For Dv 2012 May 1st selectees!!
- Thread starter Veggie3
- Start date
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.php?c_id=1&objectid=10804770&fb_source=message
I think this is the right link.
I think this is the right link.
atus omegine
www.travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5561.html
Since Dv2000,it has been 50,000 not 55,000.It was from DV 1995 to DV 1999 that was 55,000.Do your research very well.Nicaraguay is allocated for 5,000 visas for their country program.The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulated that up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas be made available for use under the NACARA program. The reduction of the limit of available visas to 50,000 began with DV-2000.
www.travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5561.html
From one of the ex winners who was at the court
judges appeared knowledgeable about our
case and more knowledgeable than the judge we
had last year. Judge Garland is the one who
talked the most. Remember that this was not a
trial like last year but an oral session for the
judges to ask clarifications on the content of the
written documents. I thought the questions were
difficult on both sides. Compared to last year,
the questions addressed different aspects of the
case. Last year, the randomness issue took most
of the court time. This year, the judges ask
clarifications on the human, economic impact of
the cancelation, the availability of unused visas,
whether or not our complaint is moot and the
definition of randomness. So overall, the judge's
questions were more balanced and varied.
Remember that the decision will be based
mostly on the written documents and what was
said in court must be understood within the
context of written documents.
This year DoS brought only 1 lawyer: Mr. Hans
Harris Chen. For the little story, Mr. Chen put on
weight since last year which makes his ears stand
out
) and in my opinion, he did less good than
last year. As for the audience, this is also
different from last year, we were only 2
selectees: myself and Egor. The rest were law
students who sat for the most part on our side of
the room. This year, the DoS side was almost
empty. The rest were the judges' clerk.
N so we eargerly await the judges decision ......
judges appeared knowledgeable about our
case and more knowledgeable than the judge we
had last year. Judge Garland is the one who
talked the most. Remember that this was not a
trial like last year but an oral session for the
judges to ask clarifications on the content of the
written documents. I thought the questions were
difficult on both sides. Compared to last year,
the questions addressed different aspects of the
case. Last year, the randomness issue took most
of the court time. This year, the judges ask
clarifications on the human, economic impact of
the cancelation, the availability of unused visas,
whether or not our complaint is moot and the
definition of randomness. So overall, the judge's
questions were more balanced and varied.
Remember that the decision will be based
mostly on the written documents and what was
said in court must be understood within the
context of written documents.
This year DoS brought only 1 lawyer: Mr. Hans
Harris Chen. For the little story, Mr. Chen put on
weight since last year which makes his ears stand
out
) and in my opinion, he did less good thanlast year. As for the audience, this is also
different from last year, we were only 2
selectees: myself and Egor. The rest were law
students who sat for the most part on our side of
the room. This year, the DoS side was almost
empty. The rest were the judges' clerk.
N so we eargerly await the judges decision ......
DV2013 Nigerians Contact
The following names here should be contacted within each other.
@styles,obama,tiwanna,mele,ovicity,royaltunde,highphy and to every other Nigerians in DV2013 thread in this forum.We should make a contact to ourselves as Nigerians via phone #.Send your phone # to this email address ewaochemoses@yahoo.com
So we communicate more on wayforward or next move?
From one of the ex winners who was at the court
judges appeared knowledgeable about our
case and more knowledgeable than the judge we
had last year. Judge Garland is the one who
talked the most. Remember that this was not a
trial like last year but an oral session for the
judges to ask clarifications on the content of the
written documents. I thought the questions were
difficult on both sides. Compared to last year,
the questions addressed different aspects of the
case. Last year, the randomness issue took most
of the court time. This year, the judges ask
clarifications on the human, economic impact of
the cancelation, the availability of unused visas,
whether or not our complaint is moot and the
definition of randomness. So overall, the judge's
questions were more balanced and varied.
Remember that the decision will be based
mostly on the written documents and what was
said in court must be understood within the
context of written documents.
This year DoS brought only 1 lawyer: Mr. Hans
Harris Chen. For the little story, Mr. Chen put on
weight since last year which makes his ears stand
out
last year. As for the audience, this is also
different from last year, we were only 2
selectees: myself and Egor. The rest were law
students who sat for the most part on our side of
the room. This year, the DoS side was almost
empty. The rest were the judges' clerk.
