Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

New E-2 Guidelines????
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 45, 46, 47 ... 76, 77, 78 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Job-related Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

PhD

Joined: 15 May 2007

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:27 am Post subject:

Ut videam wrote:

PhD, as you stated, Immigration is aware that the embassies will not notarize background checks. Immigration is also well aware that an affidavit or statutory declaration is not the same as notarizing the background check itself. Nevertheless, they will accept it. From the horse's mouth:

88lawyer (Lee Dong-wook, Deputy Director [사무관], Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice) wrote:

--> I have never said that self-declaratory statment is equal to notarization.

---> there are reasons why Korean Immigration Service is demanding self-declaratory statement before the consular officer. That is after proper consultations with the consular officers of the embassies.

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=1499843#1499843

I await your apology and admission of error.

Give it up!

That discussion took place 3 months before the regulations went in to full effect. AND it was in the context of an alternative to obtaining an apostille for Canadian citizens whose country did not sign the treaty.

Apples and oranges. I stand by my original point in that a notarized declaration may or may not work and as for citizens whose countries signed the treaty it is more than likely to be rejected.

As for an apology.... Rolling Eyes

Ut videam

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Location: Pocheon-si, Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:00 am Post subject:

It's not apples and oranges at all. The conversation took place in the context of a discussion of how Canadians IN KOREA could get their criminal checks authenticated. It's just as difficult for a U.S. citizen IN KOREA to get an apostille as it is for a Canadian IN KOREA to get something notarized by a Korean consulate in Canada. The principle is the same. And once again, it's your interpretation of Immigration regulations (backed up by nothing but an extremely poor record) versus evidence from multiple sources supporting the feasibility of the embassy-notarized affidavit/declaration. indeed.

PhD

Joined: 15 May 2007

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject:

Ut videam wrote:

It's not apples and oranges at all. The conversation took place in the context of a discussion of how Canadians IN KOREA could get their criminal checks authenticated. It's just as difficult for a U.S. citizen IN KOREA to get an apostille as it is for a Canadian IN KOREA to get something notarized by a Korean consulate in Canada. The principle is the same.

And once again, it's your interpretation of Immigration regulations (backed up by nothing but an extremely poor record) versus evidence from multiple sources supporting the feasibility of the embassy-notarized affidavit/declaration.

Rolling Eyes

indeed.

Yawn.

Ut videam

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Location: Pocheon-si, Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: PhD: Wrong again

In response to a query I e-mailed him, I received the following response from Lee Dong-wook of the Ministry of Justice this morning:

Quote:

Dear Mr. (Ut videam),

An affidavit or statutory declaration with regard to the criminal record check (attached) notarized by
one's embassy in Korea is sufficient to authenticate a background check.

But if the criminal record check looks dubious (for example if it lacks the official seal, or signing), the CRC itself can be subject to strict scrutiny among the law enforcement officers. Thank you.

There you have it.

Now, about that apology... Laughing

drcrazy

Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Location: Pusan. Yes, that's right. Pusan NOT Busan. I ain't never been to no place called Busan

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: PhD: Wrong again

Ut videam wrote:

In response to a query I e-mailed him, I received the following response from Lee Dong-wook of the Ministry of Justice this morning:

Quote:

There you have it.

Now, about that apology... Laughing

Sometimes I send myself emails. Wink

Ut videam

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Location: Pocheon-si, Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject:

Lest there be any doubt as to the source of the message:

Original message with full headers:

Quote:

Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: by 10.86.72.3 with SMTP id u3cs564835fga;
Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.123.16 with SMTP id v16mr4431059ybc.76.1206487745273;
Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from smail-102.hanmail.net (smail-102.hanmail.net [211.43.197.24])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 8si13426583wrl.21.2008.03.25.16.29.03;
Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 211.43.197.24 as permitted sender) client-ip=211.43.197.24;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 211.43.197.24 as permitted sender) [email protected]
Received: from wwl341.hanmail.net ([222.231.35.43])
by smail-102.hanmail.net (8.12.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id m2PNSv7n000707;
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:28:58 +0900
Received: (from hanadmin@localhost)
by wwl341.hanmail.net (8.12.9/8.9.1) id m2PNSuvD010099
for <[email protected]>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:28:56 +0900
Content-Type: text/html; charset="EUC-KR"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Originating-IP: [152.99.132.14]
From: "=?EUC-KR?B?wMy1v7/t?=" <[email protected]>
Organization:
To: "Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Question re: "self-declaratory statements" for criminal backgroundchecks
X-Mailer: Daum Web Mailer 1.2
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:28:56 +0900 (KST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Errors-To: <[email protected]>
X-HM-UT: jiOZ6qqpmvQ8wmG5NaqsI42DcDe6SQy1FwE+qKGMA5E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Hanmail-Attr: fc=1
X-ATTFILE-SIZE: 0

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx,

An affidavit or statutory declaration with regard to the criminal record check (attached) notarized by
one's embassy in Korea is sufficient to authenticate a background check.

But if the criminal record check looks dubious (for example if it lacks the official seal, or signing), the CRC itself can be subject to strict scrutiny among the law enforcement officers. Thank you.

---------[ 받은 메일 내용 ]----------
제목 : Question re: "self-declaratory statements" for criminal backgroundchecks
날짜 : 2008년 3월 26일 수요일, 오전 01시 04분 47초 +0900
보낸이 : "Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx" <[email protected]>
받는이 : [email protected]
함께받는이 : [email protected]

Dear Mr. Lee,

I am hoping that you may be able to clear up some confusion for
English teachers in Korea regarding the requirements for their
criminal background check. I am directing this e-mail to you because
of the helpful information you provided earlier in the Korea Times
and by e-mail to other teachers.

As I'm sure you know, teachers wishing to extending their stay after
March 15th must submit a properly authenticated criminal background
check when they apply for the extension. There is some debate,
however, regarding what constitutes proper authentication. Most
teachers are aware that in general, an apostille is required to
authenticate the background check obtained from their home country.
Since Canada is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, Canadian
citizens must generally have their background check authenticated by
a Korean consulate in Canada. The debate arises when discussing
authentication options for teachers who are already in Korea. As you
are probably aware, it is difficult and time-consuming for Canadians
to complete the aforementioned process by mail. It is similarly
difficult and time-consuming for American citizens in Korea to get
their background checks apostilled by mail, since in many cases
several different offices are involved in the process.

The latest version of the E-2 regulations posted at the HiKorea web
site's Immigration Guide offers a possible solution for this problem.
It states, "In case applicant stay in Korea and is sent Criminal
Background Check by mail, Or one's entry to Korea is imminent, the
document notarized by one's embassy in Korea may be acceptable." This
requires clarification, however. As you are probably aware, most
embassies will not directly notarize a background check. What they
will notarize, however, is a declaratory statement by the applicant
that the background check is true and correct. In fact, the Canadian
Embassy is instructing Canadian citizens in Korea to use this method
to authenticate their background checks. Under Canadian law, such a
self-declaratory statement is called a Statutory Declaration. The
Embassy instructs applicants to bring their background check to the
embassy and make and sign a Statutory Declaration before a consular
officer. They will then notarize that declaration with the seal of
the embassy. The U.S. Embassy has not provided any similar guidance
to American citizens, but presumably the parallel process would
apply. Rather than a "statutory declaration," under American law the
self-declaratory statement would be in the legal form of an
affidavit. The Embassy's web site states that they will notarize
affidavits made by American citizens in the presence of a consular
officer. Thus, the applicant could take his background check to the
embassy, make an affidavit before a consular officer, and have the
affidavit notarized with the embassy's seal.

My question: is an affidavit or statutory declaration notarized by
one's embassy in Korea sufficient to authenticate a background check?
Having read your earlier publication and e-mail correspondence with
other teachers, I believe that it is. But others disagree with me.
So, for applicants already in Korea, will Immigration accept a
background check accompanied by a affidavit or statutory declaration
notarized by one's embassy in Korea? An authoritative answer to this
question would be a tremendous help to those teachers who will be
preparing to renew contracts and extend their stays over the next
several months.

