*** In Our Litigation, Court Finds Govts' Language Inappropriate ***
- Thread starter Rajiv S. Khanna
- Start date
Good point
Rajiv, can we not ask the USCIS to explain how they can possibly change the date 6 months in mere 15 days? What does that change imply exactly?
Recently CSC had two such jumps in consecutive 15 day periods and finally landed in Nov 2003. VSC had the jump yesterday and now shows Jun 2003.
They couldn't have possibly taken care of the cases in between in just 15 days. Is USCIS bracing for the wave of inquiries that will follow from the thousands of people whose cases hasn't been approved yet ... and will that not affect the whole backlog thing adversely?
Rajiv, can we not ask the USCIS to explain how they can possibly change the date 6 months in mere 15 days? What does that change imply exactly?
Recently CSC had two such jumps in consecutive 15 day periods and finally landed in Nov 2003. VSC had the jump yesterday and now shows Jun 2003.
They couldn't have possibly taken care of the cases in between in just 15 days. Is USCIS bracing for the wave of inquiries that will follow from the thousands of people whose cases hasn't been approved yet ... and will that not affect the whole backlog thing adversely?
waitingnwaiting
Registered Users (C)
James Robertson
Liberal,
thanks for the link .
I found two interesting things - one negative , one positive
------------------------
The negative -
"the judge said, the law does not give him the power to act quickly against alleged violations of campaign law or demand that the FEC move more speedily"
The honorable judge has in the past refused to speed up the govt.
workings.
-----------------------
The positive -
"Robertson, appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton"
Being a democrat appointee, the honorable judge might be
sympathetic to immigrants and their sufferings.
------------------------
Liberal,
thanks for the link .
I found two interesting things - one negative , one positive
------------------------
The negative -
"the judge said, the law does not give him the power to act quickly against alleged violations of campaign law or demand that the FEC move more speedily"
The honorable judge has in the past refused to speed up the govt.
workings.
-----------------------
The positive -
"Robertson, appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton"
Being a democrat appointee, the honorable judge might be
sympathetic to immigrants and their sufferings.
------------------------
Creative accounting
In my opinion -- creative accounting -- nothing more. If the court lets us, I intend to find it all out for us. Dont worry.
Shaf said:
In my opinion -- creative accounting -- nothing more. If the court lets us, I intend to find it all out for us. Dont worry.
Thanks, but...
Thanks, but this is a community effort. I cannot do all this without all of you. I cannot even begin to tell you how many people have contributed their time, mind and spirit to our effort. I feel "we done good."
karan29 said:
Thanks, but this is a community effort. I cannot do all this without all of you. I cannot even begin to tell you how many people have contributed their time, mind and spirit to our effort. I feel "we done good."
yellowcard
Registered Users (C)
liberal said:
I don't think the judge need to tell the government *how* to run its business. I think he only need to tell the government to *do* what they should do.
Assume a poor man without insurance caused an accident. The victim sued the poor man for a million dollars. The judge don't need to worry *how* can the poor man pay it. He only need to decide *whether* the money should be paid.
Thus, I believe the judge need only to order the government to process the cases within 6 months. He doesn't need to tell the government how to achieve it.
485someday
Registered Users (C)
Court Certifies Class Action for Immigrants Denied 'Green Cards'
Copyright 2004 PR Newswire Association, Inc.
PR Newswire
October 14, 2004, Thursday 5:03 AM Eastern Time
SECTION: FINANCIAL NEWS
DISTRIBUTION: TO FAMILY, LEGAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL EDITORS
LENGTH: 1229 words
HEADLINE: Court Certifies Class Action for Immigrants Denied 'Green Cards'
BODY:
Delays Keep Lawful Permanent Residents From Work, School, Family
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- In a lawsuit seeking to protect the rights of thousands of immigrants nationwide, Cooley Godward LLP and the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law of Texas (Texas Lawyers' Committee) won a significant victory against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Federal Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granted nationwide class certification to the suit, recognizing that all of the plaintiffs had been granted the status of lawful permanent resident by Immigration Judges or by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Class certification allows the case to proceed on a nationwide basis, on behalf of thousands of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) denied proof of their lawful status, or "green cards."
