (Oct. 17, 2008). The Act and the regulations are silent on this. ↑
22 C.F.R. § 42.43(a). ↑
9 FAM 42.43 PN5. ↑
INA § 205. ↑
If, upon review, the USCIS reaffirms the visa petition and returns it to the consular officer but the consular officer still believes that the petition should have been denied and has no new evidence that wasn't previously considered by USCIS, the consular officer will forward the case to the Department of State Visa Office's Advisory Opinions Division for review by a third set of eyes. 9 FAM 42.43 N4.1. ↑
9 FAM 41.103 N12.6. ↑
The reason to believe standard requires "facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the applicant is ineligible" for the visa. 9 FAM 40.6. ↑
9 FAM Appendix E, 404. ↑
9 FAM § 41.121 PN3 (Oct. 17, 2008). ↑
9 FAM 40.6 N2.1. ↑
9 FAM 40.6 N4.1(a). ↑
22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a); 9 FAM 41.121 N2.2 (nonimmigrant visas); 9 FAM 42.81(a) (immigrant visas). ↑
22 C.F.R. § 40.6; 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a) (nonimmigrant visa refusals); 22 C.F.R. § 41.81(a) (immigrant visa refusals); 9 FAM 40.6; 9 FAM 41.121 N2.2 (nonimmigrant visas); 9 FAM 42.81 N1 (immigrant visas). ↑
INA § 212(b). See 5 U.S.C. § 555(e). Cf. 5 U.S.C. § 557(c) (for formal adjudications by federal agencies, the notice of the decision should include "findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented in the record."). ↑
22 C.F.R. § 41.121(b) (setting forth the requirement to inform but not specifying how)]; 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-1 (inform nonimmigrant visa applicant orally); 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-2 (inform nonimmigrant visa applicant in writing). 9 FAM 42.81 PN 1.1 (inform immigrant via applicant orally and in writing). ↑
INA § 212(b)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(b) (immigrant visa refusal procedure); 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-1 (inform nonimmigrant visa applicant orally); 9 FAM 42.81 PN 1.1 (inform immigrant via applicant orally and in writing). ↑
9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-1 (inform nonimmigrant visa applicant orally). For INA § 212(a) denials to nonimmigrant visa applicants, the written refusal letter need not state the factual basis for the refusal, but to immigrant visa applicants, it should be state. Compare9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-3 with 9 FAM 42.81 PN1.1. For 214(b) denials of nonimmigrant visas, a boilerplate letter should be provided stating either that (a) that the applicant has failed to demonstrate strong ties overseas or (b) that the applicant "did not meet the requirements of the classification" applied for. 9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-4. ↑
INA § 212(b)(3). ↑
See 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.2-2. ↑
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. "Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: TheFreedom of Information Act," March 19, 2009. ↑
9 FAM 40.4 N5. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (1) (Documents properly classified as secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy are exempted from disclosure under FOIA.). ↑
5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7). ↑
9 FAM 40.4 N5, 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.2-1. ↑
INA § 222(f). A parent may, however, request the records of a minor child. 9 FAM 04.4 N3.2-1. And information in a visa file about a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident may be released to a third party for purposes of protecting the health or safety of the citizen or permanent resident. 9 FAM 40.4 N3.2-2. ↑
22 C.F.R. § 42.81(e); 9 FAM 42.81 N4.1. ↑
9 FAM 42.81 N4.3. ↑
See 9 FAM 41.121 PN1.4. ↑
22 C.F.R. § 41.121(c). ↑
9 FAM 41.121 N2.3-7(a). ↑
9 FAM 42.81 PN 1.4. ↑
22 C.F.R. § 42.81. ↑
22 CFR § 41.121(c); 9 FAM 41.121 PN2. ↑
9 FAM 41.121 PN1.2-8. ↑
Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65 (2012). ↑
Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65, 66 (2012). ↑
See INA § 104(a); Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 428(f) (no private right of action to challenge the decision of a consular officer or other U.S. official or employee to grant or deny a visa). Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65, 69 (2012). ↑
Elizabeth Poh, Advisory Opinions from the Visa Office, in The Consular Practice Handbook 65, 69-70 (2012). ↑
Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __ (2015) (Scalia, J., plurality opinion), citing Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 1977. See Consular Non-Reviewability in Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (3d ed. 2013). ↑
See e.g., Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950) ("[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned," and that "[w]hen Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens," it is not only "dealing … with a legislative power" but also "implementing an inherent executive power."). ↑
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (Where U.S. citizen professors challenged a nonimmigrant visa denial on First Amendment grounds, the Court found the Attorney General's denial of a nonimmigrant visa waiver to be lawful because it was supported by a "factually legitimate and bona fide reason."); Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __ (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (assuming that a U.S. citizen spouse's liberty interest in her husband's visa application required the State Department to provide a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for the visa denial); Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __ (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (opining that a U.S. citizen spouse's liberty interest in her husband's visa application required the State Department to provide a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for the visa denial); American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115, 123-25 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court had jurisdiction to consider organizations' First Amendment claim in denial of B visa to an Islamic scholar; court applied Mandel to the consular officer's threshold decision based upon the applicant's alleged inadmissibility for providing material support to a terrorist organization); Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2008); U.S. v. Kumpf, 438 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 2006) (rejecting claim that consular nonreviewability precluded review of visa issuance in denaturalization case, where government claimed visa was issued unlawfully under Refugee Relief Act]; Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 n.3 (1st Cir. 1990); City of New York v. Baker, 878 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1051 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff'd per curiam by an equally divided court, 484 U.S. 1 (1987) (jurisdiction to review denial of visa); American Sociological Ass'n v. Chertoff, 588 F.Supp.2d 166 (D. Mass. 2008) (organizations that extended invitation to professor to speak had a First Amendment claim under Mandel but neither the professor, nor Chertoff were proper parties). ↑
134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997). ↑
See also Rivas v. Napolitano, 714 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing exception to consular nonreviewability where consul did not act on request to reconsider under 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(e) for denial of immigrant visa); Mulligan v. Schultz, 848 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1988) (doctrine of "consular nonreviewability" does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction where the plaintiffs do not challenge decision to deny visa, but rather challenge decision not to accept applications for immigrant visas) ↑
For a list of grounds of inadmissibility and corresponding waivers, see 9 FAM 40.6 Exhibit I. ↑
The grounds which cannot be waived are espionage or sabotage; seeking to engage in "any other unlawful activity"; unlawful opposition to the U.S. government; seriously adverse foreign policy consequences; Nazi persecution; and genocide. ↑
Dan Berger, Authorizations for Visa Issuance and Admission as Nonimmigrant Under INA §212(d)(3)(A) (AILA, 2012) ↑
See generally 9 FAM 40.301 N3 (July 14, 2005); Matter of Hranka, 16 I. & N. Dec. 491 (BIA 1976). ↑
INA § 212(i)(1). ↑
Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), aff'd, Cervantes-Gonzalez v. INS, 244 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001). ↑
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2). ↑
INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v). ↑
8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). ↑
80 Fed. Reg. 43338 (July 22, 2015). ↑
http://travel.state.gov/visa/about/how/how_1463.html . ↑
INA §212(d)(5)(A) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "in his discretion (to) parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission into the United States…." See Memorandum of Agreement between USCIS, CBP and ICE (Sept. 2008) for detail:http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/parole-authority-moa-9-08.pdf . ↑
Categorized as Temporary Visas, Waivers / Visa Denials Tagged visa denial, visa denied, visa refusal, visa refused
Jamil. Abdallah says:
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen. My wife is a Syrian national, has a bachelor's degree in chemistry from Damascus University, and is now a housewife. She has applied for an immigrant visa based on our marriage. At the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, the consular officer told her that she was denied the visa under section 212(a)(3)(B). What should I do?
Gary Chodorow says:
Jamil,
Section 212(a)(3)(B) is a broad ground of inadmissibility for "terrorist activities." It covers people who are members of terrorist organizations or other organizations that endorse or espouse terrorist activity, as well as individuals who endorse or espouse terrorist activity, and individuals who provide material support to or solicit funds or other things of value for a terrorist organization. There are certain exceptions and waivers. The goal would be to find out specifically why the Embassy thinks your wife is inadmissible and then to see if it's possible to rebut the Embassy's conclusion. These are challenging cases, but an our firm or another immigration attorney may be able to assist.
Hi, my husband previously lived in the US where we married and unfortunately commited a drugtraficking soon after that felony which has made our family have to live abroad after his deportation – 16 years ago. After so many years and having an honest lifestyle , working as a teacher now and having not any kind of criminal records elsewhere, I have petioned for a visa for him to travel back to the US with me and our son being that I as well as the rest of his family members live in the US and are all citizens and have been denied the visa , the consular stating because he has previously committed a felony.
Isn't there a second chance taking into account that I as well as our son are US citizens and we are a family, and all our other family members from mothers to siblings and son on are in the US and we would like to and need to be back with them all as well as our son having the chance to live and study in the US.
Please help me, I beg you.
Maureen: Sorry to hear about the trauma your family has been through. You may want to show the waiver application you filed to our law firm or another experienced immigration attorney to get an opinion about your options in the case.
Kirkland Allen says:
Hi. I am a naturalized US Citizen. I petitioned for my mom living in Jamaica. She was denied under section 212(a)(6)(c) three days ago 12/29/15. The consulate stated that no waiver is available for this filing. My mom has declared that she didn't attempt to commit fraud. She was issued group visa in 97. She didn't understand that she could not travel alone. Thus she booked travel to visit an uncle in New York. DHS denied her entry into the US. This appeared as fraud on her record which came back to haunt her nearly 20 years later. What is our recourse, if any.
Kirkland: Talk with our law firm or another qualified immigration attorney about using the Freedom of Information Act to get DHS records related to the denial of your mother's entry to the U.S. Those records may clarify whether DHS had a valid basis to determine that your mother made a material misrepresentation.
abdul says:
Hi, I am a naturalized U.S.citizen. I filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, for my wife, which was approved by USCIS. But the U.S. embassy abroad denied her visa. The officer determined that our marriage is a sham. What are my options? Do I have to reapply? Can I appeal?
Abdul: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has exclusive authority to adjudicate I-130s. So based on your description, perhaps the consular officer suspended action on the visa application and returned the petition to USCIS with a report of the facts related to the officer's suspicions of a sham marriage. Once the petition is returned by the consular officer, any consular actions on the case would be frozen. Upon receiving these materials, the USCIS adjudications officer may issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke requiring you to re-establish eligibility for the benefit sought. USCIS must have "good and sufficient cause" in order to revoke an approved petition. If USCIS decides to reaffirm the approval of the petition, the visa application should be immediately resubmitted with the consulate for visa approval. This process can take several months or longer. Filing a new petition with USCIS may be a faster option. There is no "appeal" of the consular officer's decision. Talk with our firm or another qualified immigration lawyer about the best course of action in your case.
kashif says:
Hi, I am an F1 visa holder, studying in Masters program in the United States. I am doing CPT as part of my masters program. My wife recently applied for F2 visa for her and my 3 children at the U.S. Embassy abroad. The application was first put on administrative processing and after 14 days, application was refused under sections 212(a)(6) C I and 214(b). I have no clue why they have put on misrepresentation charge as only the most accurate information was provided in the application and interview went great as well. What options do I have in this situation if there are any? Thanks!
Kashif,
As explained above, unless certain exceptions apply, the consular officer should notify an applicant of the factual basis for denial (except in certain unusual circumstances). So it's time to retain an immigration lawyer experienced in consular issues to ask the consular officer to divulge the factual basis for denial. Once that's known, a further strategy can be devised, such as challenging the 212(a)(6)(C)(I) denial or applying for a waiver.
Thank you so much for the information you provided. This will be very helpful.
I am a Peace Corps volunteer serving in Albania. I am leaving the country and returning to the US for one month before moving to Thailand. My girlfriend, who is Albanian, was just denied a tourist visa under 214(b), the reason given that they believe she does not have sufficient cause to return to Albania. She is in the middle of a graduate program in Albania, which does not conclude until 2017, and her entire family is in Albania. I am not sure what more should be needed in such a case, and they have not told her what more is needed. I also wrote an invitation letter, but that was apparently not enough. We are reapplying. Do you have suggestions for what more she could do? Thank you!
Hi Stephen:
The majority of applicants denied tourist visas don't consult immigration lawyers. But if your girlfriend were to consult with a competent immigration lawyer, the lawyer would likely take time to learn about her immigration history, such as: reviewing the Form DS-160, Nonimmigrant Visa Application, she which she filed; asking for a transcript of the Q&A with the consular officer; and reviewing the invitation letter and other documents presented to the Consulate. If it's not clear why the visa application was denied, the immigration lawyer might ask the U.S. Consulate for more details. Based on that review, the lawyer would likely work with your girlfriend to develop a strategy to overcome the basis for denial. Right now, without that detailed understanding of your girlfriend's immigration history, any guess about why she was denied or advice about how to overcome the denial would be mere speculation.
My application for a tourist visa was denied. The denial notice refers to 212(a)(6)(C)(1). Is this denial permanent? I am about to get married to a US citizen who works for the military. I want to know the best and fastest way I can be with him.
Kat: It sounds like the consular officer denied your visa on the grounds that you have made a misrepresentation to U.S. immigration authorities. Sometimes the consular officer's decision can be challenged as incorrect. Otherwise, that is a permanent ground of visa ineligibility. See part 6.2 above for information about immigrant visa waivers for misrepresentation. You and your fiancée should discuss that and other options with a competent immigration attorney.
HASSAN says:
I'm a US citizen. My wife's IR1 visa got refused by the US embassy because they stated that we are first cousin and the state I live in doesn't recognize first cousin marriage. But the country we got married in does recognize first cousin marriage. Now the embassy is sending my wife's application back to USCIS. What should I do?
Hassan,
To be valid for immigration purposes, a foreign marriage must not be contrary to U.S. public policy. Even if a marriage between parties related by blood is recognized as valid where the marriage took place, it may be invalid as contrary to public policy if the marriage would be illegal in the state where the parties intend to reside. See Susan Fortino-Brown, Family-Sponsored Immigration, in AILA, Navigating the Fundamentals of Immigration Law 307 (2009-2010), citing Matter of Da Silva, 15 I. & N. Dec. 778 (BIA 1976) (out-of-state marriage of uncle and niece does not violate New York public policy; this marriage is valid for immigration purposes); Matter of T-, 8 I. & N. Dec. 529 (BIA 1960) (same result in Pennsylvania); Matter of E–, 4 I&N Dec. 239 (BIA 1951) (even though California prohibits that type of marriage, it did not actively prosecute when the marriage was lawfully contracted abroad; thus the marriage was valid for immigration); Matter of Zappia, 12 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1967) (Wisconsin will consider void a marriage contracted in another state when it was contracted elsewhere to avoid Wisconsin's prohibition of such marriages; thus, marriage not valid for immigration purposes).
So I recommend that you consult with our firm or another competent immigration attorney to analyze the law of the state where you and your wife told USCIS (in the I-130 and DS-260 forms) you intend to reside together. Based on that, the attorney can help you decide among options such as fighting to affirm the I-130 being returned to USCIS, filing a new I-130, and/or moving to a different state.
cesar alvarado says:
Gary,
I am a U.S. Citizen. My mother is applying for a tourist visa, but previously she was found ineligible for a visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) due to misrepresentation. Is there any way she can get a waiver for a temporary tourists visa?
Cesar: See Part 6.1 above related to section 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant visa waivers.
Urooj says:
I am a US citizen, and my parents recently applied for immigrant visas based on my petition. At their interview in London, they were denied the visa under Section 212(a)(6)(c)(1) related to misrepresentation. I'm not sure what the supposed misrepresentation was. They did enter the US on visitor's visas and overstayed from 1991 to 2005 before leaving voluntarily. How can I find out what the supposed "misrepresentation" was, and is there anything else that can be done?
As mentioned above, the consular officer is generally required to disclose the factual basis for the refusal. Our law firm or another competent immigration lawyer can investigate the factual basis for the refusal and discuss with you whether the denial can be challenged or whether a waiver is available.
Death by a Thousand Cuts: Naturalization Backlogs
Can a Green Card Holder Who's Been Overseas for 6 Months Apply for Naturalization?


