SMARTPolicing Police: Investigating Potential Passport-Visa Processing Links.

A Case Study From The Biotech tropicana,IncFORENSICS FILES.

Aboubakar YARI & Venus YARI

SUMMARY:

A trivial clue in retrieval of passport of suspectR from suspectE triggers the initiation of Investigative Report (1): (1): 2, 2015. SuspectE demand of the presence of suspectL in retrieval of passport of suspectR violates established procedures.

Q1: What are the basis of the violation?

SuspectL previously processed visa for suspectR before suspectTNC.

Q2: Is there a link between the processing of the visa and the processing of the passport for suspectE to demand the presence of suspectL in retrieval of the passport, thereby leading to the violation in Q1. ?

ISSUE:

Where suspectR is about to file for a new passport, it is imperative that the ambiguities around the filing of the last passport be CLARIFIED before submission of a new application.

THEREFORE:

File (1) : (1): 2, 2015, of the Biotech tropicana,IncFORENSICS Investigative Reports is opened.

I) HYPOTHESIS:

1. Violation in passport retrieval process in countryN IS LINKED to visa process in counytryZ.

2. Violation in passport retrieval  process in countryN IS NOT LINKED to visa process in counytryZ

II) METHODS:

We re-explore the events in processing of the passport in countryN, and the events in processing of the visa in countryZ to isolate key evidences. We then analyse the evidences to reconstruct scenarios that may provide answers to Q1 in relation to Q2. Where possible we avoid technical terms to make the text as simple as possible, without altering meaning.

III) RESULTS:

Event 1 (E1): CountryN

1. Site of suspectE

Based on information provided by suspectE, to obtain a passport:

1. The applicant MUST satisfied established criteria
2. MUST provide supporting documents
3. MUST pay an application fee
4. MUST allow suspectE reasonable processing time set by suspectE.
5. MUST sign a confirmation documents on retrieval

SuspectR satisfied all conditions set by suspectE. SuspectE demand of the presence of suspectL at the retrieval step violates established procedures.

Key Evidence 1: 1)A)a) Clear cut violation of established procedure.

2. Site of SuspectTNC

SuspectTNC processed visas for countryC, in countryN based on established criteria and procedures.

Key Evidence 2: 1)B)a) Visa issued by suspectTNC for suspectR; 1)B)b) Visa application submitted by suspectL before suspectTNC for suspectR. 

-----------------------

Event 2 (E2): CountryZ

3. Site of suspectTZC:

Suspected TZ issues new policy for visa applications stating in essence:

1. If you hold a passport issued by countryZ, you apply at window before suspectTZC.
2. For any other holder of any other passport issued by any other country, either

1. You drop your passport and supporting documents in a mail box issued by suspectTZC, and wait until you are called for interview.
   382.  
2. Send your passport and supporting documents to suspectTX, in countryX that issued the passport.

4. Site of suspectYZ

Blockade of authorization to apply for visa before suspectIZ, for “love”, resulting into a cascade of “Apply-Cancel-Reapply”, a chaotic immigration process in coutryZ. Even where, the purpose of the blockade is  to “force” suspectR to stay with suspectYZ, on legal ground it is a violation of established procedures.

5. Site of suspectTNZ

Consistent with established procedures, suspectTNZ provided two opened plane tickets from now defunct airline for suspectR to travel to home country after graduation: one opened cargo ticket, and one opened personal ticket.  

Key Evidence 2: 2)C)1) New Policy, 2)D)1 violation of established procedure,2)E)1 opened plane ticket.

------------------------

Event 3 (E3): CountryC

CountryC issued two types of visas based on established criteria and procedures:

1. nonimmigrant visas for a determined period of validity, and
2. Immigrant visas for an undetermined period of validity

* discretion may apply on case by case basis in decision making.

Key Evidence 3: Applicable Law

-------------------------

Event 4 (E4): CountryK

CountryK is a transit country. Based on information provided by suspectTK:

1. SuspectR MUST apply for a visa if suspectR is leaving the airport to enter the country.
2. SuspectR MUST NOT apply for a visa if suspect is not leaving the airport, and suspectR is continuing from airport to destination country.

Key Evidence 4: Clarification

-------------------------

Events 5 (E5): CountryA:

Site suspectUA:

SuspectR reaearch topic at site YZ in countryZ is linked research topic at site of suspectUA in countryA. Members of siteUA at numerous occasions visit site YZ, and suspectR wrote a letter to siteUA.

Key Evidence 5: physical presence of members os siteAU at site YZ.

-------------------------

IV) RECONSTRUCTION:

SCENARIO 1: LINKAGE

1. Events at site of of suspectE in countryN are linked to the events at site of susoectTNC in countryN.

2. Events at site of suspectE in countryN are linked to the events at sites of suspectTNC in countryN and linked to events at site of suspectTKZ in countryZ.

