santb1975
01-11 08:39 AM
Let's give this a good push
wallpaper Weeds: Season 6
zram1977
09-15 12:22 PM
got approval mails for me and my wife today.
I dont feel like working today :)
Can you pl tell the Service center ? Is it NSC or TSC
-Thanks
I dont feel like working today :)
Can you pl tell the Service center ? Is it NSC or TSC
-Thanks
Lasantha
05-15 12:33 PM
Thanks for the reply..Sanju.
Would you know if you were to use AC21 after 180 days of filing 485, to change employer what you would need..?
Do you need to change H1-B ???
Thanks
Hey Buddy, as far as I know when you use AC21 you loose your non-immigrant status but start working leagally. So changing H1 to the new company is not needed.
And as far as I can think, if you change your H1 to a new company at that pont it might even affect negatively on your green card process. Please check that with a lawyer.
Would you know if you were to use AC21 after 180 days of filing 485, to change employer what you would need..?
Do you need to change H1-B ???
Thanks
Hey Buddy, as far as I know when you use AC21 you loose your non-immigrant status but start working leagally. So changing H1 to the new company is not needed.
And as far as I can think, if you change your H1 to a new company at that pont it might even affect negatively on your green card process. Please check that with a lawyer.
2011 Dexter - Season 6 - Casting
485Mbe4001
08-07 12:51 PM
The letter campaign resulted in 5000 odd letters from the entire EB community. This included efforts from some very hardworking IV people who did not spend time on the forums but went out and collected 100s of letters, one collected more than a thousand letters. So i am guessing that not more than 2000 EB folks got their collective butts to participate in the letter campaign.
if you expect EB2 I and the so call US educated (i am too, hence i can use 'so called') folks to stop chatting on the forums and send money and letters in the tens of thousands, then please tell me want you smoke --- i would like to inhale some of that magic too.
good luck towards your efforts. if you make it happen then, in all honesty, i would also like to nominate you to the core team, if you dont then i have a bridge in brooklyn that i want to sell.
Good for you...
People if you don't wake up now it will be too late. There are thousands of cases like this...
if you expect EB2 I and the so call US educated (i am too, hence i can use 'so called') folks to stop chatting on the forums and send money and letters in the tens of thousands, then please tell me want you smoke --- i would like to inhale some of that magic too.
good luck towards your efforts. if you make it happen then, in all honesty, i would also like to nominate you to the core team, if you dont then i have a bridge in brooklyn that i want to sell.
Good for you...
People if you don't wake up now it will be too late. There are thousands of cases like this...
more...
bobzibub
06-29 05:07 PM
Could it be a class action lawsuit? Yes, I think it does have that smell of a class action law suit.
I went through hell to get this done in time. This had better be a false rumour.
-b
I went through hell to get this done in time. This had better be a false rumour.
-b
Gowtham Nalluri
06-29 03:31 PM
My lawyer's office said they are not going to take any chance and mailing all the applications (that are ready to go) on monday morning.
more...
Milind123
01-24 11:16 AM
I had the misfortune of travelling thru London in December on my way to Mumbai. After I purchased my tickets, I learnt that I need a transit visa (TV) for UK. (Who is going to tell them (UK) that they are no longer the center of attraction esp. if you have lived and worked in US). Anyway, as per the rules, you need a transit visa if you don�t have a valid US visa. (Note: If you have AP, and don�t have a valid visa, you still need a TV).
I went to their site and did all the research to get a TV. Good god Heavens! Has anyone filled out their painful form for a TV? Besides asking the usual details, they get extremely nosy. They want to know each and everything about you. Where you work, what money do you make, name of your wife, kids and their citizenship status, name of your father and mother and where they were born, their birth date, how much money you have and where the money is (stocks, bonds, CDS) etc. etc. While filling up the form I realized that, even my future father in law did not pose so many probing questions to me. (Please note: I don�t mind answering these silly questions for a regular visa, but for the damn TV, it is certainly overkill).