text:
Northern District of Texas
Barbara M.G. Lynn, Chief Judge
Karen Mitchell, Clerk of Court
Forms & Records
Special Order 13: Court Orders and Updates During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Home » Rules & Orders » Special Orders
UPDATE: The district clerk's office will not accept criminal debt payments (fines or restitution) in person until June 1, 2020. Defendants may mail payments to the district clerk's office. However, a defendant will not be deemed delinquent for failure to make a criminal debt payment between March 16, 2020, and June 1, 2020.
Summarized Content
Seventh Amended
Special Order No. 13-9
Supplemental order to Special Order Nos. 13-5 and 13-6 regarding authorization to use video teleconferencing for criminal proceedings.
Sixth Amended Special Order No. 13-9, signed 8/25/21
Fifth Amended Special Order No. 13-9, signed 5/28/21
Fourth Amended Special Order No. 13-9, signed 3/5/21
Third Amended Special Order No. 13-9, signed 12/11/20
Second Amended Special Order 13-9, signed 9/15/20
Amended Special Order 13-9, signed 6/24/20
Special Order 13-9, signed 3/29/20
Third Amended
Special Order No. 13-16
Supplemental order to Special Order No. 13-16. Requirements for entry to the Abilene, Lubbock, and San Angelo Divisions.
Second Amended Special Order No. 13-16, signed 7/29/21
Supplemental order to Special Order No. 13-15. Requirements for entry to the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Mary Lou Robinson Courthouse.
Second Amended
Supplemental order to Special Order No. 13-12. Requirements for entry to the Earl Cabell Federal Building and United States Courthouse at Dallas.
Special Order No. 13-19 Dec. 15, 2020 Amendment to Mandatory Quarantine Period
Special Order No. 13-18 Nov. 18, 2020 Order continuing all civil and criminal trials scheduled to be held between 11/18/20 and 12/31/20 (except 4:19-cv-425) to a date after 1/1/21.
Amended
(VACATED) Sept. 10, 2020
Supplemental order to Special Order No. 13-14 regarding requirements for entry to the Fort Worth courthouse during national pandemic emergency.
Special Order No. 13-5 July 8, 2020
Supplemental order to Special Order No. 13-5 regarding continuation of trial settings to July 31, 2020
Amended Special Order 13-5, signed on 6/19/2020.
Special Order No. 13-8 May 29, 2020
Supplemental order to Special Order Nos. 13-8 and 13-11. Courthouse access restrictions will remain in effect until further order of the Court.
(VACATED) May 22, 2020
Order regarding requirements for entry to the Wichita Falls courthouse during national pandemic emergency.
Special Order No. 13-11 April 22, 2020
Order extending all continuances under Special Order Nos. 13-5 and 13-6 through May 31, 2020, except as otherwise specified in this Order.
April 02, 2020 Order to extend time to self-report to a Bureau of Prisons facility.
March 19, 2020 Supplemental order to Special Order Nos. 13-5 and 13-6 regarding procedures specific to the Northern District of Texas's Abilene, Amarillo, Lubbock, and San Angelo divisions.
Court offices are open to serve the public; however, please be advised that you should not come into a courthouse facility in the Northern District of Texas if you: (1) are experiencing any flu-like symptoms, shortness of breath, have a fever, or are coughing or sneezing; or (2) have been asked to self-quarantine by any hospital or health agency or have been diagnosed with COVID-19 within the past 10 days. If you need assistance from the court and fall into one of these categories, please contact the court by either calling the district clerk's office at one of the numbers listed in the online directory or emailing the clerk's office during business hours through the court's website. If you are scheduled to appear before a judge and fall into one of these categories, immediately contact the assigned judge's chambers for further instructions.
Civil Rules
Criminal Rules
Bankruptcy Rules
Appellate Rules
S.O. No. 2: Orders Adopting Rules
S.O. No. 3: Case Assignment
S.O. No. 13: COVID-19
S.O. No. 19: Sealed Documents
Federal Pattern Jury Instructions
Local Rules (PDF)
Please click the following links to download a pdf copy of Local Rules.
Civil Rules (PDF)
Criminal Rules (PDF)
Bankruptcy Rules (PDF)
Appendices (PDF)
Privacy | Sitemap | BrowseAloud

