• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

DV 2020 All Selectees

Peince said:
A Maybach ????? That would be such a happy purchase then
Click to expand...
Yes, he gets full payment from anyone whose visa is issued after they filed, regardless whether it is due to the case or not. Even if it’s the day after filing and can’t possibly be due to anything to do with this.

I mean, I can kind of understand why people are going in on this. I’m not a lawyer at all but not sure of some of the arguments. I personally would like to see what part of the law says that they have a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate before 30 September. Because we definitely know cases where they just haven’t. He also mentions two previous cases but doesn’t cite the actual cases or give links to them, again I personally would like to have read those and see how comparable they are before committing my money.
Again, this guy could be totally 100% on the money and have a solid case, I’d personally like to see a little more before stumping up.

And again not commenting on this case specifically but mandamus just forces a decision. Plenty of past cases where that decision has been a denial becasue they are not actually ready to adjudicate. Now I don’t think that would be the case for DV - but I’d like to know for sure.

GraemeW said:
I think it's a fair comment Susie, however as each day progresses, it appears that DV2020 winners are losing out on the little hope left for a successful outcome. To me, Curtis Morrison has been very transparent in what the challenges are which stand in the way of a successful mandamus case, but on the alternate side there is definitely a case for him to present on our behalf. He has also made available all the case law which he will rely on to present his argument. My main point is that I don't think it's fair to suggest that someone is looking to pay off a new car, when in all honesty he is the only one supplying us with a real solution at this late and somewhat grim stage in the game. Not everyone can afford to pay a lawyer to assist them, and most won't, however those that can afford to, need to know that there is this option available.
Click to expand...
so you say he has made all the case law available, is that after you pay because all I see on the site is a reference to two unnamed cases?
it would also be great in my opinion if you guys could actually set up a separate thread to discuss this lawsuit rather than cluttering the normal day to day DV conversation. In that vein, I’m personally not discussing it in this particular thread anymore after this.
 
The_Dreamer said:
Curtis's case is better than nothing, but he only tries to speed up the issuance of the visa (if you pass the interview). If the embassies do not reopen the chances are low. Real help for everyone would come from a cause to block the EO.
Click to expand...

OMG. For the last time. THe EO is NOT the probblem!
 
SusieQQQ said:
Yes, he gets full payment from anyone whose visa is issued after they filed, regardless whether it is due to the case or not. Even if it’s the day after filing and can’t possibly be due to anything to do with this.

I mean, I can kind of understand why people are going in on this. I’m not a lawyer at all but not sure of some of the arguments. I personally would like to see what part of the law says that they have a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate before 30 September. Because we definitely know cases where they just haven’t. He also mentions two previous cases but doesn’t cite the actual cases or give links to them, again I personally would like to have read those and see how comparable they are before committing my money.
Again, this guy could be totally 100% on the money and have a solid case, I’d personally like to see a little more before stumping up.

And again not commenting on this case specifically but mandamus just forces a decision. Plenty of past cases where that decision has been a denial becasue they are not actually ready to adjudicate. Now I don’t think that would be the case for DV - but I’d like to know for sure.


so you say he has made all the case law available, is that after you pay because all I see on the site is a reference to two unnamed cases?
it would also be great in my opinion if you guys could actually set up a separate thread to discuss this lawsuit rather than cluttering the normal day to day DV conversation. In that vein, I’m personally not discussing it in this particular thread anymore after this.
Click to expand...

I have spoken to the lawyer and had a back and forth with him. So - with all due respect to Curtis, who I think has done his homework and knows the strengths and weaknesses of his case, I will give my current assessment here. I did discuss the lawsuit in a video with my earlier assessment and Curtis did reach out to me and confirm that my assessment at that time was fair and accurate.

The "non-discretionary duty to adjudicate" is frankly BS. Lawyers sometimes need to state some things in a strong way to provide a platform from which to make an argument, in this case the intent being to create the conditions to reinforce the threat of an argument. Meaning - he is trying to make the case sound strong so that the defendants will be more likely to "perform" to avoid the lawsuit being argued in court.

The cases where visas have been issued after the end of the year is murky at best. Some visas have been accelerated before September 30, and therefore "set aside" for issuance later, but even when a court orders someone to do something, that party may be bound by other laws and not able to do what the court says. So - a court could order the government to issue the visa (at which point the lawyers could claim a win) BUT the visa still might not be issued - because issuing would be a contradiction of an existing law. That is pretty much the stalemate that exists at the moment.