Anyway to cut the long story short. The regular cost of TV is/was $92. However, when I filled up the application form they were asking for $184. (The satisfaction of getting a good deal on the tickets was quickly evaporating). I assumed I must have made a mistake in thinking the cost to be $92 and reluctantly paid $184. Next it was time to fill the application for my wife and answer the idiotic questions again. You should have seen the �I will kill you right now� look on my wife�s face after I woke her up in the middle of night and asked details about her parents. After I filled up the form, to my surprise, now they were asking $274 for visa fees. It was already 2:00 am and I have no choice but to painfully enter my credit card details, hoping that they would realize the mistake in their recon process and would reimburse the difference. (Of course, I was only dreaming).
It is now almost the end of January and I have still now received any money from them. I have tried sending several email to the emb(ass)y, but none of their emails work. I get bounced email for all the emails that I have used. I have tried calling them and left messages and no one has called back. I have send emails to my credit card company and the people who processed the payment and none of them have been able to help me. There is a way to talk to someone in the emb(ass)y, but you need to dial a 900 number, which BTW costs $2.49 per minute. Throwing good money after bad is not an option.
I just wanted to share this experience with you and remind you of the pain ahead, if you are travelling thru UK and don�t have a valid US visa. Personally, even if they had charged me the regular $92, I will still use other options to travel next time. The amount of time wasted in filling the crappy application form, going to NY, (starting Dec doing your finger prints) is simply too much to handle. Visiting your motherland/fatherland is a very special occasion and all these intermediate steps certainly water down the �good feeling� that you experience during the days leading to your trip.
I haven�t given up my quest for a refund, but now, not only I want my money back I would like to bring back home the Koh-i-noor too.
I went to their site and did all the research to get a TV. Good god Heavens! Has anyone filled out their painful form for a TV? Besides asking the usual details, they get extremely nosy. They want to know each and everything about you. Where you work, what money do you make, name of your wife, kids and their citizenship status, name of your father and mother and where they were born, their birth date, how much money you have and where the money is (stocks, bonds, CDS) etc. etc. While filling up the form I realized that, even my future father in law did not pose so many probing questions to me. (Please note: I don�t mind answering these silly questions for a regular visa, but for the damn TV, it is certainly overkill).
Anyway to cut the long story short. The regular cost of TV is/was $92. However, when I filled up the application form they were asking for $184. (The satisfaction of getting a good deal on the tickets was quickly evaporating). I assumed I must have made a mistake in thinking the cost to be $92 and reluctantly paid $184. Next it was time to fill the application for my wife and answer the idiotic questions again. You should have seen the �I will kill you right now� look on my wife�s face after I woke her up in the middle of night and asked details about her parents. After I filled up the form, to my surprise, now they were asking $274 for visa fees. It was already 2:00 am and I have no choice but to painfully enter my credit card details, hoping that they would realize the mistake in their recon process and would reimburse the difference. (Of course, I was only dreaming).
It is now almost the end of January and I have still now received any money from them. I have tried sending several email to the emb(ass)y, but none of their emails work. I get bounced email for all the emails that I have used. I have tried calling them and left messages and no one has called back. I have send emails to my credit card company and the people who processed the payment and none of them have been able to help me. There is a way to talk to someone in the emb(ass)y, but you need to dial a 900 number, which BTW costs $2.49 per minute. Throwing good money after bad is not an option.
I just wanted to share this experience with you and remind you of the pain ahead, if you are travelling thru UK and don�t have a valid US visa. Personally, even if they had charged me the regular $92, I will still use other options to travel next time. The amount of time wasted in filling the crappy application form, going to NY, (starting Dec doing your finger prints) is simply too much to handle. Visiting your motherland/fatherland is a very special occasion and all these intermediate steps certainly water down the �good feeling� that you experience during the days leading to your trip.
I haven�t given up my quest for a refund, but now, not only I want my money back I would like to bring back home the Koh-i-noor too.
2010 “Weeds” creator Jenji Kohan
drona
07-10 10:27 PM
Well done Dilip Tekkedil! Your quote in the Washington Post article was too good!
