is the philippine local boards required for work in US? - page 3

hi everyone! i am a nursing student from the philippines and will be graduating soon. i was wondering if i need to take the local board in the philippines first before i can take cgfns and nclex? i... Read More

  1. by   Hathaway
    Good point Lawrence. However, id like to point out that "technicalities", especially in legal circles, wins hands down over "tradition". One is a clear cut objective reality. The other is wild assumption based on stereotyped prejudice. One simply cannot presume anything if information is not volunteered, or required.

    And oh, while I do agree that ICHP has reserved the discretionary right to revoke/recall any VSC issued, this judgment will have to be based on objective proof that there was, indeed, intent to mislead, cheat, or otherwise defraud ICHP.

    To apply this argument to your previous example, the applicant in question would, in fact, be committing fraud if he did declare he was issued a license in items 15 and 16 of the VSC form.

    Also, it would be very prejudicial for ICHP to assume that the applicant was not licensed after passage of the NLE because he wanted to avoid the whole June 2006 mess. While that would merit strong suspicion, granted, suspicion alone never held enough water to win a court battle.

    Finally, I agree with your point about the employer's side. (This is from an ethical, common sense perspective).

    It's kinda fun playing the devil's advocate... hehehe

    Hathaway
  2. by   lawrence01
    Quote from Hathaway
    Good point Lawrence. However, id like to point out that "technicalities", especially in legal circles, wins hands down over "tradition". One is a clear cut objective reality. The other is wild assumption based on stereotyped prejudice. One simply cannot presume anything if information is not volunteered, or required.

    And oh, while I do agree that ICHP has reserved the discretionary right to revoke/recall any VSC issued, this judgment will have to be based on objective proof that there was, indeed, intent to mislead, cheat, or otherwise defraud ICHP.

    To apply this argument to your previous example, the applicant in question would, in fact, be committing fraud if he did declare he was issued a license in items 15 and 16 of the VSC form.

    Also, it would be very prejudicial for ICHP to assume that the applicant was not licensed after passage of the NLE because he wanted to avoid the whole June 2006 mess. While that would merit strong suspicion, granted, suspicion alone never held enough water to win a court battle.

    Finally, I agree with your point about the employer's side. (This is from an ethical, common sense perspective).

    It's kinda fun playing the devil's advocate... hehehe

    Hathaway
    No, problem. A good friendly, civil discussion like this is healthy.

    You are correct when you said that someone w/ no license but passes the NLE may apply for VSC and he may get one because he does not have a license to declare. He never held one, so nothing to declare and he will most prob. get the VSC but then again their's the employer's side as you said.

    I would like to give a hypothetical example and I hope you could give me your thoughts on it.

    Lets say, a June 2006 passer who passes the NLE found out that there was a possibility that CGFNS may not issue VSC for those who are licensed under that batch. He then did not apply for Phil. nursing licensure even though he passed the NLE so that when he applies for the VSC he can say that he does not have a Phil. license and there is nothing to declare as he never applied for it and therefore never held one even though he is part of the June 2006 passers. He then was able to get VSC because of that technicality.

    Now, to make the hypothetical situation interesting... He then applied for a Phil. nursing licensure after the VSC was issued to him. Remembering all the while that all those who got licensed from that batch will not be issued VSC until they re-take tests 3 and 5 and that he was only able to get that VSC because he made the argument that he never held one. Do you think this would be considered as fraud since it tricks CGFNS/ICHP of issuing the VSC when it would not normally not issue one if he was licensed base on that questioned exam. Do you think this is now good grounds for revocation of the VSC as they have stated on their 'fraud disclaimer' on their handbook?
  3. by   suzanne4
    The VSC can be cancelled by ICHP based on this. It is up to them to make the final decision on this, and prove that fraud was involved. And I would vote that it was, since the person would know exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it. They would always be looking over their shoulder as things could be cancelled at anytime and that means that the green card would also be cancelled and they would be subject to deportation.

    They had grounds for committng fraud to get around the requirements for the VSC. And I am sure that ICHP would look at it the same way. Same thing that I have said all along.

    Point in place now, the page in the VSC Handbook that did not exist before the scandal last summer, it was only a few lines, and now consists of a full page. And they are investigating.

    And they are also investigating schools that have taken shortcuts in their training and falsified documents. It all comes out in the end. No shortcuts for working in the US.
  4. by   Hathaway
    Hmmm.. Nice twist lawrence.

