baltimore_p
Registered Users (C)
Why the negative speculation?
Litigation update this week
- Thread starter jayo2k
- Start date
- Status
Why the negative speculation?
Filed & Entered: 07/08/2011 REPLY to opposition to motion re [6] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by AJITUM JAMES AKABA, NARGIZA AKHMEDOVA, AMANI MURSHED AL MAAMARI, ALEJANDRO ALVAREZ ALVAREZ, KAMIL EZZ ELDIN AMIN, OMAYMA IZZELDIN KAMIL AMIN, LUC VAN BRAEKEL, VINCENZO CARAFONE, EMAN AHMED EMAD ELZOHEARY, NEDA GHEMMAGHAMI FARAHANI, ARMANDE GIL, JAMAL GLIM, MUSTAFA GULBUDAK, ANNA GUNYA, YOSIF MOURAD IBRAHIM, MOHAMED IFEGH, CHRISTINA OMOJEVBE IGBOIN, STEPHANIE CHRISTELLE JEANJEAN, MOSES KAKEETO, DIEUDONNE KUATE, ANTON KURAEV, DEBORAH LEMPOGO, OLGA LEONOVA, DHANA MATHEMA, STUART MCBRIEN, JOVANKA NICOLIC, VICTOR OLAOLUWA OKE, MARCO PAVESE, ILYA SMIRNOV, CARINA STEYL, PEGI STOILKOVA, SABINA TIMILSINA, ANDUALEM TIRUSEW WUBE, MASAKO YAMAO, HIROSHI YAMASHIROYA, IVA ZAFIROVA. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit, # (2) Exhibit, # (3) Exhibit, # (4) Exhibit, # (5) Exhibit, # (6) Exhibit, # (7) Exhibit, # (8) Exhibit)(White, Kenneth)
Is that true?
I don't care what they think. I just replied to his bullshit comment.
theone_2005
Registered Users (C)
What did he say in his defense
CraigToomy
Banned
CONTENTS
I. The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their mandamus action.
a) Plaintiffs’ petitions were properly approved under 8 CFR §42.33(c) because their petitions were selected by the Department’s computer program.
b) The term “random” should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning.
c) Even if DOS has provided an interpretation of “random” it is not worthy of deference.
d) In addition to their mandamus claim, Plaintiffs are also likely to prevail on their APA action, because DOS has failed to provide a satisfactory, or even plausible, explanation for its decision.
e) Plaintiffs have standing and the denial of their claims are final and ripe for review
1) Standing
2) Final agency action and ripeness
II) Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants are not enjoined.
III) The public interest is served by upholding the law
IV) The balance of equities tips sharply towards the Plaintiffs.
Exhibits:
1) DOS statistics: Total number of DV Lottery applicants by country – FY-2010-2012.
2) Declaration of Egor Emeliyanov +1
3) Declaration of Bhaskev Tamilsina +1
4) Declaration of Luc Van Brackel
5) Declaration of Ilya Smirnov +4
6) Submission confirmation of Stephanie Jeanjean
7) Declaration of Takeshi Yamao +1
8) Declaration of Nripesh Mathema +1
+ and a number means there’re other people included into same exhibit (spouses etc.)
I. The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their mandamus action.
a) Plaintiffs’ petitions were properly approved under 8 CFR §42.33(c) because their petitions were selected by the Department’s computer program.
b) The term “random” should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning.
c) Even if DOS has provided an interpretation of “random” it is not worthy of deference.
d) In addition to their mandamus claim, Plaintiffs are also likely to prevail on their APA action, because DOS has failed to provide a satisfactory, or even plausible, explanation for its decision.
e) Plaintiffs have standing and the denial of their claims are final and ripe for review
1) Standing
2) Final agency action and ripeness
II) Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants are not enjoined.
III) The public interest is served by upholding the law
IV) The balance of equities tips sharply towards the Plaintiffs.
Exhibits:
1) DOS statistics: Total number of DV Lottery applicants by country – FY-2010-2012.
2) Declaration of Egor Emeliyanov +1
3) Declaration of Bhaskev Tamilsina +1
4) Declaration of Luc Van Brackel
5) Declaration of Ilya Smirnov +4
6) Submission confirmation of Stephanie Jeanjean
7) Declaration of Takeshi Yamao +1
8) Declaration of Nripesh Mathema +1
+ and a number means there’re other people included into same exhibit (spouses etc.)
