*** Transcript of hearing is NOW attached - 9-24th Hearing ***

Status
Not open for further replies.
to BlameTSC

I agree with BlameTSC. But I think that many of us have loses due to INS’s delay. That also means INS broke the law in some point, because INS does not have the right to hurt us regardless the delay caused by themselves or not. And the facts are -- we got hurt and we are getting hurts. That also is the reason why we seek relieves, immediate relieves after a reasonable time (say 180 days).
Also the reason we seek relieves, is not necessary because INS broke the law, which is hard to prove, is that we are suffering, we are victims. I think the Judge is not happy with our efforts to find our INS's mistakes, or inefficient management. I think Judge is more care about what kind of relieve we are asking, and why. If we can prove we are the victims, and our request is reasonable and necessary then we are in good hand. Sometime it is difficult to prove someone broke the law, but easy to prove our lose due to him.

When we prove our lose, we need solid proofs to show to Judge. I saw someone post that he is not eligible for Homestead tax break in FL since he does not have GC. That is a good example to seek relieves. If he can provide the government policy or the copy of his deny letter which states the failure due to lake of Green Card. That will be a very good reason.

Since this is a EB class action. I would see proof relate to employment will be better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
May the force be with us!

Thanks a lot again Rajiv, you have been awesome!!! I can't believe that you go through all these hearings, etc yourself despite your flu. Also get well soon!
 
Sorry Rajiv

Sorry for no one being there in the court on the day.
I hope everything is fine with you. How are you? I dont
know How to thank for the help you are rendering to
this community inspite of not as much as support you
need / expect.

I was wondering if there is no one close by DC area who
is getting benifited and not able to drive. I live in California
but that is a mere excuse and I am sorry for not being there.
I didnt know the importance as well.

As you pointed long back we already won no matter what
happens in the court in the sense that the processing of
cases at USCIS improved a lot. Especially the dates at CSC,
VSC have moved ahead tremenderously. Thanks to you, and
other people like kashmir (at CSC who is working for us
eventhough his green card is approved long back).

If anybody thinks that improvement of working at Service
Centers and correction of USCIS approach is not the final
win then what are we aiming at? Do we expect to get paid by
USCIS as hon. judge raised the question.

I am hoping for my 140 approval as I am having lot of politics
at work and no peace of mind for past ~ 2 months.

Thanks a lot for the help you are rendering to this community.
God bless you. I want to meet you in person if I get chance to
come to east coast.
 
Bureaucracies are just Bureaucracies

I feel the judge may have sympathy with the INS. After all he doesnt wants to open the gates of people questioning the ineffectives or laziness of govt bureaucracies. The judge himself is a part of the such a Bureaucracy. Talk about delays. The justice system is worse than the INS and as you might have noted he refered to it at one point. If you could file a law suit against the INS for unreasonable delays as a class action suit. You could do so against the Justice department as well.

Guess then we could argue conflict of interest ;-) but hey without a judge who is going to judge and where will you plead. Anyhow, remember justice is blind, its not whether you are right or wrong. Its whether you can prove your point under the law written by, hey another Bureaucracy called Congress.

Anyway govts. suck no matter where!
 
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

We have 2 issues here
1. Has INS violated any law by delaying processing
2. Have we suffered because of the delay

The judge seems to be focusing on 1 and we are focusing on 2

I don't know if we have been able to find a law which INS violated.
But should INS be allowed to get away even if it did not violate any law but caused suffering to us?

Drawing an analogy, if a chemical company does not violate any law but still cause environmental hazards knowingly, will it be allowed by law to get away with it?

If yes, then we have a big problem. If not, then we certainly have a case here. And whether INS gets away with it or not, will depend upon HOW MUCH SUFFERING it caused us. The bigger the impact, the more difficult for it to get away. So by all means we have to quantify the suffering. But how do we go about doing that?

My 2 cents

-novis
 
The INS employees got paid by collecting application fees from us. But they didn’t do their job. We got hurt because of their laziness. If they didn’t violent the law, then I am sure the law has big problems.

If INS didn’t violent the law, then they can hold our cases forever. It means that it’s legal for INS to keep our money and don’t need to do anything.
 
California rules and Californians rule.

In California, people are getting 485 approval in three months if they are EB2 concurrent cases and part of pilot program.

California is processing 485 applications received in October 2003.

No other center comes anywhere close.

Now you agree that California rules.
 
Why there is so much difference in processing time frames from service center to service center ? Applicant from VSC gets green card in 6 months though its concurrent filing, where TSC applicant even gets his I-140 after 2 years and do say concurrent application I-140 adjucated with I-485.

Why these rules and regulations not same accross the board of all service centers USCIS? Is it fair to process ones in 180 days and other not even after 24 months ?
 
I am looking at all the issues you folks have raised and responding in the reverse order:

1. There may not be a hearing. the court might decide the motion for class action on paper.

2. I have read the Chai decision. It has no bearing on our case.

3. Is INS breaking a law by delaying. Yes, that is our claim. Read the cases at http://www.immigration.com/litigation/I-485/PlaintiffsCases.doc.