Dilip Tekkedil, 32, a software engineer from North Andover, Mass., is one of the frustrated applicants who came up with the flower idea. "It was more peaceful," he said. "We don't trouble anyone else. A rally or something, you have to call law enforcement. It's too much trouble for other people." They do not hold hard feelings against Gonzalez. "I'd like to thank him for the job that he does. I know it's a thankless job," Tekkedil said. "I just hope that he could understand our plight as well."
Dilip Tekkedil, 32, a software engineer from North Andover, Mass., is one of the frustrated applicants who came up with the flower idea. "It was more peaceful," he said. "We don't trouble anyone else. A rally or something, you have to call law enforcement. It's too much trouble for other people." They do not hold hard feelings against Gonzalez. "I'd like to thank him for the job that he does. I know it's a thankless job," Tekkedil said. "I just hope that he could understand our plight as well."
more...
seekerofpeace
10-01 09:31 AM
The last month of the fiscal year is generally much much better. I doubt approvals for Oct will be anywhere near that.....especially since it is the first month and they will go slow...and November visa availability will be an eye opener.....not much hope....
Keeping fingers crossed
SoP
Keeping fingers crossed
SoP
hair weeds season 7 cast.
imneedy
05-19 11:14 AM
Yes it is a concern that I have to address. However I see 2 ways to work around it.
1. Travel out of country get H4 stamping done based on my current H1B status
or
2. I apply for I-485 and add my wife later to the application when we have received her H4. In this case, once I have applied, I can add my wife to the application even if the dates are not current at that time.
If I were you and my priority dates were current, I would go for 1 above [get H-4 stamped ASAP and enter in US and apply for I-485].
1. Travel out of country get H4 stamping done based on my current H1B status
or
2. I apply for I-485 and add my wife later to the application when we have received her H4. In this case, once I have applied, I can add my wife to the application even if the dates are not current at that time.
If I were you and my priority dates were current, I would go for 1 above [get H-4 stamped ASAP and enter in US and apply for I-485].
more...
gcForV
07-11 02:09 PM
What I think is
(1) Employee is covered.
(2) Family may not be covered
(3) Medical Exams, preparing supporting document(Birth certificate,shipping) charges not covered
(1) Employee is covered.
(2) Family may not be covered
(3) Medical Exams, preparing supporting document(Birth certificate,shipping) charges not covered
hot WEEDS – SEASON 7 EPISODE 1
jonty_11
06-29 05:45 PM
Conspiracy? DOS is part of bush administration. And since the president is dissapointed because of CIR. He wants a back lash from immigrant community?
This cud be sooo true...thats how these cronies are exactly.....!!
This cud be sooo true...thats how these cronies are exactly.....!!
more...
house makeup girlfriend weeds season
dreamworld
09-19 04:11 PM
It is possible to use your new approved 140(EB2). Your date are current and do request USCIS and go in front of GC line. Good luck.
You can request USCIS with reference to this citation/pdf.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2002_citation2c.pdf
Please make a token contribution to IV.
I have applied my I485 and EAD based on EB3, I have received EAD for me and my wife, in parallel I had also applied for I140 based on my EB2 application. Now my I140 has been approved for EB2 and PD is current for EB2. I was wondering if there is any way that I can get my I485 transferred to EB2 and how can I get it done...
Could someone please suggest...
Thanks in advance
You can request USCIS with reference to this citation/pdf.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2002_citation2c.pdf
Please make a token contribution to IV.
I have applied my I485 and EAD based on EB3, I have received EAD for me and my wife, in parallel I had also applied for I140 based on my EB2 application. Now my I140 has been approved for EB2 and PD is current for EB2. I was wondering if there is any way that I can get my I485 transferred to EB2 and how can I get it done...
Could someone please suggest...
Thanks in advance
tattoo Cast The L Word
mdy_tvr
05-09 02:18 PM
Guys
I would appreciate if anyone could throw light on this.
thanks
Guys,
My current situation is that my wife and I applied for 485 separately.
my wife's PD is 2007 ( 485 applied in Aug 2007 )
I applied for 485 in Oct 2007, Since my PD is 2003 and is current as of now ( my 140 is pending ), I talked with our companys lawyer on what options do I have with regards to my wife's 485.
My lawyer suggested 2 options.
