ThelastMile
Registered Users (C)
Some layman's observations:
USCIS's Argument: There are various classes and subclasses of EB Visas so the all the applicants do not form a single class.
Notes: The law suit is about delays in AOS where the class of EB is of little consequence.
USCIS's Argument: The passage of time alone is rarely enough to justify a court’s intervention...
Notes: We have cases of financial loss, hardship and loss of opportunity.
USCIS's Argument: CP is not represented, so this does not represent the whole class
Notes: We are alleging delays in EB AOS, not claim to represent EB immigrant Visa applicants in general.
USCIS's Argument: The named representatives seeking relief will come at the cost of other older pending applications causing a conflict of interest with the class hence they cannot represent the class.
Notes: We are seeking the relief for the class not just the named applicants. It is the responsibility of the defendants to ensure that it is properly implemented especially that they are asking not to interfere in their internal implementation.
USCIS's arguments: Plaintiffs do not explain however do not explain how to achieve the goal
Notes: We have already given suggestions which defendants declined. We can provide more if they receive them openly. In fact, we can correct the misguided and counter productive measures.
USCIS's arguments: The individual injury in fact suffered must arise directly from the violations charged that are common to the class.
Notes: We have plenty of cases ranging from loss to career advancement to driver's licenses which we can quantify. These are common among the members of the class, not necessarily for every member.
USCIS's Argument: There are various classes and subclasses of EB Visas so the all the applicants do not form a single class.
Notes: The law suit is about delays in AOS where the class of EB is of little consequence.
USCIS's Argument: The passage of time alone is rarely enough to justify a court’s intervention...
Notes: We have cases of financial loss, hardship and loss of opportunity.
USCIS's Argument: CP is not represented, so this does not represent the whole class
Notes: We are alleging delays in EB AOS, not claim to represent EB immigrant Visa applicants in general.
USCIS's Argument: The named representatives seeking relief will come at the cost of other older pending applications causing a conflict of interest with the class hence they cannot represent the class.
Notes: We are seeking the relief for the class not just the named applicants. It is the responsibility of the defendants to ensure that it is properly implemented especially that they are asking not to interfere in their internal implementation.
USCIS's arguments: Plaintiffs do not explain however do not explain how to achieve the goal
Notes: We have already given suggestions which defendants declined. We can provide more if they receive them openly. In fact, we can correct the misguided and counter productive measures.
USCIS's arguments: The individual injury in fact suffered must arise directly from the violations charged that are common to the class.
Notes: We have plenty of cases ranging from loss to career advancement to driver's licenses which we can quantify. These are common among the members of the class, not necessarily for every member.