N so we eargerly await the judges decision ......
The following names here should be contacted within each other.
@styles,obama,tiwanna,mele,ovicity,royaltunde,highphy and to every other Nigerians in DV2013 thread in this forum.We should make a contact to ourselves as Nigerians via phone #.Send your phone # to this email address ewaochemoses@yahoo.com
So we communicate more on wayforward or next move?
Up to 5000 is very different from 5000. Up to 5000 means whatever it takes, but not more than 5000. So, if they gave 52000 a year, that would be that NACARA took 3000, and DV the rest. You completely ignored the very point of my previous post you are quoting - that NACARA takes up to 5000, not 5000. That is why numbers above 50000 show compliance with the law, not a violation of the law.
It was done very well. That is my point that you ignore because you did not do any reasearch at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Regarding NZ - the story is different there. The law does not define quota, that is up to the executive power to set the limit. They failed and that is why the changed the limit. In the US the quota is defined by the Congress, not by executive power.
Regarding the outcome - it is too early to say. The court has not announced any decision yet. They are in the process.
Regarding the outcome - it is too early to say. The court has not announced any decision yet. They are in the process.
From one of the ex winners who was at the court
judges appeared knowledgeable about our
case and more knowledgeable than the judge we
had last year. Judge Garland is the one who
talked the most. Remember that this was not a
trial like last year but an oral session for the
judges to ask clarifications on the content of the
written documents. I thought the questions were
difficult on both sides. Compared to last year,
the questions addressed different aspects of the
case. Last year, the randomness issue took most
of the court time. This year, the judges ask
clarifications on the human, economic impact of
the cancelation, the availability of unused visas,
whether or not our complaint is moot and the
definition of randomness. So overall, the judge's
questions were more balanced and varied.
Remember that the decision will be based
mostly on the written documents and what was
said in court must be understood within the
context of written documents.
This year DoS brought only 1 lawyer: Mr. Hans
Harris Chen. For the little story, Mr. Chen put on
weight since last year which makes his ears stand
out
last year. As for the audience, this is also
different from last year, we were only 2
selectees: myself and Egor. The rest were law
students who sat for the most part on our side of
the room. This year, the DoS side was almost
empty. The rest were the judges' clerk.
N so we eargerly await the judges decision ......
A much more descriptive version of the transcript:
S: DOS rushed to judge and deprived selectees. I'd like to raise 2
issues: 1) DOS' actions were arbitrary and capricious and estoppel
claim. [...] 2% were selected by random process and statements of
Kirit Amin were not accurate.
C: How 2% would help?
[...]
C: How you define random?
S: [repeats White's definition]
C: My dictionary - Webster's college 3rd ed - defines random as "where
each has equal chance". Is this equal chance?
S: We don't think lottery requires equal chance. [??? - EE]
-----------------
C: If 98% came from 2 days is it possible everyone had equal chance?
S: [We don't have that info.]
C: The burden of proof is on you.
[...]
S: Declarations shoudld not be ent. too much weight. Mr. Amin provided
us with backfill explanation. He doesn't account how ppl. on 5 and 6
were not selected in seq. order. Amin is relying on 2000 entries to
talk for all entries. 720 backfilled should come from Nepal - [can't
be true]
--------------------
C: Even if you're right - it doesn't hit the basic problem - almost
everybody from 2 days. [...] Assume we accept definition definition of
equal probability - would the result be random?
S: It is not random intra-region.
C: Let's talk about randomness within region. Did they chose arbitrary
definition of randomness?
S: [No adequate investigation. 7 days is not enough. DOS haven't
provided definition of random until this litigation]
C: What about Public Notice?
S: [It doesn't provide definition]
C: Leave Amin out, why public notice definition of equal chance is not enough?
[...]
--------------
S: Step 2 of regulations never took place? Enought doubt was put on
DOS evidence. Mr. Amin declaration doesn't stand up.
=== Estoppel ===
S: [Demonstrated affirmative misconduct]
C: Is negligence affirmative misconduct?
