NCSBN rules out Philippines as NCLEX site

pinoy_guy · Oct 29, 2006

and they will deport even if you have a green card.

i've read of naturalized us citizens being deported, their us citizenship cancelled, because of fraudulent information in their green card application.

for the interested parties:

http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/objectid/dc1d1d9d-d566-420d-820b568a03e37755/samplechapter/2/118/
[color=sandybrown]1. the risk of removal from the u.s.
if something happened in your past that makes you removable or deportable, you should not apply for u.s. citizenship -- or, at the very least, you should talk to a lawyer before doing so. the citizenship process may uncover whatever it is you're hiding and send you directly into removal proceedings.
perhaps your green card should never have been approved in the first place because you lied on the application, or maybe you've committed a crime that no one at uscis seems to have noticed yet.
either way, applying for citizenship gives uscis a chance to review your whole immigration history, from the time you entered the united states to the present. if something isn't quite right, you could find yourself fighting deportation in immigration court.
in this section, we look separately at the two most common types of problems:
a green card that shouldn't have been approved in the first place, and
a green card that uscis can take away because you've done something that violates its terms.
a. if your green card application shouldn't have been approved
uscis would be the first to admit that it makes mistakes, sometimes approving people for green cards who were not eligible for them. you probably already know if you committed outright fraud -- that is, lied or deliberately covered something up -- on your green card application. common types of fraud include faking a marriage, hiding a criminal conviction in one's home country, and creating false documents to show a sponsor who doesn't exist.

the next two articles are interesting.

http://immigration.about.com/library/weekly/aa102599.htm
question #9: can citizenship be revoked?
carl shusterman: absolutely. first, if, within two years of becoming naturalized the ins finds that you have obtained naturalization by misrepresentation, the agency can revoke your citizenship administratively. whether this is constitutional is an issue which is currently being decided in the federal courts. what is more clear, is that the justice department can file a suit in federal court to denaturalize a person.

because naturalized u.s. citizens, like native-born u.s. citizens, are not subject to deportation, a naturalized citizen cannot be deported for conviction of any crime.
however, naturalization may be revoked (a person may be subject to "denaturalization") through a court or administrative proceeding. 8 u.s.c. 1451. the government can institute proceedings to revoke naturalization in cases where:
1) naturalization was "illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation";
. . .
5) the naturalized citizen has been convicted of unlawful procurement of naturalization under 18 u.s.c. 1425.
the ins may move to administratively "correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate" a naturalization order when:

1) the application for naturalization was granted in error; or
2) there is evidence that was not known at the time of naturalization that would have had a material effect of the outcome of the naturalization and would have proven that the application was based on fraud or misrepresentation or would have shown that the applicant was not eligible for naturalization. 8 u.s.c. 1451(h); 8 c.f.r. 340.1.
the ins must serve the naturalized citizen with a notice of intent to reopen no later than 2 years after the individual has become a u.s. citizen.
a criminal conviction may present a problem for a naturalized citizen if it occurred prior to the date the person naturalized and the individual concealed the conviction or the ins was unaware of the conviction. if the conviction occurs after the date of naturalization, there is little risk that the naturalized citizen will lose their u.s. citizenship.

from these, it is clear that the uscis will review the papers on application for the green card, and on application for us citizenship. the danger period extends up to 2 years after naturalization. after 2 years, the risk is lessened.

however, i don't think i would want this worry over my head. 5 years is a long time, enough to build a life in the us. to be suddenly deported will really suck.

since "section 343 of the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act (iirira) of 1996 requires specific healthcare professionals born outside of the u.s. to successfully complete a screening program before they can receive either a permanent or temporary occupational visa including trade nafta status." meaning the visascreen, revocation of the visascreen certificate will in essence negate the "permanent or temporary occupational visa."

