• 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

Britsimon said:
I don't think you were following the process too closely.
Click to expand...

yes, maybe

By the way, what are your expectations, we will finally receive decision on this matter in July this year? Right now I was watching Morrison's video stream with a man from Egypt where he said “we continue to lobby congress to save dv2020 selectees”, how do you think congress could put some kind of "pressure” on this decision?

also about 2021 he said: during reprioritization of visa issuances state department (During President Trumps period) put DVs at the bottom, so it unlawful and that's why we gonna go to court and win. How do you think this strategy would work?
 
lasha said:
also about 2021 he said: during reprioritization of visa issuances state department (During President Trumps period) put DVs at the bottom, so it unlawful and that's why we gonna go to court and win. How do you think this strategy would work?
Click to expand...
are you sure you heard this correct? The prioritization of visas (with DVs at the bottom) obviously only happened after the ban was removed, which was under Biden.
 
lasha said:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=830753764205584

he speaks about it from 30:59
Click to expand...
I don’t have time to listen to it, but if you heard right and he can’t get the facts of what happened when right it strikes me as a bit of a problem. The tiering notice is here, you’ll see it’s dated 30 April 2021. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/immigrant-visa-prioritization.html

I’d also love to know why they think it’s unlawful for the department to decide how to prioritize visa issuance, but I guess we’ll see what the argument is when the case comes to court.
 
Last edited:
SusieQQQ said:
I’d also love to know why they think it’s unlawful for the department to decide how to prioritize visa issuance, but I guess we’ll see what the argument is when the case comes to court.
Click to expand...

I am asking the same question too, if this is his main argument in this lawsuit, is it solid enough to win it
 
lasha said:
I am asking the same question too, if this is his main argument in this lawsuit, is it solid enough to win it
Click to expand...
There is a huge backlog, they have to prioritize it somehow. How can one decision of priority be unlawful and not another? Doesn’t make sense to me personally but hey what do I know, I’m not a lawyer.
 
Hi All,
I have DV2020 visa expired on 11 Mar 21 and booked flight with Japan Airlines to go to US on 30 Jun. I sent my visa together with announcement on travel.state.gov and court order to the airlines (mentioned to them that DV2020 visa holder can travel on expired visa following court order). They just called me to inform that I can't travel to US on expired visa. Anyone has suggestion or comments please. Thank you.
 
Pramote said:
Hi All,
I have DV2020 visa expired on 11 Mar 21 and booked flight with Japan Airlines to go to US on 30 Jun. I sent my visa together with announcement on travel.state.gov and court order to the airlines (mentioned to them that DV2020 visa holder can travel on expired visa following court order). They just called me to inform that I can't travel to US on expired visa. Anyone has suggestion or comments please. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Insist that they contact their CBP liaison to confirm that you can travel in accordance with the official announcement.
 
Pramote said:
thank SusieQQQ
Click to expand...
If I were you: I would not check in online, I would arrive at the airport early, and insist they go up supervisors/contact CBP liaison if they won’t board you. Make sure of course you bring the DoS printout and can physically show them the part where you are allowed to board.
 
SusieQQQ said:
are you sure you heard this correct? The prioritization of visas (with DVs at the bottom) obviously only happened after the ban was removed, which was under Biden.
Click to expand...

The prioritization that they are currently using was set during the establishment of the "Diplomacy Strong" framework. Of course DV was banned anyway at that time, but still it was prioritized - we just didn't notice the effects.

The legal argument against the prioritization is that the government arbitrarily decided the priority without it being described in law. They have taken the "visa allocation" strategy (Family reunification first, for example) and said that is the priority that congress meant to apply. That is a stretch, frankly, but the damage is being done while those arguments take place. Time is the real enemy now.
 
Britsimon said:
The prioritization that they are currently using was set during the establishment of the "Diplomacy Strong" framework. Of course DV was banned anyway at that time, but still it was prioritized - we just didn't notice the effects.