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Air Fair?
American's lobbyists beat Southwest's, and Texas travelers pay the price.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/travel/air-fair/
From the October 1997 Issue Subscribe
UNLIKE THE PRICES FOR CARS or hamburgers, the quoted price of an airline ticket includes tax. Most passengers are unaware that those $99 fares are really $90 plus a 10 percent tithe to the federal government that helps pay for the national air traffic control system. Fares are confusing enough without worrying about taxes. As long as everybody pays the same tax, who cares?
Starting now, you do. As of October 1, everybody won't be paying the same tax. While Republicans and Democrats spent the summer battling over tax cuts, the nation's airlines—including Texas-based carriers Southwest and American—were waging an equally fierce but little-noticed fight over the ticket tax. The new formula, adopted by Congress in August, will eventually reduce the tax to 7.5 percent but will add a new $3 charge for every stop en route, including the final destination. The result is that many passengers of smaller airlines, like Southwest, will pay more tax, while many passengers of bigger airlines, like American, will pay less.
The big carriers argued that the old formula amounted to a subsidy for Southwest. "It had no rational relation to the demands that a particular airplane placed on the air traffic control system," says an American executive who didn't want to be indentified. "A typical Southwest flight stops at more airports than a typical flight on American or Delta. The tax is supposed to be a user fee, and an airplane that travels from point to point uses more airports than an airplane that goes from a hub airport to a spoke and back again."
Sound reasonable? Not to Southwest. "This is not about the air traffic control system or federal tax policy," says Ron Ricks, Southwest's vice president of governmental affairs. "It is about restricting competition. The large airlines want less competition and higher prices. Our flights are spread out throughout the day. We use less-congested airports and place less demand on the system. The hub-and-spoke airlines bring their planes in at peak times. That's what drives the cost of the air traffic control system. It's like building the church for the crowds on Easter Sunday."
Here is how the new tax will work after it is fully phased in. Say a man in Midland wants to go to Baltimore. On American, he changes planes once in Dallas and would pay a tax of $36 on a $400 fare (7.5 percent of the fare, or $30, plus $6 for two stops). In the old days he would have paid a flat 10 percent tax, or $40—a $4 difference that is a boon for American. On Southwest, the same man might touch down in Austin, Houston, and Nashville before arriving in Baltimore. On a fare of $200, the tax would be $27, including $12 for the four stops—or $7 more than the old tax. What this means for Southwest, Ricks says, is a tax increase of $50 million in the first year, rising to $110 million after five years. In 1996, its most profitable year ever, Southwest's net income was $207 million.
If Congress doesn't change the tax (and that is unlikely, since Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgian, weighed in heavily on behalf of Atlanta-based Delta), Southwest faces some hard choices: raise fares, concentrate more on long-distance flights, or cut service to smaller cities. And where will most of the burden fall? Texas—which means you.
Tags: Southwest Airlines, Travel, Airlines
United's Latest Customer Service Disaster
It's Been a Weird Week to Be an Airline
United Airlines Had a Rough Month
By Sonia Smith
"Businessweek" Does Continental/United Cover Story
By Jason Cohen
The Hungry Texpat's Guide to Los Angeles
Portland Has the Best Texas Barbecue Scene Outside of Texas
Racing to Preserve Rock Art in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands
By Pam LeBlanc
Feral Hogs Are Invading Yankeeland. Northern Friends, Here's What You Need to Know.
By Wes Ferguson
These Holiday Celebrations Across Texas Will Get You in the Spirit
By Sam Russek and Danielle Ortiz
The Lost Texans of the Louisiana Pines
Where to Sleep, Shop, and Eat Near Colorado Bend State Park
By Courtney Bond
Colorado Bend State Park: A World of Wonders, Aboveground and Below