    Well, CGFNS' grounds for inadmissibilty of those 2006 passers' licenses was based on the issue of "comparability". If I get this right (and please feel free to correct me if I'm not), CGFNS was pursuing this line of reasoning as basis for their views regarding the process of obtaining the nurse license because this way, it would be more objective. The facts and events surrounding the eventual procurement of the license for the Phil. nurses involved in that unfortunate NLE cannot be disputed and are as plain as day for everyone to see. That way, comparability could easily be verified when this aforesaid process is held alongside and compared to the US manner of obtaining the license.

    Fraud, on the other hand, is so much harder to prove. Any judgment from CGFNS based on fraud would have to be based on solid, airtight (indisputable) facts. As we all know, it would be grossly unfair to lump all of the June 2006 licensees in the same boat just because there is simply no way to separate the dishonest from the truly deserving. However, this does not, of course, allow CGFNS to divest itself of its mandate to protect the American public..and herein lies the crux of the dilemma CG must resolve were it to adjudicate a case just like the one we'd been discussing, Lawrence.

    You see, fraud involves trickery, mischief, dishonesty and/or deceit done in order to achieve ends that the applicant never truly deserved. In order to establish this, CG must objectively prove that this was, indeed the applicant's primary interest in applying for that VSC while he/she was not licensed in the Phils. Furthermore, that there could be no other possible reason why the applicant did not apply for licensure or why he did not qualify for licensure even after passsing the NLE, apart from fraudulent intent.

    To address that particular twist you added, I think the applicant just did himself a disservice by obtaining licensure in the Phils. I believe CG would then have every right to exert its discretion to revoke that VSC but NOT BECAUSE OF FRAUD, for even then that would be hard to prove. (Like I said, that can only be done through exclusion of all other possible reasons for late licensure, which are numerous if you use your imagination. And CG would be hard pressed to go down and investigate each one of those avenues). This revocation would be based solely on a preceding policy statement that the VSC would simply be refused any JUNE 2006 passer/licensee who did not retake and pass tests 3 and 5. Of course, the suspicion of fraud would hang heavily over that applicant's case, but that would be of zero weight with regards to affecting the determination of this case.

    What do you think?
  5. by   suzanne4
    Knowingly giving a letter to CGFNS/ICHP that you took the exam but will not be getting a license in PI, and then doing so, and more than likely intentionally planning to do so; is fraud. A lie was committed to obtain what they wanted and with no thought of not going thru with it.

    Not even a technicality vs. anything else. There were grounds for the deceit to be intentional and to occur. And that is all that is needed in any court of law.

    But then this not a court of law here, in any way shape or form. And we are basing our statements on what have seen over and over again. And knowing the specifics in this case.
  6. by   Hathaway
    Regarding post #31, we never mentioned a letter in the scenario Suzanne. And of course, were such a letter submitted to ICHP prior to licensure in the Phils, that would be pretty solid grounds for revocation based on fraud (if licensure in the Phils was eventually sought after the issuance of the VSC).

    However, my question is, what is your view regarding this case if Phil. licensure was never sought after passge of the NLE? Licensure never existed. There is no issue of comparability since there is no Phil. license to compare to. In your view, can fraud be proven beyond doubt if Phil. licensure is never pursued? (See, in this case, even with the existence of the aforementioned letter, the applicant would in fact be telling the truth.)

  7. by   lawrence01
    Quote from Hathaway
    Regarding post #31, we never mentioned a letter in the scenario Suzanne. And of course, were such a letter submitted to ICHP prior to licensure in the Phils, that would be pretty solid grounds for revocation based on fraud (if licensure in the Phils was eventually sought after the issuance of the VSC).

    However, my question is, what is your view regarding this case if Phil. licensure was never sought after passge of the NLE? Licensure never existed. There is no issue of comparability since there is no Phil. license to compare to. In your view, can fraud be proven beyond doubt if Phil. licensure is never pursued? (See, in this case, even with the existence of the aforementioned letter, the applicant would in fact be telling the truth.)

    This is quite hard.... but I guess since CGFNS/ICHP did issue it and if Phil. licensure was never sought afterwards then I guess the VSC issued is valid.

    Of course, this is just my personal take on it. It is really up to CGFNS/ICHP's discretion.

