Enjoyed this article by Prof. Abhi Subedi.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/columns.php?nid=82347

I would not even call it a grape, sour or sweet... that's I have to write mnay times with different angles to make it understand that the grapes you are thinking is actually lime.

If you really had to work so hard to explain that are you yourself sure that its a Lime?
truth as I learned should be simple. Its the opposite that requires a lot of effort.

I am sure you would agree that there are people who may not agree the simple truth easily.

Yeah, do not get confused with the lime as the sour grapes, I am sure of this one.

Karmarana, you are probably right. That being said, have you ever looked back and thought about what these guys in American Embassy do to people? They do whatever the heck they want, who the heck cares, just lambash it to anyone, and you are qualified, what makes you think you are qualitfied, there, I am not going to give you the visa, you happy now, I have changed my mind and get lost now, will ya? I am quoting from the American Embassy counselors. That is not exactly the way to indentify the right candidate and with that many well-qualified individuals donot get the visa that they most thoroughly deserve. I know that it is not possible to award visas to evey people that go into the Embassy to fulfill their American dreams of good paying jobs and earn money and live in a society where they are given every possible opportunity to be the best. Therefore, I understand the frustration of Dr. Subedi and many other individuals. But to an extent that this is the country built by foreign nations, immigrants who have divulge from different culture and tradition.

I for one however, maybe because of my self-conceived notion of ego and built in complexity, I donot deem it or give it the utmost necessity to have to beg and cry to come to this country. I am ready to get criticized, because I am already here, however, I still say that to my fellow Nepalis who I have great love and respect.

I would be much happy if USA embassy gives visas to uneducated or low-qualified (lowly-educated) nepalese than the highly-educated or highly qualified nepalese.

I wonder what are the criteria to determine the highly qualified candidates for obtaining US Visa??? I rather would agree the term "Eligible" not qualified.

Who's eligible to get US Visa? It's not Nepal to determine or tell or cry out loud on that. It's up to USA to decide on tha topic.

Nepal can only determine who can fly out from TIA... now it's up to Nepal to give signal to waulified or non-qualified Nepalese to go out of the country.

That ends the thread !!

Any opportunity you get to backlash someone you do it pompously. What's up with you Karmarana or whatever your name is...Have some respect for people.

And no... this is not the end of thread. Just because some fool says it's end of thread. Dream on dude !!!

I have no intention to pay my respect to a stupid article... that's all.

This article prompted US ambassador to respond in Kantipur. The reasons behind are the writer's stature and his articulate writing.

last time, we read Prof. avi Subedi's article, here, it seems that ambassador is moving his ass to tell something. Read This out:
http://kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=83076

US visa services: Anything but 'indifferent'

By James F Moriarty

A recent column on applying for a US visa ("Visa & empire of indifference" by Abhi Subedi, Aug 9, 2006) sparked a wave of letters to the editor agreeing with the author's observations and sometimes offering their own interpretations of why some applicants are denied visas. As my country's envoy to Nepal, I wish to weigh in on this discussion.

First things first: The US Mission to Nepal is anything but "indifferent" to the thousands of Nepali applicants who annually seek visas to visit the United States. Our Consular section regularly conducts public outreach - through media and especially to student audiences - to explain our visa process and warn applicants to avoid paying unnecessary fees to unscrupulous "consultants" who falsely claim they can secure a US visa. Working with colleagues from the US Educational Foundation in Nepal (the Fulbright Commission), the Consular Section is holding just such a session for students in our American Center Library this today afternoon.

And speaking of students, Nepal had 4,861 studying in the US in 2004-2005. This was almost an 11 percent increase over 2003-2004. According to the Institute of International Education, Nepal ranked 23rd in the world among nations sending students to study in the US. We welcome this development, and it's worth noting our consular officers in Nepal helped these young people by interviewing and issuing visas to them.

During the people's movement in April, when we had to close our Consular section because of security concerns, our Mission dispatched two consular officers for several weeks to our Embassy in New Delhi to help those Nepali applicants who needed a visa urgently. There was no requirement that we do this. Our Consular chief - displaying the opposite of indifference - proposed this step as a helpful customer service, and I immediately endorsed it.

Moreover, after the Consular section reopened in early May, it went into overdrive to conduct more than 1,000 interviews in a single week to ensure applicants would not face extended waits for an appointment for an interview.

