I am no Terrorist, any advice?

[mfak1]

Case Continued:

++++++++++++++++++++++

He did not cut off his ties entirely, though. He explained: ″I had to slow down my activities, but because I was staying in that locality and that street[,] ... they used to ask me to go with them and work for them.″ When asked whether he worked for MQM-H, even after becoming aware of fighting between the factions, Khan responded: ″I used to support them, but I never ... worked for them or interfered with their work or what they were doing.″ He clarified what he meant by support: ″What I mean is that in our street, since everybody was from [MQM-H], they used to meet us and ask questions about [*9] us. So, I have to express myself as a supporter, that yes, I am. But I really slowed down my work and didn’t do anything for them.″ The government specifically questioned him about his attendance at meetings, and Khan admitted that for the next three years he still attended meetings when asked to. ″I had to attend the meeting when their higher-ups of the party used to come ... and call everybody or call me for attending the meeting.″ 3 Khan’s switch in 1994 had turned the wrath of MQM-A against him. He testified that MQM-A members began hunting down MQM-H activists and either killing or torturing them. ″Threats to punish and kill starting pouring in against my family and me.″ One of Khan’s cousins was shot and killed. In the summer of 1999, six MQM-A members, armed with guns, knives, iron rods, and hockey sticks, broke into the MQM-H office during a meeting. They dragged Khan out into the street and beat him. He was thrown into the bed of a pickup truck, driven to an MQM-A torture cell, and beaten for two days before he was released The scene worsened in the fall of 1999 when Pervez Musharraf seized control of the country by military coup. The previous government had supported and protected MQM-H, but the new government favored MQM-A. With their protection gone, the attacks against MQM-H intensified. In early 2000 Khan was seriously injured during a raid of the local MQM-H office. MQM-A then began targeting his family and firing shots at his house. ″My life became miserable, ... my house was attacked several times[,] and my family members were threatened.″ ″I was forced to [*11] run from one place to another to save my life. As they looked for me, I could not go to my house, attend school or even go to mosque for prayers. I was forced into hiding for fear of my life and was literally cut off from the society, my family and all the near and dear ones.″ Khan fled Pakistan briefly in 2000, spending a few months in London and a few more in the United States. He returned to Karachi in January 2001 to attend to his sick mother and to keep his job at an airline. He stayed at his uncle’s house to remain hidden, only visiting his family secretly at night. Even so, MQM-H found out that he had returned. As a result he ″had to attend two or three more meetings, because ... they have a hold over that entire area, and I had no other option.″ This may have alerted MQM-A to his return; in any event, they too caught up with him. As he was walking home one night with his brother and father, three MQM-A henchmen pulled up in a taxi and jumped out. They grabbed Khan by the hair, put a gun to his head, and threw him into the taxi. His brother and father screamed for help, but to no avail. Khan was blindfolded and taken to a room where he was beaten for two days. His captors bashed [*12] his head into the walls and told him never to associate with MQM-H and to leave the area. He was released when his father paid a 200,000 rupee ransom (approximately $3,400). Khan had only been back for a month. After recovering from his injuries, Khan fled again, this time directly to the United States on a temporary visa. He hoped to return to Pakistan once the situation improved, but from Khan’s perspective it deteriorated; Musharraf won the general election in 2002 and remained in power. MQM-H supporters continued to be captured, tortured, and killed, so Khan decided to seek asylum. In September of 2002, the United States initiated a program that required thousands of men from mostly Islamic countries to register with immigration services by being fingerprinted, photographed, and interrogated. See Cam Simpson & Flynn McRoberts, U.S. Ends Muslim Registry, CHI. TRIBUNE, Dec. 2, 2003, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-0312020136 Fearing that he would be deported to Pakistan and killed, Khan moved to Canada in early 2003, a couple of months before the registration deadline for Pakistanis. He sought asylum there instead, but then withdrew his application when he went back to Pakistan to be with his mother, who had fallen ill again. [*13] Six months later he returned to the United States on a visitor visa and has been here ever since. Khan’s visa expired in February of 2004, so the following August he applied for asylum. (He claimed that MQM-A was still searching for him. While Khan was in Canada, some MQM-A members went to his family’s house, looted it, and killed the family dog.) Khan’s application alerted the government to his expired visa, so he was served with a notice to appear. He conceded his removability but also requested asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), and withholding or deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The case was delayed several years for a variety of reasons, one of which was that Khan’s father, a witness in his case, had to return to Pakistan to free Khan’s cousin who had been kidnapped and tortured by Afghan terrorists. In 2008 Khan married a United States citizen, so he also sought adjustment of status via marriage. The government opposed Khan’s requests for relief from removal, arguing that he was inadmissible for having provided material support to a terrorist organization. On December 8, 2010, a final hearing was held on Khan’s requests for relief, [*14] and in early 2011 they were denied. The IJ found that Khan had given material support to MQM-H, barring any form of relief except for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The judge denied that protection because Khan did not claim he would be tortured by the Pakistani government, but only by MQM members. The BIA affirmed, adopting and supplementing the IJ’s opinion. (Confusingly, the Board refers to Khan’s support of both MQM-A and MQM-H, even though the IJ had relied exclusively on Khan’s participation in MQM-H.) Khan petitioned this court for review. While his petition was pending, he also filed a motion to reconsider, which the BIA denied, and he filed a separate petition from that order. Having already heard oral argument on the first petition, we consolidated the cases for decision and concluded that oral argument was unnecessary for the second. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). II. Discussion HN4 We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). HN5 ″Where the Board has adopted the decision of the immigration judge and added its own reasoning, we review both decisions.″ Ruiz-Cabrera v. Holder, 748 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2014). HN6 Our review of factual findings is governed by the deferential substantial-evidence standard, under which the [*15] BIA’s decision ″must be upheld if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.″ Weiping Chen v. Holder, 744 F.3d 527, 532 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992)4 ); FH-T v. Holder, 723 F.3d 833, 838 (7th Cir. 2013). We will overturn ″only if the record compels a contrary result.″ Ruiz-Cabrera, 748 F.3d at 757; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). HN7 ″Legal [issues] are reviewed de novo, with deference to the agency if the issue involves an ambiguous section of the [immigration statutes] or an interpretation of agency regulations.″ Cruz-Moyaho v. Holder, 703 F.3d 991, 997 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). HN8 We also have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Khan’s motion to reconsider, see Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 130 S. Ct. 827, 175 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2010), but our standard of review is even more deferential. ″Motions to reconsider ask the BIA to reexamine its earlier decision in light of additional [*16] legal arguments, a change of law, or an argument that was overlooked,″ Mungongo v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), often ″rehash[ing] arguments that should have been presented the first time around,″ Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 612 (7th Cir 2004). ″Yet motions to reconsider ... are not replays of the main event.″ Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2006). We review only for abuse of discretion and will uphold the BIA’s decision unless it ″was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably

+++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[mfak1]

Case Continued:

++++++++++++++++++++++

departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.″ Victor v. Holder, 616 F.3d 705, 708 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). * * * Khan’s primary argument is that he was never given an opportunity to prove that he didn’t know MQM-H was a terrorist organization. He received a hearing, of course, but he believes he should have gotten two. He claims that the hearing had to be bifurcated—the IJ first needed to find that he gave material support to a terrorist organization and then conduct a second hearing on the knowledge exception. There are two problems with this argument and both are fatal to it. First, Khan failed to raise it in his appeal to the Board. FH-T, 723 F.3d at 841 (HN9 ″[A]n alien must exhaust all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right, ... and [*17] this includes the obligation first to present to the Board any arguments that lie within its power to address.″ (internal quotation marks omitted)). Khan responds that the exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional rule, and that’s true, see id., but it still ″limits the arguments available to an alien,″ id. (quoting Issaq v. Holder, 617 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2010)). The exhaustion requirement exists to ″provid[e] the Board an opportunity to apply its specialized knowledge and experience to the matter, which provides us with reasoning to review.″ Minghai Tian v. Holder, 745 F.3d 822, 826 (7th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, Khan doesn’t have any legal authority for a right to a bifurcated hearing. His only citation is to American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2009), but that case is not helpful to him. There the government denied a visa to an Islamic scholar based on the material support bar. American Academy involved a challenge to that denial, the details of which are somewhat complicated and ultimately irrelevant here. The bottom line is that the Second Circuit remanded the case because there was nothing in the record indicating that the applicant was given ″a meaningful opportunity to negate knowledge.″ Id. at 132. Khan emphasizes the following passage: The existence of the opportunity for the visa applicant to prove that [*18] he lacked actual or constructive knowledge that the recipient of his funds was a terrorist organization implies that, before a decision on the visa application is made, the alien must be confronted with the allegation that he knew he had supported a terrorist organization. Otherwise, he has no way of understanding what it is that he must show he did not know or should not have known. Id. at 131-32. But this passage does not support Khan’s position because Khan was presented with ″the allegation that he knew he had supported a terrorist organization.″ The government made clear long before Khan’s final hearing on December 8, 2010, that it recommended his removal based on his participation in MQM. As Khan acknowledges, the government took this position as early as 2008. The parties also discussed the terrorism bar during a status conference on September 13, giving Khan ample warning before he actually had to present evidence on December 8. Furthermore, Khan’s lawyer was warned that there would only be one evidentiary hearing. At the September 13 conference, he insisted that any evidentiary hearing should be bifurcated, but the IJ disagreed. If that wasn’t enough, the IJ reiterated during the final hearing [*19] that it was the whole shebang: ″[Judge]: I’m not bifurcating, counsel. I mean, we’re going for everything. [Khan’s lawyer]: Yeah, I understand that, Judge.″ Khan’s argument that he never had a chance to contest his knowledge is meritless. In his petition for review of the denial of his motion to reconsider, Khan makes a slightly different argument about the adequacy of his hearing. He argues that the IJ signaled that the December 8 hearing would be limited to Khan’s admissibility vis-à-vis the terrorism bar, so he was not prepared—and thus did not have an opportunity—to present evidence on his many claims for relief (asylum, withholding of removal, etc.). The record is not entirely clear in this regard, but it does not matter. Khan concedes that the terrorism bar, if it applies, blocks all of his requested forms of relief except for deferral under the Convention Against Torture (which we’ll discuss momentarily). And the government had provisionally approved Khan’s I-130 application for adjustment of status through marriage, so if the terrorism bar did not apply, his other requested forms of relief were irrelevant. The IJ, the government, and Khan’s counsel all agreed on these points [*20] at the September 13 conference, so the evidentiary hearing on December 8 was understandably focused on the terrorism bar. Even if Khan’s counsel was given the impression that the hearing was confined to this topic, there is no error because addressing most of his other arguments for relief would have been a waste of time. That still leaves deferral, the only other topic for which evidence would have been logically relevant. But the IJ reminded Khan’s counsel on both September 13 and December 8 that he needed to make a case for that relief. Khan’s lawyer responded specifically that he ″would rest with the [deferral] claim on the record″ and ″would not ask any questions ... other than resting with the application itself.″ Therefore, we reject Khan’s arguments that his hearing was somehow inadequate. Most of his remaining arguments can be disposed of fairly quickly. First, Khan argues that none of the ways in which he supported MQM-A or MQM-H were ″material.″ HN10 The statute says that ″material support″ includes ″a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, [*21] or radiological weapons), explosives, or training.″ § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). Khan didn’t provide any of these things, but the list is not exhaustive, see id. (″an act that ... affords material support, including a safe house ...″ (emphasis added)); Singh-Kaur v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 293, 298-99 (3d Cir. 2004), and as the IJ noted, Khan ″distributed flyers, posted signs, looked after the local office, and recruited individuals in his neighborhood to attend the organization’s meeting″—and he did so for multiple years. HN11 Recruiting by itself meets the statutory definition of ″engaging in terrorist activity,″ § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(V)(cc), so surely years of recruiting also counts as material support, see also Hussain, 518 F.3d at 538 (upholding a removal order based on § 1182(a)(3)(B) where an individual had ″recruited for MQM-H and solicited funds for it as well″). Courts have found less significant support to be sufficiently material. See, e.g., Singh-Kaur, 385 F.3d at 298-99 (providing food and setting up shelter); In re S-K-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 936, 945 & n.13 (B.I.A. 2006) ($685 in donations). Khan also argues that his participation was immaterial because it only related to the groups’ peaceful political activities, but we rejected this argument in Hussain. 518 F.3d at 538 (″If you provide material support to a terrorist organization, you are engaged in terrorist activity even if your support is confined to the [*22] nonterrorist activities of the organization.″). We find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Khan provided material support to MQM-A and MQM-H. Khan’s next contention is that he was improperly denied deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, the only relief not precluded by the terrorism bar. HN12 So-called ″CAT deferral″ requires evidence that the alien will be tortured by the government or with its acquiescence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(3), 1208.17(a), 1208.18(a)(1); e.g., Bitsin v. Holder, 719 F.3d 619, 630-31 (7th Cir. 2013); Ishitiaq v. Holder, 578 F.3d 712, 718 n.3 (7th Cir. 2009); Pavlyk v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1082, 1090 (7th Cir. 2006). But Khan’s lawyer essentially conceded that Khan was not in danger of torture by the Pakistani government. When the IJ reminded him that he needed to present a case for deferral, he responded: ″We’ve never alleged that the government of Pakistan has tortured the respondent, kidnapped him, or done any harm to him whatsoever. It’s a group that the government would be unable to control.″ Khan asserts that the IJ and the BIA failed to consider several reports about conditions in Pakistan. The IJ, however, explicitly mentioned these reports in the list of exhibits he considered, and the BIA adopted his decision. Furthermore, the reports that Khan identifies contain only a few oblique and summary references to the government’s ability to control violent [*23] clashes between the MQM groups—saying, for example, that ″[t]he Pakistani state is often either unable or unwilling to protect its citizens from the violent MQM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[mfak1]