John C. Dwyer, a partner at Cooley Godward, which is handling the suit on a pro bono basis, applauded the ruling. "The court's ruling today is an important first step toward forcing DHS to honor the rights granted to lawful permanent residents," said Mr. Dwyer. "As a class action, any court order that restores the rights of the named plaintiffs will restore the rights of lawful permanent residents nationwide."
The lawsuit, Santillan et al. v. Ashcroft et al., was filed in the United States District Court in San Francisco in July 2004. The class action suit charges that DHS offices nationwide are consistently rejecting and delaying lawful permanent residents' requests for documentation of their LPR status. Green card delays, which have lasted for months and greater than a year in some cases, have created serious hardships for immigrants and their families. Plaintiffs in the case have lost jobs, have not been able to secure jobs, have not been able to enroll in school, and have been prohibited from visiting sick and dying relatives abroad.
"The goal of this lawsuit is for lawful permanent residents to be allowed to support their families, get an education, and enjoy the freedoms that our Constitution guarantees," said Javier N. Maldonado, Executive Director of the Texas Lawyers' Committee. "These immigrants have complied with all the requirements for obtaining legal residency, including background checks and the review of a federal immigration judge."
In the next stages of the lawsuit, the federal court must decide whether DHS ' policies and practices are unlawful and if so, order the agency to issue temporary documentation to the plaintiffs and class members. The lawsuit seeks relief for all persons who were or will be granted LPR status in U.S. immigration courts.
The public interest partnership of Cooley Godward's Pro Bono practice and the non-profit Texas Lawyers' Committee has been facilitated by the Litigation Assistance Partnership Project (LAPP) of the American Bar Association (ABA).
Profiles of several of the plaintiffs in the case follow. You can receive a full copy of the class certification order by going to www.cooley.com/LPR or www.txlawyerscommittee.org.
* Flora R. of Merced, CA, a native of Mexico, has lived in the U.S. for almost 20 years. In May 2003, she was granted LPR status on the basis that she and her mother were victims of abuse by her father. To date, over 16 months later, Flora R. still has not received proof of that status. Flora R. lost her job with a major retail chain, where she was about to be promoted, because she could not prove she was authorized to work.
* Anita L. of Bronx, NY is a native of Nigeria who has resided continuously in the U.S. since 1988. Anita L. was granted LPR status in July 2003 because her removal would have caused hardship to her two U.S. citizen children. Without her green card, she was denied a social security card, could not get her driver's license, and could visit relatives she had not seen in sixteen years. After the filing of this lawsuit and more than sixteen (16) months since she was granted LPR status, Anita L. received evidence of her legal status.
* Marcos S. of Covina, CA, a native of Honduras, was granted LPR status in December 2003 on the basis that he was an orphan in need of long-term foster care. Because he did not receive proof of status, Marcos S. could not enroll in a community college to obtain his high school diploma, nor could he work to support himself. In Sep. 2004, Marcos S. received his green card and can now pursue his educational goals.
* Ziber I. of Wisconsin Rapids, WI is a native of Macedonia. Ziber I. was granted LPR status on the basis of his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Ziber I. was not allowed to travel to Macedonia to see his ten-year-old daughter and his mother, who is elderly and very ill. After over a year and since the filing of this lawsuit, Ziber I. received proof of legal resident status allowing him to visit his family and re-enter the United States lawfully.
* Zoila L. of Miami, FL, a native of Guatemala, was granted LPR status in October 2003 under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Because she did not receive any documentation of her LPR status, Zoila L. could not renew her driver's license, which she needed to drive to work, take her children to school and attend English classes. After the filing of this lawsuit, and nine (9) months after being granted her LPR status, Zoila received her proof of status and is now in a better position able to take care of her family.
* Angela D. of Elgin, IL was born in Mexico. She was granted LPR status in September 2003 based on her marriage to a U.S. Citizen. Angela D. twice went to DHS offices to request a temporary stamp on her passport evidencing registration as a LPR, but she was turned away. Angela D. could not travel to Mexico to see her grandfather and her aunt who are both very ill. After the filing of this lawsuit, in August 2004 Angela D. was granted evidence of LPR status, allowing her to visit her family and re-enter the United States lawfully.
The Litigation Assistance Partnership Project (LAPP) is a program of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Litigation that links the pro bono resources of private firms with legal service and public interest programs across the country. Please visit www.abanet.org/litigation/lapp/home.html.