3. Events at site of suspectE in countryN are linked to the events at sites of suspectTNC in countryN  and linked to events at site of suspectTKZ in countryZ that arealso linked to events at site of suspectYZ in countryZ.

4. Events at site of suspectE in countryN are linked to the events at sites suspectTNC in countryN  and linked to events at site of suspectTKZ in countryZ that are also linked to events at site of suspectYZ in countryZ that are also inked to events at site of suspectUA in countryA.

SCENRARIO 2: NO LINKAGE OR COINCIDENCE

5. Events at site of suspectE in countryN are not linked to any other events and a pseudolinkage is due to coincidence.

See linkage analysis below for more details.

V) ANALYSIS:

The data gathered in this study may be grouped into two classes; objective verifiable data and subjective data that require additional data for verification.

Where the objective data per se are not sufficient to establish a link between the passport processing and the visa processing; when combined with subjective data, the evidences suggest a ‘relative link” between the two independent events.

Applications and documents or decisions issued based the applications are types of objective data.

Subjective data such as simultaneous but “relative” presence of suspectDH and suspectTNC at site of suspectE, when combined with the insistence of suspectE, for suspectL to appear on baseless legal grounds, raised suspicions of a link between the two independent events; particularly when combined with objective data that link suspectL to the two events.

VI) CONCLUSION:

There is a “relative link” between the processing of the passport and the processing of the visa.

A definitive answer to question 1 (Q1) in relation to question 2 (Q2) requires additional data. 

!!! BINGO: Linkage analysis suggests a link between the events.

VII) FUTURE DIRECTIONS:

This study demonstrated a “relative link” between the processing of the passport ant the processing of the visa. Additional data is needed to definitively confirm a link between the independent events. Future work shall investigate for these additional data.

Despite the “relativeness” of the conclusion, this case demonstrated the importance of visa in business development in a globalizing world.

Acquisition of a passport is a right.  Any challenge to these basic rights may be addressed in appropriate courts based on clearly established laws, regulations, and policies.  

Acquisition of a visa by a noncitizen of a foreign country is a grace, at the solo discretion of the authorities of the foreign country. In a globalizing and raising competition world, biodiplomacy becomes an essential component of any development model of a Biotech company seeking to operate on a global scale.

Security of ownership and expansion interests shall be balanced to protect the very existence of the company while promoting its further development. Too much protection can inhibit further development of the company. Too much expansion without adequate guarantees can result in lost of ownership in inaccessible foreign territories.

Development of a modern Biotech company becomes an interdisciplinary field that requires advanced knowledge.

In the developing world corruption is another serious impediment to business development; its management strategies must be given equivalent consideration in business development models. 

Biotech tropicana Systems. We are here. NOW and FOREVER. Poverty is in BIG TROUBLE.

Aboubakar YARI & Venus YARI.

For the Biotech tropicana Systems.

----------------------------------------------------------

Appendix

SUSPECTS:

Suspect R

Suspect L

Suspect E

Suspect T

Suspect DH

suspectUA

SuspecTYZ

SuspectTZC

SuspectTXX,

SuspectTKZ

SuspectTNZ

suspectTKC

WITNESSES:

WitnessN:

A friend of suspectR, in countryZ claimed to have come to help anyway he can.

WitnessS:

After retrieval of the passport, witnessS a family member of suspectR, proposed to see suspectTNC for issuance of a permanent visa to countryC based on new approved petition filed by witnessA.

WitnessA;

WitnessA, a family member of suspectR claimed to have been forced against her will to sign for withdrawal of a first visa petition in countryC, and proposed not to withdraw a second visa petition, against all odds.

CLAIMS:

Suspect R

SuspectR travelled from countryZ to countyC for a first exploratory trip, returned to countryZ to terminate ongoing programs and prepared for a return to countryC for business, with a primary objective to further explore biotech business in countryC, the birth place of biotech business. A secondary objective was to complete the PhD program initiated in countryZ.

VISAS:

suspectR re-entered countryC with a non-immigrant visa, applied for another non-immigrant visa in countryC, and then for an immigrant visa in countryC.

First non-immigrant visa:

SponsorK:

Conistent with sponsorK established procedures, suspect K was granted a non-immigrant visa allowing a mandatory program attendance + a non-mandatory exploratory time.     

Second non-immigrant visa:

Sponsor Church :

During the non mandatory exploratory phase, suspect operating as a short term volunteer for a church received a sponsorship for long term volunteer. suspectR introduced a change of status form type 1 non-immigrant visa to type 2 non-immigrant visa.  

Third immigrant visa:

Sponsor: Family based.

During the long term volunteer status, suspect introduced an application for a permanent family based immigration visa.

The petition supporting the immigrant visa application was withdrawn based on family issues.