So, the lawsuit is intended to speed up processing for people on the lawsuit. That won't help at all if the ban is extended, or the embassies remain closed, or the numbers are retrogressed, or if KCC have not finished processing of documents. So - if I were in this position to gamble $1000 , I might do it, but I would wait until I saw embassies were opening, the ban isn't extended and the VB is released. That means waiting until mid/late June. And at that point I would also be checking/confirming that my documents are processed. But frankly, if those conditions exist, I might not need the lawsuit anyway....
 
Britsimon said:
I have spoken to the lawyer and had a back and forth with him. So - with all due respect to Curtis, who I think has done his homework and knows the strengths and weaknesses of his case, I will give my current assessment here. I did discuss the lawsuit in a video with my earlier assessment and Curtis did reach out to me and confirm that my assessment at that time was fair and accurate.

The "non-discretionary duty to adjudicate" is frankly BS. Lawyers sometimes need to state some things in a strong way to provide a platform from which to make an argument, in this case the intent being to create the conditions to reinforce the threat of an argument. Meaning - he is trying to make the case sound strong so that the defendants will be more likely to "perform" to avoid the lawsuit being argued in court.

The cases where visas have been issued after the end of the year is murky at best. Some visas have been accelerated before September 30, and therefore "set aside" for issuance later, but even when a court orders someone to do something, that party may be bound by other laws and not able to do what the court says. So - a court could order the government to issue the visa (at which point the lawyers could claim a win) BUT the visa still might not be issued - because issuing would be a contradiction of an existing law. That is pretty much the stalemate that exists at the moment.

So, the lawsuit is intended to speed up processing for people on the lawsuit. That won't help at all if the ban is extended, or the embassies remain closed, or the numbers are retrogressed, or if KCC have not finished processing of documents. So - if I were in this position to gamble $1000 , I might do it, but I would wait until I saw embassies were opening, the ban isn't extended and the VB is released. That means waiting until mid/late June. And at that point I would also be checking/confirming that my documents are processed. But frankly, if those conditions exist, I might not need the lawsuit anyway....
Click to expand...
Isn't that the payment is 2000$ ( 1000 ) before and another 1000$ when the visa issued ?
Also my concern is that issuing visas can still not happen even if the case is won because of the laws , as you fairly pointed ,Brit .
 
Britsimon said:
I have spoken to the lawyer and had a back and forth with him. So - with all due respect to Curtis, who I think has done his homework and knows the strengths and weaknesses of his case, I will give my current assessment here. I did discuss the lawsuit in a video with my earlier assessment and Curtis did reach out to me and confirm that my assessment at that time was fair and accurate.

The "non-discretionary duty to adjudicate" is frankly BS. Lawyers sometimes need to state some things in a strong way to provide a platform from which to make an argument, in this case the intent being to create the conditions to reinforce the threat of an argument. Meaning - he is trying to make the case sound strong so that the defendants will be more likely to "perform" to avoid the lawsuit being argued in court.

The cases where visas have been issued after the end of the year is murky at best. Some visas have been accelerated before September 30, and therefore "set aside" for issuance later, but even when a court orders someone to do something, that party may be bound by other laws and not able to do what the court says. So - a court could order the government to issue the visa (at which point the lawyers could claim a win) BUT the visa still might not be issued - because issuing would be a contradiction of an existing law. That is pretty much the stalemate that exists at the moment.

So, the lawsuit is intended to speed up processing for people on the lawsuit. That won't help at all if the ban is extended, or the embassies remain closed, or the numbers are retrogressed, or if KCC have not finished processing of documents. So - if I were in this position to gamble $1000 , I might do it, but I would wait until I saw embassies were opening, the ban isn't extended and the VB is released. That means waiting until mid/late June. And at that point I would also be checking/confirming that my documents are processed. But frankly, if those conditions exist, I might not need the lawsuit anyway....
Click to expand...
So Brit if EO is not extended ,vb is released CURRENT and embassies reopen ,but my documents are not proccesed ,would be worth it if I take part in mandamus ?
 
Peince said:
Isn't that the payment is 2000$ ( 1000 ) before and another 1000$ when the visa issued ?
Also my concern is that issuing visas can still not happen even if the case is won because of the laws , as you fairly pointed ,Brit .
Click to expand...

Yes - but the "risk" is $1000. The second payment is only due if the case is successful. At that point it is not a gamble, and you would be happy to pay it.
 