1. File 485 again for my wife as a spouse derivative. As per lawyer, this is very common and has experienced with these kind of situations.
2. Instead of filing a second 485 for my wife, just write a request letter to move her pending 485 to my 485 as a derivative. If this porting is successful, she cannot move back to her own 485.
I know some of us have gone with option#(1), but since option(2) involves very less paper work, did any of you have used this option so far?
I am confused as to which one to choose. My lawyer spelled diplomatic when asked about which option is better/safer:-)
Thanks
mdy_tvr
I would appreciate if anyone could throw light on this.
thanks
Guys,
My current situation is that my wife and I applied for 485 separately.
my wife's PD is 2007 ( 485 applied in Aug 2007 )
I applied for 485 in Oct 2007, Since my PD is 2003 and is current as of now ( my 140 is pending ), I talked with our companys lawyer on what options do I have with regards to my wife's 485.
My lawyer suggested 2 options.
1. File 485 again for my wife as a spouse derivative. As per lawyer, this is very common and has experienced with these kind of situations.
2. Instead of filing a second 485 for my wife, just write a request letter to move her pending 485 to my 485 as a derivative. If this porting is successful, she cannot move back to her own 485.
I know some of us have gone with option#(1), but since option(2) involves very less paper work, did any of you have used this option so far?
I am confused as to which one to choose. My lawyer spelled diplomatic when asked about which option is better/safer:-)
Thanks
mdy_tvr
more...
pictures weeds season three
whitecollarslave
03-26 02:37 PM
Just a silly question popped up in my mind...
Doesn't DOL have a directive telling employers, they have to try to recruit US Citizens first, and only if they do not find properly qualified US Citizens they can go on to search for people having 'other work authorizations' . Isn't that the whole basis for the approval of our Labor certifications in the first place???
So can the employers not use that directive as a legal loophole and try to prescreen the candidates and ask them whether they are US Citizens or GC or EAD or H1 and so on... as a hidden ploy to figure out whether you are GC or EAD while externally they can still put on a facade that they are just strictly following the legal directives that DOL has laid out?
Doesn't this 'Try to hire US Citizens first' policy of DOL in total contradiction with the I9 statement of 'no discrimination based on work authorization' ???? I am a bit confused here :confused:
Where does it say (please quote official DHS/USCIS/DOL publication or a bill) that employers must hire "US Citizens" first? I think the regulations are to give preference to US workers (note that its not US citizens) before brining somebody from abroad.
You do make a very good observation and we should clarify with the experts. Can anybody help clarifying this from the lawyers?
Doesn't DOL have a directive telling employers, they have to try to recruit US Citizens first, and only if they do not find properly qualified US Citizens they can go on to search for people having 'other work authorizations' . Isn't that the whole basis for the approval of our Labor certifications in the first place???
So can the employers not use that directive as a legal loophole and try to prescreen the candidates and ask them whether they are US Citizens or GC or EAD or H1 and so on... as a hidden ploy to figure out whether you are GC or EAD while externally they can still put on a facade that they are just strictly following the legal directives that DOL has laid out?
Doesn't this 'Try to hire US Citizens first' policy of DOL in total contradiction with the I9 statement of 'no discrimination based on work authorization' ???? I am a bit confused here :confused:
Where does it say (please quote official DHS/USCIS/DOL publication or a bill) that employers must hire "US Citizens" first? I think the regulations are to give preference to US workers (note that its not US citizens) before brining somebody from abroad.
You do make a very good observation and we should clarify with the experts. Can anybody help clarifying this from the lawyers?
dresses wallpaper Weeds - Season 6
smitha
07-09 09:37 PM
Nice! So what you're saying is that this creative form of protest is a waste of time, even though Mr. Gonzalez responded to it? And we shouldn't indulge in creatively letting our heart-felt feelings known to a step that can be termed as nothing but injustice, and unfair to all uncocerned.