A second petition in support of the immigrant visa was filed and approved by supervising authorities, but the approval was received after an immigration judge decision barred suspectR from re-application within a 10 years period.

suspectR was given an opportunity to explain why the immigration judge should overrule the decision to withdraw of the countryC citizen family member, and grant suspectR a permanent residency.

SuspectR missed the opportunity by not attending scheduled appointment.

Consistent with applicable laws, the judge ordered suspectR removed “in absentia” from countryC, with the subsequent 10 years bar for failure to appear in court.

suspectR used the second opportunity to explain now, “the reasons for failure to appear in court”.

The Judge determined that the reasons for “failure to appear in court” does not meet the threshold set by the law, thereby definitively depriving suspectR of an opportunity to explain why the judge should overrule the petition withdrawers.

Consistent with applicable procedures, suspectR was granted a free trip back to his homecountry.

Suspect L

SuspectL proposed to show up as demanded by suspectE at the retrieval stage of passport requested by suspectR.

*An extra protocol step.

Suspect E

SuspectR three times unsuccessfully attempted to collect passport from suspectE after confirmation of processing. Each time suspectE demands the presence of suspectL. A condition not included in the information sheet. SuspectR therefore contested and decided to take issue before higher authority. SuspectL proposed to show up as demanded. SuspectE released passport.

* Argument around an extra protocol step. On legal grounds, a baseless argument.

Suspect DH

None. See “clues” section.

SuspectTNC

SuspectR had one interview with suspectTNC. According to suspectTNC, based on information on files of suspectR, and consistent with established procedures:

1. suspectR IS NOT eligible to apply for a visa at the time of the interview because of a 10 years bar imposed by judge in countryC.

To be eligible for a visa, suspectR MUST, either:

2. obtain a waiver of the 10 years bar from countryC, within the 10 years period.
   382.  
3. Wait until the 10 years bar expired and re-apply.

SuspectTNK

None.

SuspectYZ:

SuspectR, a master level student must stay in countryZ to complete a PhD degree. suspectR willing to continue in countryC declined offer. SuspectR was then travelling to countryC for a short term program and exploration, returning to CountryZ to complete ongoing programs and prepare a return to countryC. After a discussion suspectYZ ruled: “ I will suspend your student visa just for the duration of your program in countryC and return to countryZ. Then after your return, you must come and see me. If you continue your work, I’ ll make you a permanent visa”.  

SuspectR was then working on the development of a vaccine that comports two parts: PARTA, development of a cell free vaccine based on recombinant proteins, (master level completed), and PARTB, development of a whole cell attenuated vaccine that integrate the recombinant proteins from PartA, into live   attenuated cells, (PhD level).

SuspectR attended the program in countryC, returned to countryZ, but did not continue the PhD program in countryZ. Suspected was admitted in a PhD program in countryC.

SuspectTZC:

From “unofficial” security source, every summer suspectTZK must process huge number of visas in a short period of time, resulting in large number of people gathering in and around the site. For security reasons, to decrease the number of people around the site, a mail box was set. Once an applicant drops the documents in the mail box, the applicant cannot retrieve the documents until the applicant is called for an interview. As a consequence of the new approach, many applicants missed their pre-set flights.

SuspectR decided definitively not to drop his documents in the mail box and proceed through approach 2)B)II. suspectR strategy was proven successful, and suspectR could fly on time.

SuspectTKZ

SuspectR travels three times (3x) to countryTKZ.

First trip: A transit.

SuspectTZK required suspect to apply for a visa because suspect missed a pre-set flight from countryK to countryC. SponsorK proposed suspectR to fly to countryK, and wait in countryK for re-scheduling for a new flight.

Second trip: A Visit.

SuspectR was visiting friends in countryK. SuspectR applies and was granted a visitor visa by suspectTKC based on invitation letter provided by friends. SuspectR also submitted documents from sponsorK to demonstrate previous residence in countryK.

Third trip: A transit.

SuspectTKZ recommends suspectR not to apply for a visa because suspect was flying to airport in countryK on time to continue directly to destination, in countryC. SuspectR was not leaving the airport.

CLUES:

Additional Clues:

AC)1, SuspectTNC was present at the retrieval session of the passport.

AC)2, SuspectDH , the higher authority of suspectE was present at the retrieval of the passport.

AC)3, WitnessN, a friend of suspectR  was present at the retrieval session of the passport. WitnessN is to some degree linked to the processing of the visa, by information.

AC)4, the time of application of the visa coincides with a “chaotic immigration process” of visas at the place of residence of suspect, in countryZ.

AC)5, New policy set by suspectTZK that triggers the application of the visa at issue before suspectTNC, and NOT before suspectTZK,  reinforces the hypothesis of linkage between the processing of the passport and the visa, under investigation.

Countries

1. CountryN
2. CountryZ
3. CountryC
4. CountryK
5. CountryA
6. CcountryX

UNDER FORMATING