I apologize for the length of this e-mail. I wanted to explain
everything very clearly so as to avoid any confusion. I am sincerely
grateful to you for taking the time to read and respond to this
lengthy question. Thank you for all you do in your difficult and
important job.

With best regards,

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx
Full-time Instructor
General English Program
X University

Reverse WHOIS lookup:

Quote:

IP address: 152.99.132.14
Reverse DNS: fk14.gcc.go.kr.
Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
ASN: 4671
ASN Name: GCC-KR (Government Computer Center (GCC))
IP range connectivity: 0
Registrar (per ASN): APNIC
Country (per IP registrar): KR [Korea-KR]
Country Currency: KRW [Korea (South) Won]
Country IP Range: 152.99.0.0 to 152.99.255.255
Country fraud profile: Normal
City (per outside source): Unknown
Country (per outside source): KR [Korea-KR]
Private (internal) IP? No
IP address registrar: whois.arin.net
Known Proxy? No

EDIT: Full original message added. Only altered to protect my personal contact information.

Last edited by Ut videam on Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

drcrazy

Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Location: Pusan. Yes, that's right. Pusan NOT Busan. I ain't never been to no place called Busan

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject:

Ut videam wrote:

Lest there be any doubt as to the source of the message:

Message headers:

Quote:

Reverse WHOIS lookup:

Quote:

What the heck is all of this? Looks like what you get when an email
is returned undelivered. Except, in those you still have a message amoung all the other junk. Where are the messages? Were they deleeted? If so, why? Is this the result of a virus? And it has also been altered in places. I have no idea what this is supposed to prove. Shocked

Ut videam

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Location: Pocheon-si, Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:52 pm Post subject:

drcrazy wrote:

Edited the post to include the full message; see above. The only alterations made were to protect my personal info (name, e-mail address, etc.).

The part after the e-mail, the reverse WHOIS lookup, traces the IP address of the computer that sent the e-mail ("X-Originating-IP" in the message headers). That lookup shows that the message originated from a Korean government computer.

In view of the information I've provided, the authenticity of the e-mail is surely clear to any reasonable observer. Thus, I'll entertain no further questions in this regard.

drcrazy

Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Location: Pusan. Yes, that's right. Pusan NOT Busan. I ain't never been to no place called Busan

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: Re: PhD: Wrong again

drcrazy wrote:

Ut videam wrote:

In response to a query I e-mailed him, I received the following response from Lee Dong-wook of the Ministry of Justice this morning:

Quote:

There you have it.

Now, about that apology... Laughing

Sometimes I send myself emails. Wink

PhD

Joined: 15 May 2007

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: Re: PhD: Wrong again

Ut videam wrote:

Quote:

There you have it.

Now, about that apology... Laughing

I apologize for proving you wrong. The Immigration officer gave you the same answer that I did which is, in short form, in some cases an immigration officer may accept the affidavit. In some cases he may not. (It's a lawyers way of being non-commital.)

The problem is that the immigration officer (also a lawyer) I talked to said that the lawyer gave a misleading answer. He said that a strict interpretation of the law only allows for citizens from non-treaty countries to swear an affidavit in front of thier consulate as to the authenticity of the CRC. Then he went on to add that those from treaty countries, ie America, must obtain an apostille.

He said that most officers would normally accept an affidavit, but right now because of the pedophile case and a few others, the officers are afraid to make mistakes and will most likely insist on strict interpretation of the law.

SO sorry, you were and remain wrong. I stand by my original statement:

Ut videam

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Location: Pocheon-si, Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:25 am Post subject:

Overtaken by events; see the next post. Last edited by Ut videam on Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:14 am; edited 1 time in total

Ut videam

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Location: Pocheon-si, Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:10 am Post subject:

Wow, that was quick!