Interviewing and adjudicating visa applications are difficult tasks and, as the original column on this topic noted, "The reality is that no country can give [a] visa to every applicant." Our consular officers work hard to treat each applicant with fairness and respect. Yet they do so within the framework of the US Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed by our Congress. This law charges every consular officer to assume that every visa applicant is an intending immigrant - unless the applicant can convince the officer otherwise. This means that if an applicant for a student or other non-immigrant visa is actually seeking to "flee the turbulent 'motherland'," as mentioned in the original column, then the applicant is misrepresenting his or her purpose and must be denied.

While every applicant can re-apply for a visa, our Consular section recommends they wait until their life circumstances have changed before doing so. Our consular officers regularly advise refused applicants what they can do to improve their chances to receive a visa in the future. If a denied applicant follows this advice and reapplies with success, we welcome this result. Still, we caution denied applicants that, in most cases, significant time and a change in one's life circumstances are required for this to happen.

I can assure your readers that, when it comes to issuing visas, there is no "indifference" on our part. We seek to facilitate exchanges of all kinds between Nepal and the United States, and our issuance of US visas is central in this process. We take this responsibility seriously, and strive to make the process as transparent and fair as possible. But it is hard work. Our small Consular section - six officers - conducted more than 17,000 interviews for all types of non-immigrant visas in 2005. These numbers will likely increase in 2006. This means consular officers must work hard to come to the correct decision regarding issuance of a visa as quickly as possible.

As Ambassador, I take a keen interest in our Consular section's operation. I am proud of the work of its Nepali and American staff. Day in and day out, they perform a first-rate job. Yet, like most of us, our staff know they are not perfect and welcome opportunities to improve their performance. They know mistakes can occasionally happen. This appears to have been the case in the application by Professor Subedi, long a cultural contact of our American Center, and we regret it.

(The writer is the US Ambassador to Nepal.)

Who is the US ambassador? Moriarty or karmarana? karmarana was barking here as if he was the ambassador himself!

Anyway this is what a good and logical writing can do, make change happen.

I admire Moriarty's frank admission.

Gautam B., of course Moriarty is the Ambassador. there is no difference (NOT Indiffernce) between what he is saying and what I am saying.

Abhi's article is nothing but a lame writing without putting himself in the shoes of the US side. The ambassador asked him to shut off for him being so immature to understand what goes on at US embassy in processing the nepalese visa applications. Abhi's own country cannot do a one thing efficiently and yet he is trying to portray mis-concept about US visa processing procedure.

That's why Abhi is STUPID. And Ambassoador took a great opportunity to give this lecture to Nepalese telling that "look your writers are so stupid, you guys are still not intellectuals as you claim, so question your own writers, intellectuals, politicians".

Gautam B. very good point man but Unfortuantely, karma rana is still barking. But, I am sure that even after barking so much, no ambassador pats on rana's back..........at least Avi got answer but in humble words......That shows who is more stupid Prof. Subedi or KarmaRana...I am sure that Rana will be barking against me also after some time.:)

I'm sure..and I'm happy this isn't the end of this thread :)

If Mr. Subedi's article deserved no merit, ambassador of USA (he is a Dartmouth alum) won't spend much time responding and regretting the incident. So i advise Mr. Karmarana to shut the F up and act sane. U shud undergo a brain scan and i can predict the result: NO BRAIN DETECTED!!!

When contacted by Nepalnews, Professor Subedi did not want to comment on the rejoinder of US envoy Moriarty on his article. nepalnews.com pb Aug

why would he comment? Moriarty is telling him, come and apply visa again, he will be given the visa.

Abhi is feeling stupid now. Why? Read his stupid article, he looks so stupid now for using words like hegemony, rana ko darbar, and so on. What's the logic behind that? It's just a flare frohis stupid mind at that moment when the visa was rejected and he missed the Free Trip to USA. Hence the article !!

Man, i cannot laugh at this Abhi, each and every sentences he wrote are funny:

But I knew as if in a flash, it was none of these. Who would bother to read my essays and say, "Oh, so you are a professor, a writer, one of the important promoters of American studies? Good! Come this way, please!"

Important promoter of American Studies . re.. ha ha... that's why he got pissed off?

another stupid sentence written by Abhi:

Those who interview many naturally look like the indifferent Church priests who listen to people's secret confessions.

That's an another mistake Abhi committed in this article.

"This appears to have been the case in the application by Professor Subedi, long a cultural contact of our American Center, and we regret it."

That explains why Mr. Subedi considers himself an important promoter of american studies. When the ambassador himself acknowledges his contribution and the mistake that was made, i don't know what ur problem is. And stop writing Free Trip to USA all the time. What is your problem if think tanks in the US value intellectuals?