Relatives Force a migration officer to read documents

[wsad12]

Jurisdiction

New York

Hello!

Is there a federal law obliging civil servants/migration officers to read applications WELL?

For example, in a letter to a government agency, can I add at the end "If I have read the letter, write "I have read the documents, full name and signature," otherwise the letter is considered unread?

Maybe there are other similar tricks?

 

[Zigner]

Hello!

Is there a federal law obliging civil servants/migration officers to read applications WELL?

For example, in a letter to a government agency, can I add at the end "If I have read the letter, write "I have read the documents, full name and signature," otherwise the letter is considered unread?

Maybe there are other similar tricks?

No.

 

[adjusterjack]

No, there are no tricks to get government bureaucrats to do what they are paid to do.

You are at their mercy.

You have to obey their rules but they don't have to obey them.

 

[Zigner]

...but they don't have to obey them.

And yet, interestingly, the vast majority of them do.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Hello!

Is there a federal law obliging civil servants/migration officers to read applications WELL?

No, there is no such law. If the federal official isn't doing his/her job well, that's an issue for agency management. When I worked for IRS there were some letters that I received from the public that I could immediately tell weren't worth my time to read in detail, let alone take any action on it. Those went right to the shred box. Bear in mind that while what you write to government officials, while important to you, may not be anything about which the official can do anything for you for or has the time to add into his/her already substantial workload. If the matter is indeed not frivolous the employee should forward it to the proper employee or agency if it doesn't directly fall under his/her duties. That's just good public service. No law requires it.

For example, in a letter to a government agency, can I add at the end "If I have read the letter, write "I have read the documents, full name and signature," otherwise the letter is considered unread?

You can try that, but it won't have any effect. The federal official is not obligated to sign the acknowledgement in the letter and there are several reasons why the official wouldn't sign it even if he or she read every word of it. The lack of an official's signature on your acknowledgment block at the end of the letter will not raise a presumption that the letter was not read.

The content of the letter matters, too. If there is no violation of federal law or any civil action that the federal government may take to address whatever it is that you raised there is nothing the official can do but toss it. Very rarely will you get a response from a federal agency that explains why no action is being taken. One of the problems with sending such letters is that in order to explain the decision, it may require revealing information that is protected from disclosure by federal law. At the IRS management stressed repeatedly the importance of not violating Irc § 6103, which is the statute that protects taxpayer information to persons outside the agency. If there is any risk at all that a response would violate that section you'd get notice of what action(s) the IRS took as a result of your letter. Be aware that it not uncommon for an agency to open up an investigation into the matter you raised, but that the agency is prohibited from disclosing that information to you.

The best way to get the letter read in its entirety is to keep it on point and as short and clear as possible. Then check out which agency is the correct one to handle the matter you raised in the letter.

If you don't think the agency is doing enough to handle the issues you raised. you may always write your members of Congress. A call or letter from a member of the House or Senate will always get the agency's attention and the agency will provide the representitive or senator with an explanation of what it doing on the matter and where things stand. Typicall the representative's or senator's staff will at least acknowledge reciept of the letter, but if there are limits on disclosure that letter may not reveal much.

Finally, it is not unusual in many agencies to tak manye months before it even starts to work on the issue you raised. That frustrates citizens, and I get a bit ticked off too if I don't get a timely response. However, most of the letters agencies get are worked on a first come, first served basis. If the agency is backlogged (a lot of agencies are in that position due to insufficient funding).

What was the letter about and to which agency did you send it? I might have more specific information to give you if you supply additional details.

 

[Tax Counsel]

If there is an actual rule/regulation on the matter that mandates at least a certain level of investigation or action by the agency then the agency will take action to follow the rule/regulation. The agency does not get to pick and choose what to do when a statute or regulaton mandates the agency take a specific action in response to what was provided to it. However, despite the thousands of pages of federal agency regulations there are still a number of issues that come up on which the statute or regulation is silent. In that case the agency will need to decide for itself how the applicable law or regulations will be applied in that case and whether the agency's proposed action would meet resistence in the courts.

I'll give one example from own work at the IRS. I started an initial investigation on it. I was prohibited by the tax code from providing any information about what I did on the matter to the public. The informant got upset that he wasn't getting any answers as to what is being done with the information the he provided, and I understand that frustration. But I didn't have authority to release any information regarding what the informant supplied. At least I was able to find the time to explain to the informant that his information was received and read but the law didn't allow me to disclose information. I told him that to change the rule he'd to get the attention of the staff of at least one member of Congress. That usually got the informant to calm his anger and understand that he that my hands were tied. My explanation didn't fully satisfy the guy but his repeated phone calls and letters finally stopped once I gave him a direction he could pursue.

 

[army judge]

For example, in a letter to a government agency, can I add at the end "If I have read the letter, write "I have read the documents, full name and signature," otherwise the letter is considered unread?

Maybe there are other similar tricks?

Thanks for the chuckles, which caused me to chortle loudly, followed by intense giggling, until I began to happily guffaw.

Good luck to you, mate.

 

[zddoodah]

Is there a federal law obliging civil servants/migration officers to read applications WELL?

Not really sure what this means. Any employee has a minimum level of competency that is expected by his/her employer.

For example, in a letter to a government agency, can I add at the end "If I have read the letter, write "I have read the documents, full name and signature," otherwise the letter is considered unread?

You can put whatever you want in your letter, but it won't give you any special rights or impose any special obligations.