S: [Yes.]
C: What's your best case where court ruled estoppel against government?
S: GAO case.
C: But there was no unfair result.
-------------------
C: They sold land within 5 days? [Should be 13 actually, they use 5
throughout the hearing - EE]
S: [Yes.]
C: They *got married in 5 days*?
S: These steps [selling land] were not to immigrate, but to overcome
public charge.
C: What about the 2nd lottery? What should we do with them?
S: [There's nothing preventing DOS from combining.]
C: You realize if 22000 people win, 22000 July winners lose?
S: DOS rarely awarded entire 50000 visas.
----------------------------
C: Why is it fair to give your clients visas - equitable? You only get to estoppel if you loose your first point. 100000
people around the world don't know about this litigation. Your folks
only had 5 days, they had almost whole year.
S: I don't know what 2nd lottery winners did on reliance, but I know
what my clients did.
C: Some people didn't do anything within 5 days - these people aren't
eligible for estoppel, right?
S: Right. We represent 36. I'm not sure we're bringing them *all* in.
C: All 36 did rely?
S: I don't know.
C: We should define if each of 36 did some steps. Should we let all 36
or 22000 provide declarations?
[...]
S: DOS will do 2 lotteries in 2013, so combining shouldn't be a problem.
C: Thanks.
==== Chen ====
C: Is government still argue the case is moot?
Ch: Yes. We have a system that is run by regulations. One of them says
we process by regional rank numbers. When new numbers appeared, the
opportunity of [reinstating] evaporated.
C: When we start discussing mootness, we should assume that the
opposing party is right. The case is moot only if there's no space
left. You have space left, right?
Ch: [There's nothing stopping]
C: Can you stop the second lottery now?
Ch: [...]
C: How many of 50000 have you issued?
Ch: I don't know.
C: But not all, right?
Ch: Right.
------------------------------
Ch: [address that declarations are insufficient]
C: Let's start with standard of review? Just for gov. reference [? -
EE] When we review decision of District Court it's just an APA review.
Ch: [Amin said - 2% won because they were backfilled. Plaintiffs are
trying to pull 2 cases. They were backfiled by 2 days, not one].
C: What if all submissions took place only on 5 and 6?
Ch: This is not true. Administrative law requires to give DOS
deference on all questions. Also, plaintiffs never disputed until this
morning that step 2 took place.
C: [What are those steps again?]
Ch: 1 - receive, sort and number, 2 - all petitions rank ordered, 3 -
drawing of selectees. That process is how DOS fulfills mandate. It has
to be "strictly random", not 2% random or 98% random.
------------------------------
C: Do you think you can win this case just by saying there's no step 2?
Ch: Yes. The definition of equal chance for everyone was brought
before the lawsuit. Substantial requirement - statute requires
strictly random order. And that was not met.
C: What info you had *exactly* at the point when lottery was voided?
Ch: [refers to Donahue's announcement with numbers - 98%]
C: [regarding Donahue's announcement] Here's the proof that not
everyone submitted on 5 and 6 - "we received entries during every
day".
Ch: Their reliance was not reasonable.
--------------------------
C: Once you tell 100000 people they get it? Is it first filers?
Ch: No, it's rank numbers.
C: So there was no rush? I thought that's why...
Ch: I admit they were encouraged to submit their applications ASAP.
C: So you said them yourself to sell land etc. to overcome public charge?
[...]
C: What about time and courier fees?
Ch: That doesn't qualify you for visa.
C: You know that $25 might be the annual income for some?
------------------------------------
Ch: Others had reliance on Fed. Reg. announcement.
C: Did they held release of 2nd lottery until Dist. Ct. decision?
Ch: [...] Reliance goes to all selectees. People who applied later in
month relied on Fed. Reg. announcement. The only alternative was to
strike results of first selection.
=== Soares ====
S: A claim that there wan't sufficient evidence. [regarding Donahue's
statement] "Many people apply every day", when 19 mln apply, every day
is a lot, but not statistical.
C: Are they lying that they found the software wasn't working?
S: I don't know.
C: Why would they lie under oath?
S: I hesitate to speculate. DOS rushed to provide an answer. The other
issue - Amin's declaration did not say that backfilling is limiteed to
2%. The governemnt makes the types of reliance. [Also, vaccinations,
medicals, not just $25].
Last edited by a moderator:
Schoolboy l think guys are tired of this Dv thing like me ,Dv 2013 was my last one.
lve been doing some courses since January finishing at the end of June n will be joining the University in July for further studies , it will be a distance learning program while lm still at work.
Right now Im just waiting to see if we will win the appeal for Dv 2012.lf we wont l'l continue doing ma thing.The sky is the limit bro.
l believe l can do great things even when lm still here.Thats the way forward for me..
lve been doing some courses since January finishing at the end of June n will be joining the University in July for further studies , it will be a distance learning program while lm still at work.
Right now Im just waiting to see if we will win the appeal for Dv 2012.lf we wont l'l continue doing ma thing.The sky is the limit bro.
l believe l can do great things even when lm still here.Thats the way forward for me..
tunisian_dv
Registered Users (C)
Wrong surname...
thank you brother...
this is so kind from you...
i have a question...
in my passport my surname is "xxxxxe" and in the application in wrote it "xxxxxx" so do i have to do my passport again or i have to send it with right way like in the passport in the forms DSP230 and DS 122??!!!
answer me plzzzzz help....
thank you brother...
this is so kind from you...
i have a question...
in my passport my surname is "xxxxxe" and in the application in wrote it "xxxxxx" so do i have to do my passport again or i have to send it with right way like in the passport in the forms DSP230 and DS 122??!!!
answer me plzzzzz help....
You are in the wrong thread. Anyway, there is a good chance the will disqualify you because of the wrong spelled name.
Looks like time is running out.
All are waiting for a decision on the appeal. But really, is there enough time to proceed with a win? Don't know if DOS can appeal to a higher court?
Even with a win today, it may take a month or two for KCC to process the forms, then we get an interview letter, and have to get our paperwork together, which in the case of a police check will take over a month. Cutting it too fine, looks like alot of available visa numbers will be thrown out this year. What a dreadful, dreadful shame, when it could be a win-win situation.
Not really.
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/southafrica/231771/PDFs/mediahub_brief_dv2013_transcript.pdf (written between October 4th and November 7th 2011, during selction period)
So, at than moment they thought opening additional winners on June 30 was OK (in normal situation) and allowed them enough time to process them. At that moment the appeal was already filed, but there was no particular schedule for court proceedings and they probably thought no decision could be release by September 30th.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1322.html (written in April 2012)
They revised the previous policy. By April they already knew because of Kurzban's genious there would be hearing on May 11th 2012.
So, in situations like we have, in emergency, which is caused by the pending court decision, they could be able to process at least some applications by September 30th even when opening additional winners is done on September 1st (actually, September 3rd, because September 1st and 2nd are Saturday and Sunday). It looks like they are ready to speed up the process of scheduling the interviews significantly when second batch of winners is released.
I guess it could happen like this. September 3rd a new winner is open. By September 7th (allowing him a week to respond) he or she sends forms to KCC. By September 13th his forms are received in KCC and interview is scheduled for September 28th (Friday).
Last edited by a moderator:
So you say that they could notify me on September 3rd, and could have an interview by September 30th? If i am notified on September 3rd, I will not have enough time to get my police check. They will not issue me a visa without a clear police check.
Impossible. Unless they have the ability to grant the visa number, conditional on the police check being received before entering the country?
They do not worry that everybody would be able to get police check. They currently need rather small amount of complete applications, so if you cannot get police check, somebody else would get the visa. Of course, that means they would not lock the visa number for you. What I see is the following:
1. Before June 30th they would not open additional winners unless there is a court decision release by that time.
2. Sometime between June 30th and September they would decide what to do if still no court decision is released.
If I were you I would get police report right now, even if it is before they open new winners.
1. Before June 30th they would not open additional winners unless there is a court decision release by that time.
2. Sometime between June 30th and September they would decide what to do if still no court decision is released.
If I were you I would get police report right now, even if it is before they open new winners.