Attribute Group - is a collection of attributes, which combines attributes of certain kind together and make it easier for the customer to better understand the product and its features, eg group "screen" for smartphone may combine such attributes as "Screen diagonal", "resolution", "type of matrix", "number of touch points". Each Attribute may belong to only one attribute group, which is optional.
Attribute Groups can be activated or deactivated. Deactivated Attribute Groups cannot be used in the system or transfered via any channel.
To open the Attribute Groups' List View click on the Attribute Groups in the Navigation Menu.
If you want to make changes to the Attribute Group Entity, eg add new fields, or modify Attribute Group Views please contact your Administrator.
To sort attribute group records click any column title which is sortable. This will sort the column either ascending or descending.
To search or filter the attribute group records, see the UI/Search and Filtering section of this user guide.
To create new attribute group record click on the Create Attribute Group button in the Upper right corner of the List View.
To view the attribute group record in a Detail View click on the main naming field value of the appropriated record (eg name field value).
Export -- Export of the selected attribute groups, you can export all fields or choose the fields to be exported.
Edit -- go to the detail view of the attribute group record in the edit mode.
To create new Attribute Group click on the "Attribute Group" in the breadcrumb navigation to get to the Attribute Group List View and then click on the Button Create Attribute Group.
To edit the opened Attribute Group click the Edit button.
Deactivating an Attribute Group has no impact on the attributes and their values.
get all the values of the last chosen Attribute Group record copied d in the empty fields of the new Attribute Group record to be created.
To create a new attribute from this View сlick on the + icon in the upper right corner of the view.
To link already existing attribute with the selected attribute group, use the select icon in the upper right corner of the view.
Then in the Popup Window choose one or more atributes, you want to assign to this attribute group and click on the Select Action Button.
Please consider, if the attribute was already related to other attribute group, it will be reassigned to a new attribute group, which is opened in the Main Window.
To remove the attribute please click on the Remove in the Single Record Actions for the appropriate record.
To edit the attribute please click on the Edit in the Single Record Actions for the appropriate record.
To unlink the attribute from the brand click on the Unlink in the Single Record Actions for the appropriate record.
To view the attribute in the Quick View click on the View in the Single Record Actions for the appropriate record.


Mephisto Emilie Ballerina Made with leather upper and lining. Slip On flexible shoe. Rubber sole for more comfort and durability. Soft-air technology by Mephisto is a guarantee for tireless walking. Special shock absorbers in the heel and the soft shock absorbing Soft-air midsole reduce damaging impact to minimum. Shoe has a removable footbed which is an advantage for those who need Orthopedics.


We now know that aluminum has no place in the human body. It doesn't take a genius to know that aluminum, thanks to the work of Exley and many others, wreaks havoc on any biological system. It's great stuff to make cars and airplanes out of, sure, but it clearly does not belong inside of the human body in any amount, as it's extremely toxic and represents one of the most dangerous and neurotoxic substances known to man. Here's a great little video from Dr. Christopher Shaw from UBC in Canada explaining that.
You can view a list of Exley's publications here.
Exley recently started a GoFundMe to raise money to study aluminum in vaccines. Despite the fact that aluminum has been added into vaccines as the adjuvant to provoke an immune response, it's never been evaluated for safety. You would think that our federal health regulatory agencies would conduct appropriate safety studies for all vaccine ingredients, but this isn't the case, yet vaccines are marketed as completely safe for everybody.
His campaign was started after his appeal to scientific authorities for funding was rejected. Why would a study to evaluate aluminum in vaccines and the effect it has on the human body and little infants be shut down? Would a study like this not be in the best interests of humanity and human health? Why is science being shut down? Don't we want to discover more?
The British academic was recently blocked from raising funds, apparently after "protests by other scientists." (source) Robert F Kennedy Jr. made a great post regarding the recent blockage on his social media platforms, which is how I first became aware of it.
"He who stifles free discussion secretly doubts what he professes to believe in is really true." — Wendel Phillips. GoFundMe today shut down Dr. Christopher Exley's crowd funding campaign to study aluminum in vaccines. Dr. Exley, the world's leading authority on aluminum toxicity angered the Pharma Cartel when his autopsies discovered astronomically high aluminum concentrations in the brains of children with autism.
His other studies link aluminum in Merck's Gardasil and other vaccines to dementia, Alzheimer's and autism. Exley joins a long list of scientists silenced for questioning the Vaccine Orthodoxy. While White House Republicans censor climate science at the EPA, congressional Democrats clamor for censorship of vaccine science.
Link to Keele University Donation Page.
After this study, more research came out to help us better understand what happens when aluminum is injected into the body. It has been found that injected aluminum does not exit the body; in fact, it stays in the body and travels to various organs in the brain, where it remains. This isn't surprising since it's the adjuvant, it's designed to stay there or else the vaccine doesn't work.
Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph notes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.
Exley has been interviewed multiple times about this subject, and all of these studies and his research point to the same findings: Aluminum in vaccines does not exit the body, and it has been linked to multiple diseases, which can develop immediately post-injection or up to decades later in life for certain neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's.
A study by Exley and his team published in 2018 should have made headlines everywhere, as it discovered historically high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains. The study was conducted by some of the world's leading scientists in the field. Five people were used in the study, four males and one female, all between the ages of 14 and 50. Each of their brains contained unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common like Alzheimer's disease.
As you can see, there is more than enough evidence that clearly warrants further investigation into aluminum in vaccines. Why are these efforts constantly getting shut down? Why is there no funding? Why don't our federal health regulatory agencies study aluminum in vaccines if it's 'completely safe'? Why not just do the study and debunk those who say it's not? What's going on here?
You can listen to long and detailed information shared by Exley the interview below, posted by Keele University, conducted by Del Bigtree.
CE Founder Joe Martino & myself recently sat down for an episode on CETV, a platform we created to combat internet censorship and help us stay alive and able to put out the information that we do. We discussed the MMR vaccine specifically with regards to all of the mandatory vaccination initiatives that are happening right now.
Why are further efforts to study aluminum being blocked? Regardless of the hurdles these scientists are going through and the resistance they face, in a real scientific community, studies on this would be welcomed. That being said, there is more than enough information on aluminum in vaccines to justify not vaccinating yourself and your child with aluminum-containing vaccines.