    Are we all in agreement that there is real solid grounds for revocation of the VSC due to fraud if Phil. licensure was pursued after the VSC was issued based on our hypothetical scenario ?
  8. by   suzanne4
    If the person never persued a license, then there is not an issue. But the fact that a letter was sent to ICHP to get that VSC and stating that they were not getting the license, and then turned around and did so. Then that is 100% fraud, and is grounds for them to get the VSC inactivated and grounds for never being able to work in the US. Even if the repeat exam is taken, they still lied to the US government to get the VSC. And ICHP is under contract to provide the VSC for the US State Dept; therefore they provided false information to the US government.

    I am basing my statement on the question that Lawrence posted.

    If there was never a license issued or applied for, then there is no problem. However, to state in writing that you are not going to get the license and then turn around and do so, is considered fraud. And they would be hard to prove otherwise. It would be on the nurse to prove, not the other way around.
  9. by   suzanne4
    Quote from Hathaway
    Regarding post #31, we never mentioned a letter in the scenario Suzanne. And of course, were such a letter submitted to ICHP prior to licensure in the Phils, that would be pretty solid grounds for revocation based on fraud (if licensure in the Phils was eventually sought after the issuance of the VSC).

    However, my question is, what is your view regarding this case if Phil. licensure was never sought after passge of the NLE? Licensure never existed. There is no issue of comparability since there is no Phil. license to compare to. In your view, can fraud be proven beyond doubt if Phil. licensure is never pursued? (See, in this case, even with the existence of the aforementioned letter, the applicant would in fact be telling the truth.)

    Sorry, but not correct. Lets be real honest about this one. If they take the licensure exam there, it is for licensing purposes. Not just for the sake of taking it. And if they included in the letter that they were not getting a license, but then went ahead and did so, knowing well in advance that this is what they were planning to do, then it is fraud.

    Who in their right mind is going to prepare for a licensing exam, take the exam, and then not get the license? Why bother preparing in the first place?

    I have stated my opinion on this, and my vacation starts soon. So end of my postings on the topic. I gave my opinion and I am not going to split hairs over it.

    And to clear up anything, when there is a request being made to ICHP to do something differently, then it is via a letter; it is never via a phone call. It needs to be documented. So that is where letter comes from. And for any state BON, to state that you did not take the licensing exam in your country requires that you included a letter.
    Last edit by suzanne4 on Apr 9, '07
  10. by   galapcp
    Hello everyone.... I am a newbie here.... Actually I am a second courser and I started my class only yesterday.... Hooray!... and reading posts here is very educational and I am learning a lot.... and reading posts on this thread is quite amusing because there is really a lot of confusions and debates out there but I salute everyone who tries to explain things for newbies like me:wink2:. And reading this thread is very interesting....
  11. by   cookiequery
    i'm just wondering, if local license is not a requirement then why require for a retake of june 2006 passers if they pass the NCLEX exam anyway. If they pass the NCLEX, doesn't that prove that these 2006 passers also are competent in terms of knowledge just like everybody elase who passed the NCLEX.
  12. by   Hathaway
    The issue is about comparability. I suggest you read CGFNS's statement regarding the circumstances surrounding that decision. True, a local license is not needed for the VSC.. But the existence of Phil. licensure here is not being viewed as a prerequisite for immigration purposes. However, if local licensure DOES exist, there is the necessary prerequisite that such license must be unencumbered. (Not revoked, suspended, etc...). This is in the interest of screening nurses who are "moving" their practice in order to get away from any encumbrances in their license. (A person who was never licensed has no license to encumber). Since comparability in the process of licensure in the US and the Phils cannot be established, it was therefore CG's decision to deny the VSC until the challenged part of the exam was replaced with something comparable to the US manner of obtaining the license.
  13. by   xipho
    hi i'm a newbie here. I'm really confused with the nursing issue here in the Philippines and reading this forum made me think more. I would just like to ask some questions.
    If I don't plan to work here in the Philippines, then I should have just taken the NCLEX RN exam, pass it together with the IELTS then there will be no more problem in applying for the visascreen?

    If a license is not required in applying for a visascreen, then why do we have to retake the exam again?

    Reading this made me realize that I should just retake tests 3 and 5 and not retake all the exam again and applying for a waiver for my license.

    Please enlighten me on this matter. What we, together with my collegues and of course most of the nursing grads here is that we need to be licensed just to have that visascreen application. I know for a fact that I don't need to be licensed in applying for the NCLEX exam. But I also think that most of us wants to be registered nurses here in the Phlippines and at the same time in the USA. If the premise is that if you want to work in the USA, then take the NCLEX and not the local board. We should be enlightened with this matter.

    I'm so sorry if I happened ask the same questions but I'm really confused. Thanks a lot

close