Ermal said:
So Brit if EO is not extended ,vb is released CURRENT and embassies reopen ,but my documents are not proccesed ,would be worth it if I take part in mandamus ?
Click to expand...

The mandamus cannot FORCE them to process documents which might be incomplete and so on. It might encourage them - and you must decide for yourself whether to spend that money for that possibility. There are no guarantees - and I am not recommending one way or the other.
 
Britsimon said:
Yes - but the "risk" is $1000. The second payment is only due if the case is successful. At that point it is not a gamble, and you would be happy to pay it.
Click to expand...
Second payment is due if you get a visa after the case has been filed - regardless whether or not it is due to the case being successful.

2) The client understands that the government will never disclose when a visa is approved or waiver adjudicated due to the efforts of attorneys. If client’s visa is issued prior to the filing of the action (lawsuit), then no fees will be due to attorneys. If visa is issued AFTER the lawsuit is filed, attorney fees become due. This includes when visas are issued or waivers are approved immediately after filing of the case, as well as when clients have to wait longer for visas or waivers .
 
I clearly don't expect anyone who has decided to throw everything they've got into this lawsuit to agree with me when I say all I see are contributions towards someone's next new car purchase. I know what I'm talking about and will simply leave it at that.

Susie made a very good observation regarding the mention of two cases with no citations/like - which I find very interesting :). Yes indeed there's a 2017 court ruling in the District of Columbia, which ordered the government to set aside visas to be issued beyond September 30. What the lawyer failed to mention is that this is still an ongoing case, it is not like the plaintiffs have since been issued with the visas considering this is now 2020 (3 years after), that ruling has since being challenged.

Brief Case summary:
Plaintiffs won 2017DV, interviewed as required and found eligible for diversity visas but but could not be issued with visas because of EO-2 (plaintiffs were from Iran and Yemen—countries subject to the entry ban—and could not qualify for exemptions or waiver). Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in August 2017.

On 9/29 — one day before the end of FY 2017 — the district court ordered the government to reserve unused FY 2017 visa numbers so that, if it turned out that plaintiffs had erroneously been denied their diversity visas, the court could order the government “to process visas [for plaintiffs] past the statutory deadline The court therefore ordered the State Dept to report the number of unused visa numbers for FY 2017 and “hold those visa numbers to process plaintiffs’ visa applications in the event the Supreme Court finds [EO-2] to be unlawful.” In essence, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs primarily concerns whether the district court may order the government to keep those unused visas available in the event these plaintiffs eventually prevail on their claims. {Note the bold part in the above}

The 9/29 ruling has not forced/declared/instructed/directed the government to go ahead and issue those used visas from 2017 FY. It however leaves open whether a later judgment could do so.

Hamed Sufyan Othman Almaqrami, ET AL vs. Mike Pompeo - for anyone who is interested in reading the actual filing/ruling.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Second payment is due if you get a visa after the case has been filed - regardless whether or not it is due to the case being successful.

2) The client understands that the government will never disclose when a visa is approved or waiver adjudicated due to the efforts of attorneys. If client’s visa is issued prior to the filing of the action (lawsuit), then no fees will be due to attorneys. If visa is issued AFTER the lawsuit is filed, attorney fees become due. This includes when visas are issued or waivers are approved immediately after filing of the case, as well as when clients have to wait longer for visas or waivers .
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I meant - thanks for clarifying. If people get the visa, they will never really know whether the lawsuit helped or not, but they will pay anyway.
 
Sm1smom said:
I clearly don't expect anyone who has decided to throw everything they've got into this lawsuit to agree with me when I say all I see are contributions towards someone's next new car purchase. I know what I'm talking about and will simply leave it at that.

Susie made a very good observation regarding the mention of two cases with no citations/like - which I find very interesting :). Yes indeed there's a 2017 court ruling in the District of Columbia, which ordered the government to set aside visas to be issued beyond September 30. What the lawyer failed to mention is that this is still an ongoing case, it is not like the plaintiffs have since been issued with the visas considering this is now 2020 (3 years after), that ruling has since being challenged.

Brief Case summary:
Plaintiffs won 2017DV, interviewed as required and found eligible for diversity visas but but could not be issued with visas because of EO-2 (plaintiffs were from Iran and Yemen—countries subject to the entry ban—and could not qualify for exemptions or waiver). Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in August 2017.

