Immigrating from Yemen: USCIS has special rules that mean a long wait in the immigration line

Many people from Mississippi may not know where Yemen is on a map.  Nevertheless, this part of the country has many immigrants from this beautiful and ancient country.  Located on the southwestern tip of the Arabian Peninsula near the horn of Africa, Yemen is a country of simple, elegant beauty, along with stark contrasts and contradictions. It is a nation dominated by Islamic law and religious dogma that, in my view, inhibits its ability to modernize and integrate itself into the world community.   However, this is not the fault of the average Yemeni.  It is simply another example of those in power who are willing to use any means necessary to maintain their power. We had our monarchs, they have their mullahs and the patronage politicians. (sound familiar?) For an excellent review of the history of Yemen and the problems that it was facing prior to 2015, please review, Lackner, Helen, et al. Why Yemen Matters, A Society in Transition. Saqi Books, 2015.

If you study the country, you will find a country that has many problems, both economic and structural, that has led to the exodus of many people from that country. Why they have chosen to immigrate to this particular part of United States is not clear to me. However many of them are successful businesses owners, family oriented and deeply religious. Despite a strong adherence to religious dogma as a general proposition, they do not even remotely resemble the hardline religious dogmatists that dominate Mississippi politics and the talk radio airwaves, e.g. American Family Radio (AFR), SuperTalk Mississippi. Not even close.  Most are significantly less dogmatic when it comes to questions of religion.  With this in mind, I generally enjoy working with them and hope to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

When someone from Yemen wants to have a family member (spouse, child, parent, sibling) immigrate to the United States, they will face special challenges that you do not encounter when dealing with immigrants from most other countries.  When I first began working with Yemeni clients, I was taken aback by how long it took for those cases to be processed by USCIS. During this time, I dealt with the special challenges regarding family records by trying to think of new ways to approach a case early on to make the approval process proceed faster.

As I have learned over the last few years, family records in Yemen are not maintained in a centralized fashion, whether at a provincial or national level, as they are in most modern, industrialized countries. Even compared to less industrialized, developing nations, Yemen lags far behind in this respect.  When anyone applies for a relative to immigrate United States, the US government requires that certain documents be produced to prove the relationship between the citizen (or lawful permanent resident) and the intending immigrant.   This requires the family member to produce documents such as birth certificates, death certificates, marriage and divorce records, medical records, vaccination records, utility bills, land records, etc.

It goes without saying that these records must be reliable and authentic.  This is where the specific problem with documents from Yemen results in extremely long wait times.  The USCIS adjudicator manual has a special section for Yemeni cases.  As the USCIS adjudicator’s manual states:

Chapter 21.2 (c)(6)(B) – Petitions on Behalf of Aliens from Yemen.

Since civil documents concerning marriage, birth, death, etc., are often issued in Yemen based solely on information furnished by an interested party, often the petitioner or beneficiary of the petition, they are usually not considered conclusive to establish claimed relationships. Both the petitioner and beneficiary should be interviewed. The consular officer will interview the beneficiary abroad; if an interview was possible and carried out by the district office, you should attach a record of the interview with the petitioner to the petition when you forward it to the consul. However, you may only be able to solicit an affidavit from the petitioner responding to specific questions.

Families in Yemen are very close; therefore, your questions should include all the information you can develop concerning family members, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, and cousins. You should also ask questions concerning the home village in Yemen, about the house structure and livestock owned. Be on the look out for subtle differences in interviewees’ testimony. Questions might include:

  • The type of house;
  • Number of rooms and location of each;
  • Names and relationship of everyone living in the house and where they sleep; and
  • The number of cows, donkeys, sheep, goats, and other livestock owned, if any.

The usual procedure is to request the petitioner’s “A” file, and upon receipt, make a careful check of the file in reference to the claimed relationship to the beneficiary. Question the petitioner regarding any discrepancies material to the petition, and deny the petition if those discrepancies cannot be reconciled to your satisfaction.

It is clear from this directive that USCIS does not consider family records from Yemen to be reliable or authentic.  As a result, the facts contained within the documents are not reliable enough to form the legal basis for a relative to immigrate to the US.   Though I have no way to verify this, I believe that this provision was added because of the large number of forgeries that originated from Yemen in the past (this is based on a conversation I had with a UCSIS officer off the record).  The lack of a central authority and the lack of contemporaneous recording of vital events make the credibility of these documents, and the facts contained in those documents, suspect.

