Trump’s New Executive Proclamation - Travel Suspension 2.0

[Britsimon]

Hey, i read on one of the Plaintiffs askes the court "Alternatively, in equity, extend the validity period of the Diversity Visa-2020 selectees to September 30, 2021." my question is does the court has the power to order to do that?

This comes not from the AILA suit, but the other class action suit led by Charles Kuck. It's something they are "asking for", but it is clearly not an easy thing. The law is clear and is against it. Curtis Morrison believes that can be challenged based on a previous case, but it's important to note that the case he refers to has NOT resulted in a visa being issued after the September 30th deadline. So - there is an unresolved stalemate.

 

[Noble Osei Owusu]

Maybe, in the end, @Noble Osei Owusu was right ..... I really hope so.

I still hold my faith up high...i know the Lord I serve

 

[DV21M]

No. It is a suggested idea (nothing more than that so far) to rollover unused visas, not cases, from one year to the next.

That would be so extremely unfair though.

 

[eu47zzz]

No. It is a suggested idea (nothing more than that so far) to rollover unused visas, not cases, from one year to the next.

so it means even if it passed ,dv2020 doesnt benefit?

 

[eu47zzz]

so what do you thing guys,if this is succesful does the dv2020 benefits in fiscal year 2021,who can interpretate accuratly

 

[Ellen 94]

Please I need thorough explanation on this @Britsimon @SusieQQQ @Sm1smom

Meng’s measure would allow unused fiscal year 2020 family-based, employment-based, and diversity visas to remain available in fiscal year 2021, and to allow unused fiscal year 2021 visas to remain available in fiscal year 2022.

 

[Wamugs]

To remain available .....for issuance ?

 

[SusieQQQ]

Please I need thorough explanation on this @Britsimon @SusieQQQ @Sm1smom

Meng’s measure would allow unused fiscal year 2020 family-based, employment-based, and diversity visas to remain available in fiscal year 2021, and to allow unused fiscal year 2021 visas to remain available in fiscal year 2022.

Did you read the last page or two? Both britsimon and I already commented.

 

[coffeemonster]

I found the text of the bill here: https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR7617-RCP116-60.pdf

Here's the gist of it:

SEC. 413. (a) For fiscal years 2021 and 2022, the worldwide level of ... diversity immigrants ... shall each be increased by the number computed under subsection (b) of this section

...

(b) For each of the worldwide levels described in sub-section (a) of this section, the number computed under this subsection is the difference (if any) between the worldwide level established for the previous fiscal year ... and the number of visas that were, during the previous fiscal year, issued and used...

So it literally just says that unused visas are carried over, but as Britsimon said, not cases, unfortunately.

 

[Ellen 94]

Did you read the last page or two? Both britsimon and I already commented.

The not cases as said by Britsimon.....

 

[Bry't]

Wjat

I found the text of the bill here: https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR7617-RCP116-60.pdf

Here's the gist of it:



So it literally just says that unused visas are carried over, but as Britsimon said, not cases, unfortunately.

What is use of an enrolled visa if the winner cannot process it. The family based visa will be giving to the same person to prevent him from starting all over. Its the same way the dv visa will be enrolled over to the same person. Simple logic!

 

[trebarnsmor]

Wjat

What is use of an enrolled visa if the winner cannot process it. The family based visa will be giving to the same person to prevent him from starting all over. Its the same way the dv visa will be enrolled over to the same person. Simple logic!

I like your logic

 

[eu47zzz]

I found the text of the bill here: https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR7617-RCP116-60.pdf

Here's the gist of it:



So it literally just says that unused visas are carried over, but as Britsimon said, not cases, unfortunately.

So a person that had applied for family based visa and his visa issuance is blocked by current ban ,his visa allocation would go to someone new that has just started application what a nonsense people are talking

 

[coffeemonster]

So a person that had applied for family based visa and his visa issuance is blocked by current ban ,his visa allocation would go to someone new that has just started application what a nonsense people are talking

I don't know, I thought it was only the diversity visas that have cases tied to a specific FY. IOW, the vias issuance is always tied to FY, but in the case of DV, the applicant's eligibility is also tied to the FY.

I could be wrong though.

 

[eu47zzz]

I don't know, I thought it was only the diversity visas that have cases tied to a specific FY. IOW, the vias issuance is always tied to FY, but in the case of DV, the applicant's eligibility is also tied to the FY.

I could be wrong though.

We need a proffesional interpretation because this is new information and we dont have much knowledge in interpretation of laws,as much as someone may be sure about what is saying in this forum we all depend on the accurate information as for knowledge we have been through 14 months now with this lottery program and nobody can give us undisputed lessons like they did in the beggining when we were selected.

 

[Sm1smom]

We need a proffesional interpretation because this is new information and we dont have much knowledge in interpretation of laws,as much as someone may be sure about what is saying in this forum we all depend on the accurate information as for knowledge we have been through 14 months now with this lottery program and nobody can give us undisputed lessons like they did in the beggining when we were selected.

Have you considered paying a professional? If you need a professional interpretation of what you’re reading since no one here can give you undisputed lessons anymore like they did in the past, that is what you’ll need to do IMO.

 

[Sm1smom]

Information is coming out in piecemeal all over the place, there is currently no official announcement or new law or announcement or new law about this whole disastrous DV 2020 year, yet some of you are expecting to see or read of a clear cut interpretation or meaning. How is that supposed to be possible? Gosh! This is precisely why I’ve stayed off this thread for a while.

 

[Rustam AZ]

We need a proffesional interpretation because this is new information and we dont have much knowledge in interpretation of laws,as much as someone may be sure about what is saying in this forum we all depend on the accurate information as for knowledge we have been through 14 months now with this lottery program and nobody can give us undisputed lessons like they did in the beggining when we were selected.

I saw same words in HR 6800, am I right?

 

[SusieQQQ]

Information is coming out in piecemeal all over the place, there is currently no official announcement or new law or announcement or new law about this whole disastrous DV 2020 year, yet some of you are expecting to see or read of a clear cut interpretation or meaning. How is that supposed to be possible? Gosh! This is precisely why I’ve stayed off this thread for a while.

Yeah the demands for professional interpretation and thorough explanations are quite something, you’d think we were paid lawyers not unpaid volunteers!

 

[Britsimon]

We need a proffesional interpretation because this is new information and we dont have much knowledge in interpretation of laws,as much as someone may be sure about what is saying in this forum we all depend on the accurate information as for knowledge we have been through 14 months now with this lottery program and nobody can give us undisputed lessons like they did in the beggining when we were selected.

OMG. Feel free to get someone else to explain. But again. This is not a law. It's just a suggestion. But feel free to pay a lawyer to tell you that too.