[color=mediumturquoise]revocation of cgfns/ichp visascreen™ certificates and 212® certified statements
grounds for revocation
the commission on graduates of foreign nursing schools ("cgfns") may revoke a cgfns/ichp visascreen™ certificate or 212® certified statement if cgfns learns that:
1. the applicant was not eligible for such a certificate or statement when it was granted
. . .
3. the applicant obtained or tried to obtain a certificate or statement by fraud or by misrepresentation of a material fact
4. the applicant took actions that would compromise the integrity of one of the elements of the certification process, or of the certification process itself.
when it revokes a certificate, cgfns/ichp informs appropriate authorities and organizations that the revocation occurred.
cgfns may revoke a cgfns/ichp visascreen™ certificate or 212® certified statement even if the validity period of the certificate or statement has expired.
it is the policy of cgfns/ichp that a person who is not eligible for a cgfns/ichp visascreen™ certificate or statement should not benefit from the fact that a cgfns/ichp visascreen™ may have been, for whatever reason, mistakenly issued.

fascinating reading for a rainy day.

corrupted_caregiver · Oct 29, 2006

I think that the United States should release an official position on the issue. And unless US hospitals, NCSBN, and CGFNS have not release official written statements, the infos here regarding the "leakage scandal" in the June 2006 PNLE will all be opinions. All we hear are hearsays. So to get closure, NCSBN, CGFNS, and US hospitlas should release an official written statement that they will not accept June 2006 passers unless they undergo a total retake. And that will put to justice the posts written in the Philippine Nursing Forum regarding the June 2006 PNLE.

All of the infos have been mind wrecking to many who visited the site and instead of having answers, all they come up leads to more questions. The one posted about visa screen in the CGFNS site is helpful but there is no final decision yet leading to a 50 - 50 chance again to those june 2006 passers who want to apply for visa screen. And the news of US hospitals not accepting new passers has not been verified nor official released for the information of those new nurses leading to more disarray.

Filipinos has a way I think and I know that US does not actually care for the Philippines. So whether the courts here decided, they should release their positions regarding the issue so the applicants will know the path they should take, with certainty. There will always be two sides of the coin, those who are happy and those who are not in the court's decision. Generally, I think we are just not good losers as we may call it, because our "ugali" always say that if don't get our way, we complain.

A lot more questions instead of answers. I think it's time that we turn that around.

Respectfully Yours,

Corrupted

pinoy_guy · Oct 29, 2006

I think that the United States should release an official position on the issue. And unless US hospitals, NCSBN, and CGFNS have not release official written statements, the infos here regarding the "leakage scandal" in the June 2006 PNLE will all be opinions. All we hear are hearsays. So to get closure, NCSBN, CGFNS, and US hospitlas should release an official written statement that they will not accept June 2006 passers unless they undergo a total retake. And that will put to justice the posts written in the Philippine Nursing Forum regarding the June 2006 PNLE.

this is your opinion.

as Suzanne & I had pointed out, the CGFNS & NCSBN people had voiced their opinions on the issue. "if this had happened in the US, they would have a retake." "the issue is competence, not justice" for people arguing against retake coz of "justice."

they would never come out and say on the record that we Filipinos SHOULD do something...they wouldn't dare insult our sovereignty. they did things diplomatically.

I'm sorry if you can't (or won't) see nor hear the signals they're sending. you're not alone.

All of the infos have been mind wrecking to many who visited the site and instead of having answers, all they come up leads to more questions. The one posted about visa screen in the CGFNS site is helpful but there is no final decision yet leading to a 50 - 50 chance again to those june 2006 passers who want to apply for visa screen. And the news of US hospitals not accepting new passers has not been verified nor official released for the information of those new nurses leading to more disarray.

with a lot of Filipino news agencies praising the oath-taking and relegating the feedback from the CGFNS & NCSBN people to the background, I feel somebody should speak out about the inconsistencies.

as Suzanne said, we cannot "sweep things under the rug."

everything about the Leakage Issue had been published on Internet news sites, even blog sites. a simple search will lead you to them.

the only difference is, US agencies will be sifting through the news reports for the objective ones.

some news articles had been press releases, or "plugs," or news with "spin"...these are the feel-good news articles coming from our government.

I opted to pick the objective reports citing what the CGFNS & NCSBN people really said, without the spin.

is this "nerve wracking?" this is not my aim.

my aim is to call attention to the elephant in the living room. how do we solve the problem? our government "solved" the problem by covering the elephant with a table cloth. I think it is best to lead the elephant out of the living room, out of the house.

Filipinos has a way I think and I know that US does not actually care for the Philippines. So whether the courts here decided, they should release their positions regarding the issue so the applicants will know the path they should take, with certainty. There will always be two sides of the coin, those who are happy and those who are not in the court's decision.

the US does care for the Philippines. for the time being. from news reports, US hospitals get 80% of their foreign nurses from our country.

I would like to point out though that we are not the sole suppliers right now. a lot of nurses are entering the US hospitals from China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Thailand, & Korea. a lot of Filipino nurses currently working in the UK are also applying for US positions.

in a few years, I worry that we will be overtaken by these other countries as the major foreign source of RNs to the US.

just like Thailand is now supplying patis (fish sauce) and preserved mangoes to America--formerly our preserve.

China is even importing nurses or nursing students "to learn from." most people think it's to learn nursing practice; I suspect otherwise. they want to learn English, specifically Medical English, from our nurses.

and where does that leave us?

Generally, I think we are just not good losers as we may call it, because our "ugali" always say that if don't get our way, we complain.

sorry, but I am not a "loser" in this issue.

I have handled some students in the affected batch, and have some friends in this batch. this is why I'm even reading up & studying the issue.

don't worry, I won't be "complaining" as much in the near future.

A lot more questions instead of answers. I think it's time that we turn that around.

these are the questions which should have been answered in the first place, not ignored.

Suzanne is starting to sound like the prophetess Cassandra. a lot of people try to drown out her words...but she's vindicated in the end.

like the people claiming that the Leakage Issue is confined to the Philippines; Suzanne disagreed. some of these people then resorted to personal attacks. bottomline? after a month or so, the CGFNS people, then the NCSBN people, say that they're studying the Leakage Issue. so the Leakage had an effect in the US, enough to warrant a news release from CGFNS.

my point is this: we can either go along with the farce that everything is OK in Philippine Nursing, or we can point out the problems objectively and do something about it.

an analogy is that the June 2006 NLE passers are on a bus with substandard wheels. the LTO (PRC & BON & Court of Appeals) clears the bus as roadworthy, but Suzanne & I point out that they are still substandard wheels. they may take the passers to their destination (US hospitals), but there's a risk the bus won't make it to the destination. the bus could be turned around at the first Check Point (VisaScreen application), the 2nd Check Point (Green Card application), or the 3rd Check Point (US Citizenship application).

or maybe the analogy does not fully cover the situation, because of the revocation section. this would mean that even after the nurse works in the US hospital for years, he/she can be returned to the Philippines because the bus he/she used to get to the US had substandard wheels.

sucks, doesn't it?

but to quote, "fairness is not the issue."

and as I have posted, I would rather know the situation I'm in, rather than just go for the ride. this way, I know the risks I'm taking, and can take remedial steps to avoid the problems. at the very least, I won't be surprised when I get deported.

to quote Suzanne, "Please use some common sense here. If you wish to work in the US, you need to follow their rules. If you wish to work in the Philippines, you can follow their rules. The choice is yours to make."

suzanne4, RN · Oct 29, 2006

The US cannot tell another country what to do about nursing in that country, but they can be specific as to whom they will let practice in the US, and they keep coming out and stating that the nurse needs to meet the US requirements and standards if they are to work here.

And that means that those that bought their licenses and did not complete the appropriate clinical hours are also caught up in this. Please pay close attention to the Handbook from CGFNS.

Naturalization and having a green card are two different things. If the VSC gets cancelled, then the green card gets cancelled, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Just be very aware of what you are doing or planning to do.

corrupted_caregiver · Oct 30, 2006

Thanks for the response as I really do appreciate it.

But come to think of it, I think it is better to point it out as bluntly as they can that they stand for the retake of the entire exam. Discrete hints or words are subjected to misinterpretation and thus chaos happens. I'm not saying that authorities here are completely untrustworthy, that will be a fallacy. But as you've said, NCSBN and CGFNS showed hints and opinions rather than their stand. I mean, a written statement as blunt as a retake to the whole exam by June 2006 passers will do. I'm not ignoring the hints but it's better if you hit the nail right in the head therefore making it clear to all of the recipients. Don't you think? That's just my opinion.

Verbal statements without an official stand as I've said is subject to misinterpretion. Like for example, at that time, PRC "verbally saying" that there will be no retake, but we are all waiting for the official stand right then because it is their opinion. Until it came into written document of the CA. So there you go, clear instruction. (I'm pointing out about the clarity of instruction, not the wisdom of the result of CA) Thus, I think to put it out bluntly rather than hints will make it very clear to those who are dreaming to be in the US. I've done some polling of my own that if the US officially released a statement that they wouldn't accept June 2006 passers unless a total retake of the exam, if they will retake the said exam, and they said yes. That just made me smile. That's just the point I'm driving at.

Thanks to suzanne and pinoy_guy. You've been a lot of help.

American DREAM only occurs when you sleep.

Sincerely,

Corrupted

pinoy_guy · Oct 30, 2006

continuation of mr. tadle's arguments.

why bar, nursing test differ widely

by prof. rene luis m. tadle and atty. cheryl l. daytec-yangot

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/oct/30/yehey/top_stories/20061030top2.html

another reason why the supreme court's handling of the bar leakage is not applicable to the nursing issue is that mercantile law does not deal with life, unlike all the subject areas of nursing. mercantile law deals with commerce--it deals with property.
to overstate the obvious, life is not the same as property. an error in the business of handling lives is irremediable. it can result in death or an existence akin to it. bluntly put, there is no room for mistakes in nursing.
unlike a mistake committed by the lawyer whose competence in mercantile law was not measured, that of a nurse cannot be appealed . . . whereas there is no opportunity to correct the nurse's mistake which precipitated a patient's jumping off a bridge to his/her death, a tragedy that could have been avoided if the nurse were competent in psychiatric nursing.
the predicament the examinees now find themselves in is a creation of the prc. undoubtedly had it acted with the same pace and resoluteness as the court did in 2003, the examinees would not be in a quandary and their misery would not have been unjustly prolonged. at this point, the spinning out of their agony is nonnegotiable if some kinks have to be ironed out and some wrongs have to be righted. otherwise, their competence and the integrity of the nursing profession would be sullied forever. theirs is a monumental sacrifice--albeit forced on them--which the government must recognize with no less than a decisive and judicious resolution of their problem.
it is not only the credibility of the june 2006 examination that is the casualty of prc's mishandling of the leakage issue. the bigger casualty is the value of our people, their sense of right and wrong and their ability to discern heroism from villainy.

they have studied the issue, and make a strong argument for their position.

i am posting this here, because most other newspapers had ignored, and continue to ignore, airing "the other side."

pinoy_guy · Oct 30, 2006

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/oct/31/yehey/opinion/20061031opi7.html

the responsibility to maintain nurses' competence

by faith fields

president, national council of state boards of nursing

speech delivered before the philippines nurses association at the manila hotel, october 27, 2006

. . .
i feel very privileged to be serving as the newly elected president of the council and want to extend my sincere appreciation to you for inviting me here to speak to "you" today.
. . .
our focus is always on public protection.
. . .
for the next few minutes i'd like for us to look at these three aspects of a global community. first there is shared responsibilities.
we share a responsibility to lead by example.
. . .
we share a responsibility to know our scope of practice and the regulations that apply to our profession.
. . .
as nurses, we have a shared responsibility to maintain our competence and regulators have a shared responsibility to ensure that the public is protected from those who have not done so.
. . .
those values are:
-integrity: doing the right thing for the right reason....
. . .
the second value is:
- accountability: taking ownership and responsibility....
. . .
as i told president arroyo and as i will tell you here publicly, we are not here to tell you how to handle your business with your licensure examination anymore than you would come to the us and tell us how to deal with a breach in our exam. we can share with you how we have handled issues in the past and are willing to share what we have found as best practices in the test development process. with all the publicity surrounding this issue, the world is watching how you handle this challenge. "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste." and that is all i will say about that.
. . .
the next one of the national council values is
-collaboration: forging solutions together.
. . .
- quality is the next value: pursuing excellence.
. . .
- vision is the last one of the national council's stated values: using the power of imagination and creative thought to foresee the potential and create the future.
. . .

there you have it. verbatim.

you can read the entire speech via the link above.

she's skilled in the arts of diplomacy.