CraigToomy
Banned
Here's the best part:
The defendants claim that the Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed in this action because “they lack a clear right to relief and Defendants lack a clear duty to act”. Defendants say that they have no duty to process Plaintiffs’ petitions for consideration under 8 USC 1153 (c), because despite the fact the Department of State sent them letters informing them that they had been selected under the DV-2012 Lottery, they really were not selected at all, because their petitions supposedly were not approved pursuant to 22 CFR 42.33(c). However while the Defendants do not dispute that “(t)he Department will consider petitions selected in this manner to have been approved for the purposes of this section”, they claim that the Plaintiffs were not selected “in this manner” because that phrase refers to the random manner of selection prescribed by law and set forth in the randomization protocol of 22 CFR 42.33(c). However, that is not what the regulation says.
The verb “select” only appears in one place in 22 CFR 22.43(c) and that is in the third sentence, which provides “the department will then select in the rank orders determined by the computer program a quantity of petitions for each region estimated to be sufficient to ensure, to the extent possible, usage of all immigrant visas authorized under INA 203(c) for the fiscal year in question. The Department admitted that it selected the winning petitions in the DV-2012 Lottery in the rank orders determined by its computer program. Therefore the Department is bound by its own regulations to consider those petitions approved because they were selected by the Department’s program.
[...]
These conflicting realities put forward in mr amin’s declaration cannot both be true.
The defendants claim that the Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed in this action because “they lack a clear right to relief and Defendants lack a clear duty to act”. Defendants say that they have no duty to process Plaintiffs’ petitions for consideration under 8 USC 1153 (c), because despite the fact the Department of State sent them letters informing them that they had been selected under the DV-2012 Lottery, they really were not selected at all, because their petitions supposedly were not approved pursuant to 22 CFR 42.33(c). However while the Defendants do not dispute that “(t)he Department will consider petitions selected in this manner to have been approved for the purposes of this section”, they claim that the Plaintiffs were not selected “in this manner” because that phrase refers to the random manner of selection prescribed by law and set forth in the randomization protocol of 22 CFR 42.33(c). However, that is not what the regulation says.
The verb “select” only appears in one place in 22 CFR 22.43(c) and that is in the third sentence, which provides “the department will then select in the rank orders determined by the computer program a quantity of petitions for each region estimated to be sufficient to ensure, to the extent possible, usage of all immigrant visas authorized under INA 203(c) for the fiscal year in question. The Department admitted that it selected the winning petitions in the DV-2012 Lottery in the rank orders determined by its computer program. Therefore the Department is bound by its own regulations to consider those petitions approved because they were selected by the Department’s program.
[...]
These conflicting realities put forward in mr amin’s declaration cannot both be true.
He's trying to use DOS's words against them. That's absurd.
CraigToomy
Banned
No, that's litigation.
CONTENTS
a) Plaintiffs’ petitions were properly approved under 8 CFR §42.33(c) because their petitions were selected by the Department’s computer program. - FAILED program.
b) The term “random” should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. - Disagree
c) Even if DOS has provided an interpretation of “random” it is not worthy of deference. - Yes, it is
II) Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants are not enjoined. _ What harm is that?
III) The public interest is served by upholding the law - Exactly, that's why reinstatement would be violation of the law.
IV) The balance of equities tips sharply towards the Plaintiffs. - Disagree.
a) Plaintiffs’ petitions were properly approved under 8 CFR §42.33(c) because their petitions were selected by the Department’s computer program. - FAILED program.
b) The term “random” should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. - Disagree
c) Even if DOS has provided an interpretation of “random” it is not worthy of deference. - Yes, it is
II) Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants are not enjoined. _ What harm is that?
III) The public interest is served by upholding the law - Exactly, that's why reinstatement would be violation of the law.
IV) The balance of equities tips sharply towards the Plaintiffs. - Disagree.
CraigToomy
Banned
Whatever. What matters is - mr. Amin misinformed the Court in his declaration and should be sent to Guantanamo bay asap.
Exactly, absurd. He's playing with words. Nobody could've predicted an error, but because of that he wants them to skip the "random" part of the rules ? I bet if they had, they would've specified something like -In case program fails, we will repeat the selection process until it's done in a properly random manner. But that applied automatically since they had no other choice, and he's talking non-sense.
How did he misinform the court?
That was Mr White statement?
I agree with defendents.
To me it is absolutely clear that "in this manner" means described in the section (c), from the beginning to the end.
That is why I desagree with plainiffs:
Otherwise it would mean that random selection is not required by DOS policy. However, it is not only required by DOS policy, but it is a requirement of law 8 USC §1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II):
Is it obvious that intentions of DOS while issuing the written policy of 22 cfr 42.33 were to comply with the law, not to contradict it.
That is why plaintiffs are incorrect.
They are not conflicting. Plaintiffs are wrong.
It looks Egor is not a plaintiff while everybody else is. CraigToomy, are you this Egor? Why are you not a plaintiff? Is it because you did not win? Did your wife win? Is she a plaintiff?
What are declarations? And what is a submission?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status