I see no harm
I see no harm in inquiring. Outcome, do not expect miracles.
pb74 said:
I see no harm in inquiring. Outcome, do not expect miracles.
*** In Our Litigation, Court Finds Govts' Language Inappropriate ***
- Thread starter Rajiv S. Khanna
- Start date
No need
If the court allows, us, I am trying to cover all of that in the current lawsuit. If we get thrown out, then we will talk about that angle. For this lawsuit, we have spent from our firm's budget. We did not need to charge anyone. So far, it is not hurting. So I expect, we might be able to file the second lawsuit (if needed) without having to seek fees from individuals.
whorl1quote said:
If the court allows, us, I am trying to cover all of that in the current lawsuit. If we get thrown out, then we will talk about that angle. For this lawsuit, we have spent from our firm's budget. We did not need to charge anyone. So far, it is not hurting. So I expect, we might be able to file the second lawsuit (if needed) without having to seek fees from individuals.
Just a thought
I am just wondering if any one can talk to AILA members about their 3 November visit to Nebraska center and ask them to find out why they have not started early 2003 case processing. I don’t know anyone in AILA world but I am sure some one from us knows someone up there. Is this something we folks on this forum should talk about or through suggestions, whom should we write in AILA?
Should we send an email to the Nebraska center director to find out what’s going on...It is so frustrating to sit and see other folks approvals who are ahead of us in queue.
Thanks
God Bless You all & Especially Rajiv for his efforts.
I am just wondering if any one can talk to AILA members about their 3 November visit to Nebraska center and ask them to find out why they have not started early 2003 case processing. I don’t know anyone in AILA world but I am sure some one from us knows someone up there. Is this something we folks on this forum should talk about or through suggestions, whom should we write in AILA?
Should we send an email to the Nebraska center director to find out what’s going on...It is so frustrating to sit and see other folks approvals who are ahead of us in queue.
Thanks
God Bless You all & Especially Rajiv for his efforts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank You Rajiv for your hard work and selfless service. All the approvals now are because of the pressure you have been able to put on USCIS through this lawsuit.
I sincerely hope that the judge will be able to make out that the USCIS I-485 procesing date of 1 June 2003 is a farce and will grant CLASS ACTION to this lawsuit. Thank-You again for your time and effort. You are Great.
---------------
EB2 -I485 ND April 2003
No RFE Till date
FBI name check cleared in May 2003
AD -- ??
I sincerely hope that the judge will be able to make out that the USCIS I-485 procesing date of 1 June 2003 is a farce and will grant CLASS ACTION to this lawsuit. Thank-You again for your time and effort. You are Great.
---------------
EB2 -I485 ND April 2003
No RFE Till date
FBI name check cleared in May 2003
AD -- ??
ThelastMile
Registered Users (C)
operations said:
Folks,
How are the funds collected via Imigrationportal.org being used? I have contributed at the begining of the drive and am yet to see a plan finalized as to how the funds are going to be put to use (other than overall proposals listed on the website). I propose that we share the expense with Rajiv's team to the extent we can.
No point in saving the funds for a "rainy day" . As far as I am concerned it is raining now.
markandeyulu
Registered Users (C)
Good Luck! people willwork at thier own pace and they might change the book of law accordingly. My sincere advise ....please dont go tooo ahead of yourselves. Just apply for your greencard and relax. This case cannot be any accelerator or a catalyst for your greencard process.
Oh no
The case by itself means nothing. But look at what it stands for. For the first time you can actually question the highest echelons of this govt. about what they are doing wrong and why. For the first time, CIS knows that individuals have a collective voice and cannot be ignored. The two Ohata memoranda are a prime example. Within a week of the deposition we took, Ms. Ohata changed the govt. policy. Small change, but a large difference.
Philisophically, our personal interests must be balanced with our contributions to the society in general. This is my belief and I live by it. You must examine your own, and live by them. You may find that your interests and interests of the larger group are ultimately the same. One day your children, your family, your friends could be in the same situation if we were to not strive to correct it. And, results notwithstanding, real power lies in right action, IMHO. So we try.
markandeyulu said:
The case by itself means nothing. But look at what it stands for. For the first time you can actually question the highest echelons of this govt. about what they are doing wrong and why. For the first time, CIS knows that individuals have a collective voice and cannot be ignored. The two Ohata memoranda are a prime example. Within a week of the deposition we took, Ms. Ohata changed the govt. policy. Small change, but a large difference.
Philisophically, our personal interests must be balanced with our contributions to the society in general. This is my belief and I live by it. You must examine your own, and live by them. You may find that your interests and interests of the larger group are ultimately the same. One day your children, your family, your friends could be in the same situation if we were to not strive to correct it. And, results notwithstanding, real power lies in right action, IMHO. So we try.