As a result of this special provision, when beginning a case for client from Yemen special care must be taken to provide as much information as possible about the family member and the relationship to try to make the case proceed as fast as possible. However, my concern is that despite the production of any amount of compelling, probative evidence, (even when the marriage takes place in the US) these cases will continue take considerably longer to process than most other cases. It is important for family members to know this at the beginning.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that an immigration attorney can do to make the case go faster, especially if it’s a case from Yemen.  Calling your immigration attorney every two weeks for case status update will not make your case go faster, nor is your attorney neglecting your case because he/she doesn’t have any news to report.  Clients must understand that USCIS has special provisions for Yemeni cases. This is not fair, but is a consequence of the way USCIS and the Department of State perceive the records of vital events from Yemen.  Because of the inherent lack of reliability of family records, cases from Yemen will take longer and you must be patient while your case proceeds through the process.

If you’re trying to have a family member immigrate from Yemen, the only advice that I have boils down to three things:

  1. Work hard on the front end (with an immigration attorney)
  2. Patience.
  3. If you are feeling impatient, see #2 above.

The link to the USCIS adjudicator’s manual:

Photograph of a U.S. Department of Homeland Security logo.
Photograph of a U.S. Department of Homeland Security logo. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the federal agency that decides who is eligible to immigrate to the United States.

“Hot Coffee” lawsuit comes up again in jury selection in Mississippi.

Over the last month, I’ve had the pleasure of being involved in two civil trials in Mississippi.  One was in extremely conservative Lee county in northeast Mississippi and the other in the moderate, yet conservative, Oktibbeha County in east central Mississippi.  The jurors that took the time to show up were from all walks of life, age, races, etc. and represented an excellent cross section of the people in this great state.  Both times I felt we picked great people to serve as fact finders in our case.  In both cases, the other side was represented by attorneys paid for by famous insurance companies.  One is owned by a famous billionaire who openly supports Hillary Clinton for president and for higher capital gains taxes.  The other is famous for its cute and funny television commercials.  You know, like “Hump daaaayyeeee.”  You get the idea. Its famous mascot looks a lot like the animal pictured at the end of this post.

Anyway, I’ll admit that my perspective is from that of a Plaintiff, or the person suing someone else for money, and that my take on this is probably biased in many respects. However, I began my legal career as a defense attorney, representing insurance companies, doctors, medical clinics and hospitals.  In other words, entities with excellent connections to the powerful political classes that run this state and the federal government. (Specifically, the state legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, and the former governors and former US Senators from Mississippi who are now lobbyists for all sorts of people with lots of money. And I mean LOTS of money.)

In both trials, during jury selection, the jury members identified the ideal candidate for a “frivolous lawsuit” as the “McDonalds Hot Coffee case” or similar description.  The jurors thought that there were “too many lawsuits” generally and the system was especially out of control as evidenced by the Hot Coffee case. It is amazing how that case remains the knee-jerk response anytime someone brings up the subject of frivolous lawsuits generally even thought it took place over 20 years ago.

The case that people are referring to is formally known as Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants that arose out of the Northern District of New Mexico in 1994.  The jury awarded 160,000 for compensatory damages (to cover medical expenses) but awarded 2.4 million dollars in punitive damages “because of the company’s callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Ms. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000, but McDonalds offered her $800 in response.  The punitive damages were later reduced to three times the compensatory damages, but that fact is often not mentioned by the media.

It would shock most people to read what actually happened in the case.  The photos are even more difficult too look at.  Basically, the 79 year old received 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body that required skin-graft surgery.  She spent 8 days in the hospital, even though she was wearing clothing over the parts of her body where she was burned. For the full story, visit  or if you don’t trust that read a summary from the trial record.

So, the powerful have done a great job convincing people in Mississippi that there are too many “frivolous” lawsuits in our state.  Great job.  Here is the reality:  Despite years of tort reform, Mississippi still remains at the lower end of prosperity when compared to the rest of the country.  Nothing has changed thanks to tort reform, except the well connected have another means to lure businesses to the state without any reasonable fear of having to change careless behavior should someone sue them. When I was a defense attorney, one  insurance company refused to settle any case under any circumstances.  If a patient had been a victim of medical malpractice, then they were going to have to sue and wait years for any recovery.  The message it wanted to send was  “Don’t even bother trying, even if you are in the right, because we will litigate you into oblivion rather than pay a dime to a Plaintiff.”  Needless to say, that was a great marketing tool when it came time to sell malpractice policies to doctors and hospitals.

Our rights are under attack in this country from all sides.  The Fourth Amendment has been practically tossed aside in many instances in the name of doing anything to assist law enforcement and the lost war on drugs.  Look at the Department of Justice’s report on Ferguson, Missouri and you’ll wonder if the US even has a 4th amendment.  Law enforcement always complains anytime there is a decision upholding the 4th amendment as being “against the  Police” or “Blue Lives Matter” or simply that you are protecting “criminals.”

The Second Amendment is under attack by the regressive left (RL) and media as being the sole and proximate cause of every mass shooting in the US.   Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton and her allies intend to reduce the number of guns in the USA by any means necessary.  If you take her at her word (that she supports an individual right to gun ownership) you are either in league with the RL, extremely naive, or both. Most in the local newspapers (print or online) just repeat the catch phrases from the DNC talking points without even bothering to check for accuracy. Print journalism is dead, and you can smell the stench.

The concept of freedom of expression and dissent found in the First Amendment is being attacked by the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) of the RL and the mass media.  Try to take a position opposite of a SJW at your local institution of “higher learning” (and I use that term loosely) and, if you are lucky, you will be only asked to leave and not physically assaulted as was the case of Professor Glick (the assailant) at the University of Missouri  or Milo Yiannopoulos (the victim) by Black Lives Matter at Depaul University in Chicago.  (give ’em hell Milo!)

Of course, the First Amendment has long been sacrificed at the alter of abortion. The Supreme Court has special rules where protesters must be when they are demonstrating outside the local Kermit Gosnell Center for Reproductive Rights (KGCRR).  The irony is that a right that is not mentioned at all in the Constitution (even if you define it as a general right of “privacy”) can be used to limit the one fundamental right that is essential to an open and free exchange of ideas in a modern, forward looking, country like the USA.  That still boggles the mind.

So folks, the right to a jury trial in a civil case is not as glamorous or entertaining as the other rights that are at the forefront:  Ferguson, intolerant SJWs, triggering, micro-agressions, private gun ownership, abortion, religious inspired violence, etc.   Unfortunately this right has been taken away from us while we slept.  You probably don’t even realize its gone.

Here is a quote that explains why juries are one of the last places justice cannot be unduly influenced by the political classes of the right and left:

Sometimes we forget how incredibly important the civil justice system is to our democracy. Juries are free from the influence of corporate lobbyists who wine and dine legislators and regulators. Often, corporations that may have otherwise blocked regulatory duties have been forced to change their practices because of lawsuits brought by everyday people. Unfortunately, due to immense corporate pressure, state legislatures across the country have been enacting tort restrictions at a furious pace, overturning state laws that for generations have afforded injured Americans the right and the means to obtain compensation and to hold wrongdoers accountable for the harm they cause.

Joanne Doroshow, The Huffington Post, June 26, 2011. (Watch Hot Coffee, a powerful new Film on HBO on June 27).

I couldn’t have said it better.  I wish I could make the normal people who show up for jury duty understand how they have been hoodwinked by politicians of all political stripes. I guess being a libertarian who can’t stand the religious right or the regressive left SJWs has its downside. I don’t have access to the powerful interests on either side.

It’s just the other sides sure do pay better. Just remember that when you’re watch those cute commercials that cost millions of dollars to produce.  Remember, you can’t trust lizards.

Image result for picture of green animals

James P. Tinsley, Esq.

Miss. Board of Pharmacy adjusts Technician Ratio to 3:1

The Mississippi Board of Pharmacy (MBOP) has updated the pharmacy regulations to allow for the greater use of technicians in all pharmacy practice settings.  The official update reads as follows:


Revisions to the Pharmacy Practice Regulations regarding the increase in Pharmacy Technician/Pharmacist ratios have been completed and effective August 1, 2016, the ratio is three Pharmacy Technicians to one Pharmacist. This ratio applies to all practice settings. Please bear in mind that, regardless of the ratio, that those tasks authorized to be conducted by Pharmacy Technicians may only be performed under the direct and immediate supervision of a Pharmacist. It is the responsibility of the Pharmacist-In-Charge as well as supervising pharmacists to provide supervision of duties of the pharmacy technician and to prevent pharmacy technicians from performing those functions relative to dispensing which are functions based on a judgement for which the pharmacy technician has not been prepared by education or authorized by law or regulation. The Pharmacist-In-Charge (PIC) is responsible for assuring that all personnel are properly registered with the Board. If you have questions concerning ratios or approved tasks of a Pharmacy Technician please contact the office of the Board.

I imagine most large chains (Walgreens, CVS) will take advantage of the new ratio to reduce the number of pharmacists on staff at any given time and, consequently, save on labor costs.  This may not be a wise decision in the long run.  The claim has always been that using technicians will allow the pharmacist more time to spend with the patient and/or giving immunizations.  We’ll see.  I have heard that line in one form of the other for 25 years now and it never seems to work out in the pharmacist’s favor.  But, to be fair, it may be a way to hire more support staff when hiring a second pharmacist doesn’t make sense economically.  That may acutally help save jobs long term.

It may also be that the MBOP has finally recognized that this ratio has probably been the norm for many years now and it really can’t justify assessing fines because nobody is following the rule.  At least now, those who were trying to follow the rule but really struggled to keep up with the demands can release a general sigh of relief.  Though to me there will always be a bit of arbitrariness to the rule.  What is to say a 4 to 1 ratio is reasonable?  5 to 1? Why do we need prescriptions anyway?  Do other first world nations have such a dis-functional prescription drug distribution apparatus in place?  Like many other things in life, question everthing, even if you don’t get the answer you like.

James P. Tinsley, RPh, J.D.

Djibouti Now Processing Yemeni Visa Applicants

Explosion outside the Capital of Yemen, Sana’a.
Sana’a, Yemen.

The US has not had any diplomatic presence in Yemen since 11 Feb 2015.  All diplomatic personnel were physically relocated outside the country.  The resulting diplomatic vacuum has made pending immigrant visa applications and interviews difficult to coordinate.  Recently, USCIS is almost universally issuing requests for evidence (RFE) if a Petitioner only submits birth certificates and marriage contracts without additional documentation and proof of the marriage or familial relationship.  This most commonly can be done by submitting additional documents and undergoing DNA testing from an AABB approved lab.  However, at this moment, no DNA testing can be done inside Yemen for obvious reasons: the colossal humanitarian disaster that is in the making.

Recently, the consulate in Djibouti is now scheduling and processing immigrant visa applications and interviews for Yemenis without requiring the applicant to be physically present in Djibouti.  This means your relative can schedule his or her interview before departing Yemen and arriving in Djibouti for the interview.  Many Yemenis who are waiting for their interview were not able to afford housing in Djibouti while waiting for the interview.  Coordinating DNA testing is still a challenge, but this new policy should help with the housing expense for Yemenis waiting for an immigrant visa interview.  Below is the latest from the IV Yemen website at the Department of state:

Information for Yemeni Citizens Applying for Petition-Based Immigrant Visas

Updated April 28, 2016

Beginning with appointments in June 2016, the U.S. Department of State is scheduling immigrant visa appointments for Yemeni applicants at the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti instead of the U.S. Embassy in Algeria in order to prevent delays and move more applicants to the interview stage. The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti no longer requires applicants to be physically present in the country prior to transferring their case. Interviews are being scheduled in order of the date the case became documentarily qualified and eligible for scheduling.

The U.S. Department of State previously scheduled visa interviews for Yemeni citizens in Algiers; however, as of March 23, 2016, the Government of Algeria requires Yemeni nationals to have a visa to enter Algeria. While some applicants have successfully obtained Algerian visas, this is preventing many applicants from attending interviews scheduled at the U.S. Embassy in Algiers. There is additional information on the U.S. Embassy in Algiers’s website.