text:
The Hidden Washington Mini-Monument
By Elliot Carter
Feb 13, 201712:30 PM
The top of the mini-monument.
NOAA's National Geodetic Survey / Public Domain
Each day, Slate features an article from Atlas Obscura, the website dedicated to the world's hidden wonders. You can follow Atlas Obscura on Facebook or on Twitter.
Unknown to most passersby, there's a 12-foot-tall replica of the Washington Monument under a manhole near the actual monument.
Officially known as "Bench Mark A," this underground oddity is actually a Geodetic Control Point that's used by surveyors. It's part of the network of a million control points across the country that helps the National Geodetic Survey, or NGS, synchronize all of the government's maps.
According to NGS modernization manager Dru Smith, "Geodetic control points provide starting points for any map or measurement. It has to be more accurate than any measurement you do on top of it, so we pick things that tend to be extremely stable."
Usually that means metal caps or rods that are driven down into the ground, but this quirky control point mirrors the form of its next-door neighbor.
"All the surveys we've done, going back to the early 1900s, have used it," says Smith. Most recently, it was used in the aftermath of the 2011 Washington earthquake. Measurements over the past century have shown that the Washington Monument has sunk 6.2 centimeters into the marshy soil below, at an average rate of 0.5 millimeters per year.
The mini-monument was placed in the 1880s as a part of a trans-continental leveling program. The ground level here was much lower at that time, with large parts of the Washington Monument foundation still visible above ground. The mini-monument was above ground for a time, before being encased in a brick chimney and buried. Outside of surveying circles, it's been largely forgotten.
The survey marker is underneath a manhole, just south of the Washington Monument. Speak to a Park Ranger before trying to see it.
Written by Atlas Obscura contributor Elliot Carter
If you liked this, you'll probably enjoy Atlas Obscura's New York Times best-selling book, which collects more than 700 of the world's strangest and most amazing places Atlas Obscura: An Explorer's Guide to the World's Hidden Wonders.


Linda is the senior liaison for Healthy Hoosier Communities, where she builds relationships with community leaders, faculty, staff, and students for a healthier Indiana. Linda resides in Lawrence County and has more than 20 years of experience collaborating with communities in the state. She formerly worked as a field representative for Indiana Youth Institute promoting positive youth development; a community development specialist with the CSR program at Purdue University; a prevention specialist with the Indiana Prevention Resource Center; and service coordinator with Res-Care, Inc., serving four group homes for developmentally disabled adults. Henderson served in the Indiana House of Representatives from 1992-1994.
Linda is currently an adjunct instructor at Ivy Tech Community College Bloomington, and she holds a master's degree in communication from Indiana University.


Just saw Riverdance at Montgomery, AL. Title should have been advertised "Riverdance Goes Multicultural " 25% of play is songs and dance about slavery, Blues Tap dancing, Spanish an Russian dancing. I thought I was paying for all Irish!


43 Great Models Of Swarovski Pacifier ornament. This wonderful photo collections about 43 Great Models Of Swarovski Pacifier ornament is available to download. We collect this wonderful photo from internet and choose the best for you. 43 Great Models Of Swarovski Pacifier ornament photos and pictures collection that posted here was carefully selected and uploaded by Rockymage team after choosing the ones that are best among the others. So, finally we make it and here these list ofwonderful photo for your inspiration and informational purpose regarding the 43 Great Models Of Swarovski Pacifier ornament as part of [blog] exclusive updates collection. So, take your time and find the best 43 Great Models Of Swarovski Pacifier ornament images and pictures posted here that suitable with your needs and use it for your own collection and personal use. 43 Great Models Of Swarovski Pacifier ornament.
– Welcome to our blog, in this occasion I'm going to provide you with with regards to swarovski pacifier ornament.


MAJOFESA is a traditional Spanish lumberyard located in Valencia, and it is dedicated to the purchase and sale of wood. With over 80 years of experience, we are now the third generation that continues the successful track record in this sector. Despite our long journey inside the market, we are far from being an obsolete lumberyard. We talk about a company with young and enterprising spirit that continues steadily on the market, offering a more diverse range of possibilities that allows us to highlight the variety and quality of our products. This shows our concern and our desire to pursue success while we extend our experience around the world.
Hardwoods are also known as broadleaved due to its heavy consistency. Hardwoods make up a wide range of colors ranging from pale to dark brown tones.
Softwoods are the most commonly used in construction and carpentry for its high quality. They are the oldest tree species and they grow both in cold and temperate zones.
Tropical woods are highly appreciated for its hardness and resistance especially to moisture. These lofty woods come from very large trees with homogeneous trunks and bright colors.
Our semi-finished wood products are: set of beech pieces; pine treated at level IV; KKK rolled profiles of pine and radiata pine wood with fingers; and wooden platforms of Sweden pine wood.
We offer the fastest purchases and deliveries thanks to our own fleet of trucks.
50.000 m2 of installations for storing wood spread between Valencia and Cuenca, where we have two driers of 160 m3.
We distribute directly for wholesale and we acquire stock for sale at national and international level.
We study each case to finance wholesale purchases in the most personalized way.
I am interested in receiving more information about batches.