Case Continued:

++++++++++++++++++++++

factions.″ That is not enough to establish that Khan is likely to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Pakistani government. We see no error here either. Khan also spends three sentences in his second petition arguing that the IJ should have indefinitely continued his proceedings while he sought a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(B) (allowing the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant a waiver of the terrorism bar in certain circumstances). To the extent that this can be characterized as a developed argument, it is foreclosed by FH-T. 723 F.3d at 847-48. That brings us to Khan’s final argument, his best one. In his petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, Khan argues that the immigration agency erred by assuming that ″knowledge of kidnapping and violence [is] per se sufficient to preclude an individual from invoking the [knowledge] exception.″ There may be something to this argument. Though we ultimately can’t reach it, it’s worth pointing out the problem. HN13 An entire organization does not automatically become a terrorist [*24] organization just because some members of the group commit terrorist acts. The question is one of authorization. We made this point in Hussain. 518 F.3d at 538 (″An organization is not a terrorist organization just because one of its members commits an act of armed violence without direct or indirect authorization, even if his objective was to advance the organization’s goals.″). But if an organization does not become a terrorist organization until it authorizes terrorist acts, then a person may not know whether he is supporting a terrorist organization until he knows which acts are authorized. Even if someone is aware of violent acts by some members of his group, that does not necessarily mean that he knew or should have known that the acts were backed by the leaders. This is especially so in diffuse political parties in poor countries. And even if an organization actually does sanction terrorist acts, that does not automatically mean that all of its members will be aware that authorization has been given. A leader in an otherwise peaceable group might secretly authorize some branch to commit atrocities but leave the majority of its members oblivious. The IJ and BIA seem to have assumed that Khan’s awareness [*25] of some violence by members of the MQM factions automatically precluded him from showing that he didn’t know he was supporting a terrorist organization. Both relied almost exclusively on Khan’s own testimony to rule out the knowledge exception. But we are unable to find anything in Khan’s testimony that clearly indicates that he was aware of group-sanctioned violence for any significant period of time during his involvement. If anything, his testimony shows the opposite. After all, Khan left MQM precisely because of its violence. Twice. The government’s position is that he did not leave soon enough, but this means that the timing of Khan’s awareness and withdrawal from involvement becomes critical. Although the IJ and BIA agreed with the government’s position, neither made any specific findings on this more nuanced point. With respect to Khan’s time with MQM-A—which, recall, only the BIA discussed, and even then it’s not clear how this affected the knowledge exception—the agency wrote: [Khan] acknowledged that he knew [MQM-A] began to commit acts of torture, killing, kidnapping, and rape during the time he was a member of that organization, and that such acts were reported in the media. [*26] (Exh. 5, Tab A, at 6-7; Tr. at 242-43). These actions constitute terrorist activity. ... [Khan’s] objection to such conduct is the reason he decided to join the MQM-H when the factions split. In his personal statement (this is the Exhibit 5 referenced by the BIA), Khan does explain that the leadership of MQM-A turned the party toward ″killings, tortures, harassments, kidnappings for ransom money, rapes, ... and all sorts of criminal activities.″ But this statement must be understood in context: Kahn was explaining why he left the group. He also explains that ″[t]he involvement of [MQM-A] in criminal activities mentioned earlier came as a shock/surprise to Mohajirs and their supporters, including me.″ And later: ″Because I ... was fed up with the criminal attitude and policies of [MQM-A], I ... decided to leave the party.″ Khan’s testimony on the stand was consistent. Nothing he said establishes any significant overlap between Khan’s awareness that MQM-A authorized terrorist activities and his involvement with the group. That may explain why the IJ limited his findings to Khan’s time with MQM-H. With respect to Khan’s involvement with MQM-H and the timing of his awareness that it too had become violent, [*27] the IJ wrote: ″[Khan] testified that he ’gradually’ became aware that the MQM-H was engaging in violent acts but continued to support it for several years. As such, he has not met his burden to show that he falls within the exception.″ The BIA was similarly nonspecific on this point: ″Even [after Khan left MQM-A for MQM-H], however, [he] concedes he was aware of killings being perpetrated by both factions.″ The IJ didn’t cite to the record, but his finding that Khan ″gradually″ became aware of violence may have come from the following exchange: [Government]: So, sir, if I understand you correctly, then you knew that MQM-H was also perpetrating violence, is that correct? [Khan]: In the beginning they were doing good things, but later on, gradually, they started doing the same things as [MQM-A]. But this question and answer was immediately preceded by Khan’s specific testimony that he curtailed his involvement as soon as he fully appreciated the scope of the violence: [Government]: And you were aware of this ongoing violence between these two groups, is that correct? [Khan]: As soon as I came to know that these both groups are getting violent, and when they were clashing, I stopped working [*28] for them, and I stopped attending their meetings and kept myself aloof from them. A few questions later, the government even asked explicitly about the timing of his involvement and awareness: [Government]: Okay, so, did you still work for them and participate with the MQM-H even after you were aware of the fighting between [MQM-A] and MQM-H? [Khan]: I used to [express my support for] them, but I never ... worked for them or interfered with their work or what they were doing. Khan further clarified that in addition to expressing support for MQM-H when asked, he also attended meetings when MQM-H members called on him. This more limited involvement lasted for another three or four years and may have been the basis of the IJ’s finding that he ″continued to support [MQM-H] for several years,″ even after recognizing its violence. The government relies on Khan’s attendance at meetings to support its argument that he didn’t leave MQM-H soon enough. Of course, Khan also testified that he ″had to attend″ because ″they have a hold over that entire area, and I had no other option,″ and it’s an open question whether there is a duress exception to the material support bar. See Ay v. Holder, 743 F.3d 317, 320-21 (2d Cir. 2014). It’s doubtful that attending [*29] meetings, without more, constitutes ″material support″ for a terrorist organization. Khan obviously can’t argue that he didn’t provide any material support to MQM at any time, but his involvement might be characterized as ″immaterial″ after he realized that the group condoned violence.5 The IJ also found that Khan should have known that MQM-H was a terrorist organization even if he didn’t. But this finding also seems to rest on the assumption that mere knowledge of violence by members of an organization is enough: ″The evidence in the record shows that the MQM-H committed violent political acts in 1994 and 1995, the years during which [Khan] claims he was most active in the party.″ The government defends this finding by pointing to Hussain, where we said that MQM-H’s violent acts ″were so frequent that Hussain could not have failed to learn about them,″ and that ″an inference that [the violence] was authorized is inescapable.″ 518 F.3d at 539. The same is true of Khan, the government argues, [*30] because he ″lived in the same city at the same time and was a member of the same organization.″ True, Khan must have been aware of violence by members of MQM-H—and he admits that he was—but he may not have recognized that it was a group-sanctioned phenomenon. And there is an important difference between Hussain and Khan: Hussain was a ″high-level official of the organization, in charge of a region in which there were 100,000 Mohajirs, of whom 2,000 belonged to his organization and thus were under his command,″ id., while Khan ″distributed flyers ... and sometimes ... looked after the local office.″ Hussain could not plausibly argue that he was unaware of what MQM-H was authorizing because he was in charge. Khan, on the other hand, was about as low as one could be in the organization.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[mfak1]