Quote:

이동욱 <[email protected]> Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:14 PM
To: (me)
Dear Mr. (me),

That teacher who challenged your response has out-dated information. Yes, it was true that Korea Immigration Service once accepted only those notarization from the embassies of the countries which are non-Hague Convention members. But nowadays, we(KIS) are accepting all the notarization from the embassies here in Korea. For example, an American citizen can go to the American embassy and make a self-declaratory statement in front of the consular officer there. If he opts to use the apostille method, he can still do so, however. But since the apostille method is too time-consuming via the labyrinthine processing within the State Dept, we do not recommend people to do so. If you have any questions in contacting with those people inside the US embassy for notarization purpose, please let me release the right consular officer's name: Mr. Hale Vancoughnett. He is a very friendly and well-informed of the recent updates of the Korea Immigration Service. And we are also maintaining close contacts with him and his colleagues within the US embassy.

Starting from tomorrow, I will be out of town. I am supposed to come back to Korea on April 6th, 2008.

If you have any further questions, please contact with Mr. Namil Choi. He is one of the most well-informe persons inside the KIS regarding the E-visa. If there is any discrepancy between Mr. Choi's opinion and other immigration officers', please rest assured to accept Mr. Choi's. His opinion prevails no matter what if it is regarding E-visa. Unfortunately, I do not have his name at the moment. If you dial my desk number(02-500-9197) tomorrow,however, a colleague of mine will definitely tell you of Mr. Choi's phone number. Hope this will help.

Thank you. With my warm regards

Dongwook Lee

p/s Since I posted my op-ed article in the KT, I received many many feedbacks. Many of them went overboard. For example, some sent me emails like "Mr. Lee is a racist, Mr. Lee is a faggot, Mr. Lee is not a lawyer, Mr. Lee did not go to a law school. Mr. Lee runs a brothel, etc. and etc." I do not understand where they made f untrue and insulting

stories of this kind. I am glad that your email did not include that kind of negative feedbacks and I am very pleased to answer your question as speedily as I can, since I believe it is my job to help those non-Korean people all around me. If you happen to have a chance to come to Gwacheon or Seoul, please let me know so that I can invite you to a decent lunch or dinner.

---------[ 받은 메일 내용 ]----------
제목 : Re: Question re: "self-declaratory statements" for criminal backgroundchecks
날짜 : 2008년 3월 30일 일요일, 오후 19시 55분 54초 +0900
보낸이 : "me" <[email protected]>
받는이 : "이동욱" <[email protected]>

Dear Mr. Lee,

Once again, thank you for your quick reply to my previous query. Would you be so kind as to answer a follow-up question?

I passed on the answer that you provided, i.e, an affidavit or statutory declaration with regard to the attached criminal record check notarized by one's embassy in Korea is sufficient to authenticate a background check. That information, however, was challenged by another teacher. He claims that he's spoken to an immigration officer who told him that only citizens of non-Hague Convention countries could swear an affidavit/declaration at their embassy regarding the authenticity of their background check. According to this gentleman, the immigration officer told him that citizens of Hague Convention signatory countries, such as the U.S., must obtain an apostille?an embassy-notarized affidavit is not acceptable for citizens of those countries.

Is this characterization accurate? In other words, is the embassy-notarized declaration only acceptable from citizens of countries that are not party to the Hague Convention (Canada, China, et al.)? Or can Americans and other citizens of Hague Convention signatories also use an embassy-notarized declaration to authenticate their criminal record checks if the check is mailed to them in Korea?

With gratitude for your efforts to assist the language teaching community, I remain,

With best regards,

I think that just about settles it.

drcrazy

Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Location: Pusan. Yes, that's right. Pusan NOT Busan. I ain't never been to no place called Busan

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:44 am Post subject:

Ut videam wrote:

Wow, that was quick!

Quote:

I think that just about settles it.

Your mommy must be so proud of you. Make sure she has a copy of this to put on the refridgerater door.

yingwenlaoshi

Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: ... location, location!

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:38 am Post subject:

I just saw on the news that they're getting rid of the medical and the police check! Apparently the reason is that they're afraid of teacher shortages. My friend translated it all for me. Korea's going in a different direction?

elliemk

Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Location: Sparkling Korea!

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:36 am Post subject:

What news? What site, if you can? Thanks.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Job-related Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 45, 46, 47 ... 76, 77, 78 Next
Page 46 of 78

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe