Re: Good work Rajiv and team......
Can We settle on These Bases?
- Thread starter Rajiv S. Khanna
- Start date
I have looked at all the discussions
All your ideas reflect valid concerns: from death of spouse to citizenship. Money recovery, in my opinion, is unlikely, if not impossible. We tried it in another case just a few months ago.
To change the time of when citizenship period begins to run requires a change in the law. USCIS cannot do it. The best I can do is to get the time running from the date of the interim GC approval. Even that is questionable, but I will try my very best.
CIS is going to have to show that they do want to settle in good faith. If they do, we will work with them and unravel the statutes to find a way to make things work for everyone. I expect to have to hire one lawyer just to coordinate the discussion then.
If the class action gets certified, the court will review the settlement carefully. Do not worry.
We are NOT stopping the lawsuit or even slowing it down.
I will continue to read all messages, but may not respond to all of them. Please do not feel offended.
All your ideas reflect valid concerns: from death of spouse to citizenship. Money recovery, in my opinion, is unlikely, if not impossible. We tried it in another case just a few months ago.
To change the time of when citizenship period begins to run requires a change in the law. USCIS cannot do it. The best I can do is to get the time running from the date of the interim GC approval. Even that is questionable, but I will try my very best.
CIS is going to have to show that they do want to settle in good faith. If they do, we will work with them and unravel the statutes to find a way to make things work for everyone. I expect to have to hire one lawyer just to coordinate the discussion then.
If the class action gets certified, the court will review the settlement carefully. Do not worry.
We are NOT stopping the lawsuit or even slowing it down.
I will continue to read all messages, but may not respond to all of them. Please do not feel offended.
No official confirmation, but...
One of our clients just received a 2 years approval of EAD.
One of our clients just received a 2 years approval of EAD.
Re: Is this Realistic??
We will find out. We will let the court decide if they do not wish to help us.
We will find out. We will let the court decide if they do not wish to help us.
Attached is a alghtly modified settlement
...proposal.
Small changes were made based upon your input.
...proposal.
Small changes were made based upon your input.
Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement
For now, I am not amending the Complaint. But if CIS is unreasonable, we might broaden the scope of the litigation to include ALL delays.
For now, I am not amending the Complaint. But if CIS is unreasonable, we might broaden the scope of the litigation to include ALL delays.
Re: No Settlement Without 4th Item
Correct. I will listen to alternatives they have and bring them back to you, but I will not settle for you on lesser terms.
Correct. I will listen to alternatives they have and bring them back to you, but I will not settle for you on lesser terms.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement
No one in our office will stop you if you come with sweets. Our gang has the biggest sweet tooth on this continent.
No one in our office will stop you if you come with sweets. Our gang has the biggest sweet tooth on this continent.
Re: Great job Rajiv
I have looked at the law. There is no way to cover it without changing the law.
I have looked at the law. There is no way to cover it without changing the law.
Last edited by a moderator:
You can help
Spread the word in other discussion groups, community, friends so they can review the proposal and send me their input. I do not want us to miss any point of view.
Spread the word in other discussion groups, community, friends so they can review the proposal and send me their input. I do not want us to miss any point of view.
Well put.
But everyone has an angle. I truly enjoy this effort. So there are no favors here. Everyone must contribute their efforts in the same spirit as I would like to believe I aim for: freely, joyously and with focused intent.
So do not berate youselves for not doing enough. Do it in the right spirit. I want or need nothing more.
Naah. Let it be where it is. We are all used to saying #4 by now.
Re: Comments on Settlement Draft
Let us create a wish list for the community. One or more of you volunteer to take care of it. It can be an excel document compiled from everyone's thoughts.
If you folks like the idea, let us do it. Along with the 8-point setllement or sometime thereafter, CIS can be presented the wish list to see how many of these items they can accomodate. As a matter of courtesy, I will let the CIS counsel know that we will be sending in a community wish list, which is not a set of demands, but a set of wishes, that would help CIS customers and CIS both. We will settle for the 8-points, but we would want the wish list to be commented upon by the CIS - what they can and cannot do and the reasons why some thing cannot be done. The reasons given by CIS should include suggestions on how the changes can be accomplished. If it is more money, we can then take that to Congress.
I have always believed in the cooperative model of dispute resolution (several years of mediation experience will do that for you). While we are on the opposite sides of the litigation, we can still try to come up with cooperative solutions that will cause the least pain to everyone.
Thet does not mean the litigation abates. We continue fighting.
So how about that wish list? Do it or let it go?
Let us create a wish list for the community. One or more of you volunteer to take care of it. It can be an excel document compiled from everyone's thoughts.
If you folks like the idea, let us do it. Along with the 8-point setllement or sometime thereafter, CIS can be presented the wish list to see how many of these items they can accomodate. As a matter of courtesy, I will let the CIS counsel know that we will be sending in a community wish list, which is not a set of demands, but a set of wishes, that would help CIS customers and CIS both. We will settle for the 8-points, but we would want the wish list to be commented upon by the CIS - what they can and cannot do and the reasons why some thing cannot be done. The reasons given by CIS should include suggestions on how the changes can be accomplished. If it is more money, we can then take that to Congress.
I have always believed in the cooperative model of dispute resolution (several years of mediation experience will do that for you). While we are on the opposite sides of the litigation, we can still try to come up with cooperative solutions that will cause the least pain to everyone.
Thet does not mean the litigation abates. We continue fighting.
So how about that wish list? Do it or let it go?
Some thoughts and impressions
Folks, I think we have about exhausted useful discussion. My general sense is that this is a good point to submit our settlement to CIS.
I want you to refrain from attacking each other's view points to the point of getting personal. No need. We invite ALL viewpoints, no matter how different they are from ours.
Every item on the 8-points is a result of my experience with your problem, thought and consideration and reflects your input. There is no way I will come up with a "perefct" solution. But I am trying to get as close to the root of the problems as possible.
The most important time is this coming week. I had asked the government to cooperate on our class action motion, so we can get a quick resolution. If they intend to oppose it, I know, chances of settlement are small. Becuase they, as an institution, do not understand unconventional, yet commen sense, approach to litigation and problem solving. My suggestion to them was simple, let us join together to get the class certified in a hurry, so we can move on to either the real litigation or to a settlement. I invited them to not delay matters and waste the court's time. Their first reaction was of surprise. No one had ever asked them to join in such a manner. But to their credit, they had agreed to think it over.
Now if they come back to me and say let us join together to narrow the scope of the litigation (instead of fighting over nonsense), we know we have a receptive (potential) partner, rtaher than an unthinking opponent. Once cooperation begins, I will present our settlement. If not, I will present it, but I will know that unless we get Congress involved, there will be no settlement.
I am also hoping that they will see the potential for goodwill here. They have been in the press as villains so long and so often, they need a face lift. If they agree to cooperate with us (the best possible class of people whom the govt can support - leglally here, professional/skilled, smart and responsible), I would want us to reciprocate by issuing positive statements that reflect the truth of their cooperation and consideration.
If they decide to fight, then I will make it my mission over the next few months/years to find every way I can to hasten the conclusion of this litigation. Rest assured.
Not much else to add. Be cool all. I will start a new thread, once I hear from the government.
Folks, I think we have about exhausted useful discussion. My general sense is that this is a good point to submit our settlement to CIS.
I want you to refrain from attacking each other's view points to the point of getting personal. No need. We invite ALL viewpoints, no matter how different they are from ours.
Every item on the 8-points is a result of my experience with your problem, thought and consideration and reflects your input. There is no way I will come up with a "perefct" solution. But I am trying to get as close to the root of the problems as possible.
The most important time is this coming week. I had asked the government to cooperate on our class action motion, so we can get a quick resolution. If they intend to oppose it, I know, chances of settlement are small. Becuase they, as an institution, do not understand unconventional, yet commen sense, approach to litigation and problem solving. My suggestion to them was simple, let us join together to get the class certified in a hurry, so we can move on to either the real litigation or to a settlement. I invited them to not delay matters and waste the court's time. Their first reaction was of surprise. No one had ever asked them to join in such a manner. But to their credit, they had agreed to think it over.
Now if they come back to me and say let us join together to narrow the scope of the litigation (instead of fighting over nonsense), we know we have a receptive (potential) partner, rtaher than an unthinking opponent. Once cooperation begins, I will present our settlement. If not, I will present it, but I will know that unless we get Congress involved, there will be no settlement.