"we are not here to tell you how to handle your business with your licensure examination anymore than you would come to the us and tell us how to deal with a breach in our exam. we can share with you how we have handled issues in the past and are willing to share what we have found as best practices in the test development process."

pinoy_guy · Oct 30, 2006

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/oct/31/yehey/top_stories/20061031top1.html

june nle passers may not get visas

the commission on graduates of foreign nursing schools (cgfns international) has issued a statement about the eligibility of filipino nurses who passed the june 2006 nle, which could mean their visascreen applications will be denied.
. . .

a philippine newspaper finally noticed the cgfns news bulletin, and its implications.

kinda funny that the report just cut-&-pasted the faq section.

the acid test would be if members of this batch will get their visascreen certificates.

i eagerly await news of a june 2006 nle passer getting his/her vs certificate.

please share the good news so we can stop worrying about this & move on.

icing · Oct 30, 2006

Mr. Dante Ang is one of the major share holders of manila times... so it would do him well to post that bit of news and push for a retake...

Anyway it just says it "could" and it would have been better to use the word "may" than "will" before the word "denied".

Besides, I don't think Filipinos are ready for the NCLEX testing center. We keep ignoring the non-disclosure contract we sign on our first day of the professional boards anyway. Questions in the professional boards seem to have a magical way of finding themselves in review "compilations".

NCLEX is administered using a test bank and it is updated from time to time. If you put an NCLEX testing center here you might find the NCLEX questions in a so-called "complete" compilation of previous NCLEX questions in a few years... I can only imagine the controversy... But I can also imagine the droves of nurses with their money,who'd like to have a piece of that!!!

NCSBN might even be saving some review centers money... allegedly sponsoring nurses to take the NCLEX and cop out some of the questions they were asked.

Rep · Oct 31, 2006

NCLEX is administered using a test bank and it is updated from time to time. If you put an NCLEX testing center here you might find the NCLEX questions in a so-called "complete" compilation of previous NCLEX questions in a few years... I can only imagine the controversy... But I can also imagine the droves of nurses with their money,who'd like to have a piece of that!!!

:yeahthat:

Rep · Oct 31, 2006

Only strong political will can resove this issue and say once and for all that a retake is the only and right option.

People who stand for the retake position are being maligned and threatened. Being rightous is not a virtue anymore as evidenced by a lot of people who are not bothered that they carry a license that is tainted and does not hold credibility in the eyes of the world.

And yet think they have the right to work in a country where the laws are different from ours.

Sad indeed that we don't see the BIG PICTURE. Most of us wish this fiasco will just go away and everything will just turn right. Wake up! Unless we do the right thing , we Filipinos do not have the right to hold our heads up because this leakage scandal will not go away. It will stick with us like the MARK OF CAIN.

Think of it!

pinoy_guy · Oct 31, 2006

one step forward

5 named to board of nursing

http://newsinfo.inq7.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=29754

president gloria macapagal-arroyo has approved the appointments of five of the seven new members of the board of nursing (bon), executive secretary eduardo ermita said tuesday.
appointed were carmencita abaquin as acting chairman and leonila faire, betty meritt, perla po, and marco antonio sto. tomas as acting members.
. . .
among the bon's tasks is to prepare the contents of the nursing board exam, the second of which would be held on december 2 and 3.

two steps back

dole probes lists of nursing board passers for 'aberrations'

http://newsinfo.inq7.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=29760

labor secretary arturo brion admitted tuesday that the controversy surrounding the leak-tainted june nursing licensure examinations is far from over.
at a press briefing, brion said the department of labor and employment (dole) is investigating what he described as "aberrations" in the three lists of nursing board passers from the professional regulation commission (prc) and will submit a report on the results to the "proper forum" on november 6.
"it is far from over. it is still with the courts and, like i said in the beginning, the judicial process will not end until the supreme court decides on it," he said.
. . .
the labor secretary said his office is looking into the differences between the prc's three lists: the "master list," which contains the original grades per subject of all the so examinees; the "retake list," which the prc came out with after the re-computation prompted by the discovery of the leak; and the third list, or the "deemed pass list," which was drawn up after the court of appeals struck down the prc's resolution allowing the re-computation of the original test results.
"the differences puzzle us...there are a lot of aberrations in the three lists...that's why we are very hesitant [about] endorsing the oath-taking at this point," he said.
. . .
brion's chief of staff, lily pineda, explained that in general, the irregularities were in the differences between the grades of the unquestioned subjects 1, 2, and 4.
in some cases, she said, the grades for all the subjects in lists 2 and 3 were different from the original master list.
"there are also some who were told to retake [the board exam] who shouldn't retake anymore," she added.

lordy.

while they dance around the issue, the examinees suffer.