4. What did the court really say during the hearing? What I heard him say was:

A. that he will not interfere with the way an agency decides to run things, UNLESS we can prove there is a violation of law. Well, the problem is, in order to prove violation of law, we need full discovery.

B. Even if we win, what relief can the court give us? Judge Robertson gave relief to the Plaintiff in the Mashpee case. he was reversed by court of appeals. So even if we win, what then? the Court cannot order the agenct to pprove our cases first. that could hurt other applicants (for instance, asylees or DV lottery winners, etc.)

We have prepared the first draft of our supplementary brief which will be filed this Friday. Read it. We have kept it to the point and addressing only those issues that the court wanted us to address.
 
operations said:
I am looking at all the issues you folks have raised and responding in the reverse order:

1. There may not be a hearing. the court might decide the motion for class action on paper.

2. I have read the Chai decision. It has no bearing on our case.

3. Is INS breaking a law by delaying. Yes, that is our claim. Read the cases at http://www.immigration.com/litigation/I-485/PlaintiffsCases.doc.

4. What did the court really say during the hearing? What I heard him say was:

A. that he will not interfere with the way an agency decides to run things, UNLESS we can prove there is a violation of law. Well, the problem is, in order to prove violation of law, we need full discovery.

B. Even if we win, what relief can the court give us? Judge Robertson gave relief to the Plaintiff in the Mashpee case. he was reversed by court of appeals. So even if we win, what then? the Court cannot order the agenct to pprove our cases first. that could hurt other applicants (for instance, asylees or DV lottery winners, etc.)

We have prepared the first draft of our supplementary brief which will be filed this Friday. Read it. We have kept it to the point and addressing only those issues that the court wanted us to address.
Click to expand...




I understand that court cannot order the agency to approve our cases first but atleast they can take the same or similar job restriction away. If we can prove that we have already worked for sometime at a job which fits the labor certification and now we want to do some other job or go to school,would the court find this acceptable?? In a normal world this would be considered natural to get promoted, change career or go back to school for higher studies.
 
No they cannot

ZKHAN said:
I understand that court cannot order the agency to approve our cases first but atleast they can take the same or similar job restriction away. If we can prove that we have already worked for sometime at a job which fits the labor certification and now we want to do some other job or go to school,would the court find this acceptable?? In a normal world this would be considered natural to get promoted, change career or go back to school for higher studies.
Click to expand...

That is a requirement of statutes . :-(
 
Where can i read draft of supplementary brief ?

Thanks

operations said:
I am looking at all the issues you folks have raised and responding in the reverse order:


We have prepared the first draft of our supplementary brief which will be filed this Friday. Read it. We have kept it to the point and addressing only those issues that the court wanted us to address.
Click to expand...
 
after we file it

kailashr said:
Where can i read draft of supplementary brief ?

Thanks
Click to expand...

We do not want to post it publicly until we have filed it. But I have sent a copy of the first draft to all plaintiffs. We are just adding a couple of arguments.
 
it's the commonality

I guess at this point , the judge is more interested in the
commonality of all I-485.
Only then can be certify our class action suit.

He may not be that interested in the fact that we are suffering.
that will come afterwards.
 
Correct

waitingnwaiting said:
I guess at this point , the judge is more interested in the
commonality of all I-485.
Only then can be certify our class action suit.

He may not be that interested in the fact that we are suffering.
that will come afterwards.
Click to expand...


That is correct.
 
operations said:
That is a requirement of statutes . :-(
Click to expand...


What if any relief we can hope for after the certification. We know what the can not do or does not want to do.
1)He can't give us any relief that goes against the statutes.
2) The judge does not want to tell the agency how to do their work.

In general terms what can he really do for us?? I realize that if the judge's decision goes against the ins they will file an appeal and this case will get stuck in another court.

Hey atleast we will feel better for a few hours.
 
California rules. The 485 dates are moving so fast in california, they are already processing October 2003 applications. This is besides the concurrent approvals that are happening in 3 months as part of pilot program in california.

why do californians have to be so lucky? is immigration more important in california than in other states in the country? is it because the governor there is also an immigrant?

can this point be raised to the concerned parties?
 
Quick Question

Rajeev, Can you please comment on this question?

Commanility as I understand..

My case along with many others was filed during Sept 2002. Is there justification in CIS approving cases filed in 2003 and even 2004, provided that we can prove that FBI clearance and Namechecks were not the impending causes of the delay?


I see this as gross violation of equal treatment to all and unfair policy that is punishing innocent folk.

Please comment... Also is this something that can be brought as a lawsuit?

Thanks for your time.
 
Relief?

I read through the entire transcript. Rajiv really did a good job. The Judge also seems to be a really nice guy. The only concern the Judge has is that he doesn't want to interfere in how the CIS is run. He wants us to prove that the CIS is breaking the law. The court also wants to know what is the relief that we are expecting.

Here is what I want.

1. After 180 days of filing, the applicant should be in par with a green card holder. There should be no restriction in employment changes. The green card should be approved soley based on the employment history before the 180 days. This can be done by CIS without any big changes and it could be done within the AC21 law.

I would like to know what relief Ravij has proposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top