I am also hoping that they will see the potential for goodwill here. They have been in the press as villains so long and so often, they need a face lift. If they agree to cooperate with us (the best possible class of people whom the govt can support - leglally here, professional/skilled, smart and responsible), I would want us to reciprocate by issuing positive statements that reflect the truth of their cooperation and consideration.
If they decide to fight, then I will make it my mission over the next few months/years to find every way I can to hasten the conclusion of this litigation. Rest assured.
Not much else to add. Be cool all. I will start a new thread, once I hear from the government.
Govt. has refused to cooperate on one issue at least
Here is some of the relevant parts of their e-mail:
"Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:30:43 -0500 (EST)
Rajiv, I wanted to get back with you regarding your class cert. stipulation proposal. We had two meetings over here to discuss your proposal. However, after review of your proposal it does not look like DOJ can agree to it.....Finally, when can we expect your list of proposed settlement topics? Best regards"
At this point, I intend to present our settlement request this week. If they do not agree, we will go full steam ahead with the litigation. I intend to hire one more law clerk to devote full attention to our case. Upon refusal of our proposal, we will expose the shamfeul results of these delays. We have cases of people suffering horribly because of CIS.
Take care all. Do not lose heart. We won the day we filed the lawsuit. Rest all is just effort.
Here is some of the relevant parts of their e-mail:
"Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:30:43 -0500 (EST)
Rajiv, I wanted to get back with you regarding your class cert. stipulation proposal. We had two meetings over here to discuss your proposal. However, after review of your proposal it does not look like DOJ can agree to it.....Finally, when can we expect your list of proposed settlement topics? Best regards"
At this point, I intend to present our settlement request this week. If they do not agree, we will go full steam ahead with the litigation. I intend to hire one more law clerk to devote full attention to our case. Upon refusal of our proposal, we will expose the shamfeul results of these delays. We have cases of people suffering horribly because of CIS.
Take care all. Do not lose heart. We won the day we filed the lawsuit. Rest all is just effort.
Re: Clarification of government response?
Read my last post on this thread please.
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114165&perpage=15&pagenumber=27
Read my last post on this thread please.
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114165&perpage=15&pagenumber=27
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Brain Storm Session
Sure. I will be available.
Sure. I will be available.
I do want help from the community in approaching Congress
and in getting more people involved. Every little bit helps. Keep going. I will discuss the details in the conference call.
and in getting more people involved. Every little bit helps. Keep going. I will discuss the details in the conference call.
It is already done
There is a new corporation ImmigrationPortal.ORG formed. They are all working on this right now. I will have them post here.
My idea is to have them do all the fundraising and spending, while we, as a community do all the neecsary advocacy work. So we are not hrowing anything away.
Originally posted by ficapls
I didn't mean to imply anything against immigration.com. I was just raising an idea because I thought having a formal organization would -
1. Help us raise funds, even have corporate matching programs chip in. Let Corporate America fund our fights as well.
2. Sustain a fixed viewpoint and point of contact for legal immigrants. I imagine that if this is the only organization for legal immigrants, it can represent us before Congress as well.
3. Eventually give greater credibility for our efforts. As the organization becomes more established, people will understand that they need to pay attention when it gets involved in an issue.
There is a new corporation ImmigrationPortal.ORG formed. They are all working on this right now. I will have them post here.
My idea is to have them do all the fundraising and spending, while we, as a community do all the neecsary advocacy work. So we are not hrowing anything away.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Timeline
That would require change in the law by Congress.
Originally posted by sirlurkalot
Rajiv and all,
I've been lurking here a lot over the last few months, and have nothing but admiration for your efforts.
One thing that struck me in the "settlement" proposal.
From reading the document many times over, it would appear as written that the timeline for Naturalization would only start once the "interim GC" was issued (some time in the future)... and not the many months and years since past, that would now be lost.
Shouldn't it be that the timeline should be started or "backdated" to the six months *after* the historical Filing date?
In an ideal world (no delays in processing - yeah, right!) this would be the case anyway, so it's only as a result of the INS/BCIS/CIS delays that we are being hurt - and shouldn't the settlement bear this in mind?
Regards,
That would require change in the law by Congress.