Case Continued
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At the time Khan was involved with MQM, Karachi had a population equivalent to that of New York City today, covered a much larger area, and was far less developed, see Demographics of Karachi, WIKIPEDIA, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Demographics_of_Karachi (last visited Sept. 4, 2014); Karachi, WIKIPEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi (last visited Sept. 4, 2014)—so it’s plausible that Khan’s awareness was limited by the events occurring in his immediate vicinity. [*31] And recall that by at least one historian’s account, MQM-H leaders were running a campaign to convince low-level members that MQM-A was the terrorist faction of the movement. See Farhat Haq, supra, at 1001. It’s hardly surprising that they could convince a teenager. In the end, however, we can’t resolve the more precise knowledge question because Khan failed to exhaust the argument before the Board. See FH-T, 723 F.3d at 841. Khan’s brief suggests that he raised this issue in the following two sentences in his motion to reconsider: ″The Board concluded that the respondent provided ’material support’ only by the respondent acknowledging ’he knew the MQM began to commit acts of torture, killing, and rape during the time he was a member.’ This finding by the Board does not accurately depict the respondent’s testimony.″ These two short sentences do not clearly articulate the argument now raised on review; they were certainly not enough to notify the BIA of the embedded legal issue about the proper interpretation of the knowledge exception. Nor did Khan make the argument in his initial appeal to the BIA. Khan’s lawyer did argue that Khan’s testimony ″shows that [he] did not reasonably know that the organization was a terrorist organization.″ [*32] But the theory advanced was that Khan couldn’t possibly have known that MQM-H was a terrorist organization because his involvement preceded the enactment of the statutory section defining Tier 3 terrorist organizations. The Board rejected that argument, and Khan does not repeat it here. The exhaustion requirement is not just an empty formality; it exists in part to prevent error by appellate courts. We’ve identified the more nuanced knowledge question here in order to flag it for future cases, but we might have missed something. In any event, the issue should be addressed by the BIA in the first instance. Had Khan made this argument to the Board, it could have ″appl[ied] its specialized knowledge and experience to the matter.″ Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). On the present record, labeling Khan a terrorist to prevent him from remaining in the United States with his American citizen wife is troubling, but we cannot ignore the exhaustion requirement, especially not for an argument raised for the first time on a petition for review from a motion to reconsider, where our deference to the BIA is at its peak.

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the petitions for review.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Case Closed!

 

[mfak1]

please note the above two cases are relatively newer cases and could help us all to understand what cases have been filed, and then either lost or won under the same circumstances like us......

So anyone case to do the same for us and then we need to reach-out to (Anwen Huges and Melanie Nezer) with some action plan.......

or even to talk to another lawyer or whomever that person maybe to get a better approach to tackle this situation under the light from these current events.

If this makes sense??

Thanks

 

[mfak1]

Anyone on-board with me? Or Am I the lone ranger?

We need to be creative and understand what exactly is going on and what are the (lame) reasons presented by USCIS to the US district courts once the Writ of mandamus is filed and more importantly how we need to tackle this situation. We need to know how these cases can be processed under the current circumstances?

There have been some clever lawyers who have argued to USCIS to make them differentiate between the Material Support and just circumstantial situation for people, by doing so, people who may have provided material support, their cases because of the technicality has been taken off from the hold list....

we need to work together on this... so please get this going?! if we can do a through research and then come up with the resolute / irrespective of the pending exercise of the Three Broad exemptions...........

So please lets wrap our heads around this, read through these cases, look at the reasoning and then the outcomes. We need to pass this onto Anwen Hughes and Melanie Nezer and perhaps we can do the research to find lawyers online who have somewhat dealt with these cases and make a bigger claim to resolve this.

So let get on board? Folks!!!???!!!!

Deep trigger, joseprh, sakit and rest??? what do you all say?

 

[JosephEsf]

Hello all, I just sent this letter to Ms. Hughes. I will inform you if I receive a reply.




Hello Ms. Hughes,

Thank you for your recent emails. It appears that despite two major exemptions, DHS is exhibiting very little interest or intention to implement them and resolve this issue to relief thousands of people from this agonizing long wait. It has come to our attention that an applicant whose case was on hold for many years died of cancer, forever taking his dream of reuniting with his loved ones with him.

A few years ago you called upon everyone to participate in a conference phone conversation to consider a possible class action/ writ of mandamus against DHS. Many of us believe that the two latest exemption, especially the last one, despite being vague, holds the key to our relief. I have personally reviewed the last exemption and believe armed with an experienced and knowledgeable attorney like you, everyone could potentially have his or her case resolved.

We do not know why you chose not to precede with the class action lawsuit against DHS. We are sure you had your reasons, but don't you think enough is enough and we should reconsider the idea?

It is so frustrating to witness that there are people who came to the United States many years after us got their asylum applications approved, became permanent residents and eventually U.S citizens, applied for their parents and they also ultimately became U.S citizens, and us still in limbo!

Please call or email me to share your thoughts. My phone number again is: ......................
I am looking forward to hear back from you. Thank you for reading.

Best regards,

..............................

 

[mfak1]

Thank you Joseph for sharing your email to Ms. Anwen!

Much Appreciated!

But please all of the concerned users, viewers to this site who are in the same situation, read through my messages and lets get this research going? even if we pursue and somehow convince Anwen for the Lawsuit, we got to have a solid foundation / ground to work on.... this basement will be there once we do our research thoroughly and correctly.

How can we tackle this mess? and how to get out of it?

At the moment, I can think of TWO possibilities to get out of this mess....

1) Law suit (we need to do research and then convince a knowledgeable, sincere, respectable and reasonable lawyer to take the case who has knowledge of TRIG related cases on Hold by USCIS)

2) Get the same lawyer and somehow convince the USCIS i485 adjudicators that the case pending is not a technical Material Support case (long shot but still is possible - again will require all of you to do the research and find lawyers like these across the US - its a federal case, so any immigration lawyer with sharp experience with TRIG cases can handle it from anywhere within US).

