Licensure requirements for CA for foreign grad - page 23

by chick_pea

34,533 Views | 227 Comments

I just graduated from a nursing school in the phils. I wasn't able to take the local board bec. my immigrant visa was about to expire.I was lucky that i was able to finish my course there. My question is do you really have to be... Read More


  1. 0
    Quote from Silverdragon102
    A few have already started posting here on the forum that Ca have requested local license and they have received letters asking them this is after they included a letter stating they did not take local boards. If it is something you want in writing then the best thing is to contact them yourself and ask the question

    thanks. i understand. my concern is... if you tell people about this, they'll ask for proof or research for proof and all. i think the best way to provide "proof" re: this "new policy" is to send them a link from the BON's website (smaller states are able to update their website, i don't see any reason why CA can't update theirs). because what's stated in their website - is what i've attached above. so it kinda contradicts the "fact" that a local license is now a requirement.

    please don't get me wrong, i do believe there's truth on this piece of new information. but since it's not explicitly stated anywhere that that's that, then it's open for discussion. it's often said here... example: don't just believe anything your lawyer or agency tells you... 'cause they're not the one's who provide you with the greencard etc.... so in that same line of thinking, although AGAIN i do believe that there's truth to this new requirement... none of us here is from the CA BON (unless i'm mistaken). so i just want "solid" proof. where did this come from? 'cause regarding these letters that they received requiring the local license, stuff life this happened before - even when there weren't talks yet re: the local license being a requirement. so i was wondering if maybe somebody can provide us a link or something more "tangible" that will shed light to this new policy.

    i know that the moderators here have the best of intentions when they tell us that it is necessary for us to take the NLE in our own country, especially because there's a "5-yr waiting pd., etc." ideally we should be licensed in our own country and i support that. but at the same time, i don't want to limit anybody's options... if they don't want to take the NLE then it's their choice. anyways it's their lose... so nobody else should lose sleep over it.

    again, thanks for all the help. i'm looking forward to more info. regarding this, since i have lots of friends who are still not aware of this.

    my warmest regards!
  2. 0
    also i forgot to add the reason why i'm quite unconvinced is - a classmate of mine applied through CA last dec.2007, he received his eligibility 3 weeks ago. he didn't receive any email, post mail or phone call requiring him to submit his local license. now, why's that?


    again thanks!


    Quote from chicken11
    thanks. i understand. my concern is... if you tell people about this, they'll ask for proof or research for proof and all. i think the best way to provide "proof" re: this "new policy" is to send them a link from the BON's website (smaller states are able to update their website, i don't see any reason why CA can't update theirs). because what's stated in their website - is what i've attached above. so it kinda contradicts the "fact" that a local license is now a requirement.

    please don't get me wrong, i do believe there's truth on this piece of new information. but since it's not explicitly stated anywhere that that's that, then it's open for discussion. it's often said here... example: don't just believe anything your lawyer or agency tells you... 'cause they're not the one's who provide you with the greencard etc.... so in that same line of thinking, although AGAIN i do believe that there's truth to this new requirement... none of us here is from the CA BON (unless i'm mistaken). so i just want "solid" proof. where did this come from? 'cause regarding these letters that they received requiring the local license, stuff life this happened before - even when there weren't talks yet re: the local license being a requirement. so i was wondering if maybe somebody can provide us a link or something more "tangible" that will shed light to this new policy.

    i know that the moderators here have the best of intentions when they tell us that it is necessary for us to take the NLE in our own country, especially because there's a "5-yr waiting pd., etc." ideally we should be licensed in our own country and i support that. but at the same time, i don't want to limit anybody's options... if they don't want to take the NLE then it's their choice. anyways it's their lose... so nobody else should lose sleep over it.

    again, thanks for all the help. i'm looking forward to more info. regarding this, since i have lots of friends who are still not aware of this.

    my warmest regards!
  3. 1
    Quote from chicken11
    also i forgot to add the reason why i'm quite unconvinced is - a classmate of mine applied through CA last dec.2007, he received his eligibility 3 weeks ago. he didn't receive any email, post mail or phone call requiring him to submit his local license. now, why's that?


    again thanks!
    This requirements was supposed to commence Jan 08. BON's are entitled to change their requirements and as I mentioned before a few have posted recently that they have had letters requesting local license from Ca. If in any doubt it is always better to contact the BON/BRN directly and ask them
    chicken11 likes this.
  4. 3
    Quote from chicken11
    thanks. i understand. my concern is... if you tell people about this, they'll ask for proof or research for proof and all. i think the best way to provide "proof" re: this "new policy" is to send them a link from the BON's website (smaller states are able to update their website, i don't see any reason why CA can't update theirs). because what's stated in their website - is what i've attached above. so it kinda contradicts the "fact" that a local license is now a requirement.

    please don't get me wrong, i do believe there's truth on this piece of new information. but since it's not explicitly stated anywhere that that's that, then it's open for discussion. it's often said here... example: don't just believe anything your lawyer or agency tells you... 'cause they're not the one's who provide you with the greencard etc.... so in that same line of thinking, although AGAIN i do believe that there's truth to this new requirement... none of us here is from the CA BON (unless i'm mistaken). so i just want "solid" proof. where did this come from? 'cause regarding these letters that they received requiring the local license, stuff life this happened before - even when there weren't talks yet re: the local license being a requirement. so i was wondering if maybe somebody can provide us a link or something more "tangible" that will shed light to this new policy.