On 9/29 — one day before the end of FY 2017 — the district court ordered the government to reserve unused FY 2017 visa numbers so that, if it turned out that plaintiffs had erroneously been denied their diversity visas, the court could order the government “to process visas [for plaintiffs] past the statutory deadline The court therefore ordered the State Dept to report the number of unused visa numbers for FY 2017 and “hold those visa numbers to process plaintiffs’ visa applications in the event the Supreme Court finds [EO-2] to be unlawful.” In essence, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs primarily concerns whether the district court may order the government to keep those unused visas available in the event these plaintiffs eventually prevail on their claims. {Note the bold part in the above}

The 9/29 ruling has not forced/declared/instructed/directed the government to go ahead and issue those used visas from 2017 FY. It however leaves open whether a later judgment could do so.

Hamed Sufyan Othman Almaqrami, ET AL vs. Mike Pompeo - for anyone who is interested in reading the actual filing/ruling.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that mom, and I see the lawyer doesn’t mention the case where even though the plaintiff got the court to rule in her favor of an incorrect denial, the court said they could not order the visa /green card issued as it was legally unable to do so after FY end.

wait, I said I wasn’t gonna discuss this anymore...
 
Dv lottery program is so complicated and so bad managed ,I dont why they are doing every year when they are not able to take care of it ,I mean we sent documents 8 months before ,and they werent able to procces them ,even before the shutdown ,were they sleeping or what,We must call them nonstop and beg them to do their job xxx ,shut down the program dont get people into dreaming and hopes and then destroy them ,its not funny.

~ ~ moderator modified post to remove swearing ~ ~​
 
SusieQQQ said:
Thanks for that mom, and I see the lawyer doesn’t mention the case where even though the plaintiff got the court to rule in her favor of an incorrect denial, the court said they could not order the visa /green card issued as it was legally unable to do so after FY end.

wait, I said I wasn’t gonna discuss this anymore...
Click to expand...

Right.

And lol re not “gonna discuss this anymore ...”
 
Ermal said:
Dv lottery program is so complicated and so bad managed ,I dont why they are doing every year when they are not able to take care of it ,I mean we sent documents 8 months before ,and they werent able to procces them ,even before the shutdown ,were they sleeping or what,We must call them nonstop and beg them to do their job xxx ,shut down the program dont get people into dreaming and hopes and then destroy them ,its not funny.

~ ~ moderator modified post to remove swearing ~ ~​
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to read this post to help you better understand how the KCC is made up of, what a small organization it is before you start dropping the “F” bomb on them and assuming they’ve been seating on their backsides doing nothing all these time, even before COVID-19.

FYI - the nonstop calling most of you have been doing is part of the problem! I understand what a letdown it is to be selected and end up not getting an IV/GC at the end of it all. I empathize with you guys, but at the end of the day, life goes on (harsh as it may sound). Plus the selectee notification letter already clearly states being selected does not guarantee a visa. Sad and unfortunate but it is what it is at the end of the day.
 
I WILL NEVER PAY ANY SINGLE PENNY TO A LAWYER FOR AN IMMIGRATION!!!

If it is meant to be it will, if not it will not

I am pretty sure some lawyers are happy to see embassies closed (you can sue me here)

This is my 4th immigration, the 3 first ones were not easy, I had delays, I had to submit an application and wait for over a year without being sure if it got lost but I made it because it was meant to be 3 times!

I don't see why DV could be any different, if it works I will be happy and pursue my dreams in the USA, if it doesn't work I will pursue my dreams where I am now

Easy!!
 
I guess everyone will have a different opinion at the end of the day regarding this lawsuit.
I joined the lawsuit last week, even though I was aware that the case is not rock solid (thanks BirtSimon and the rest of the super moderators for that), mostly to make sure that I did everything in my power to secure that GC. Even if it doesn't help my case at all, at least I'll sleep better at night knowing that I did what I could. But if it does help... I honestly won't care what car purchase Curtis Morrisson will make next year :)))
 
Britsimon said:
...And at that point I would also be checking/confirming that my documents are processed. But frankly, if those conditions exist, I might not need the lawsuit anyway....
Click to expand...
Dear Brit, what if my interview was cancelled, could the lawsuit be an option for me? Thank you.
 
veronice said:
Hello everybody! It's me again. I was selected (again) with an even worse number than before... but it is great to be here in this journey with you guys!
SA27XX
Click to expand...

Would be great if you could give us more info about your experience with SA region at the thread that will is exclusive for South America.

Sorry but I cannot post links yet, so will be ideal if you could just browser for the thread that was created today for SA
 
Just found out a new from CCN
"US intends to reopen consulate in Wuhan later this month"
Don't know why I can not attache link, please just google previous tittle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top