Here is the Govt's Response to The complaint

Re: Re: Re: rajum

Originally posted by Edison
Clinton was there in the right place at the right time nothing much and most of his good policies are lifted from Republicans agenda. All the current problems are due to misadministration of the prior government. They didn't flex the muscles in the right time (since it is required to be superpower) eventhough they know all the problem causing terrorist groups.

Let's forget about all these politics and reach both the parties so that they might try to help us when there is bipartisan support.



CIS already mentioned that 180 days is only opinion of Congress.


Delaying the adjudication process will never improve the security, infact it will worsen the security. I wish judge understand this like most of us.
Click to expand...


My intention in quoting the Clinton is to buttress the point of Poongunranar that in court people argue about "hit" as "newton" or "dyne"...I quoted in that context....Nothing more than that...we need a bipartisan support and I am still not a green card holder to take a position on politics...

About 180 days....

Where ? In any court under oath or just passed an opinion outside ...

about security
True...any person with mediocre brain will think that way...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: rajum

Originally posted by rajum
My intention in quoting the Clinton is to buttress the point of Poongunranar that in court people argue about "hit" as "newton" or "dyne"...I quoted in that context....Nothing more than that...
Click to expand...
Golly, rajum, did you think I was kidding? Nope, dude. That example was culled out from the recent Flores Vs. Ashcroft case. The Case Number is 02-3160, heard by a Division Bench of the Honorable United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, comprising of Honorable Justice Easterbrook; Honorable Justice Diane Wood; and Honorable Justice Evans.

As you know, even a simple touch is assault as per Indiana law and the guy was arrested and ordered deported(removed) by INS and the same was affirmed by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. Finally this guy approached the said court and argued his case, where Honorable Justice Easterbrook came with some fantastic ( Sorry, friend, I love legal arguments, even though I may detest their cunning interpretation to twist facts. But, most of the times, such a canny logical interpretation is needed so that no innocent person is ruled guilty) interpretation as to what is assault and what is FORCE in legal terms means. For that he defined FORCE in SI system, CGS System and finally behooved it right to be interpreted in a legal sense. Even though Honorable Justice Evans concurred with Honorable Justice Easterbrook, he grudgingly conceded on his fantastic words of interpretation. Let me quote him in his own words, while he concurred with Hon'ble Justice Easterbrook -- Although it's debatable whether expending dynes (to say nothing about newtons) pressing the keys of my wordprocessor to concur in this case is worth the effort,
the result I do so becausewe reach, though correct on the law, is divorced from common sense.

So, what I typed was not imaginary. Well, most of what I redact can be literally related to some recent cases in Case-Law.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rajum

Originally posted by poongunranar
Although it's debatable whether expending dynes (to say nothing about newtons) pressing the keys of my wordprocessor to concur in this case is worth the effort, the result I do so because we reach, though correct on the law, is divorced from common sense. .
Click to expand...
Friends who were angered by my interpretation and explanation in legal terms should carefully read what this learned judge had written in his judgment. Look at the distinction he makes -- he says that from common-sense point of view certain things seem very right and true, but yet, in legal sense, he had to go against that very same common-sense. Guys, that is law. That is legal world. Here more than common-sense and passions, the war of words, tricks, canny arguments are the ones that will fetch success. Hope you can see the merits in my explanation. Just go and Shepardize in a law-library and go through some controversial judgments and you will see how literal words and common-sense differs from legal arguments. Don't worry friends. We will also use all those tricks in this case. So, my point is this: We need to translate our anger and claims of injustice to action, by painstakingly presenting it within the legal sense to the Judge. We should have pointed QUESTIONS that directly target the provisos of the laws, esp. AC-21, where no punitive sections or enforceable sections are envisaged. The Judge should be asked to see if there are other ramifications of this kind of bungling that will foment more trouble for this nation, where more illegals will be encouraged to go that route than the never-ending legal channel of getting a PR. In a nutshell, our frustrations and anger should be very well targetted to that end DURING TRIAL. That will help the case a lot. (Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics beautifully put the positive channelization of anger to attain best results, which I am tempted to posit here: The person who is angry at the right things and towards the right people, and also in the right way, at the right time and for the right length of time, is to be praised. This will be the good-tempered man. The good-tempered man is not revengeful, but rather tends to make allowances.) :)