OF COURSE the other route is wait for the USCIS to just start exercising these three exemptions (LGE, Certain Material Support and limited Material Support) and let them eventually process the case,......

SO BASICALLY IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO WHAT I HAVE STATED ABOVE.....

Are you guys on-board? we all need to thoroughly and sincerely participate and help each other out!!!!

PLEASE LET US ALL KNOW - NOTHING IS HIDDEN here!!!!

 

[Sakit]

I have just got my travel document and next week I will be traveling to Europe. Hopefully on my return I will be readmitted in to the country.

 

[Deep Trigger]

Hello all, I just sent this letter to Ms. Hughes. I will inform you if I receive a reply.




Hello Ms. Hughes,

Thank you for your recent emails. It appears that despite two major exemptions, DHS is exhibiting very little interest or intention to implement them and resolve this issue to relief thousands of people from this agonizing long wait. It has come to our attention that an applicant whose case was on hold for many years died of cancer, forever taking his dream of reuniting with his loved ones with him.

A few years ago you called upon everyone to participate in a conference phone conversation to consider a possible class action/ writ of mandamus against DHS. Many of us believe that the two latest exemption, especially the last one, despite being vague, holds the key to our relief. I have personally reviewed the last exemption and believe armed with an experienced and knowledgeable attorney like you, everyone could potentially have his or her case resolved.

We do not know why you chose not to precede with the class action lawsuit against DHS. We are sure you had your reasons, but don't you think enough is enough and we should reconsider the idea?

It is so frustrating to witness that there are people who came to the United States many years after us got their asylum applications approved, became permanent residents and eventually U.S citizens, applied for their parents and they also ultimately became U.S citizens, and us still in limbo!

Please call or email me to share your thoughts. My phone number again is: ......................
I am looking forward to hear back from you. Thank you for reading.

Best regards,

..............................

We are all “shareholders” of the same problems; therefore believe it or not, a Class Action Lawsuit with Anwen Hughes is the only way out. 3 MAJOR EXEMPTIONS but nothing major as far implementation:
1. The General Limited Exemption,
2. The Insignificant Assistance Exemption
3. The Limited Assistance Exemption

 

[enchanted1]

My wife applied for 485 and was outside of normal processing time, so she requested a service request and the service request says that her I485 is on hold because the applicant appears to be inadmissible under the terrorist-related inadmissibility provision of INA. Their is no tier or anything. She is in USA and from Nepal. This is a mistake. Is there any process to fight there hold. I don't see too many cases with this hold nowadays here in this forum. Most of these hold seems to be back from the days. Do a lot of people still get these hold nowadays also?. Do most of the cases go in to long time hold or only some of them are in those long term hold? I am just worried and tying to find the way out of this.
Thanks

 

[Deep Trigger]

My wife applied for 485 and was outside of normal processing time, so she requested a service request and the service request says that her I485 is on hold because the applicant appears to be inadmissible under the terrorist-related inadmissibility provision of INA. Their is no tier or anything. She is in USA and from Nepal. This is a mistake. Is there any process to fight there hold. I don't see too many cases with this hold nowadays here in this forum. Most of these hold seems to be back from the days. Do a lot of people still get these hold nowadays also?. Do most of the cases go in to long time hold or only some of them are in those long term hold? I am just worried and tying to find the way out of this.
Thanks

Enchanted1.
The majority of us have been on hold for decades, this is real and has not been a thing of the past yet. We have been ourselves trying to get out of this, but haven't been able to. We are still tingled up on that MESS. Welcome to the TRIG Club!

 

[mfak1]

Hi everyone,

I am stating and concurring with whatever you have written about reaching out to Anwen Hughes (Deep Trigger and Joseph) and I am with you on this!

We all know about the three exemptions and yes I agree that we will need to have a Lawsuit or something similar with Anwen Hughes help to convince USCIS / DHS to start implementing these Exemptions.

But I am also suggesting the action plan, as to how should we approach this issue (at least at this stage). That is why, I have shared those two cases with all of your folks on this website.

Like I stated before, even if we pursue and somehow convince Anwen Hughes for the Lawsuit, we got to have a solid foundation / ground to work on.... this basement will be there once we do our research thoroughly and correctly. We will need to understand what are the LAME reasons DHS/ USCIS has been given to the courts for NOT to exercise the implementation. Simply because they are NOT willing to apply these exemptions.

So we as "Shareholders" in this situation will have to come-up with a smart tactic and strategy to counterattack the USCIS, as to why our cases are qualified to be exempted under these Three major exemptions. if we are able to do that, then we will have a chance for staking the claim to get our cases adjudicated and approved by the USCIS / DHS.

How can we tackle this mess? and how to get out of it?

At the moment, I can think of TWO possibilities to get out of this mess....

1) Lawsuit (we need to do research and then convince a knowledgeable, sincere, respectable and reasonable lawyer to take the case who has knowledge of TRIG related cases on Hold by USCIS---- Perhaps as strongly suggested by some Anwen Hughes)

2) Get the same lawyer (Anwen Hughes) and somehow convince the USCIS I485 adjudicators that the case pending is not a technical Material Support case (long shot but still is possible - again will require all of you to do the research and find lawyers like these across the US - its a federal case, so any immigration lawyer with sharp experience with TRIG cases can handle it from anywhere within US).

OF COURSE the other route is wait for the USCIS to just start exercising these three exemptions (LGE, Certain Material Support and limited Material Support) and let them eventually process the case,......

SO BASICALLY IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO WHAT I HAVE STATED ABOVE.....

Are you guys on-board? we all need to thoroughly and sincerely participate and help each other out!!!!

PLEASE LET US ALL KNOW - NOTHING IS HIDDEN here!!!!

WE WILL NEED TO DO A THOROUGH RESEARCH AND PREPARE OURSELVES FOR WINNING THESE CASES!!!

So once again, I am asking for all user to please start doing the research and then we can or Joseph can reach out to Anwen Hughes and have a stronger claim to convince her to push USCIS / DHS, either through Writ of Mandamus (lawsuit) and or in writing as a forceful letter that to start processing these cases. But need to do the research and understand what has been happening in the US District courts and how cases have been denied, based on what reasoning. Read those cases and understand what excuses have been provided (i understand that the reasons that are provided are unique to those cases, but nonetheless they give us a tool to understand our cases and to strategize the counter response, as to WHY our cases are qualified for exemption/s"""

So please lets start the research and get the flow of information get going. The other useful information that will definitely help us all is to find-out that USCIS/ DHS has if (AT ALL) exercised any of these THREE MAJOR exemptions for any case our there, most importantly that case went to the court for a lawsuit case and then was successfully adjudicated by getting any of these THREE major exemptions...... That is what we are looking for and that will be greatly helpful for us all!!!

Does this makes sense ( Joseph, Deep Trigger, Sakit, and the rest ho have lately been participating)...