Join us as we bring together the most forward-thinking utilities at the center of grid digitalization, and as our research team explores the latest advancements in distribution innovation across the East Coast.
As a spin-off of our flagship Grid Edge Innovation Summit in California, we're heading to North Carolina to focus on how innovation and decentralization can result in a more resilient energy system. Led by leading utilities, smart grid tech giants, and Wood Mackenzie's research experts, Grid Edge East will explore how frontier technologies such as AI, edge computing and power electronics are already impacting grid resiliency and customer experience, and how market leaders are innovating core systems at the edge of the grid.
He leads the company's grid modernization efforts and is responsible for the technical and engineering aspects of Dominion Energy's electric distribution business unit, including design, planning, reliability, strategic undergrounding, metering technologies, end-use technologies, renewable energy interconnections and federal energy solutions.
Woomer joined Dominion Energy in 1986 as an associate engineer in Northern Virginia and has held various engineering, operational, and management positions. In 2000, he was promoted to manager–Northwest Operations, responsible for local and regional operating groups and the management of distribution assets. In 2001, he was named director-Distribution Operations Centers, responsible for oversight of electric distribution system operations, gas dispatch, emergency preparedness and GIS. He was named director–Reliability, leading the reliability strategic planning effort, in 2006, and director–Electric Distribution Construction in April 2010. He assumed his current role in July 2018.
He is a member of the Gold Shovel Standard Board and SEE Engineering and Operating Committee and recently transitioned to represent Dominion Energy as an Executive Champion at Virginia State University. He is a former member of the Virginia 4H Foundation Board.
A native of Western Pennsylvania, Woomer earned his B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Penn State University in 1986, and graduated from the Tuck Executive Program at the University of Dartmouth in 2003.
Melissa Dykes serves as JEA's President and Chief Operating Officer. She leads the operation of the utility, responsible for providing reliable, affordable, safe utility services to more than one million people across four counties. Her team of more than 1,900 employees includes electric, water, wastewater, customer experience, human resources, environmental services, compliance, technology, supply chain, and legal. She is responsible for nearly all of JEA's $2 billion budget and management of assets of $8.8 billion.
Ms. Dykes served as JEA's Chief Financial Officer for nearly six years prior to her current role. As CFO, she provided leadership to ensure the financial health of JEA, resulting in access to capital at low cost on behalf of JEA's customers. Her efforts as CFO helped JEA deliver more than $1 billion in cost savings to the community, including savings from refundings, a rate restructuring, and savings from the shutdown of the St. Johns River Power Park earlier this year. She was responsible for all aspects of JEA's finances, including treasury, financial reporting, budgeting, supply chain management, and shared services, and had lead responsibility for ensuring compliance with all reporting, regulatory and tax requirements for JEA.
Prior to joining JEA, Ms. Dykes was CFO at a portfolio company of a large energy private equity firm and a principal in a renewable energy development company, where she was responsible for origination, commercial structuring, development and capital raising for renewable energy projects. She also was Vice President of Investment Banking at JPMorgan, where she was responsible for providing capital solutions for clients, including more than $26 billion in financings for many municipal electric and water systems across the country, risk management product delivery, and mergers and acquisitions. Prior to joining JPMorgan, Ms. Dykes worked for The World Bank Group, where she researched and published on private participation in infrastructure industries in developing countries. She is a graduate of the University of Florida and holds a certificate in Advanced Management from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.
Sherry Login is the Manager of Electric Vehicles Programs at the Consolidated Edison Company of New York. Con Edison operates one of the world's largest energy delivery systems providing electric, gas and to the 10 million people who live in New York City and Westchester County. Sherry pioneered the SmartCharge New York program, the first electric vehicle off-peak charging incentive program to utilize a connected car technology to monitor charging behavior. She holds an MBA and Master of Environmental Studies from Yale University, as well as a Bachelor of Science with Honors in Environmental Technology from Cornell University.
Raiford Smith and his team lead Entergy's pursuit of new, enabling technologies such as Distributed Energy Resources, big data analytics, and the development of customer-facing products and services. Mr. Smith is based out of Entergy's offices in The Woodlands, TX. Entergy is an integrated energy company that owns and operates approximately 30GW of electric generating capacity and delivers electricity to 2.9 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
Mr. Smith has 26 years of experience in the energy industry, including various roles in legal, planning and analytics, smart grid, customer management, demand-side management, pricing and rates, product development, wholesale deal structuring, mergers and acquisitions, and technology.
Leads the Power Supply team responsible for NCEMC's Asset Management & Compliance (Environmental and Regulatory), Grid Infrastructure (Transmission, Engineering, and Grid Modernization), and Portfolio & Resource Optimization. Member of the NCEMC CyberSecurity steering group and manages our EPRI involvement.
Eduardo Guerra has 15 years of experience in the energy industry. In his current role, he focuses on identifying and implementing Non-Wires Solutions (NWS) to defer or offset capital infrastructure upgrades. The first NWS under implementation is Brooklyn Queens Demand Management (BQDM) program as part of New York's Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) initiative. Prior to joining Con Edison, he developed energy performance contract projects in municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals (MUSH markets) for ConEdison Solutions. His work involved the design and implementation of distributed energy resources (DER) with focus on distributed generation and microgrids. Prior to this, he worked for Siemens Industries, as a Senior Energy Engineer in the energy performance contract team and alternative energy group. Eduardo holds a B.S. Biochemical Engineering and a M.S. Energy Management from New York Institute of Technology.
Michael Quinn is Vice President Portfolio Strategy and Risk Management for Oncor Electric Delivery. He has been charged with setting the company's course in transforming the value of the electric grid through innovative, technology-driven and customer focused solutions that meet the growing and changing needs of the market. His work impacts system performance and capital spending, legislative and regulatory efforts, customer engagement, and future business model evolutions.
He joined Texas Utilities, Oncor's predecessor company, in 1988 and has had assignments in Nuclear Generation, Fossil Generation, System Protection, Asset Management, Grid Operations, Business Development, Federal Advocacy and Corporate Strategy. Over the last twenty-two years, he has held numerous management and leadership positions within these organizations.
Michael is a 1988 graduate of Clemson University with a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and is a registered professional engineer in the state of Texas. He is active on numerous trade associations and industry boards including energy storage, environmental science institute, communications, transmission development and NERC compliance. He is a 2018 graduate of Leadership Dallas.
Michael and his wife Stephanie live in Flower Mound, Texas with their three children, Lexi, McKenna and Hunter.
Thomas Golden is the Chief Strategy Officer at EnergyUnited EMC. Thomas is responsible for developing groundbreaking strategic initiatives to leverage emerging technology, innovative service models, and disruptive trends in the marketplace to catapult EnergyUnited to the forefront of the electric industry.
Thomas has held a variety of other roles in his career, including Program Manager, Technology Innovation at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). At EPRI Thomas and his team were responsible for managing a large portfolio of research focused on emerging technology and thought leadership.
Prior to EPRI, he was as the Manager of Energy Market Design at the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), where he and his team were responsible for the evolution of the NYISO wholesale energy electricity market design. The team was closely focused on improving pricing signals and incentives that closely align with reliability needs and/or policy objectives.
Before leading Energy Market Design, Thomas was the Manager of Technology Management at Duke Energy, where he helped shape the company's strategy and policy regarding energy storage and emerging technologies. Thomas was a speaker at numerous National conferences and Universities where he delivered a message of thought leadership and change management related to emerging technologies. He was honored as one of the fifty Smart Grid Pioneers of 2015.
Finally, he led the Senior Reactor Operator Initial Licensing Program at Duke Energy's Catawba Nuclear Station. In this role, Thomas developed future licensed reactor and senior reactor operators who are tasked with operating a two-unit commercial nuclear reactor facility.
Thomas earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute as well as a Master of Business Administration from Wake Forest University.
Thomas is a military veteran, serving 12 years on active duty in the US Navy where responsibilities included operating submarine nuclear reactors and land-based prototype nuclear reactors. Thomas continues to serve today in the Navy Reserve as a Supply Corps Officer.
Gary Rackliffe is the ABB Vice President for Smart Grids and Grid Modernization. He has been in this position since 2009 and leads ABB's smart grid initiatives in North America. He also is the General Manager for the Smart Grid Center of Excellence located in Raleigh, North Carolina.
With 30+ years of electric grid transmission and distribution experience, Gary has been recognized as an industry leader on smart grid technologies. He is the past chair of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association's Smart Grid Council and is the Technical Advisor for the IEC US national Committee's advisory group.
Gary holds BS and ME degrees in Power Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a MBA from Carnegie Mellon University. He is a Registered Professional Engineer and an IEEE Senior Member. He has co-authored a T&D planning book, and has written numerous technical papers and articles.
Elta is a Research Manager for the Grid Edge team at Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables (formerly GTM Research), working on demand-side management in U.S. electricity markets. Prior to joining GTM, Elta pursued a joint Ph.D. funded by the European Commission on Sustainable Energy Technologies and Strategies at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. During her doctoral studies, she researched demand response policies for the implementation of smart grids and has presented her work at both U.S. and European conferences in addition to publishing in international scholarly journals. Elta holds a Master of Science degree in economics and management of network industries and a bachelor's degree in economics from Union College.


