State or federal apostille for Migración?

[Jay J.]

I agree with the others, despite the wait, get the USDOS apostille and put Migracion in the rear view mirror. Use the precaria and upload the apostille when you get it. Then they'll say you need to translate the apostille and legalize it at the Colegio de Traductores Públicos. It sucks dealing with them but there is no way around it.

 

[Jay J.]

Apostille or not, how can New York state certify that you don't have a criminal history on a federal level?

They can easily do it via the NCIC. The U.S. Embassy can do it in a minute if they wanted. And they could provide apostille service if they wanted to. My attorney in Medellin had the U.S. Embassy in Bogota apostille (or the equivalent) the same documents in a day.

 

[Pat Murphy]

The immigration attorney just assured me that Migracion must accept (per the 1961 Hague Convention) an apostille from a U.S. state. The whole idea of the convention, of course, being the acceptance of apostilles from signatory entities which conform to the certification process. Now whether or not the lower level employees, mostly fooling around at the reception desks, of Migracion will understand this is another question. If not, she said that the law is clear and that she will eventually get to someone who understands it. I'll update the thread when I have more information.

 

[Greg M]

You piqued my interest with this question. According to the agreement itself (below), Article 13 clearly indicates that Migración should accept an apostille from any U.S. state as follows:

Article 13

Any State may, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that the present Convention shall extend to all the territories for the international relations of which it is responsible, or to one or more of them. Such a declaration shall take effect on the date of entry into force of the Convention for the State concerned.

At any time thereafter, such extensions shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

When the declaration of extension is made by a State which has signed and ratified, the Convention shall enter into force for the territories concerned in accordance with Article 11. When the declaration of extension is made by a State which has acceded, the Convention shall enter into force for the territories concerned in accordance with Article 12

Obviously, the United States as the signatory has extended the authority of the convention to all 50 U.S. states, and I imagine Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, USVI .... etc as well.

However, I would bet dollars to donuts that the reflexive response from the indolent and intellectually incurious will be to refuse out of hand your New York state apostille. I doubt that many of them know, or care, that an apostille almost always merely confirms just the signature of the document, verifies the authenticity of the seal / stamp and affirms the capacity of the person signing the document. U.S. Dept. of State Apostilles do not directly verify the contents of the letter. It does so indirectly by verifying (1.) the signature, (2.) the seal / stamp and (3) the capacity of the person who signed the document.

I would double the bet by asserting that 85% of Migración employees never read the convention itself. So, while I believe that you are legally entitled to submit and have accepted your NY state apostille, I think that you are entering a Franz Kafka type of Idiocracy struggle session with federal workers. I wish you all the best. Please let us know how it works out.

 

[Moe]

The immigration attorney just assured me that Migracion must accept (per the 1961 Hague Convention) an apostille from a U.S. state. The whole idea of the convention, of course, being the acceptance of apostilles from signatory entities which conform to the certification process. Now whether or not the lower level employees, mostly fooling around at the reception desks, of Migracion will understand this is another question. If not, she said that the law is clear and that she will eventually get to someone who understands it. I'll update the thread when I have more information.

How did it go?

 

[Brian_is_here]

if the document was issued by a state, a state apostille is needed. If it’s issued by the feds, you need a federal one.

That is the rule. If you want to roll the dice with migraciónes, suerte.

 

[Pat Murphy]

How did it go?

Still waiting. I think that they may be perplexed.

 

[Pat Murphy]

if the document was issued by a state, a state apostille is needed. If it’s issued by the feds, you need a federal one.

That is the rule. If you want to roll the dice with migraciónes, suerte.

As Greg M wrote above, that is not the law. My immigration attorney said that that is not the law. But we'll see. As soon as I have an update, I will post it. The practical difference between the two apostilles is waiting two days for a State of New York apostille or waiting currently 8-10 weeks for a USDOS apostille.

The State of New York apostille language authenticates the veracity of the documents but in a different manner than the USDOS. The USDOS verifies the signature, the capacity of the signer and the seal of the organization from which the document was obtained. The State of New York verifies that the photocopy of the original document is an exact, true, complete and unaltered photocopy. A distinction without a difference, to me anyway. We'll see.

 

[Greg M]

As Greg M wrote above, that is not the law. My immigration attorney said that that is not the law. But we'll see. As soon as I have an update, I will post it. The practical difference between the two apostilles is waiting two days for a State of New York apostille or waiting currently 8-10 weeks for a USDOS apostille.

The State of New York apostille language authenticates the veracity of the documents but in a different manner than the USDOS. The USDOS verifies the signature, the capacity of the signer and the seal of the organization from which the document was obtained. The State of New York verifies that the photocopy of the original document is an exact, true, complete and unaltered photocopy. A distinction without a difference, to me anyway. We'll see.

 

[Greg M]

This is actually amusing in the context of an exercise in logic. For Migracion it will be like being confronted with Lewis Carroll's paradox of The Tortoise and Achilles. Because the NY apostille is verifying not the content of the original document but rather it is certifying that the photocopy of the original document is true, exact, unaltered and complete, Migracion will have to apply deductive reasoning to conclude that the NY apostille is in fact verifying and authenticating the original document itself. And as with a Dept. of State apostille, which also does not verify the content of the documents which it certifies, Migracion will be forced to assume, under equal treatment, that the content of your documents is correct. In a rational world of course.


Let me know how it turns out. While the law is on your side, the powerful forces of sloth, cognitive dissonance and authority-of-office are on theirs. I doubt that they will yield. You'd get a more well reasoned response from ChatGPT. But good luck. I wish you well setting a precedent.