Hello markandeyulu
You are adding salt to the wounds of those 485 filers.
Do not present your negative advice in a forum of people that is valiantly trying to address the group's sufferings.
Instead you can start your own website and present your ideas there, who cares?.
I wonder how come you started advising when you yourself were subjected to humiliation in jail by INS in early 2003 if I am right.
As for me, I am still an LC applicant but I am so enthusiastic about this case because what is happening at 485 level is a sure bottleneck for everyone including myself.
markandeyulu,markandeyulu said:
You are adding salt to the wounds of those 485 filers.
Do not present your negative advice in a forum of people that is valiantly trying to address the group's sufferings.
Instead you can start your own website and present your ideas there, who cares?.
I wonder how come you started advising when you yourself were subjected to humiliation in jail by INS in early 2003 if I am right.
As for me, I am still an LC applicant but I am so enthusiastic about this case because what is happening at 485 level is a sure bottleneck for everyone including myself.
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree
Your sentiments are understandable, but we must respect all input (as far as humanly possible). That is my opinion.
lcaNY said:
Your sentiments are understandable, but we must respect all input (as far as humanly possible). That is my opinion.
dasarihp_newid
Registered Users (C)
How will EB3 PD date retrogress effects this lawsuit.. If the PD is changed to 2002-2003 for EB3 category for India and china, will they still get approvals if we win the lawsuit..
Rajiv Sir
Right now 485 is current for EB1/2/3
Do you have any idea when PD for 485 will get backlogged? Will it happen for all EB 1/2/3?
Markendeyulu,
I saw some of your previous posts. You really have some serious negative energy. Either you are a recruiter in some desi consulting co or you don't want others getting the GC that You have already got. Anyway, I humbly request you to leave the forum
Thanks
Right now 485 is current for EB1/2/3
Do you have any idea when PD for 485 will get backlogged? Will it happen for all EB 1/2/3?
Markendeyulu,
I saw some of your previous posts. You really have some serious negative energy. Either you are a recruiter in some desi consulting co or you don't want others getting the GC that You have already got. Anyway, I humbly request you to leave the forum
Thanks
PhillyJulyLC
Registered Users (C)
Very well said! When we started out to pursue our "American Dream", it didn't just mean a suburban house, two cars and a dog... we were looking up to this land for its promised freedom, equality and justice - including the correction of injustice. This lawsuit might not change your individual fate (Think about what it would bring about to Mr. Khana, yet he's been fighting his hear out!), but it's the persistent pursuit of the highest ideals that matters. It is the fact or the prospect that we can fight for our rights through legal venues, that we can hold accountable those who are supposed to but have not delivered what they promise to - even it's a government agency, that inspires us and gives us hope and convinces us not to regret our decisions of coming to this country in the first place.operations said:
Exactly
Yup.
We have CHOSEN to make this country our HOME. We must stand up and be counted. We do not have to be in anyone's face, but we have to feel good and empowered in our own home.
PhillyJulyLC said:
Yup.
We have CHOSEN to make this country our HOME. We must stand up and be counted. We do not have to be in anyone's face, but we have to feel good and empowered in our own home.
Here we go
There is a reference to the memos in our opposition, quote:
Defendants have settled into a practice of administering laws through ill-conceived and illegal ad hoc memoranda, issued in lieu of regulations, without inviting input from the stakeholders. During the pendency of the case at bar, Defendants, without any consultation with any of the stakeholders, issued a memorandum that, inter alia, violates AC21. During the deposition of Ms. Fujie Ohata, Plaintiffs specifically asked if any input was invited from the stakeholders before issuance of the Ohata Memorandum. Ms. Ohata admitted that no input from any of the stakeholders was invited:
Page 48:
Q. Very good. When a regulation, federal regulation is drafted, it is first issued—or it is first published in the Federal Register for public and stakeholders to comment upon. That way, we, the stakeholders, get our input into your process. But an Ohata memorandum, or a memorandum like this are never offered for public comment; is that correct?
A. Not generally.
Q. Ohata memorandum was not offered for public comment specifically?
A. Not that I know of.
(Ohata Dep. Page 48.)
Page 63:
Q. For the Yates memorandum, did you invite any input from the stakeholders?
A. Not that I know of. This is policy memorandum and we don’t generally ask for input from any stakeholders.
(Ohata Dep. Page 63.)
Attached hereto is Exhibit I, a more detailed extract from the deposition of Ms. Fujie Ohata, Director of Service Center Operations, USCIS.
As submitted earlier, Ohata Memorandum dated March 31, 2004 (Exhibit 1 from deposition conducted on August 26, 2004) was brought into effect without offering the same to the general public for notice and comments. This memorandum modified the earlier adjudicative process for concurrently filed I-140 and I-485s. The memorandum stated that for purposes of measuring and reporting local processing time for these forms, the local I-140 processing time will control and a concurrently filed I-485 will no longer be tracked based upon the local I-485 processing time. Attached please Exhibit J, copy of the Ohata Memorandum dated March 31, 2004. Plaintiffs contend that such tracking and reporting devices are a part of Defendants’ creative accounting to promote an appearance of backlog reduction.
