Adoptive parents bring Vietnamese daughter home
OCRegister – Santa Ana,CA,USA
The couple received an e-mail Thursday morning from immigration officials saying they had decided to approve the couple’s adoption despite objections from the State Department. Ecstatic, Steve Carroll got on a plane to Vietnam hours later.
Madelyn, or Maddy as her parents affectionately call her, arrived at the Carroll’s Camarillo home on Sunday. Her homecoming marks the end of a battle the Carrolls began half a year ago when the State Department refused to issue the baby a visa, even after the couple won approval from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service and adopted her in a Vietnamese court. …
Julie Carroll said Boxer’s office has been a “staunch advocate” for the family, helping to “facilitate better communication” with the State Department along with “figuring out the pattern of what was going wrong over there and correcting it.”
Natalie Ravitz, Boxer’s press secretary, said the senator met with Jonathan Aloisi, Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy in Vietnam, and discussed the issue with State Department officials, including Asst. Secretary Maura Harty.
19 Responses
I am so happy for this family. I know it is taboo to say that we had always hoped the NOIDS were reversed, but it always makes me happy when they are. I take it to mean that no matter how hard they tried the US gov’t simply could not prove that there was any wrong doing in these cases. It is very happy news for these children and families.
I hope more information about these cases is finally brought to light. People should know the details before they make judgements of wrong doing.
Or assumptions to the contrary.
From this article it sounds like the State Dept. still didn’t approve the adoption but CIS granted the visa anyways, which is interesting…
This is a statement from the USCIS in Hanoi re: NOIDs
—————————————————————————–
4. Are NOIDs ever overturned or dismissed?
While we do not have precise figures, our experience is that few NOIDs are overturned.
4a. If so, what does this mean (was the issue resolved to the US Embassy satisfaction or was political pressure applied in order to overturn a NOID)?
The decision to approve or deny an I-600 petition is made in accordance with U.S. law. If an I-600 petition is approved after a NOID is issued it is because the legal issues that led to the issuance of the NOID have been addressed.
——————————————————————————
So it looks to me from this statment that the details of this NOID are that there was no LEGAL reason to deny this visa. We all want corruption stopped and understand that NOIDs are in place for a reason, but they also have to have some kind of legal basis and should be reversed if the case can not stand up to legal scrutiny. This is a child and a family that are being effected and NOIDs (IMO) should not be used as a punishment and especially not upheld if they were issued to offer additional time to investigate and no illegal activities were found.
Tracy
This is *wonderful news*. I am so happy for this family!
Interesting that USCIS would not have precise figures, given that they are the ones who decide whether or not the NOIDS are overturned on appeal. Of the 13 families who decided to fight their NOIDS, at least 12 of them were overturned, and visas were issued for the children.
Snippets from the article…
Julie Carroll: “There’s no way to know if things would have turned out differently without Boxer’s help.”
“Julie Carroll said Boxer’s office has been a ‘staunch advocate’ for the family.”
Sen. Boxer: “It means so much to me that they are finally able to bring their children home. This is one of those times I am really glad to be a U.S. Senator.”
– – – – – – – – – –
Although Tracy concludes the NOID was overturned on LEGAL grounds, I think it would be naiive to not consider the POLITICAL pressure brought forth in this case had something to do with the outcome.
Gina – POLITICAL pressure, you say? Where was the EVIDENCE? Why are you so opposed to the idea that, now that it seems most of these NOIDs have been overturned, there really wasn’t much in the way of evidence of any wrongdoing? If the USCIS or DOS had any concrete evidence then that would have been brought to light, rather than appearing “wrong on its face” to its superiors.
Gina,
I did not conclude that, the EMBASSY did. They are the ones that said if a NOID is overturned it was based on legal reasons and not political pressure (which you will see was specifically addressed in that question).
A criminal will get off, too, if for example the Miranda rights are not read. That doesn’t mean the crime did not occur.
I think we need to be careful about presuming that an overturned NOID means that a case was clean. NOIDs are extremely difficult to uphold which does not at all reflect their original validity or the lack of ethics under which an adoption was preformed. I don’t know about every single NOID situation but I do know a bit about a few and I can say with complete certainty that there was serious corruption involved at some level. Clearly not enough to allow the NOIDs to stand *legally* but those adoptions will never be clean, the corruption is still the corruption. I also know several people who are happy to share that their own adoption situations were corrupt and should have received NOIDs and even more people whose adoptions were clearly corrupt based on their own admissions but becuase they were issued a visa, consider all “forgiven”.
The Embassy has been pretty clear that just becuase people are coming home with babies does not mean adoptions are clean. This is, unfortunately, a byproduct of the way we have set up our own legal system. International adoption is complicated, legally.
Nicki,
Do you believe that 12 out of 13 criminals “get off” because something was wrong with the case and not because they didn’t do it? 12 out of 13 NOIDS reversed is pretty high stats and, if they did get off on technicalities, what does that say about the competentcy of those investigating? I know that if I failed to do my job well 12 out of 13 times, I wouldn’t have one anymore.
L
Actually those stats are quite typical, as far as I am aware. It says nothing of the competency of those investigating and everything about the ways the laws are written. Christina linked to an article further down in the comments that should be required reading for everyone.
I have read that document several times. I also note that the OIC was reprimanded and the article states that “while the OIC seriously damaged his case”. It makes my point for me re: competence.
With regards to how the laws are written, would you suggest we lower the standard of proof? Assume guilty until proven innocent? Where are you suggesting the line be drawn? (Not trying to be argumentative, rather just curious as to what your position is, exactly.) I believe the law was carefully drafted. Most are, with careful attention to every minute detail.
It’s not 12:13… from Ethica’s meeting with State in February:
“Since re-opening adoptions to Americans, approximately 20 NOIDs have been issued, several of which were sustained. These NOIDs include those issued pre-Orphans First. As of November, there have been 11 NOIDs issued. When we reported that families were indicating over 20 families were in Hanoi awaiting visas, we were told that some families have received pre-NOID letters requesting additional information which were not officially NOIDS.”
“The Embassy has been pretty clear that just becuase people are coming home with babies does not mean adoptions are clean.”
Has it? Please elaborate, because all I’ve read and heard are rumors and hearsay. Its all about as clear as mud from my perspective, and I’ve been driving myself nuts trying to find some actual facts. If you have some real solid evidence, please share. And I don’t believe “anonymous sources” making unofficial statements count.
From the Embassy Hanoi’s webpage: November 2007 News Announcement:
“Unfortunately, as news stories and blogs often reveal, the glowing report of an adoptive parent who successfully “brought home†a child cannot be taken as evidence that the adoption was ethical or fully legal.”
And what is specific about that? What is the evidence exactly that its NOT ethical or fully legal?
Child Traffcking – Why Can’t the Immigration Service Prove It?