 

[Deep Trigger]

Hi everyone,

I am stating and concurring with whatever you have written about reaching out to Anwen Hughes (Deep Trigger and Joseph) and I am with you on this!

We all know about the three exemptions and yes I agree that we will need to have a Lawsuit or something similar with Anwen Hughes help to convince USCIS / DHS to start implementing these Exemptions.

But I am also suggesting the action plan, as to how should we approach this issue (at least at this stage). That is why, I have shared those two cases with all of your folks on this website.

Like I stated before, even if we pursue and somehow convince Anwen Hughes for the Lawsuit, we got to have a solid foundation / ground to work on.... this basement will be there once we do our research thoroughly and correctly. We will need to understand what are the LAME reasons DHS/ USCIS has been given to the courts for NOT to exercise the implementation. Simply because they are NOT willing to apply these exemptions.

So we as "Shareholders" in this situation will have to come-up with a smart tactic and strategy to counterattack the USCIS, as to why our cases are qualified to be exempted under these Three major exemptions. if we are able to do that, then we will have a chance for staking the claim to get our cases adjudicated and approved by the USCIS / DHS.

How can we tackle this mess? and how to get out of it?

At the moment, I can think of TWO possibilities to get out of this mess....

1) Lawsuit (we need to do research and then convince a knowledgeable, sincere, respectable and reasonable lawyer to take the case who has knowledge of TRIG related cases on Hold by USCIS---- Perhaps as strongly suggested by some Anwen Hughes)

2) Get the same lawyer (Anwen Hughes) and somehow convince the USCIS I485 adjudicators that the case pending is not a technical Material Support case (long shot but still is possible - again will require all of you to do the research and find lawyers like these across the US - its a federal case, so any immigration lawyer with sharp experience with TRIG cases can handle it from anywhere within US).

OF COURSE the other route is wait for the USCIS to just start exercising these three exemptions (LGE, Certain Material Support and limited Material Support) and let them eventually process the case,......

SO BASICALLY IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO WHAT I HAVE STATED ABOVE.....

Are you guys on-board? we all need to thoroughly and sincerely participate and help each other out!!!!

PLEASE LET US ALL KNOW - NOTHING IS HIDDEN here!!!!

WE WILL NEED TO DO A THOROUGH RESEARCH AND PREPARE OURSELVES FOR WINNING THESE CASES!!!

So once again, I am asking for all user to please start doing the research and then we can or Joseph can reach out to Anwen Hughes and have a stronger claim to convince her to push USCIS / DHS, either through Writ of Mandamus (lawsuit) and or in writing as a forceful letter that to start processing these cases. But need to do the research and understand what has been happening in the US District courts and how cases have been denied, based on what reasoning. Read those cases and understand what excuses have been provided (i understand that the reasons that are provided are unique to those cases, but nonetheless they give us a tool to understand our cases and to strategize the counter response, as to WHY our cases are qualified for exemption/s"""

So please lets start the research and get the flow of information get going. The other useful information that will definitely help us all is to find-out that USCIS/ DHS has if (AT ALL) exercised any of these THREE MAJOR exemptions for any case our there, most importantly that case went to the court for a lawsuit case and then was successfully adjudicated by getting any of these THREE major exemptions...... That is what we are looking for and that will be greatly helpful for us all!!!

Does this makes sense ( Joseph, Deep Trigger, Sakit, and the rest ho have lately been participating)...

Mfak1,

I am not the most experienced member in this forum, or a Lawyer, or someone with a Law background.

But I have read all kinds of Mandamus, before I filed mine in 2008, and was then forced to dismiss my suit or else DHS will deny my case.

Every case is so different. Mandamus is not the solution, because we cannot file a collective mandamus. It has never been done.

American courts don't all agree the same on immigration suit, when is taking longer to adjudicate. It is not about the Lame excuse that USCIS is providing but rather the general District court’s opinion on their ruling on MANDAMUS. The main dilemma is the limited avenue and possibilities that Mandamus can provide.

Usually when someone wins a lawsuit, it's because the judge decides the facts and law in his favor, he gets money or what he was seeking. Writs of mandamus are totally different: In this case, if you win it means the judge is ordering USCIS to make a decision. That could lead to approval or denial. There is no guarantee of anything beneficial.

Courts have gone all over the map on this one issue after 911, the circle of agreeing and disagreeing. Sometimes, even within the same courthouse, two different judges will reach two different conclusions on two writs of mandamus cases.

The judge can't tell USCIS to approve your case, but the judge can tell USCIS to make a decision, either deny it or approve it; but no more pending mode; because USCIS have a duty to do so within a reasonable time of 18 months.

There are lots of disagreements on Mandamus…

Many courts agree that while they cannot tell USCIS to approve or deny your application, they should not tell them to hurry up either. However, some courts say that if they can't say anything about the decision, it makes no sense that they could say anything at ALL about the pace of the decision either.

These courts see the “pace” of the decision as part of the decision itself, and if it can't review the decision, it can't review the pace of the decision either.

Most judges agree that the grant of the relief in mandamus is appropriate with a long delayed application, but some judges do not.


Some judges would agree with any reasons given by USCIS to dismiss the application, some other judges agree with the legal argument that you would provide in your Motion.

I have been there, I have done it. Mandamus is not the solution but Class Action Suit is. We are a group of people who are affected collectively. We will seek court approval to litigate on behalf of our group and of any similarly-situated persons. We should file a Class Action Suit. All immigration Class Action Suits have been carefully settled, where several thousands of Mandamus have gone unsuccessful.

The key to success in our case is Class Action Suit, I have no doubt that will be the solution to this ordeal'ish everlasting nightmare.

 

[JosephEsf]

Very accurate. Nice job Deep Trigger.

 

[mfak1]

Thank you Deep trigger for your response and it is spot on.

When I wrote Mandamus, I meant lawsuit (as individual), to enforce USCIS to make a decision (either acceptance or denial).

A collective lawsuit would be a class action, in these types of cases. To my understanding, even if four or five of us, somehow agree to the class action, the process would be more or less similar as a mandamus, except the fact, we collectively are seeking the remedy, i,e. asking the judge to ask USCIS to adjudicate the case (for applicants), again either accept it or to deny it?!

At the end of the day, it is not that USCIS, is not following their procedures and protocols, but it is the fact that they Not implementing the exemptions. I don’t believe or haven’t heard of the fact that USCIS has any administrative time frame to exercise these Three Major Exemptions. So we go back to square one, which is back on the holding status, because USCIS doesn’t have a specific time frame or a deadline to adjudicate these cases. They may be forced by the court, in the class action to make a decision for the parties that have applied for class action, but nonetheless, USCIS will not be forced to approve the case, they may deny it again in the name of national security and terrorism.