text:
An independent observer: Whereabouts, by Jhumpa Lahiri, reviewed
Chloë Ashby 8 May 2021 9:00 am
After falling in love with Italy as a young woman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jhumpa Lahiri broke with English and…
Why do writers enjoy walking so much?
Daisy Dunn 7 February 2020 10:00 pm
Writers like walking. When people ask us why, we say it's what writers do. 'Just popping out to buy a…
The highs – and occasional lows – of long-distance walking
Mark Mason 14 April 2018 9:00 am
Long-distance walking is all the rage these days. There are all-nighters staged by charities, for instance the annual MoonWalk in…
In today's brave new world, fat is a high-tech issue
Toby Young 10 February 2018 9:00 am
I have a confession to make: I'm a yo-yo dieter. For the past ten years, I've lost a bit of…
The 280-mile walk that made Bach who he was
Horatio Clare 16 December 2017 9:00 am
It was in his organ loft at Arnstadt that I began my acquaintance with Johann Sebastian Bach — with JSB,…
Richard Long interview: 'I was always an artist, even when I was two years old'
William Cook 8 August 2015 9:00 am
William Cook explores the elemental art and Olympian walks of Richard Long
Tony Hall's diary: the Proms, my walking obsession, and why the BBC is like James Bond
Tony Hall 25 July 2015 9:00 am
There's nothing quite like a First Night — and last Friday we launched the Proms, the most celebrated classical music…
To Land's End and beyond: footsore but bravely coasting along
Mark Mason 30 May 2015 9:00 am
It's a real skill, writing about a journey where nothing ever happens. We shouldn't be surprised that Simon Armitage is…
Go east – the people get nicer, even if their dogs get nastier
Artemis Cooper 12 April 2014 9:00 am
When Nick Hunt first read Patrick Leigh Fermor's account of his youthful trudge across Europe in A Time of Gifts…
The Broken Road, by Patrick Leigh Fermor - review
Justin Marozzi 7 September 2013 9:00 am
Sound the trumpets. Let rip the Byzantine chorus of clattering bells and gongs, the thunder of cannons, drums and flashing…


The nose of our 2015 Clos Electrique Blanc is perfumed with baked apple, lemon curd, honeydew melon, marzipan and bergamot. An unctuous mid-palate of lemon curd and tart tatine is accompanied by bright acidity and a long, lingering finish. Pour yourself a glass and embrace your fantasy of skipping through a vineyard in Mersault. This wine never disappoints.


text:
NewsPoliticsCouncil
By-election date set after former Labour councillor resigns
A by-election is set to be held over a vacant seat on Hartlepool Borough Council following the resignation of a councillor earlier this month.
Jean Robinson, who has stood down as a councillor
Jean Robinson, who represented the Hart ward, stepped down from her role as councillor on June 5.
A by-election to fill the Hart seat is now scheduled to take place on Thursday, July 25.
She said: "I received a letter of resignation and Councillor Robinson has explained she has decided to retire for health reasons.
"She's asked me to pass to her elected member colleagues and also to staff her grateful thanks for the support that she has received over her years as a councillor.
"I can confirm we received a request from two local government electors for a by-election to be convened."
Nomination forms to become a candidate can be obtained from the Civic Centre from the returning officer.
Nomination papers must then be delivered back to the returning officer at the Civic Centre on Victoria Road by 4pm on Friday.
Coun Stephen Aker-Belcher paid tribute to the work of Ms Robinson.
"She is far from a politician, what we need is people like Jean who care about the community, and anybody who spent any time talking to Jean would realise she is one of the most genuine, caring people you could meet," he said.


text:
Blasius Pujoraharja (ur. 12 czerwca 1935 w Gamping) – indonezyjski duchowny katolicki, biskup diecezjalny Ketapang w latach 1979–2012.

Życiorys
Święcenia kapłańskie otrzymał 8 września 1961.

15 marca 1979 papież Jan Paweł II mianował go biskupem diecezjalnym Ketapang. 17 czerwca tego samego roku z rąk kardynała Justinusa Darmojuwono przyjął sakrę biskupią. 25 czerwca 2012 ze względu na swój wiek złożył rezygnację z zajmowanej funkcji.

Linki zewnętrzne
  [dostęp 2015-09-25]

Indonezyjscy biskupi katoliccy
Urodzeni w 1935

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Beyond Agricultural Impacts: Multiple Perspectives on Climate Change in Africa presents the theories and methods commonly applied in climate change assessment from various locations in Africa, also inspiring further research that addresses the broad spectrum of societal impacts that result from altered climate status. Using case studies, the work provides insights into climate change impacts and adaptation with a lens on vulnerable groups in African agriculture, e.g. smallholder crop and livestock farmers, women and youth. The book also highlights areas of further interest in climate change and agriculture research in Africa, all done through views from multiple disciplines in the agriculture and climate change nexus.
Nkulumo Zinyengere is project manager and research lead with the Climate Development Knowledge Network (Africa). He holds a PhD in Environmental Science from the University of Cape Town, a B Sc. (hons) in Geography and M Sc. in Agricultural Meteorology (University of Zimbabwe). His research work has largely centered on climate change impacts and adaptation in various sectors in Africa. His interests are broadly on the intersection of climate, poverty and development in the African context. He has experience in applied climate science research and policy analysis and has been recognized as a future leader in sustainable development research through the German Ministry of Education and Research's (BMBF) green talents awards. He is also an awardee of the African Climate Change Fellowship Programme (ACCFP).
Theobald Frank Theodory is an environmental scientist focusing on climate change, adaptation, mitigation and Natural Resources Management. Currently, he is a Lecturer at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Mzumbe University, Tanzania. He obtained his Bachelor of Arts and Masters of Arts in Geography both from the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He obtained a PhD in Geography at the University of Bonn, Germany. He has a wealth of experience in research and outreach activities in areas of climate change adaptation and mitigation, natural resources management, land investments, and urban water governance. He has lectured Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, Political Ecology, Project Planning and Management, Environmental Issues and Sociology, Participatory Rural Appraisal subjects for over 6 years, as well as coordinating postgraduate programmes within the Institute of Development Studies.
Million Gebreyes is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow at the Institute of Geography, University of Bonn, Germany. He holds a PhD from the department of Development Geography, at the University of Bonn, Germany. Currently he is working on a Belmont Forum funded research project, looking at Water-Food-Energy nexus in the Blue Nile Mountains of Ethiopia. Before his doctoral study, Million worked as a lecturer in the department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension and Assistant Strategic Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer at Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Million's broad research interest areas include climate change adaptation, natural resource management, agricultural advisory services and pastoralism.
Chinwe Ifejika Speranza is Professor of Geography and Sustainable Development. She heads the research group Sustainable Land Management and Land Systems at the Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Switzerland, where she earned a PhD in Geography. She also has an MSc In Geography from University of Zurich, Switzerland. Her teaching and research focuses on sustainable land and water management including land use dynamics, ecosystem services, protected areas, and land degradation. Her work on climate change currently focuses on resilience and adaptation to climate change in Africa, in particular, on flood risk and vulnerability research, adaptation to climate change in African agriculture, agriculture policies and on climate policies at international and national levels. She teaches in undergraduate and post-graduate courses and supervises PhD, Masters and Bachelor theses. She worked several years on Geographic Information Systems and its use for development planning and the management of natural resources, and on food security, drought vulnerability and risk in agro-pastoral areas. She serves in editorial and scientific advisory committees. She has field experience in sub-Saharan Africa, Sarawak-Malaysia, Bolivia and Switzerland.


to fill or overcome with terror.
to dominate or coerce by intimidation.
to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings.
"coerce or deter by terror," 1823, from terror + -ize (also cf. terrorism). Related: Terrorized; terrorizing.


text:
Q: Apache Tomcat and IIS on Win Server 2008 We have Apache Tomcat running on Windows Server 2008. Is there a problem to install IIS on the same machine?

