is the philippine local boards required for work in US?

wewich_usrn · Apr 8, 2007

I have a nephew and two nieces who graduated last December and are going to take the exams this June. i was the one who financed their nursing studies since their first year in college. These 3 have advised me that it wont be necessary for them to take the NLE because that won't be needed to go to work here in the US as nurses. I said, "hell no!" They would have to prove to me that they are all capable of passing the local exam before i would have to finance anew their expenses to complete all their US credentials befor they arrive here! hey, i'm the one who's paying here!

I have every confidence in them passing any exam, the NLE or Nclex as all of them are bright, disciplined and are at the top 1% of their class since grade school.

If they can find local jobs after they get their local license, well and good! I want them to have the feel on working on their own there (while this retrogression passes) and have them the feel of how it is to have the added responsibilty of working in a hospital. The experience of working here in the states might be somewhat different from that at home and I say that it is a great, great help of having that added confidence in being able to have a working experience.

Call me conservative and an old hag if you wish! I want my nephew and nieces to be RNs in their own country from which I came from and very proud to have done so.

lawrence01 · Apr 8, 2007

I have a nephew and two nieces who graduated last December and are going to take the exams this June. i was the one who financed their nursing studies since their first year in college. These 3 have advised me that it wont be necessary for them to take the NLE because that won't be needed to go to work here in the US as nurses. I said, "hell no!" They would have to prove to me that they are all capable of passing the local exam before i would have to finance anew their expenses to complete all their US credentials befor they arrive here! hey, i'm the one who's paying here!
I have every confidence in them passing any exam, the NLE or Nclex as all of them are bright, disciplined and are at the top 1% of their class since grade school.
If they can find local jobs after they get their local license, well and good! I want them to have the feel on working on their own there (while this retrogression passes) and have them the feel of how it is to have the added responsibilty of working in a hospital. The experience of working here in the states might be somewhat different from that at home and I say that it is a great, great help of having that added confidence in being able to have a working experience.
Call me conservative and an old hag if you wish! I want my nephew and nieces to be RNs in their own country from which I came from and very proud to have done so.

That is a very good reason indeed and as you have said it was you who financed everything so you have the last say and you want them to work in the Philippines first and that is a good gesture but to work first in the Philippines or not is really up to the individual nurses and to the ones who have paid for their education. Some parents may want them to take the NCLEX and do the immigration process first and forgo working in the Philippines and go straight to the US while some just like you would like them to prove something first and work as a RN first in the Philippines but the fact remains; there is a choice as taking the NLE is not a req't.

Hathaway · Apr 8, 2007

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

lawrence01 · Apr 9, 2007

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?

suzanne4, RN · Apr 9, 2007

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.

Hathaway · Apr 9, 2007

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?

suzanne4, RN · Apr 9, 2007

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.

Hathaway · Apr 9, 2007

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.)

:)

lawrence01 · Apr 9, 2007

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 ?

suzanne4, RN · Apr 9, 2007

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.

suzanne4, RN · Apr 9, 2007

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.

galapcp · Apr 11, 2007

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....