The legal argument against the prioritization is that the government arbitrarily decided the priority without it being described in law. They have taken the "visa allocation" strategy (Family reunification first, for example) and said that is the priority that congress meant to apply. That is a stretch, frankly, but the damage is being done while those arguments take place. Time is the real enemy now.
Click to expand...
The publication of the triage was under Biden. They had leeway to change the DV classification if they wanted..but didn’t. They didn’t just take everything else over and apply it unthinkingly, so I don’t personally accept the argument that they just adopted the prior framework unthinkingly. For example the Biden admin brought fiancé visas into the top priority tier where they had not been there before. But anyway there are so many ways to argue this. The fact that immediate relative family categories don’t have a visa wait is a clear priority established in law. Any kind of first come first served date wise, which is also a valid argument for priority, works against DV. You would have to actively make the argument that DV should be prioritized over these others. And one can certainly make a valid argument for that because of the sunset clause, but I don’t see how you can legally show it is more or less valid than any of the other arguments for priority.

Don’t get me wrong - I’d love to see this lawsuit succeed. I just have doubts.
 
Last edited:
Britsimon said:
The prioritization that they are currently using was set during the establishment of the "Diplomacy Strong" framework. Of course DV was banned anyway at that time, but still it was prioritized - we just didn't notice the effects.

The legal argument against the prioritization is that the government arbitrarily decided the priority without it being described in law. They have taken the "visa allocation" strategy (Family reunification first, for example) and said that is the priority that congress meant to apply. That is a stretch, frankly, but the damage is being done while those arguments take place. Time is the real enemy now.
Click to expand...

And it was surprisingly made in November when Trump was in the office and they never published this info.

And they had to publish it due to Nicolette glazer's case
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1392214865108815872
 
SusieQQQ said:
The publication of the triage was under Biden. They had leeway to change the DV classification if they wanted..but didn’t. They didn’t just take everything else over and apply it unthinkingly, so I don’t personally accept the argument that they just adopted the prior framework unthinkingly. For example the Biden admin brought fiancé visas into the top priority tier where they had not been there before. But anyway there are so many ways to argue this. The fact that immediate relative family categories don’t have a visa wait is a clear priority established in law. Any kind of first come first served date wise, which is also a valid argument for priority, works against DV. You would have to actively make the argument that DV should be prioritized over these others. And one can certainly make a valid argument for that because of the sunset clause, but I don’t see how you can legally show it is more or less valid than any of the other arguments for priority.

Don’t get me wrong - I’d love to see this lawsuit succeed. I just have doubts.
Click to expand...

No - they had published the triage before in the Diplomacy Strong document there was an appendix that detailed the prioritization that is referred to (for example, in the AILA meeting in December, Q34 - linked below). The DoS under Biden made it more clear (by numbering the categories 1, 2, 3 4) but it is the same thing under Diplomacy Strong which in place in Spring 2020. The government lawyers stated it is the same policy, not a new approach. I think the only addition/modification may have been the "rule" that said each post would try to do "something" in each priority level each month.

I don't think the lawyers can make a case that DV can be prioritized over other cases, but they are just trying to say DV is no less important than other types, as described in the law. They argue, I think, that any such decision is invalid if not described in the law. And it is certainly true that visas for the DV program were not established as being subject to usage in any other class, other than the NACARA grab. However, I watched Judge Chen pretty much ignore the plaintiffs lawyers when they pointed out the lack of justification about where the DS priority came from, so I'm not sure its a particularly strong argument - but nevertheless it is certainly what the government is relying on.

Here is the December meeting Q&A that refers to the prioritization described in the DIpStrong document and reiterates the family reunification first policy.
 
SusieQQQ said:
If I were you: I would not check in online, I would arrive at the airport early, and insist they go up supervisors/contact CBP liaison if they won’t board you. Make sure of course you bring the DoS printout and can physically show them the part where you are allowed to board.
Click to expand...
I also have valid B1/B2 visa. Worst case, if airline doesn't allow me to board, could I use both visa for travelling or use B1/B2 for boarding but DV for entering US please. Thank you for your help.
 
Pramote said:
I also have valid B1/B2 visa. Worst case, if airline doesn't allow me to board, could I use both visa for travelling or use B1/B2 for boarding but DV for entering US please. Thank you for your help.
Click to expand...
DV2020EU44 said:
As far as I know, once DV visa is issued, all previous visas are revoked. I might be wrong.
Click to expand...

They are supposed to cancel previous visas but they don’t always. It’s definitely worth a try -if the airline lets them board using the B visa then they can enter with DV.
 
Purely hypothetically, I'm interested what if I move to another EU country, they start to allocate reserved visas and I am qualified to get it, what should I do? Presumably come back for the interview and update new job, address and other necessary details at the interview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top