- Injustice to the hard-working USCIS folks who had to work the weekend before the 4th of July week... (frankly, not the fault of USCIS rank and file, they have our collective sympathies and certainly mine)
- Injustice perhaps to Dept of State and Ms. Condi Rice who had to answer the ridiculous questions when DoS was going about its work as normal, or so it seems
- Injustice to all of us waiting in line of course, for having been given the glimmer of hope of being able to file for an AOS (frankly, a lot of us don't care as much about the eventual approval of I-485 as we do about the ability to file for it when the visa bulletin was announced as current... it's about getting done with the last step, and most importantly being able to get the interim benefits of EADs particularly for our spouses, AP to travel freely, and most importantly the benefits of AC21 portability... ).
Yes, that's an option - suggested by your inaction - do nothing, and take what you get.
Or we can let the world know about this injustice, and hope for a fair hearing on the issue (rather than having it ignored completely), by at least getting a shot at getting the ability to file pursuant to the original July visa bulletin.
Perhaps you were'nt on the same roller coaster ride we were put through these past few weeks since June 13th, or perhaps you don't care enough.
Either way, it doesn't make sense to dissuade the majority from pursuing their creative forms of protest - at least for Mr. M. K. Gandhi's sake and ideals.... :)
Even if we're asked to pay the higher filing fees that would come into effect on June 30th (which is what this was all about anyways, as it seems... ), it will a good solution for a lot of us. USCIS accepting the applications as they've been filed with current filing fees would be golden...
Dude, where's my EAD + AP + AC21 portability? :)
jazz
This is just a message to 2005/2006/2007 PD guys. Please don't think that some miracle will happen and dates will be current soon, it will take its own time. Mostly for EB2 & EB3June 2006- June 2007 guys, it will be like a lottery if the PD becomes current somewhere in 2007 Oct-Nov time. Right??
So life is not always easy. There are people waiting since 2002-03-04.
Don't think that life is not a FIFO always.
Why some of the guys became violent when I said, INDIA IS GREAT???
Guys.. do you know why I always feel like this???
As my parents,in laws and most of my relatives stay there. Not only mine, allmost all guys who are in the IV, they must have parents and relatives in India for sure. There is no other reason why I said India is great.
Someone asked me to pack up... YES, I will if nothing happens;however, I will be waiting to see the progress for sure. This is July. Let's have a look over OCT bulletin after 2 months and for sure dates will move atleast 4-6 months for EB2 guys and 1 year for EB3 guys. So wait, be patient, instead of doing all this.
Anyway, our turn will come sooner or later, so why to become impatient just seeing the JULY bulletin CURRENT and then "U".
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
- Injustice to the hard-working USCIS folks who had to work the weekend before the 4th of July week... (frankly, not the fault of USCIS rank and file, they have our collective sympathies and certainly mine)
- Injustice perhaps to Dept of State and Ms. Condi Rice who had to answer the ridiculous questions when DoS was going about its work as normal, or so it seems
- Injustice to all of us waiting in line of course, for having been given the glimmer of hope of being able to file for an AOS (frankly, a lot of us don't care as much about the eventual approval of I-485 as we do about the ability to file for it when the visa bulletin was announced as current... it's about getting done with the last step, and most importantly being able to get the interim benefits of EADs particularly for our spouses, AP to travel freely, and most importantly the benefits of AC21 portability... ).
Yes, that's an option - suggested by your inaction - do nothing, and take what you get.
Or we can let the world know about this injustice, and hope for a fair hearing on the issue (rather than having it ignored completely), by at least getting a shot at getting the ability to file pursuant to the original July visa bulletin.
Perhaps you were'nt on the same roller coaster ride we were put through these past few weeks since June 13th, or perhaps you don't care enough.
Either way, it doesn't make sense to dissuade the majority from pursuing their creative forms of protest - at least for Mr. M. K. Gandhi's sake and ideals.... :)
Even if we're asked to pay the higher filing fees that would come into effect on June 30th (which is what this was all about anyways, as it seems... ), it will a good solution for a lot of us. USCIS accepting the applications as they've been filed with current filing fees would be golden...
Dude, where's my EAD + AP + AC21 portability? :)
jazz
This is just a message to 2005/2006/2007 PD guys. Please don't think that some miracle will happen and dates will be current soon, it will take its own time. Mostly for EB2 & EB3June 2006- June 2007 guys, it will be like a lottery if the PD becomes current somewhere in 2007 Oct-Nov time. Right??