    i know that the moderators here have the best of intentions when they tell us that it is necessary for us to take the NLE in our own country, especially because there's a "5-yr waiting pd., etc." ideally we should be licensed in our own country and i support that. but at the same time, i don't want to limit anybody's options... if they don't want to take the NLE then it's their choice. anyways it's their lose... so nobody else should lose sleep over it.

    again, thanks for all the help. i'm looking forward to more info. regarding this, since i have lots of friends who are still not aware of this.

    my warmest regards!
    And no one has said that the so-called new requirement is carved in stone either. Only thing mentioned is that many already posted testimonies on them receiving such a letter asking for the local license and even one posted that it be certified by PRC and not anymore just a photocopy.

    Also, not because there is no statement that says a local license is required means that it is not; there is also no statement on CA BRN's website that says a local license from their home country is not required either.

    It is also not an imperative that CA BRN should add statements to be more specific (although it would be better that way) since they have always said to provide a letter of explanation why one does not have a local license. It is now up to them on what is now an acceptable explanation or not and this is what can change.

    Everyone should remember that although this is a website from a reputable State agency; it is not a legal contract or a bill or a law where every word or statement should be analyzed for any legal purposes or to find loopholes to try and circumvent things. What are written in these websites are their own rules and policies and they can change it anytime they want.

    There have been MANY posts already, starting from the very first post that made mention of it from someone that said she was able to talk from Staff that said that all applications submitted starting Jan. 2008 will be having that requirement already and then quite a number of people started to post saying that the Board was asking for it already. Are all of them could possibly be telling the truth or are all of them telling a lie ? No one can really know. It can also be a case-to-case basis depending on the explanation offered by the applicant. It is up to the individual to decide if they believe it or not. Anyway, even if someone tells that it is indeed a requirement already since Jan. 2008, some people will always have doubts and will have to either call up the BRN personally and ask or just apply and find out the hard way.

    And these problems are usually only for those that do not want to take the local NLE for whatever reason it may be either a valid reason or trying to take shortcuts. This is not even a problem to most, as majority still wants to take the NLE and prove something regardless if they are eventually going to practice or not.
  5. 0
    Quote from suzanne4
    Sorry, but this is not true. Being a relative of a green card holder does not give one permission to work in the US. They need to go thru the same process and be issued a SSN# and a document that will permit them to work.

    There is no such thing as being a derivative of anyone and being permitted to work based on that right away. They need to be petitioned as well and get approval of the US government first.
    Sorry for the unclear statement. I used the term derivative to mean a beneficiary of an employer petition e.g. a nurse who has a kid/spouse who got an immigrant visa and was included on the DS-230 form.
  6. 1
    Quote from john83
    Sorry for the unclear statement. I used the term derivative to mean a beneficiary of an employer petition e.g. a nurse who has a kid/spouse who got an immigrant visa and was included on the DS-230 form.
    Please use terms that everyone else uses here, and you do not see anyone using the term derivative. It just causes more confusion for everyone else.

    And if they are included on the DS-230, then they are not a derivative at all. Beneficiary is what they are, and that the term that should be used here. We have nurses from all over the world reading here, and to try and confuse someone with somethign that does not pertain to them is just crazy.
    john83 likes this.
  7. 0
    Hi!im a newbie here and I find your forum discussions very substantial and informative with regard to my future plans of taking the nclex-rn exam and eventually passing it.

    I hope you will enlighten me with my starting steps:

    1.will you suggest a processing center to help me with my eligibility requirements?
    i do not know if you are familiar with NURSE EXAMINATION ASSESSMENT CENTER (NEAC) or other processing agencies for that matter. Is this advisable or is this just a waste of money? they are offering an inviting 100% fast, worry-free nclex application but in return they will be charging $69 for their services.

    2. Will I need to enroll in an intensive review course for the nclex-rn exam or will self-review suffice?
    I know this is a self-absorbed querry but I am just wondering if majority of nclex passers enrolled themselves in a review center. I want to know the figures, statistics maybe. I did a research on review programs offered locally in our area and each review course costs around 20000-25000. I want to know if the money is worth it. Some of my friends who are already working in the states say that KAPLAN review center offers the best review course, is this true?

    thanks so much=)
    your replies will be much appreciated.

    God bless us nurses=)
  8. 0
    There is no need to go through a review center in my opinion. Complete paperwork as asked for, arrange paperwork to be sent to them ie transcripts. Make sure to meet requirements. We do however not recommend California for initial licensure due to the fact they destroy your file if you do not provide a SSN within 3 years and with retrogression you are looking longer than 3 years for a work visa. Better to go to another state and then when you know where you are getting a visa then start sorting application to California if that is your end destination.

    We also have a great NCLEX forum which you can find under the student tab

    Suggested reading via the search facility. California, retrogression, state of destination


Top