A: You will need to either bind them to different IP addresses or different ports.
If I remember correctly, Tomcat's default port is 8080? If it's still running on 8080 then they will live side by side quite nicely. Otherwise, you will need to add a 2nd IP address to your Windows installation and bind Tomcat to one and IIS to the other.

A: This should not be a problem.
There is a module for IIS that will allow you to serve up tomcat through IIS. This way you can use port 80 or 443 for everything.
http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/reference/iis.html
There is a slight security risk whenever you host multiple applications on the same server in that a security hole with either application could allow both to be compromised by an attacker.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Stan Lee, the legendary comic book writer and editor who helped redefine the medium when he co-created much of Marvel Comics' vast library of characters and concepts, died Monday, according to a statement released by Disney. He was 95.
Spider-Man proved another cosmic leap for Marvel, introducing the idea of a hero who didn't just have personal issues, but problems — unpopularity at school, constant worries about money, a struggle to balance his role as a hero with his interpersonal relationships, and as he grew older, realistic concerns about his career and educational future — that were positively modern. Spider-Man would eventually become a Marvel flagship and alongside DC's Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, one of the defining heroes of the comic book superhero genre.
Born in 1922 in New York City, Lee grew up in the Bronx and began his career right out of high school as part of the WPA Federal Theatre Project in 1939. That same year he was hired as an assistant at newly-established Timely Comics, where by 1941 he rose to writer and then interim editor-in-chief. After the outbreak of World War II, Lee served in the Army from 1942 to 1945, after which he returned to Timely as editor-in-chief, a position he held through Timely's change to Marvel Comics and into the early 1970s.
These innovations built a relationship between readers and comic creators that has been a staple of comics culture ever since.
As pivotal as he was, Lee's legacy and his reputation in the comics world are complicated. A gifted self-promoter, Lee turned himself into the rare comics industry celebrity known even to non-readers, and served as a sort of ambassador for Comics to the mainstream. But he was often accused of claiming oversized credit for the characters and concepts that made Marvel famous, and of dealing dishonestly with the artists he worked with.
Kirby's estate spent years litigating with Marvel over credits and money for characters Kirby co-created. That fight would not be resolved until 20 years after his death, when Marvel settled with Kirby's heirs for an undisclosed sum. The terms of the settlement are not public, and the true extent of Lee and Kirby's actual collaboration may never be known.
Lee stepped down as EIC and head writer of Marvel in 1972 after nearly 30 years in the job to become Marvel's publisher, a career change later nodded to in Marvel Comics with Spider-Man-hating editor-turned-publisher J. Jonah Jameson. Lee's final issues of "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Fantastic Four" came that year, but he continued to occasionally contribute as a writer and creator; his final new character for Marvel was She-Hulk, in 1980.
From the '70s on, Lee became the public face of Marvel Comics, appearing at conventions, and lending his voice to animated projects like the early '80s cartoon series "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends." He moved from New York to Los Angeles in 1981 to focus on developing the company's movie and TV projects, going on to serve as an executive producer on Marvel films and television shows.
In addition to his Marvel work, Lee was also behind several businesses in his own name, to limited degrees of success. In 1998 he founded Stan Lee Media, which he later disavowed after one of its investors was convicted of fraud. Lee was never implicated in that scheme.
Lee later formed POW! Entertainment, through which he published numerous books and graphic novels, established a kids content outlet, and lent his name and participation to Los Angeles-based Comikaze convention, which became Stan Lee's Comikaze Expo and is now known as L.A. Comic Con, among other ventures.
Lee's relationship with POW! eventually collapsed into acrimony — he sued the company in 2018 for $1 billion, accusing the company and its co-founders of conspiring to "fraudulently" steal his "name, image, and likeness as part of a nefarious scheme benefit financially." In 2018, Lee also sued his former manager, who Lee accused of stealing money, fraudulently selling his likeness rights, and even stealing samples of his blood.
But in the end, he was still wildly celebrated as a man who, perhaps more than any other single person, helped turn comic books from a niche interest enjoyed by kids and nerdy adults, into the source material for billion-dollar entertainment empires.
"All powerful? There is only one who deserves that name. And His only weapon … is love!" Lee wrote in a 1968 issue of "The Fantastic Four." Whatever else he was, Lee gave that weapon to generations of comics fans. Excelsior, Stan. Nuff said.


text:
Q: Why is the sequence $\{f_n\}$ defined by $f_n := \frac{|f(x)|^{p_n} - 1}{p_n} - \log f(x)$ convergent to $0$? I'm reading this proof on Rudin Real and Complex analysis exercise 3.5 (d), and got fairly confused here:
$f$ is a complex measurable function defined on $X$, and in this problem, we required that $\|f\|_r < \infty$ for some $r > 0$. Given a sequence $\{p_n\}$ such that $p_n \to 0$, why is the sequence $\{f_n\}$ defined by $f_n := \frac{|f(x)|^{p_n} - 1}{p_n} - \log f(x)$ convergent to $0$?

A: Notice
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{|f(x)|^{p_n}-1}{p_n} = \frac{|f(x)|^{0}-1}{0} = \frac{1-1}{0} = \frac{0}{0}$$
Let's use l'Hôpital rule for $p_n$:
$$ \frac{|f(x)|^{p_n} \log(|f(x)|)}{1}$$
Then,
$$ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{|f(x)|^{p_n}-1}{p_n} = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{|f(x)|^{p_n} \log(|f(x)|)}{1} =\frac{|f(x)|^{0} \log(|f(x)|)}{1}=\frac{ \log(|f(x)|)}{1} $$
Concluding,
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} f_n:=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(\frac{|f(x)|^{p_n}-1}{p_n}−\log f(x))=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(\frac{|f(x)|^{p_n}-1}{p_n})−\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\log f(x))=\frac{ \log(|f(x)|)}{1}  - \log(|f(x)|) =0$$


text:
CharacterToken::CharacterToken(const wchar_t &char_to_set)
{
    token_char = char_to_set;
}

bool CharacterToken::is_char_token() const
{
    return true;
}

wchar_t CharacterToken::get_char() const
{
    return token_char;
}

void CharacterToken::set_char(const wchar_t &char_to_set)
{
    token_char = char_to_set;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Geografia
 Velázquez – comune dell'Uruguay

Persone
Esistono diverse persone con il cognome Velázquez:
 Antonio Velázquez Bautista (1981) – attore spagnolo
 Antonio Velázquez de Narváez – conquistador spagnolo
 Diego Velázquez – frate spagnolo, fondatore dell'Ordine militare di Calatrava
 Diego Velázquez (1599-1660) – pittore spagnolo
 Diego Velazquez – attore statunitense
 Consuelo Velázquez (1916-2005) – pianista e compositrice messicana
 Fortún Velázquez de Cuéllar (m. 1460) – religioso e diplomatico spagnolo
 Juan Velázquez de León (m. 1520) – conquistador spagnolo
 Juan Velázquez Velázquez (m. 1529) – conquistador spagnolo
 Pilar Velázquez (1946) – attrice spagnola
 Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar (1465-1524) – conquistador spagnolo e governatore di Cuba

Trasporti
 Velázquez – stazione della metropolitana di Madrid

Pagine correlate
 Velásquez