If your relative has a pending case from Yemen and you have questions about what to do next with his/her case, please contact my office to see if we can help. We have been coordinating DNA testing for other Yemeni clients when such testing has been requested from USCIS.  In the absence of other documents, DNA testing may be your only option to overcome a RFE and have your relative’s case move forward to the interview stage in Djibouti.

James P. Tinsley, Esq., 143 C Willowbrook Drive, Saltillo, MS 38866.  (662) 350-3971;

Mississippi Senate Bill 2306 tells your Sheriff how to do his job

Bouc émissaire, Juden…

Here we go again. Phil Bryant (PB) and his cronies have all the answers on how to end illegal immigration.  With all the grandstanding and the dubious participation by the “Guvener” in United States v. Texas (without approval or consent of Mississippi’s top elected attorney, Jim Hood, as far as we know), the temptation to find a scapegoat for all of Mississippi’s problems knows no limits.

Senate Bill 2306, introduced by Senator Sean Tindell for Gulfport, requires all law enforcement agencies (LEA) to affirmatively notify “federal immigration authorities” (whoever that may be, there are at least five different federal agencies that could be, but who really cares anyway) that someone in their jail is “not legally present in the United States.”  I’ll call them FIAs for short, but the lack of precision in this is stunning.  I guess if you sent President Obama an email that a guy named José is in the Newton county jail that would count as notifying a FIA.  Who knows for sure.

Despite the lack of precision, this bill places a specific legal duty on your county sheriff, chief of police, state trooper, etc. to somehow let FIAs know that a person is not here in the US “legally.”  So now, the agency has to determine if someone is not legally in the US.  Last time I checked that was something that those vaguely identified FIAs had the sole authority to determine pursuant to federal law, and, by the way, the Constitution of the United States.  (like Professor Cochran used to say: Who needs a constitution among friends anyway? It just makes life harder.)

So I am at a loss as to how the LEA is supposed to determine if a person is not legally in the US.  Of course, the detainee can tell you.  But in the absence of that, how will the LEA know when and when not to “notify” the FIAs?  Doesn’t speak English?  Has darker colored skin? Doesn’t have any identification?  Has a weird last name?  Exercises his 5th amendment right to remain silent? Can’t tell you who won the World Series last year? Doesn’t celebrate Confederate Pride Month (CPM) in April?  I simply don’t know.

Then the bill goes on to require the LEA to “fully honor” a detainer placed by FIAs.  Again the lack of precision makes this bill fertile ground for abuse.  I suspect that the word “detainer” refers to DHS Form I-247, Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action that requests a LEA to “Maintain Custody of Alien for a Period not to exceed 48 hours.”  Federal case law as well as precedent from SCOTUS has held that Form I-247 is merely a request and is not mandatory. See, Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) that struck down most of the Brady Bill as violating the 10th amendment).  To hold otherwise would be tantamount to the federal government nationalizing the state police.  I doubt PB would go for that given his love for President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

So, this bill scuttles the distinction between the federal and state spheres of authority over the detention of criminal defendants in county jails and effectively deputizes state LEAs as extensions of the Federal Government.  So, now your local sheriff is no longer allowed to exercise his/her professional judgment as to whom to keep in his/her jail.  The sheriff is now a de facto immigration officer thanks to this unnecessary piece of political theater.

Of course, SB 2306 will be enforced consistent with federal law and “protecting the civil rights of all persons.”  Why is this in there?  Isn’t that always the case?  Do LEAs need to be reminded that they are sworn to protect the civil rights and dignity of ALL persons?  Have we become such a police state that we have to legislate what the constitution already requires?  My thought is that there is a perception out there that persons who are not “legally present” in the US have no rights whatsoever and cannot complain later if they are not treated the same as others.  “Those” illegals have no rights!  There illegal!  The Constitution doesn’t apply to them!  Thanks for reinforcing that idea, PB and Senator Tindell.

Under federal law, a LEA is only required to keep a suspected alien for 48 hours if it chooses to do so.  If a LEA detains a person beyond this time, the LEA and the individual officers are subject to liability for violating federal civil rights statutes, even if the detainee is not legally present in the US.  So, despite the dubious need for this legislation, if a LEA detains someone beyond 48 hours, it does so at its peril and SB 2306 will not immunize the LEA against liability despite its attempt to do so in section 4 of the bill.