Just a point I wanted to make with all of you so that you get a better understanding. Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
another hardship

I don't know if someone has written this hardship - If your wife is going to college and you want to get financial help, you can't get. go to site http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/. for detail about financial aid.
Contrary you will have to pay more Tuition fee.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rajum

Originally posted by poongunranar
Golly, rajum, did you think I was kidding? Nope, dude. That example was culled out from the recent Flores Vs. Ashcroft case. The Case Number is 02-3160, heard by a Division Bench of the Honorable United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, comprising of Honorable Justice Easterbrook; Honorable Justice Diane Wood; and Honorable Justice Evans.
Click to expand...

Nope...I wrote in support of you...I fully agree with you....I know how truth is twisted in courts....

and that is the reason I wrote in one of the mails that I am not an attorney nor intellectual nor judge to come to a different conclusion....


-rajum
 
One of the response to the lawsuit point was that CIS can not process any application "out of turn". (dont get me wrong, I am not against pilots, but...) Now we hear about all these "pilots" for certain class of people. How does having pilot program fit into CIS' First come (never) First serve policy, which they seem to be harping about in their rebuttal.

001
 
Re: another hardship

Originally posted by Brij523
I don't know if someone has written this hardship - If your wife is going to college and you want to get financial help, you can't get. go to site http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/. for detail about financial aid.
Contrary you will have to pay more Tuition fee.
Click to expand...

Follow the thread started by Kashmir in Complaint forum about education, probably you will find some useful info.

Education of children
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112010
 
Re: in defense of Cinta...

Originally posted by rajum
I want to reiterate my strongest and whole hearted respect for Cinta...I reiterated even in couple of mails on some previous occasions..
The amount of research he has done and the amount of reports he brought to the attention of this forum...probably no one has done... I really mean no one...I have seen his passion and I am one of his admirers...

Alok2004,
I can understand you sentiments. I also belong to the same identity as you. Probably one needs to accept on the totality of one contribution and not on some of the postings which one does not like. If you follow Cinta's contribution to this forum closely, probably you would have appreciated his passion.

Rajiv,
I think the personal slandering reached a peak and I request you to delete all the postings which were concentrated on attacking each other. To be fair, remove this posting also.

-rajum
Click to expand...


I would like leave it alone for now. I think people should monitor themselves. I do think the posts are getting a little nasty. If people will not stop the bickering, I will have no choice but to delete all posts I find unnecessary. But that is such an unnecessary censorship. Control yoursleves folks. Like Edison said, try not to attack the person, even if you disgree with the post. Please. This takes away from my time that I can use to help all of us in creative, constructive, effective ways. We ARE a community. Enough said. Let us move on from here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Financial Hardship Example

In many states one needs to have a LPR status to qualify for instate tuition in public universities. The difference between the resident vs nonresident tuition is really big (upwards of 10k per year).

Those with dependents going to public universities and not qualifying for resident tuition - please come forward and help Rajiv build the case on financial hardship grounds. Those that have nothing to do with tuition, please spread the word so that others will be aware and might choose to come forward.

Many states in the Northeast require evidence of residency before they will waive the nonresident tuition.
 
Re: Financial Hardship Example

Originally posted by victim1084
In many states one needs to have a LPR status to qualify for instate tuition in public universities. The difference between the resident vs nonresident tuition is really big (upwards of 10k per year).

Those with dependents going to public universities and not qualifying for resident tuition - please come forward and help Rajiv build the case on financial hardship grounds. Those that have nothing to do with tuition, please spread the word so that others will be aware and might choose to come forward.

Many states in the Northeast require evidence of residency before they will waive the nonresident tuition.
Click to expand...
Hi, victim1084,
Please check Education Of Children thread.
 
It is only a pilot program, meaning will be spread if successful. Also at least at TSC, only new applicants in nonEB cat can apply. If you are not "new", you have to withdraw your current case to join.

Originally posted by hrithikroshan11
This is to bring to your attention on the pilot program being launched at California Service center to adjudicate 140/485 applications within 3 months:

http://www.immigration.com/newslett...xperniment.html

It hurts that this pilot program is targeting only CSC which gets far less applications than other service centers like VSC. Is there anything that we can do to convince the Immigration department to treat the centers equally and allow this pilot program at all service centers? Could we raise this issue in the hearing of lawsuit that has been filed?

Since some service centers like NSC and CSC are faster than other centers like VSC and TSC, many employees and contractors in these slow regions have to quit their well settled jobs in order to find an employer in NSC or CSC. The employers then take full advantage of the fact that employee is joining his company for faster GC processing.

In a democratic country like US, is it too big to ask for a level playing field? If anything, the Immigration office should try to allocate more resources to centers like VSC and TSC which get far more applications. On the contrary, they are doing just the opposite.

Should the immigration office include VSC and other centers in the pilot program? Or are they are justified in their approach?
Click to expand...
 
Have you heard about God's act being balanced??, Well it takes well over 2.5-3 years in California to get your LC certified - as compared to faster states (of around 3-6 months), and I am talking only about RIR here (estimated time for LC in Regular is around 5-6 years if lucky), and CSC too has been riddled with backlogs in 140/485 stages as well. So please go easy on the CSCers and dont make them feel guilty for getting the hopes of a faster GC (hopes that is, not the GC itself) :D :D

001
Originally posted by hrithikroshan11
Why cann't the pilot orogram be run at all four service centers? It is not that the success of a pilot program in one center necessarily means success at other centers.

If one state promises GC (140 and 485) in 3 months, won't people leave their well settled jobs to move to that state? They know very well that in other states it could take as many as 3 years. This is not a level playing field.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Project Ocean Campagin #12 - Re: Backlog article in Newyork Times

Another relevant issue here is how is USCIS funding the wages/salaries for those 1000 officers (25% of the approx. 4000) that are only doing the security checks? Also, it is understandable that they need this high a number for some time when they started the program, when all the pending applications are checked, but after 2+ years how can they substantiate the need for same number of officers since (at least in theory) only new applicants/applications have to be checked!

And, the funding for these security checks is through fees collected, is it a right thing to do in legal and/or ethical grounds? I think the fees are collected on premise of providing services to the immigrants not make whole America secure?

Any thoughts/research on that?

Thanks,

Originally posted by kashmir
Read the article and join Project Ocean Campaign #12 - Make Bill Yates Aplogize.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Project Ocean Campagin #12 - Re: Backlog article in Newyork Times

Originally posted by PradK
Another relevant issue here is how is USCIS funding the wages/salaries for those 1000 officers (25% of the approx. 4000) that are only doing the security checks? Also, it is understandable that they need this high a number for some time when they started the program, when all the pending applications are checked, but after 2+ years how can they substantiate the need for same number of officers since (at least in theory) only new applicants/applications have to be checked!

And, the funding for these security checks is through fees collected, is it a right thing to do in legal and/or ethical grounds? I think the fees are collected on premise of providing services to the immigrants not make whole America secure?

Any thoughts/research on that?

Thanks,
Click to expand...


Very simple, all your application fees go to security check. In short, immigration benefits funds goes to immigration enforcement. To the best of my knowledge it is illegal.
 
I remember I read it somewhere, they say it clearly that our fees go to border patrol, security check etc. enforcement. That's why they are asking to increase the fee, cause it's not enough. We are indeed paying for the country's security.
 
I can accept that my application fee is used to run security checks on me. I can even accept fee increases due to the need for more thurough checks after 9/11.

But border patrol? Enforcement? Isn't that the duty of the other agency which has been separated from USCIS during the INS split? They should have their own fundings. We are paying for all things that has nothing to do with our cases, plus we suffer the time delay too. This unfairness is monumental. Maybe this argument can be used in the litegation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top