Britsimon
Super Moderator
Why? If the embassy is closed the lawsuit won't help. If the embassy reopens, you'll be rescheduled.
DV 2020 All Selectees
- Thread starter Sm1smom
- Start date
Why? If the embassy is closed the lawsuit won't help. If the embassy reopens, you'll be rescheduled.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
That is clearly in reference to Wuhan because of the pandemic. Not related to immigrant interviews.
WBA
Active Member
Here is the link my dear:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/politics/consulate-general-wuhan/index.html
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Thanks.
This is interesting. The description of phase I and II operations, and counts of which embassies are at which stage (based on local conditions. It's reasonable to assume that a consulate could NOT conduct interviews in phase 1 (too few staff, lots of telework), and only might be possible in phase II. According to the article 35 embassies are in phase II already, but none are conducting interviews. Of course, none of that speaks to the timeframe for each phase or the conditions that need to exist to move from phase I to II to beyond.
The department's moves to reopen the consulate in Wuhan come as it also looks to bring people back into work around the world. According to a State Department spokesperson, 97 overseas posts are in Phase I and 35 are in Phase II of reopening.
Under Phase I of the department's reopening plan, "Diplomacy Strong," up to 40% of "non-vulnerable employees" may be brought back, and under Phase II, 40% to 80%, according to an overview of the plan obtained by CNN.
In Washington, they plan to enter Phase I next Monday, the spokesperson said, noting that they "are closely monitoring local conditions in the greater Washington metro area."
"While telework is no longer mandatory in Phase I, we still strongly encourage maximum use of telework opportunities," they said in a statement. "Our goal is to maintain a safe workplace while advancing American diplomacy."
seektruelyme
New Member
hope American in Taiwan will reopen asap given that we have no local transmitted case for a month
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
Wonder what the status of posts other than those 97+35 is? I’m too lazy to count but it certainly looks like more than 130ish listed here https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/list-of-posts.html
basically wondering if they are (1) focusing on the posts that issue immigrant visas to open first and won’t necessarily open all consulates in a given country to start with or (2) some countries will just not see any reopening until after others due to local condi.
basically wondering if they are (1) focusing on the posts that issue immigrant visas to open first and won’t necessarily open all consulates in a given country to start with or (2) some countries will just not see any reopening until after others due to local condi.
Xarthisius
Well-Known Member
154
Having said (or counted) that, I keep a separate list of embassy codes for charts I make, which includes posts that issued at least one DV visa since DV17 and that list has 136 entries. So the number from the article is pretty close, especially if you take into account that some of those posts were closed in past few years.
WBA
Active Member
I have a couple of questions regarding this statement from the CNN article
According to a State Department spokesperson, 97 overseas posts are in Phase I and 35 are in Phase II of reopening.
1- Is the State Department the DoS?
2- By posts, do they mean embassies?
3- Do you know the list of 97 posts to open in phase 1? If a post means embassy, I want to know if the embassy where I live is in phase 1 or 2
According to a State Department spokesperson, 97 overseas posts are in Phase I and 35 are in Phase II of reopening.
1- Is the State Department the DoS?
2- By posts, do they mean embassies?
3- Do you know the list of 97 posts to open in phase 1? If a post means embassy, I want to know if the embassy where I live is in phase 1 or 2
Xarthisius
Well-Known Member
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
But your tally of posts will be for immigrant visa issuance only, there are many others that only issue non immigrant visas. The fact that your number is close to the number listed under phase 1 and phase 2 makes me cautiously hopeful that they’re focusing on posts that issue immigrant visas first.154
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
2. to be technical: Embassies or consulates. In a number of countries immigrant visa issuance takes place through one of the consulates, not the embassy. (In my home country, the US embassy itself issues no visas at all - there are 3 consulates who do so.)
There is generally one only post per country that issues immigrant visas (i think India has 2). Some smaller countries have to use a neighboring country’s immigrant visa office.
Denis.Muwuma
Active Member
Thanks brit, just like i thought
curtisatlaw
New Member
Hello. This is Curtis Morrison. Yes, you can participate in the mandamus case even if you have not yet received your 2NL.
curtisatlaw
New Member
Great questions. I hope it's ok if I answer them here. First, an attorney cannot personally compel government agency actions. We can, through filing litigation, influence government agency's actions (and in fact, often the outcome in a mandamus case is that the State Department takes actions just to moot the lawsuit). Only a federal judge can compel an agency to take actions from outside the agency- and that's why mandamus litigation might be a good option for 2020 Dv lottery winners.
Second, you said "what about the embassy closure?" That's a great question. I would like to point out that embassies may not be operating routinely since March 20, but that does not mean they cannot issue immigrant visas. In fact, the State Department's own statistics show that US embassies in Ankara, Baghdad, Cairo, Georgetown, Johannesburg, Kathmandu, Kyiv, Phnom Penh, Singapore, Sydney, Tbilisi, and Tokyo all issued Diversity Visas in April. A total of 67 Diversity Visas were issued in April (32 were winners, and 35 were derivatives). In nine days we will find out how many were issued in May, and I expect it was even more. Therefore, if the government wants to argue to the court that they cannot issue Diversity visas right now, they are going to have to explain how that can be true when they are already issuing Diversity visas. I think they have a good chance of losing that argument.
Finally, you are absolutely right that there are other factors going on besides the [PP 10014] ban, and in fact, we have yet to see what they all are (since we do not know if that ban will expire, be extended, or replaced with something broader). Our complaint will address the most substantive arbitrary decisions that are responsible for the unreasonable delays, and we will have a better view of what those challenges are by the end of the month.
curtisatlaw
New Member
Hello Peince. I hope it is ok if I respond this here. Our first goal is to get the visas issued and historically in immigration litigation, that outcome does not require a “case win” at trial. In fact, the four most likely positive outcomes for winners would happen way before a trial.
Those four possible outcomes are:
1) State Department issues all of participants' visas either to moot the case through dismissal, or
2) State Department issues some of the participants' visas to impress the judge (EXTREMELY LIKELY), or
3) Judge orders that visas be adjudicated prior to Sept 30. This happened in Mohamed v Pompeo last year in the Eastern District of California for some Yemeni 2019 DV lottery winners.
4) Judge orders that State Department put the visas aside in a box until they can finish administrative processing and interviews, even if it means getting to them after Sept. 30.
Back to your question, if outcome #3 or #4 happen and judge issues an order, I can assure you the agency will follow the order, or appeal it to the court of appeals on an expedited schedule. If they do not, they will be in contempt of court, which gives the judge powers to order to have government employees arrested. The only case I can think of where courts ordered the government to take an action and the government defied the order was in 1832 involving native Americans in Georgia. The risk of this little lawsuit being the second time it happens is extremely low.
curtisatlaw
New Member
Hello. I must apologize to you. If we chatted and you got impression our positive outcomes are only "if the case wins," I was communicating very poorly. First, unlike litigation on TV, the issues in mandamus litigation usually are settled within 2-3 months and not at a trial. (There are exceptions).
The 4 most likely positive outcomes of the case we are proposing could be (any combination of these):
1) State Department issues all of participants' visas either to moot the case through dismissal (see our Mosleh and Jamal cases last year), or
2) State Department issues some of the participants' visas to impress the judge (EXTREMELY LIKELY - see our cases last year Darchini, Najafi, Kayvan, Poozesh), or
3) Judge orders that visas be adjudicated prior to Sept 30. This happened in Mohamed v Pompeo last year in the Eastern District of California for some Yemeni 2019 DV lottery winners. Or
4) Judge orders that State Department put the visas aside in a box until they can finish administrative processing and interviews, even if it means getting to them after Sept. 30. (See Alamaqrami case in 2017)
The point you reference about the "random" issue pertains to outcome #2. And I agree 100% it makes no sense how State Department and Department of Justice attorneys randomly choose which application in a multi-participant case are dealt with first. I've had one case where the government attorney picked the families experiencing the most hardship, but in most cases it appears random. I've never had them pick the oldest case first, which to me seems like a fair way they should handle it. But they don't.
curtisatlaw
New Member
I think you'll see our case will be more that. Until we see whether PP 10014 expires, is extended or replaced (and what it is replaced with), it is difficult to talk about that in detail.
Airspray
Active Member
Regarding scenerio #2 - so SOME will get their visa, what about the rest?
#4 - it is set by law that no visa would be issued after September 30th, unless it was approved before that day. Is a lawsuit able to override this (meaning having the interview after Sept. 30th?)
And another fundemental question - how is the lawsuit going to argue that the embassies closure is exeggerated, giving they were closed because of a global pandemic...? Are you only basing it on a few visas issued in April? Those visas were most likely issued after they have been on AP, meaning the actual interviews took place before the closure. Our problem is not turning AP cases into ISSUED, but conducting interviews while embassies are closed.
Issuing visas and conducting interviews are two seperate things. DOS only has to argue that they can't schedule interviews because of COVID and risk of exposure, and it's a done deal, no one is going to dismiss this claim.
Last edited:
curtisatlaw
New Member
A lawsuit by itself cannot override anything, but the federal judge who hears the lawsuit can.
In the US, we have three branches of government: executive (which includes State Dept), Congress, and judicial branch (courts). All can make law, but courts also interpret the law that the executive and congress makes. The reason this is important, that courts can make law in the US, is that courts in the District of Columbia already settled law that says judges do have the power to put aside diversity visas for decisions after September 30. This was decided in the Amagrami case and upheld on appeal. By the way, you can find a link to all the relevant case law to mandamus litigation of diversity visa on my website on the DV page. (including both orders in the Amagrami case and the docket to show the case's history).