I had filed for Writ of Mandamus around the same time as you did, in 2009. And I had to withdraw my case just like your case, if I would have continued to pursue, my case might have been denied as well. We do know that quite a few things have changed since 2008 and 2009. My lawyer (at the time and I have done the research back then before filing for Mandamus also, but things are a bit different now)..

I am not proposing to go for writ of mandamus again or a collective writ of mandamus either, what I referred to was the same thing is a collective lawsuit, which in legal terms, I refereed to, is to have a class action lawsuit against USCIS.

I agree that all US District courts differ on the outcome and interpretation of all these mandamus related to TRIG cases and the reasoning (Lame reasons as I referred to), given by USCIS to each and every case, for NOT to adjudicate them is also vastly different. However, if we still do the research for some of the latest mandamus cases from US District courts we can better understand that since LGE exemptions released to the public in 2012, what types of latest reasons are being given by the DHS and USCIS to the courts for NOT to process / Adjudicate (either deny or approve) these cases. So the research will not hurt and better prepare us all to counter the negative reasoning (if presented by DHS/ USCIS for keeping the case on indefinite hold – under the light of latest exemptions). Also this research will show us, the if USCIS has adjudicated any TRIG related TIERIII case or cases, under any of these THREE exemptions?! If the answer is YES, then that will be a great doorway for us and if the answer is NO then we will need to plan another strategy to tweak the class action’s reasoning.

I haven’t been able to find any attorney yet who is willing to do the class action against USCIS in relations to TRIG cases. It seems like, there is lots and lots of confusion out there and lack of experienced lawyers in the TRIG subject matter, who will be willing to do the class action. But nonetheless, it would NOT hurt to keep on searching for a lawyer who is knowledgeable, experienced, honest, sincere and above all who is really willing to take on this TRIG mess against USCIS / DHS in these courts?! Which brings me to the same person, whom we have all been talking about Anwen Hughes.

She has been great to us all in these tough times and is a very knowledgeable person for all these TRIG cases, however, she hasn’t been really showing (especially lately), to show any interest in taking on any class action? (only GOD knows whatever the reason may be). But it has been years, since we have been contacting her, but noting substantial has happened towards our cases. So what else to do? I don’t know. I have been doing research online about class action against USCIS in relations to TRIG cases, and I haven’t found any single class action yet. But I have found a few latest cases (Mandamus), which I have shared with you all for TRIG TIERIII related cases (somewhat similar to all of us) and the reasoning for their denials presented by USCIS to adjudicate them gives us a better understanding of what is going on in the courts these days in relations to TRIG cases.

I will continue to do the research to find any lawyer (knowledgeable and experienced enough of TRIG cases) and who will be willing to do the class action against DHS / USCIS. If we continue to wait for Anwen Hughes and if she is not responding to anyone of us (except only to Joseph) and perhaps she is not interested in pushing USCIS via class action, then what else would we do?

Again, I agree with your assessment, but we need to do the research (a latest – up to date research for similar cases since these exemptions came out and see what reasons were provided by USCIS for NOT to adjudicate these cases, then we will need to prepare ourselves for tackling these reasons even if we end up moving forward with Anwen Hughes or any other lawyer for a class action!

In your writ of Mandamus (2008), did the opposing (DHS - DOJ) lawyer stated a possible remedy…. Something along the lines that “”according to appropriations act of 2008, instead of denying the cases who are tagged as Material Support to TierIII organization, USCIS is placing these cases on hold and USCIS suggests that in the future if there are further exemptions approved and released, Mr. XYZ will benefit from those exemptions and we estimate that in that scenario, Mr. XYZ, case should be adjudicated in 120 days?.........””””” was there something like that presented / stated in your case? If so, then again a knowledgeable lawyer of TRIG cases, after doing the proper research will tackle and handle the case (this time around, in the light of THREE Major exemptions), differently. And for that I am proposing to do the research, a thorough research and the come-up with a solution / counter attack to the USCIS/ DHS.

 

[Deep Trigger]

Thank you Deep trigger for your response and it is spot on.

When I wrote Mandamus, I meant lawsuit (as individual), to enforce USCIS to make a decision (either acceptance or denial).

A collective lawsuit would be a class action, in these types of cases. To my understanding, even if four or five of us, somehow agree to the class action, the process would be more or less similar as a mandamus, except the fact, we collectively are seeking the remedy, i,e. asking the judge to ask USCIS to adjudicate the case (for applicants), again either accept it or to deny it?!

At the end of the day, it is not that USCIS, is not following their procedures and protocols, but it is the fact that they Not implementing the exemptions. I don’t believe or haven’t heard of the fact that USCIS has any administrative time frame to exercise these Three Major Exemptions. So we go back to square one, which is back on the holding status, because USCIS doesn’t have a specific time frame or a deadline to adjudicate these cases. They may be forced by the court, in the class action to make a decision for the parties that have applied for class action, but nonetheless, USCIS will not be forced to approve the case, they may deny it again in the name of national security and terrorism.

I had filed for Writ of Mandamus around the same time as you did, in 2009. And I had to withdraw my case just like your case, if I would have continued to pursue, my case might have been denied as well. We do know that quite a few things have changed since 2008 and 2009. My lawyer (at the time and I have done the research back then before filing for Mandamus also, but things are a bit different now)..

I am not proposing to go for writ of mandamus again or a collective writ of mandamus either, what I referred to was the same thing is a collective lawsuit, which in legal terms, I refereed to, is to have a class action lawsuit against USCIS.

I agree that all US District courts differ on the outcome and interpretation of all these mandamus related to TRIG cases and the reasoning (Lame reasons as I referred to), given by USCIS to each and every case, for NOT to adjudicate them is also vastly different. However, if we still do the research for some of the latest mandamus cases from US District courts we can better understand that since LGE exemptions released to the public in 2012, what types of latest reasons are being given by the DHS and USCIS to the courts for NOT to process / Adjudicate (either deny or approve) these cases. So the research will not hurt and better prepare us all to counter the negative reasoning (if presented by DHS/ USCIS for keeping the case on indefinite hold – under the light of latest exemptions). Also this research will show us, the if USCIS has adjudicated any TRIG related TIERIII case or cases, under any of these THREE exemptions?! If the answer is YES, then that will be a great doorway for us and if the answer is NO then we will need to plan another strategy to tweak the class action’s reasoning.

I haven’t been able to find any attorney yet who is willing to do the class action against USCIS in relations to TRIG cases. It seems like, there is lots and lots of confusion out there and lack of experienced lawyers in the TRIG subject matter, who will be willing to do the class action. But nonetheless, it would NOT hurt to keep on searching for a lawyer who is knowledgeable, experienced, honest, sincere and above all who is really willing to take on this TRIG mess against USCIS / DHS in these courts?! Which brings me to the same person, whom we have all been talking about Anwen Hughes.