During depositions, Plaintiffs questioned Ms. Ohata about the discretion that had been left in the hands of the Service Center Directors to discontinue prima facie processing of any case that they chose. Please refer to Exhibit K, copy of the extract of Ms. Ohata’s deposition conducted on August 26, 2004, part of which is reproduced below:
Q. In this context, in the context of this question, the Service Center Director has an absolute discretion to discontinue concurrent processing if they so choose; is that correct?
A. It says may discontinue to do prima facie review. Prima facie review. Not discontinue concurrent filing.
(Ohata Dep. Page 52.)
It appears that as a direct result of the questions asked by Plaintiffs, Defendants issued a follow-up memorandum directed only to the issue raised in the deposition. Attached hereto is Exhibit L, copy of the memorandum dated September 16, 2004, issued by the Defendants. While Defendants’ correction of their errors is to be applauded, this type of ad hoc rule-making by Defendants has created and continues to create an atmosphere of uncertainty for the putative class members, whose entire lives depend upon the ill-considered and illegal practices of Defendants. The egregious injustice of this environment is further compounded by the fact that putative class members have no effective way to seek vindication of their legal rights through the Defendants.
The exhibits are attached here below
peeved said:
There is a reference to the memos in our opposition, quote:
Defendants have settled into a practice of administering laws through ill-conceived and illegal ad hoc memoranda, issued in lieu of regulations, without inviting input from the stakeholders. During the pendency of the case at bar, Defendants, without any consultation with any of the stakeholders, issued a memorandum that, inter alia, violates AC21. During the deposition of Ms. Fujie Ohata, Plaintiffs specifically asked if any input was invited from the stakeholders before issuance of the Ohata Memorandum. Ms. Ohata admitted that no input from any of the stakeholders was invited:
Page 48:
Q. Very good. When a regulation, federal regulation is drafted, it is first issued—or it is first published in the Federal Register for public and stakeholders to comment upon. That way, we, the stakeholders, get our input into your process. But an Ohata memorandum, or a memorandum like this are never offered for public comment; is that correct?
A. Not generally.
Q. Ohata memorandum was not offered for public comment specifically?
A. Not that I know of.
(Ohata Dep. Page 48.)
Page 63:
Q. For the Yates memorandum, did you invite any input from the stakeholders?
A. Not that I know of. This is policy memorandum and we don’t generally ask for input from any stakeholders.
(Ohata Dep. Page 63.)
Attached hereto is Exhibit I, a more detailed extract from the deposition of Ms. Fujie Ohata, Director of Service Center Operations, USCIS.
As submitted earlier, Ohata Memorandum dated March 31, 2004 (Exhibit 1 from deposition conducted on August 26, 2004) was brought into effect without offering the same to the general public for notice and comments. This memorandum modified the earlier adjudicative process for concurrently filed I-140 and I-485s. The memorandum stated that for purposes of measuring and reporting local processing time for these forms, the local I-140 processing time will control and a concurrently filed I-485 will no longer be tracked based upon the local I-485 processing time. Attached please Exhibit J, copy of the Ohata Memorandum dated March 31, 2004. Plaintiffs contend that such tracking and reporting devices are a part of Defendants’ creative accounting to promote an appearance of backlog reduction.
During depositions, Plaintiffs questioned Ms. Ohata about the discretion that had been left in the hands of the Service Center Directors to discontinue prima facie processing of any case that they chose. Please refer to Exhibit K, copy of the extract of Ms. Ohata’s deposition conducted on August 26, 2004, part of which is reproduced below:
Q. In this context, in the context of this question, the Service Center Director has an absolute discretion to discontinue concurrent processing if they so choose; is that correct?
A. It says may discontinue to do prima facie review. Prima facie review. Not discontinue concurrent filing.
(Ohata Dep. Page 52.)
It appears that as a direct result of the questions asked by Plaintiffs, Defendants issued a follow-up memorandum directed only to the issue raised in the deposition. Attached hereto is Exhibit L, copy of the memorandum dated September 16, 2004, issued by the Defendants. While Defendants’ correction of their errors is to be applauded, this type of ad hoc rule-making by Defendants has created and continues to create an atmosphere of uncertainty for the putative class members, whose entire lives depend upon the ill-considered and illegal practices of Defendants. The egregious injustice of this environment is further compounded by the fact that putative class members have no effective way to seek vindication of their legal rights through the Defendants.
The exhibits are attached here below
Last edited by a moderator:
Any day now.ZKHAN said: