.gif "good quotes about")
hara_patta_for_rico
07-10 08:12 AM
It seems several persons are already discrediting the lawsuit and from the comments I have seen, it is apparent that some have not read the entire complaint.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
Thank you for getting some sanity into the conversation....atleast some people are realising that actions, especially those perpetrated by Govt Agencies, are watched closely. They will be held accountable, whether one likes it or not . If the lawyers want to profit from all of this, let it be so, as long as the voice of a troubled community is heard in a court of law. That is just the first step....
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
Thank you for getting some sanity into the conversation....atleast some people are realising that actions, especially those perpetrated by Govt Agencies, are watched closely. They will be held accountable, whether one likes it or not . If the lawyers want to profit from all of this, let it be so, as long as the voice of a troubled community is heard in a court of law. That is just the first step....
wallpaper good quotes about
starscream
09-10 12:38 PM
Judiciary committe to resume at 1:00pmGot it. Thank you.
Suva
08-10 02:06 PM
I am in.
2011 good quotes on life and love.
EndlessWait
07-13 09:35 AM
GCBy3000,
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
go figure..u jacko.. this forum is not give publicty to lawyers.
pls close this thread
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
go figure..u jacko.. this forum is not give publicty to lawyers.
pls close this thread
more...
dish
12-13 10:44 AM
I sent a letter earlier this year to one of my Senators here in CA regarding my 2001 LC and the result i got was that the senators secretary checked my case with USICS and sent a letter stating that my green card was approved 2003.
For somebody who is still waiting for LC recruitment instructions this was a total waste of time and money ( donated $5000. to Senator).
Next week my attorney and i and his other LC DBEC clients are going to try and make an appointment with DOL and see if they will comply.
Number 1 point we shall pursue is to make a $5000.00 premium processing for all DBEC pending LC and have guranteed adjudication in 120 days for all LC with current PD.
This way all clients with current PD will obvouisly pay $5000.00 and DBEC can use the extra funds for remaining cases.
Can you please write in detail what happened with your LC and hou you recieved your green card in 2003. Your experience with DOL, and sentor will make a good story for IV.
For somebody who is still waiting for LC recruitment instructions this was a total waste of time and money ( donated $5000. to Senator).
Next week my attorney and i and his other LC DBEC clients are going to try and make an appointment with DOL and see if they will comply.
Number 1 point we shall pursue is to make a $5000.00 premium processing for all DBEC pending LC and have guranteed adjudication in 120 days for all LC with current PD.
This way all clients with current PD will obvouisly pay $5000.00 and DBEC can use the extra funds for remaining cases.
Can you please write in detail what happened with your LC and hou you recieved your green card in 2003. Your experience with DOL, and sentor will make a good story for IV.
va_dude
03-19 08:44 AM
Guys... can we drop the whole discussion about this guy's name.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
more...
msgrewal81
02-19 12:20 PM
well said Jaime...We should support this bill..
Read this carefully before you comment here:
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
Read this carefully before you comment here:
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
2010 funny quotes on life and love.
CT_Green
12-27 09:03 AM
I have a home mortgage and also a 529 for my daughter. The H1 approval notice is good enough. I guess one just needs to look around for other options.
more...
ushkand
07-24 11:50 AM
I can't say for certain but from recent USCIS actions and the latest FAQ released, I see them issuing an RFE instead of outright rejecting the application. If they will accept applications without medical, they should be able to do the same for an employment letter. Ofcourse, this is just my humble opinion.
hair funny quotes on life and love
eb3retro
10-25 04:33 PM
details in my signature..
more...
intheyan
06-29 05:39 PM
Hi Am100 and Ramee,
Congrads to you both and also really happy to see 2004 aprrovals.:)
Congrads to you both and also really happy to see 2004 aprrovals.:)
hot funny quotes on life and love.
bsbawa10
03-09 03:48 PM
hey bsbawa atleast ur pd is apr 04, now it is feb 04 for you , there is hope that you will get it by this year end atleast, think about folks like me, i have to wait till 2019 to get my eb3 to current......... so stop crying and be happy that atleast ur in EB2........ :o
I came in 1999 and filed GC atleast 5 times (every time sometthing went bad), spent atleast 30,000 dollars. Applied for immigration to Australia and got rejected so the anguish is natural.
I came in 1999 and filed GC atleast 5 times (every time sometthing went bad), spent atleast 30,000 dollars. Applied for immigration to Australia and got rejected so the anguish is natural.
more...
house good quotes about life and
k_ek
11-22 12:36 PM
Hi guys
my question is same as in the previous post of Arun.
I wanted to know if the I 140 was approoved from previous employer and if u change the job and restart the gc again can u stiil use the old I 140 prority dates(even if the previous employer revoked the old I140).
thanx
kek
my question is same as in the previous post of Arun.
I wanted to know if the I 140 was approoved from previous employer and if u change the job and restart the gc again can u stiil use the old I 140 prority dates(even if the previous employer revoked the old I140).
thanx
kek
tattoo good quotes about life
Libra
09-28 04:19 PM
some of them are doing for votes and some of them doing it for show ratings, but racism and hatred is there in their blood. i dont think they change their stance on this. but if they continue provoking white americans against immigrants like this, one day we have to face same thing what black americans faced in 50's and 60's, and govt is fully ignoring this.
more...
pictures hot good quotes about life
ghost
08-12 07:30 AM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Unsolicited advice - Let's put a small amount as a deposit before we begin these efforts - 6 USD per week for 6 months (signing up for 25 USD per month for 6 months)...I did it and took me 5 minutes, now I am more dedicated to this effort than ever before and am sure that this dedication will have a positive impact on our future efforts...thanks for reading!
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Unsolicited advice - Let's put a small amount as a deposit before we begin these efforts - 6 USD per week for 6 months (signing up for 25 USD per month for 6 months)...I did it and took me 5 minutes, now I am more dedicated to this effort than ever before and am sure that this dedication will have a positive impact on our future efforts...thanks for reading!
dresses good quotes about life and
hopefulgc
03-13 02:41 PM
googler .... u were so right... the consular update confirms it in the april 08 bulletin.
more...
makeup good quotes about life and
h1techSlave
03-22 10:42 AM
I have noticed that the % prior to Jan 2004 is a whopping 44.06. I have a bad feeling that this group (prior to Jan 2004) is growing. :eek:
girlfriend life and love. good quotes
keshtwo
07-09 05:00 PM
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
dude, When do they know ROW quota is not filled. The last day of the year? do you think they can give the spillover numbers to India, China and Mexico in one day? Currently what they do is, make a guess on how much will be free and then allot spillovers. tommorow as a result of this ladies lawsuit, they might decided to make sure other countries under 7% get their quota, and spillivers might be drastically curtailed.
Rememer there is no law which states 140K numbers have to be issued. only that max 140k can be issued.
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
dude, When do they know ROW quota is not filled. The last day of the year? do you think they can give the spillover numbers to India, China and Mexico in one day? Currently what they do is, make a guess on how much will be free and then allot spillovers. tommorow as a result of this ladies lawsuit, they might decided to make sure other countries under 7% get their quota, and spillivers might be drastically curtailed.
Rememer there is no law which states 140K numbers have to be issued. only that max 140k can be issued.
hairstyles good quotes on life and love
eb2_immigrant
03-09 02:34 PM
No change for EB2-I.
VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
During the past year, many preference categories have experienced steady and sometimes rapid cut-off date movement. Such action is normally followed by an increase in applicant demand. Heavy applicant demand for numbers in some categories could require cut-off date movements to slow, stop, or even retrogress at some point during the remainder of FY in order to hold visa use within the applicable annual numerical limits. Should such action occur, it would most likely be only temporary in nature, pending the start of the new fiscal year in October.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4438.html
VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
During the past year, many preference categories have experienced steady and sometimes rapid cut-off date movement. Such action is normally followed by an increase in applicant demand. Heavy applicant demand for numbers in some categories could require cut-off date movements to slow, stop, or even retrogress at some point during the remainder of FY in order to hold visa use within the applicable annual numerical limits. Should such action occur, it would most likely be only temporary in nature, pending the start of the new fiscal year in October.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4438.html
coopheal
03-10 08:34 PM
Hello,
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
....
If you are even remotely seriously about what you are taking update your profile.
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
....
If you are even remotely seriously about what you are taking update your profile.
yetanotherguyinline
06-11 03:27 PM
Letter printed out and mailed via snail mail.
No comments:
Post a Comment