By now. Mr poongunranar, you may have known that we are not talking about a bill but a law..
If this is accepted by court and goes to trial but still BCIS says that they are trying but cannot guarantee that they can adjuducate the cases in 180 days because of security and whatever useless reason they have, then all we are asking through court is to alteast to get some kind of temprary relief as given below in the thread.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114165
There are innumerable # of members in this board, including yourself and myself who can prove in the court that we are facing hardships due to this delay, don't you agree ?
By the way did you check out the excel sheet attached in one the posts here which gives the proof that shows the decrease in % of approvals over time ? it cannot be due to increase in # of applications, because % of applications year of year has been increasing since the inception of green card.
I don't know if the following is a valid point, but we are paying for service, and then don't you think we should expect the service accordingly ?. For ex, if you are paying for a house and if asks to confirm every year by paying $10,000 that you are still in the deal .The house owner promises on his website and reciept that he will give the house in 300-450 days(The congress passes a law saying that the seller is supposed to sell in actually 180 days). But even after 2-3-5 years if he says he is trying but don't know when he will give because whatever reasons. In the meanwhile, if he asks to renew the deal by paying another $10,000 every year till he actually gives it to you, what do you do ? who is responsible ?.
Here is where we want the temporary relief for the fellow suffereres, for eg, like in the above example, we as plaintiffs in this lawsuit don't know whatever reasons you have as the seller of the houses, but atleast allow us to stay in the house, don't ask every year from us to renew by paying $10,000, etc//
I don't know if I tried to make my point but, that what I feel is required by most of the members in the end.. a TEMPORARY RELIEF !!
Do you now see why the response by the defendents(BCIS) here is not being well taken by the members in the discussion here ? and why I pointed out those points(41 and 42) below ?
Anyway, can you based on your legal expertise, let us know if we have a case or not, and if we do, what would you do presently to increase our chances in winning this lawsuit..
your comments are appreciated, at least by me..
Originally posted by poongunranar
Even a bill has no effect in a court of law. It is a court of law. It is never a court of bills or court of opinions. That much said, the defendant can deny any of the opinions which in legal lingua will be treated as hearsay. In re (41) can you provide an INA Act and Section/Sub-Section number of the statute? Clearly the answer is NO. Hence they were able to deny that.
In re to (42), the defendants have a stronger ground to deny. The definition of reasonableness is the key to the defendants' rejection and the plaintiffs' assertion. The court will be hardpressed to define the term reasonableness so that it is reasonable to both the parties. That is why, wherever, there are no clear legal statutes, the defendants can clearly reply in the negative.