So life is not always easy. There are people waiting since 2002-03-04.
Don't think that life is not a FIFO always.
Why some of the guys became violent when I said, INDIA IS GREAT???
Guys.. do you know why I always feel like this???
As my parents,in laws and most of my relatives stay there. Not only mine, allmost all guys who are in the IV, they must have parents and relatives in India for sure. There is no other reason why I said India is great.
Someone asked me to pack up... YES, I will if nothing happens;however, I will be waiting to see the progress for sure. This is July. Let's have a look over OCT bulletin after 2 months and for sure dates will move atleast 4-6 months for EB2 guys and 1 year for EB3 guys. So wait, be patient, instead of doing all this.
Anyway, our turn will come sooner or later, so why to become impatient just seeing the JULY bulletin CURRENT and then "U".
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
more...
makeup Dexter Season 6 episodes will
Hewa
06-29 02:11 PM
If USCIS mail room is closed fedex will probably re-attempt to deliver the next business day.
Guys, Are we sure that Fedex will not deliver on saturday or sunday, what will happen if they deliver, nobody will be at USCIS to accept right, so it will still be opened only on monday ?
Guys, Are we sure that Fedex will not deliver on saturday or sunday, what will happen if they deliver, nobody will be at USCIS to accept right, so it will still be opened only on monday ?
girlfriend tattoo Weeds Season 6 Episode
grupak
03-24 03:14 PM
Its a little hard to understand how the issue of 'work authorization' cannot be raised during interview or hiring process.
The details escapes me... at some point in the long past I was looking into what kind of questions employers should and shouldn't ask. If I come across anything again then I will surely post.
As far as EAD is concerned, the employers shouldn't discriminate. Especially if more than 90 days are left on it since that's the time-frame govt promises to issue a new EAD. The employer might feel better to work with a citizen or GC or a person of certain ethnic background or national origin. However, thats the kind of decisions the employer is not allowed to make. Employer has to accept EAD, everything else being equal. When the law is not followed and it harms us, we have to fight it back.
I realize employers sometime end up asking questions that they shouldn't like the obvious ones such as age and marital status.
The details escapes me... at some point in the long past I was looking into what kind of questions employers should and shouldn't ask. If I come across anything again then I will surely post.
As far as EAD is concerned, the employers shouldn't discriminate. Especially if more than 90 days are left on it since that's the time-frame govt promises to issue a new EAD. The employer might feel better to work with a citizen or GC or a person of certain ethnic background or national origin. However, thats the kind of decisions the employer is not allowed to make. Employer has to accept EAD, everything else being equal. When the law is not followed and it harms us, we have to fight it back.
I realize employers sometime end up asking questions that they shouldn't like the obvious ones such as age and marital status.
hairstyles tattoo Cast of Weeds: Season
DallasBlue
09-27 02:18 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_chrono.shtml
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
plp039
10-06 04:39 PM
hi,
my spouse and i are july 2 filers. our checks got cashed yesterday. the lawyer emailed us all the reciept numbers. however, when i check the status online, it says that "our applications were recieved on october 2nd". our laywer tells us that this is not accurate and once the actual reciepts get to her, she will confirm. we are hoping that oct 2 is just the notice date and they have 2 july as the actual date!
will update once i have all the reciepts.
my spouse and i are july 2 filers. our checks got cashed yesterday. the lawyer emailed us all the reciept numbers. however, when i check the status online, it says that "our applications were recieved on october 2nd". our laywer tells us that this is not accurate and once the actual reciepts get to her, she will confirm. we are hoping that oct 2 is just the notice date and they have 2 july as the actual date!
will update once i have all the reciepts.
indigokiwi
04-01 11:01 AM
Folks, we've still got a long way to go to reach our contribution target for Advocacy Days and hardly any time left. $50 or a $100 is what you might spend on a few nights out. I'm sure spending on this is much more important to you. Let's everyone pitch in and help ourselves out here.
And thank you to the many members on this thread who have already contributed.
And thank you to the many members on this thread who have already contributed.
No comments:
Post a Comment