The last clause of section three states: “and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.”  What the ___ does this mean?  Oh, I guess it would not be good if a FIA deported a US citizen.  That never happens because LEAs are provided with so much guidance on how to determine if someone is legally present in the good ole USA.

Reality check:  FIAs deport as many as 4000 US citizens each year.  FIAs have deported US citizens despite clear and obvious evidence of US citizenship.  The FIAs and the LEAs have been sued and paid out large settlements for their blatant disregard for basic human rights.  It is hard to distinguish between incompetence and outright willfulness in those cases, but SB 2306 certainly doesn’t provide any guidance on the issue.

If you want to protect your basic human rights you must protect the basic human rights of all persons, citizens and non-citizens.  History is replete with politicians finding a venerable group to blame for all that is wrong.  Mississippi has bigger problems than illegal immigration.  The story is different for border states like Texas and Arizona, but Mississippi’s foray into this issue is simply political scapegoating and the use fear as a means of political power.  Beware the politician selling fear.  She is selling snake oil that doesn’t cure anything.  Likewise, SB 2306 does nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration.  Violent criminals who are US citizens are let out of jail all the time and go on to commit other heinous crimes as well.  The connection between illegal immigration and violent crime in general is the very definition of a non sequitur.

Mississippi has a dreadful history with regard to human rights and therefore has a special duty to be exceedingly vigilant guarding those rights of all people.  In 2016, poverty is rampant in large parts of the state, on par with many third world countries.  I have been told by immigrants from Mexico that they would rather live in Mexico than live in certain parts of Mississippi because the standard of living is higher in Mexico.  Not something to be proud of folks.

So, maybe our time would be better spent regulating fantasy football or celebrating CPM?


James P. Tinsley, Esq.

What happens when my doctor loses her license?

Patients have many questions about what to do if their doctor dies, loses his/her license to practice medicine, or moves to a different area.  Pharmacists are also put in a bind because of their legal duty to fill prescriptions from practitioners authorized by law to practice medicine. For a prescription to be valid and meet the basic requirements to be filled, there must be a bona fide, ongoing, doctor-patient relationship.  When that relationship terminates for whatever reason, what happens to prescriptions that may still have refills, but the patient is not due to return to the provider any time soon?

It is not that the pharmacist doesn’t want the patient to have his/her medicine. Quite the opposite, in fact.  There is no “gotcha” game that pharmacists play to try to get points for finding ways not to dispense a prescription to a patient.  In Mississippi, here is what the Board of Medical Licensure administrative rules say about medications (new prescriptions and refills) and when a prescription in no longer valid and, consequently, cannot be filled or refilled by a pharmacist:

Rule 1.11 Prescription Guidelines – All Medications. In addition to any other requirements set forth in these rules pertaining to the issuance of prescriptions of controlled substances, the following additional requirements apply to all prescriptions, whether or not said prescriptions are for controlled substances, legend drugs or any other medication:

G. A prescription shall no longer be valid after the occurrence of any one of the following events:
1. Thirty (30) days after the death of the issuing physician.
2. Thirty (30) days after the issuing physician has moved or otherwise changed the location of his or her practice so as to terminate the doctor/patient relationship. Termination of the doctor/patient relationship results when a patient is no longer able to seek personal consultation or treatment from the issuing physician.
3. Insofar as controlled substances are concerned, immediately after loss of DEA Controlled Substances Privilege by the issuing physician.
4. Immediately after revocation, suspension or surrender of the physician’s license.

Thus, there are many ways prescriptions that have been written by your prescriber and that you have been taking for many years may no longer be fillable by the pharmacy.  When these things happen, the patient needs to find another provider who can write the prescriptions for the patient going forward. This is Mississippi law and is not your pharmacist’s fault.  The law applies to everyone, yourself included.  Make the effort before you run out of medication to avoid any gap in taking your medications.  As with most everything else in life, you are responsible for your own well being.  Trying to shift this responsibility to your pharmacist will only delay the process.

Thanks to the Mississippi Board of Pharmacy for sharing this information with me.  This came in response to a physician who is prohibited to practice medicine in Mississippi.  If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at 662-350-3971.

James P. Tinsley, Rph., J.D.