She has been great to us all in these tough times and is a very knowledgeable person for all these TRIG cases, however, she hasn’t been really showing (especially lately), to show any interest in taking on any class action? (only GOD knows whatever the reason may be). But it has been years, since we have been contacting her, but noting substantial has happened towards our cases. So what else to do? I don’t know. I have been doing research online about class action against USCIS in relations to TRIG cases, and I haven’t found any single class action yet. But I have found a few latest cases (Mandamus), which I have shared with you all for TRIG TIERIII related cases (somewhat similar to all of us) and the reasoning for their denials presented by USCIS to adjudicate them gives us a better understanding of what is going on in the courts these days in relations to TRIG cases.

I will continue to do the research to find any lawyer (knowledgeable and experienced enough of TRIG cases) and who will be willing to do the class action against DHS / USCIS. If we continue to wait for Anwen Hughes and if she is not responding to anyone of us (except only to Joseph) and perhaps she is not interested in pushing USCIS via class action, then what else would we do?

Again, I agree with your assessment, but we need to do the research (a latest – up to date research for similar cases since these exemptions came out and see what reasons were provided by USCIS for NOT to adjudicate these cases, then we will need to prepare ourselves for tackling these reasons even if we end up moving forward with Anwen Hughes or any other lawyer for a class action!

In your writ of Mandamus (2008), did the opposing (DHS - DOJ) lawyer stated a possible remedy…. Something along the lines that “”according to appropriations act of 2008, instead of denying the cases who are tagged as Material Support to TierIII organization, USCIS is placing these cases on hold and USCIS suggests that in the future if there are further exemptions approved and released, Mr. XYZ will benefit from those exemptions and we estimate that in that scenario, Mr. XYZ, case should be adjudicated in 120 days?.........””””” was there something like that presented / stated in your case? If so, then again a knowledgeable lawyer of TRIG cases, after doing the proper research will tackle and handle the case (this time around, in the light of THREE Major exemptions), differently. And for that I am proposing to do the research, a thorough research and the come-up with a solution / counter attack to the USCIS/ DHS.

Thanks mfak1
Thanks for your contribution, for your extra perspective, your time in commenting, clarifying and the valuable input you made - This is a great post-
We are together on this; and we are totally agreeing with you; and I am sorry if my tone in-intendedly came across a little strong. I just wanted to point out the fact that the appropriate measures to correct the problem is through Class Action Suit.
Many thanks.

 

[mfak1]

Hi All,

Just spoke with a TRIG knowledge base attorney. Attorney mentioned that Class Action would require at least around 15 to 20 people. To attorney's knowledge, no class action was done before in regards to TRIG cases, and the attorney is not too convincing on pursuing class action ( at least at this stage for TRIG cases against USCIS)....

So if someone agrees to do the class action, do we have 15 to 20 people? one main petitioner and others supporting the same argument?

and again the fact of the matter is that USCIS, even after having the class action against them, will very well may deny these cases because thay will say that our particular groups / political parties have not been granted exemptions yet as a group and that per their policies we don't qualify for any of these three exemptions out there.

Attorney did suggest an alternate (a little safer and a bit cheaper route), to write a "legal well researched brief" to the USCIS service center, where the application is pending, on the basis of these two latest exemptions 1) certain material support and 2) Insignificant material support... and in the legal brief explain that how each and every case of ours is qualified for exemption because either the material support was insignificant and or it was under the certain category exemption.

By doing so, one of two things will happen:

1) USCIS will be somewhat legally forced to look into the case, point by point and agree to process the case based on these exemptions, just because it is legally explained to them (point by point / incident by incident) that material support provided is covered under either of these exemptions, so please adjudicate the case (hopefully in a favorable way).

OR

2) USCIS service center will still determine that the case doesn't qualify under these exemptions and may provide a legal / specific reason why it still doesn't qualify for the exemption and that the case will be placed back on hold ( rather than denying it).

This is a possible solution proposed by the lawyer. Again the key is that the lawyer skillfully / tactfully and legally explain (point by point), why our case qualifies under these two exemptions. Which will be better than doing nothing.

On the other hand, I contacted another lawyer, and I was being told that I will have to wait for a group based exemption for the political party I was involved with, irrespective of these two latest exemptions.... which is contradictory, because these exemptions should be applied to us all, if the group based exemptions are not out there, because USCIS / DHS, to begin with had labelled all of our previously associated parties / groups as TIER III groups to begin with.

So this is all I have got........ of course NO news from Anwen Hughes, yet.

I don't know what do you all think about this?


Also DeepTrigger:

In your writ of Mandamus (2008), did the opposing (DHS - DOJ) lawyer stated a possible remedy…. Something along the lines that “”according to appropriations act of 2008, instead of denying the cases who are tagged as Material Support to TierIII organization, USCIS is placing these cases on hold and USCIS suggests that in the future if there are further exemptions approved and released, Mr. XYZ will benefit from those exemptions and we estimate that in that scenario, Mr. XYZ, case should be adjudicated in 120 days or so???.........””””” was there something like that presented / stated in your case?

If so, then again a knowledgeable lawyer of TRIG cases, after doing the proper research will tackle and handle the case (this time around, in the light of THREE Major exemptions), differently. and that would potentially the bargaining chip. (if class action suit, for whatever reason is not feasible).

 

[JosephEsf]

mfak1, thank you for sharing this valuable information. I have been personally thinking to write a letter to Nebraska Service Center and explain how and why my case is qualified and should be adjudicated under the current exemption. I don not advise anyone to do the same before first consulting an attorney. The material and information you send could be harmful to your case if not correctly written. I am starting to put the draft together. I will keep you all posted as progress is being made.

 

[mfak1]

Thanks for your response Joseph.

Yes only get a "Legal written brief" from a "Legal Counsel" and then let the Counsel/ Attorney sent that to the point of contact at the Nebraska Service center / Liaison. However, we should wait until atleast 120 days before the time lates exemption has been made public. So probably by the end of September/ early November. That's a usual time frame give from USCIS before most of their documents are made practical / exercised upon.

On a lighter note, I have also found some of the latest cases ( Writ of Mandamus), which were filed in different US district Courts on Tier III hold, have had a positive outcome. Meaning, the petitioner requested USCIS to adjudicate the case which had been placed on hold (unreasonably) for over 6 years and in two instances Judges have agreed with the petitioner that the delay has been unreasonable from USCIS / DHS and t adjudicate the case in 30 days (one case) and or 120 days (second case). Of course, Immigration Judge can't ask nor force USCIS / DHS to approve the case, but they have asked / forced USCIS / DHS to adjudicate the case. The most interesting art was that on both instances, those TierIII organizations have had no group based exemption out there yet.

So I am not aware of the final decision from USCS, whether USCIS granted their Greencards or denied the application....but its good to know that some courts are not buying the lame excuses that have been given by DHS and USCIS attorneys in the name of national security and terrorism and keep on delaying the adjudication of cases who have been stuck on TierIII hold.