SOURCE Cooley Godward LLP
CONTACT: Martin R. Acevedo of Texas Lawyers' Committee, +1-210-277-1603,
ext. 306; or Christine Wherry of Cooley Godward LLP, +1-650-843-5702
URL: http://www.prnewswire.com
LOAD-DATE: October 14, 2004
Copyright 2004 PR Newswire Association, Inc.
PR Newswire
October 14, 2004, Thursday 5:03 AM Eastern Time
SECTION: FINANCIAL NEWS
DISTRIBUTION: TO FAMILY, LEGAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL EDITORS
LENGTH: 1229 words
HEADLINE: Court Certifies Class Action for Immigrants Denied 'Green Cards'
BODY:
Delays Keep Lawful Permanent Residents From Work, School, Family
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- In a lawsuit seeking to protect the rights of thousands of immigrants nationwide, Cooley Godward LLP and the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law of Texas (Texas Lawyers' Committee) won a significant victory against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Federal Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granted nationwide class certification to the suit, recognizing that all of the plaintiffs had been granted the status of lawful permanent resident by Immigration Judges or by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Class certification allows the case to proceed on a nationwide basis, on behalf of thousands of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) denied proof of their lawful status, or "green cards."
John C. Dwyer, a partner at Cooley Godward, which is handling the suit on a pro bono basis, applauded the ruling. "The court's ruling today is an important first step toward forcing DHS to honor the rights granted to lawful permanent residents," said Mr. Dwyer. "As a class action, any court order that restores the rights of the named plaintiffs will restore the rights of lawful permanent residents nationwide."
The lawsuit, Santillan et al. v. Ashcroft et al., was filed in the United States District Court in San Francisco in July 2004. The class action suit charges that DHS offices nationwide are consistently rejecting and delaying lawful permanent residents' requests for documentation of their LPR status. Green card delays, which have lasted for months and greater than a year in some cases, have created serious hardships for immigrants and their families. Plaintiffs in the case have lost jobs, have not been able to secure jobs, have not been able to enroll in school, and have been prohibited from visiting sick and dying relatives abroad.
"The goal of this lawsuit is for lawful permanent residents to be allowed to support their families, get an education, and enjoy the freedoms that our Constitution guarantees," said Javier N. Maldonado, Executive Director of the Texas Lawyers' Committee. "These immigrants have complied with all the requirements for obtaining legal residency, including background checks and the review of a federal immigration judge."
In the next stages of the lawsuit, the federal court must decide whether DHS ' policies and practices are unlawful and if so, order the agency to issue temporary documentation to the plaintiffs and class members. The lawsuit seeks relief for all persons who were or will be granted LPR status in U.S. immigration courts.
The public interest partnership of Cooley Godward's Pro Bono practice and the non-profit Texas Lawyers' Committee has been facilitated by the Litigation Assistance Partnership Project (LAPP) of the American Bar Association (ABA).
Profiles of several of the plaintiffs in the case follow. You can receive a full copy of the class certification order by going to www.cooley.com/LPR or www.txlawyerscommittee.org.
* Flora R. of Merced, CA, a native of Mexico, has lived in the U.S. for almost 20 years. In May 2003, she was granted LPR status on the basis that she and her mother were victims of abuse by her father. To date, over 16 months later, Flora R. still has not received proof of that status. Flora R. lost her job with a major retail chain, where she was about to be promoted, because she could not prove she was authorized to work.
* Anita L. of Bronx, NY is a native of Nigeria who has resided continuously in the U.S. since 1988. Anita L. was granted LPR status in July 2003 because her removal would have caused hardship to her two U.S. citizen children. Without her green card, she was denied a social security card, could not get her driver's license, and could visit relatives she had not seen in sixteen years. After the filing of this lawsuit and more than sixteen (16) months since she was granted LPR status, Anita L. received evidence of her legal status.
* Marcos S. of Covina, CA, a native of Honduras, was granted LPR status in December 2003 on the basis that he was an orphan in need of long-term foster care. Because he did not receive proof of status, Marcos S. could not enroll in a community college to obtain his high school diploma, nor could he work to support himself. In Sep. 2004, Marcos S. received his green card and can now pursue his educational goals.
* Ziber I. of Wisconsin Rapids, WI is a native of Macedonia. Ziber I. was granted LPR status on the basis of his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Ziber I. was not allowed to travel to Macedonia to see his ten-year-old daughter and his mother, who is elderly and very ill. After over a year and since the filing of this lawsuit, Ziber I. received proof of legal resident status allowing him to visit his family and re-enter the United States lawfully.
* Zoila L. of Miami, FL, a native of Guatemala, was granted LPR status in October 2003 under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Because she did not receive any documentation of her LPR status, Zoila L. could not renew her driver's license, which she needed to drive to work, take her children to school and attend English classes. After the filing of this lawsuit, and nine (9) months after being granted her LPR status, Zoila received her proof of status and is now in a better position able to take care of her family.
* Angela D. of Elgin, IL was born in Mexico. She was granted LPR status in September 2003 based on her marriage to a U.S. Citizen. Angela D. twice went to DHS offices to request a temporary stamp on her passport evidencing registration as a LPR, but she was turned away. Angela D. could not travel to Mexico to see her grandfather and her aunt who are both very ill. After the filing of this lawsuit, in August 2004 Angela D. was granted evidence of LPR status, allowing her to visit her family and re-enter the United States lawfully.
The Litigation Assistance Partnership Project (LAPP) is a program of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Litigation that links the pro bono resources of private firms with legal service and public interest programs across the country. Please visit www.abanet.org/litigation/lapp/home.html.
SOURCE Cooley Godward LLP
CONTACT: Martin R. Acevedo of Texas Lawyers' Committee, +1-210-277-1603,
ext. 306; or Christine Wherry of Cooley Godward LLP, +1-650-843-5702
URL: http://www.prnewswire.com
LOAD-DATE: October 14, 2004
Hard to say
Within 2-3 weeks, I think.
njguy007 said:
Within 2-3 weeks, I think.
hrithikroshan11 said:
It really doesn matter what they put on their website as the current processing date. The fact is that most of us are are still waiting for ourapplications to get processed. MY Receipt date is Nov 12 2002. Last month I was very hopeful that finally they have reached my application. Now I see that they are six months ahead of me and here I am still waiting. So either they are just planely lieing or they have just skipped most of us to cut the backlog. When you cant cut the backlog why not pretend to. Afterall who is there to question you.
aonflux said:
Right now, the judge is only going to decide if this is a class action. That
will simply grant all EB 485 filers class status. Once that is done, the real legal fight should start and I guess thats where your question will be answered -- what kind of relief can we ask for, and can the judge order CIS to give it to us?
I'm sure Rajiv already has a plan for this...you could look through the settlement proposals that he submitted to CIS a few months ago to get some ideas..
anyways, all this is just my opinion and I am just another EB 485 filer...
bharad1 said:Right now, the judge is only going to decide if this is a class action. That
will simply grant all EB 485 filers class status. Once that is done, the real legal fight should start and I guess thats where your question will be answered -- what kind of relief can we ask for, and can the judge order CIS to give it to us?
I'm sure Rajiv already has a plan for this...you could look through the settlement proposals that he submitted to CIS a few months ago to get some ideas..
anyways, all this is just my opinion and I am just another EB 485 filer...
Thanks bharad.
desi_alien
Registered Users (C)
pb74 said:
inquiries donot seem to work. The first inquiry response requests you to wait for 60 days and they will do something, the second inquiry respose requests you to wait for 120 days and contact them if the task is not done, have not yet tried the third one..... its just waste of time and energy in my view.
-----------
wac-02-122-
whorl1quote
Registered Users (C)
rajiv, I wonder if it's possible to file another lawsuit regarding AC21 job portibility on more-than-180-days pending I140/485 cases. I myself has made a lot of effort to get USCIS to be aware of the issue, but it does not seem to have much impact now.
What has to exist in order for us to have higher chance to win? For example, plaintiffs who did get deniel from USCIS by applying AC21 after 180 days of pening I140/485. How much fund will be needed to file a new lawsuit? WOuld appreciate your answer.
What has to exist in order for us to have higher chance to win? For example, plaintiffs who did get deniel from USCIS by applying AC21 after 180 days of pening I140/485. How much fund will be needed to file a new lawsuit? WOuld appreciate your answer.