gjoe
08-07 10:54 AM
Sunny and Rolling came out as selfish to the majority of the members because they just focused on their issues first and identified some of the root causes for their long wait.
I think we should all atleast encourage them in their pursuit for justice. We have nothing to lose. When a specific group works on an issue which is affecting them most they would do the best to get that fixed.
This would motivate other smaller groups with other issues to take up theirs seperately. The more this happens the more heat it will generate on these 3 agencies DOL, USCIS and DOS.
Then we as a bigger organization can work much faster on getting the bigger issues resolved which in turn will fix lots of these smaller things in the system.
These kind of initatives are a win win for everybody. Every small step would help us go move towards our goal instead of trying to take one gaint step and getting bogged down.
PS: Waiting for miracles is onething for people who trust in God
But acting on ones own issue can get them closer to that miracle
I think we should all atleast encourage them in their pursuit for justice. We have nothing to lose. When a specific group works on an issue which is affecting them most they would do the best to get that fixed.
This would motivate other smaller groups with other issues to take up theirs seperately. The more this happens the more heat it will generate on these 3 agencies DOL, USCIS and DOS.
Then we as a bigger organization can work much faster on getting the bigger issues resolved which in turn will fix lots of these smaller things in the system.
These kind of initatives are a win win for everybody. Every small step would help us go move towards our goal instead of trying to take one gaint step and getting bogged down.
PS: Waiting for miracles is onething for people who trust in God
But acting on ones own issue can get them closer to that miracle
wallpaper 10 TERRELL OWENS EAGLES
anotherone
01-29 06:28 PM
Is there some master list of companies that have been filed against ? Do you know of anyone on this list that have done so and won ?
What will that accomplish really ? I dont know if working for this place will be a good idea anyway after filing a suit against them... but OTOH if it helps other people or at least if its out there on the net, so other companies wont get his brilliant idea....
just musing, thankyou for replying to my posts so quickly.
What will that accomplish really ? I dont know if working for this place will be a good idea anyway after filing a suit against them... but OTOH if it helps other people or at least if its out there on the net, so other companies wont get his brilliant idea....
just musing, thankyou for replying to my posts so quickly.
bitzbytz
03-29 05:18 PM
Thanks to IV for getting this done
2011 receiver Terrell Owens in
spdy_mn
06-29 04:49 PM
They probably got overwhelmed by applications in June.
Thanks,
Jayant
And they realized it just today. :(
Thanks,
Jayant
And they realized it just today. :(
more...
IneedAllGreen
06-29 03:42 PM
I think Matthew Oh should closed his site to do some actual work.
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
6/29/2007: EB-Visa Number Retrogression?
* There is a rumor going around that the State Department will issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007 next Monday (July 2) or Tuesday (July 3) and that it may show retrogression of some or all EB categories, very likely to the point of unavailable for the month of July! Please stay tuned.
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
6/29/2007: EB-Visa Number Retrogression?
* There is a rumor going around that the State Department will issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007 next Monday (July 2) or Tuesday (July 3) and that it may show retrogression of some or all EB categories, very likely to the point of unavailable for the month of July! Please stay tuned.
chanduv23
04-24 02:44 PM
They refer to ads on Sulekha and other similar portals
On another note - consulting companies will workaround by creating multiple companies and applying h1b through various companies
On another note - consulting companies will workaround by creating multiple companies and applying h1b through various companies
more...
Googler
07-09 06:34 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Message from USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
I understand that individuals are planning to send flowers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) beginning on Tuesday, July 10. USCIS has made arrangements to forward those flowers to our injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
*************************
USCIS' blasted PR brain is working this time. Dammit. Still this will increase press coverage. Let the reporters you are talking to know.
Message from USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
I understand that individuals are planning to send flowers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) beginning on Tuesday, July 10. USCIS has made arrangements to forward those flowers to our injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
*************************
USCIS' blasted PR brain is working this time. Dammit. Still this will increase press coverage. Let the reporters you are talking to know.
2010 with the Terrell Owens
fatjoe
10-22 05:02 PM
Did you send 7001 to Ombudsman? So, Ombudsman is also hopeless?
Did you call them to find out the status? Here is Om's #, in case you don't know: 202-282-8000. Call them and update us as well.
@ fatjoe
My PD is June '04. RD is July 2, 2007 and ND is August 21, 2007. Yes, I tried Ombudsman, sent them my case more than a month back.
[/QUOTE]
Did you call them to find out the status? Here is Om's #, in case you don't know: 202-282-8000. Call them and update us as well.
@ fatjoe
My PD is June '04. RD is July 2, 2007 and ND is August 21, 2007. Yes, I tried Ombudsman, sent them my case more than a month back.
[/QUOTE]
more...
gk_2000
04-01 01:30 AM
Sathesh,
According to the below websites, seems it is the Immigrant's Final application and processing fee(and seems like your immigrant visa has been approved by USCIS*** according to OVERVIEW OF IMMIGRANT CONSULAR PROCESSING (http://www.americanlaw.com/consul_iv.html)
"In April of 1994, DOS opened the NVC, a permanent immigrant visa processing facility in Portsmouth, NH. NVC processes all approved immigrant petitions that it receives from USCIS. NVC will retain the petitions until the cases are ready for adjudication by a consular officer abroad. When an applicant's case is about to become current, the petition is forwarded to the appropriate U.S. embassy or consulate overseas. " ***
***from OVERVIEW OF IMMIGRANT CONSULAR PROCESSING (http://www.americanlaw.com/consul_iv.html)
http://amsterdam.usconsulate.gov/iv_fees.hml
July 2007 --- about to become current? Sounds like music, AR Rehman's music
According to the below websites, seems it is the Immigrant's Final application and processing fee(and seems like your immigrant visa has been approved by USCIS*** according to OVERVIEW OF IMMIGRANT CONSULAR PROCESSING (http://www.americanlaw.com/consul_iv.html)
"In April of 1994, DOS opened the NVC, a permanent immigrant visa processing facility in Portsmouth, NH. NVC processes all approved immigrant petitions that it receives from USCIS. NVC will retain the petitions until the cases are ready for adjudication by a consular officer abroad. When an applicant's case is about to become current, the petition is forwarded to the appropriate U.S. embassy or consulate overseas. " ***
***from OVERVIEW OF IMMIGRANT CONSULAR PROCESSING (http://www.americanlaw.com/consul_iv.html)
http://amsterdam.usconsulate.gov/iv_fees.hml
July 2007 --- about to become current? Sounds like music, AR Rehman's music
hair Surprise: Terrell Owens is
Macaca
12-05 04:56 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I�d like to move on. I want to play a report from your show covering former Mexican President Vicente Fox�s May 2000 visit to the United States. Your reporter Casey Wian�
LOU DOBBS: Wian.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wian, I�m sorry�described the visit as a, quote, �Mexican military incursion.� This aired on May 23, 2006.
CASEY WIAN: This Mexican military incursion was fully authorized. A Mexican air force jet carrying President Vicente Fox was not just invited to Utah, but encouraged to visit by Governor John Huntsman.
PRESIDENT VICENTE FOX: We fully support the businessmen from Utah and Mexico�
CASE WIAN: It�s estimated Utah has about 100,000 illegal aliens, and the number is growing rapidly. Utah is also a part of the territory some militant Latino activists refer to as Aztlan, the portion of the Southwest United States they claim rightfully belongs to Mexico.
You could call this the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour, since the three states he�ll visit�Utah, Washington, and California�are all part of some radical group�s vision of the mythical indigenous homeland, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: Casey, thank you very much.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The Southern Poverty Law Center criticized CNN for airing that report, in part because, as your reporter Casey Wian spoke, a graphic appeared on the screen. It was a map of the United States highlighting the seven Southwestern states that Mexico supposedly covets and calls Aztlan. The map was prominently sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is considered by many to be a white supremacist hate group.
AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Lou Dobbs?
LOU DOBBS: You know the response, and you know the reality. That�how long was that screen up? How long was that map up?
AMY GOODMAN: Enough to see it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: A few seconds.
LOU DOBBS: The field producer who�did you know it was from the CCC? Which is a hate group.
AMY GOODMAN: It�s attributed right there. It says Council of Conservative Citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right. And it couldn�t be clearer, could it? I mean, we weren�t hiding anything. We had no idea what they were. The field producer who used it went on the web, pulled�did a �grab,� as it�s called, and put it up. And she was suspended for a day for doing so.
Did you guys know that we have sent our producers and our reporters down to the Southern Poverty Law Center years ago to make certain this sort of thing doesn�t happen? That�s how seriously we take the issue. And for you to talk about the incursion, you forgot to point out that that was coming out of rather jocular discussion of the incursions by Mexican forces along the border and the response of the US government.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But�
LOU DOBBS: And, I mean, are you offended?
AMY GOODMAN: Lou, did you say you have no idea what the Council of Concervative Citizens is?
LOU DOBBS: Did I say I don�t?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
LOU DOBBS: I certainly do now. Absolutely. What did I�you didn�t hear what I just said?
AMY GOODMAN: I just want to�
LOU DOBBS: They�re acknowledged as a hate group. Absolutely.
JUAN GONZALEZ: See, but the problem, this�
LOU DOBBS: What is the problem here?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Projecting the image to your viewers that there�s a Mexican desire to reconquer, the Reconquista of the Southwestern United States, does create images�and especially in people who are not necessarily as intelligent as you necessarily or who have studied as much as you have�
LOU DOBBS: Thank you for conceding that.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �that the country is under siege.
LOU DOBBS: My god, are you so self-important that you don�t think people have a sense of humor when Casey Wian says this is an authorized incursion by the Mexican government? You don�t think people have a sense of humor about that? The reality is, I think most people do. The other thing is, who are you trying to protect America from? I�m a little confused, because the reality is that there is a strong radical group of Reconquistas and Aztlan aficionados, and I have had them demonstrating against me in a couple of cities over the past few weeks. Don�t sit here being disingenuous�
JUAN GONZALEZ: I�m not.
LOU DOBBS: �and sanctimonious, because, let me tell you something�
JUAN GONZALEZ: I�m not being disingenuous.
LOU DOBBS: �there are many idiots on either extreme of this debate, and don�t kid yourself�
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou, I think what�s important here�
LOU DOBBS: �and you know it.
AMY GOODMAN: �once again, is the pattern. It�s the pattern�
LOU DOBBS: The pattern�come on, please.
AMY GOODMAN: No, let me make my point, because what I talk about is facts.
LOU DOBBS: OK, let�s look at the pattern. The pattern is, for five years, we�ve been reporting on illegal immigration. The pattern is that we have been reporting on the impact of illegal immigration. It doesn�t suit your partisan views�and that�s understandable�or your ideological views. But don�t get carried away with yourselves, for crying out loud!
LOU DOBBS: Wian.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wian, I�m sorry�described the visit as a, quote, �Mexican military incursion.� This aired on May 23, 2006.
CASEY WIAN: This Mexican military incursion was fully authorized. A Mexican air force jet carrying President Vicente Fox was not just invited to Utah, but encouraged to visit by Governor John Huntsman.
PRESIDENT VICENTE FOX: We fully support the businessmen from Utah and Mexico�
CASE WIAN: It�s estimated Utah has about 100,000 illegal aliens, and the number is growing rapidly. Utah is also a part of the territory some militant Latino activists refer to as Aztlan, the portion of the Southwest United States they claim rightfully belongs to Mexico.
You could call this the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour, since the three states he�ll visit�Utah, Washington, and California�are all part of some radical group�s vision of the mythical indigenous homeland, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: Casey, thank you very much.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The Southern Poverty Law Center criticized CNN for airing that report, in part because, as your reporter Casey Wian spoke, a graphic appeared on the screen. It was a map of the United States highlighting the seven Southwestern states that Mexico supposedly covets and calls Aztlan. The map was prominently sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is considered by many to be a white supremacist hate group.
AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Lou Dobbs?
LOU DOBBS: You know the response, and you know the reality. That�how long was that screen up? How long was that map up?
AMY GOODMAN: Enough to see it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: A few seconds.
LOU DOBBS: The field producer who�did you know it was from the CCC? Which is a hate group.
AMY GOODMAN: It�s attributed right there. It says Council of Conservative Citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right. And it couldn�t be clearer, could it? I mean, we weren�t hiding anything. We had no idea what they were. The field producer who used it went on the web, pulled�did a �grab,� as it�s called, and put it up. And she was suspended for a day for doing so.
Did you guys know that we have sent our producers and our reporters down to the Southern Poverty Law Center years ago to make certain this sort of thing doesn�t happen? That�s how seriously we take the issue. And for you to talk about the incursion, you forgot to point out that that was coming out of rather jocular discussion of the incursions by Mexican forces along the border and the response of the US government.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But�
LOU DOBBS: And, I mean, are you offended?
AMY GOODMAN: Lou, did you say you have no idea what the Council of Concervative Citizens is?
LOU DOBBS: Did I say I don�t?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
LOU DOBBS: I certainly do now. Absolutely. What did I�you didn�t hear what I just said?
AMY GOODMAN: I just want to�
LOU DOBBS: They�re acknowledged as a hate group. Absolutely.
JUAN GONZALEZ: See, but the problem, this�
LOU DOBBS: What is the problem here?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Projecting the image to your viewers that there�s a Mexican desire to reconquer, the Reconquista of the Southwestern United States, does create images�and especially in people who are not necessarily as intelligent as you necessarily or who have studied as much as you have�
LOU DOBBS: Thank you for conceding that.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �that the country is under siege.
LOU DOBBS: My god, are you so self-important that you don�t think people have a sense of humor when Casey Wian says this is an authorized incursion by the Mexican government? You don�t think people have a sense of humor about that? The reality is, I think most people do. The other thing is, who are you trying to protect America from? I�m a little confused, because the reality is that there is a strong radical group of Reconquistas and Aztlan aficionados, and I have had them demonstrating against me in a couple of cities over the past few weeks. Don�t sit here being disingenuous�
JUAN GONZALEZ: I�m not.
LOU DOBBS: �and sanctimonious, because, let me tell you something�
JUAN GONZALEZ: I�m not being disingenuous.
LOU DOBBS: �there are many idiots on either extreme of this debate, and don�t kid yourself�
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou, I think what�s important here�
LOU DOBBS: �and you know it.
AMY GOODMAN: �once again, is the pattern. It�s the pattern�
LOU DOBBS: The pattern�come on, please.
AMY GOODMAN: No, let me make my point, because what I talk about is facts.
LOU DOBBS: OK, let�s look at the pattern. The pattern is, for five years, we�ve been reporting on illegal immigration. The pattern is that we have been reporting on the impact of illegal immigration. It doesn�t suit your partisan views�and that�s understandable�or your ideological views. But don�t get carried away with yourselves, for crying out loud!
more...
spaceguy
08-23 09:00 AM
We have sent 2 magicjack's to India, one at my parents and one at in-laws....they need to have a computer and high speed internet access there. For the first yr it is costing us $40 per yr each and starting 2nd year it will cost us $20 per yr each. They call us all the time now and calls are crystal clear and you can't beat $40/year price.
because
1. With MagicJack You need to pay internet connection charges in India and need to have computer and run computer always
2. With Vonage you can call any number in India
because
1. With MagicJack You need to pay internet connection charges in India and need to have computer and run computer always
2. With Vonage you can call any number in India
hot vs Eagles - Terrell Owens
pal351
08-27 12:51 PM
Michael,
I know you are trying to promote vonage, but not addressing the issues in terms of cancellation.
One more thing is that the taxes on the service, which is really killing part, for new yorkers, have to pay almsot 9 dollars in taxes, which is 35% of the monthly bill (24.99), it's too much when we compare with other VOIP services....
State/Local Taxes and Fees $3.44
FUSF (VoIP) $2.41
Regulatory and Compliance Fee $1.49
Emergency 911 Service Fee $1.49
Hope vonage will come up with some thing better than this, aslo there is 5000 minutes restriction on outgoing, it doesnt matter whether you called local or international, every minute counts.....guys beware of that limit, I know 5K is lot many minutes, but still you have to monitor, if it exceeds, the account will be changed to Business and have to pay more monthly.....
Also it would be great if you guys can come up with a feature that calling from cell phone by using vonage account.....with this option, more customers can sign up, offcourse customer service has to imrpove lot....
I called Vonage Customer service , If you signup Vonage World there is no 5k Min. limit. Its unlimited. Guys please don't post the wrong info.
I know you are trying to promote vonage, but not addressing the issues in terms of cancellation.
One more thing is that the taxes on the service, which is really killing part, for new yorkers, have to pay almsot 9 dollars in taxes, which is 35% of the monthly bill (24.99), it's too much when we compare with other VOIP services....
State/Local Taxes and Fees $3.44
FUSF (VoIP) $2.41
Regulatory and Compliance Fee $1.49
Emergency 911 Service Fee $1.49
Hope vonage will come up with some thing better than this, aslo there is 5000 minutes restriction on outgoing, it doesnt matter whether you called local or international, every minute counts.....guys beware of that limit, I know 5K is lot many minutes, but still you have to monitor, if it exceeds, the account will be changed to Business and have to pay more monthly.....
Also it would be great if you guys can come up with a feature that calling from cell phone by using vonage account.....with this option, more customers can sign up, offcourse customer service has to imrpove lot....
I called Vonage Customer service , If you signup Vonage World there is no 5k Min. limit. Its unlimited. Guys please don't post the wrong info.
more...
house Terrell Owens | Super Bowl
abhijitp
07-31 03:57 PM
just a question on #2 above - if you are filing second AOS with EVL, why not just withdraw the first AOS once you get the receipt? Wouldn't this be safer?
Sorry for the layman's question, but is there an established process for revoking an AOS application? Thanks for your input!
Sorry for the layman's question, but is there an established process for revoking an AOS application? Thanks for your input!
tattoo Terrell Owens
WaldenPond
01-02 10:30 PM
WaldenPond,
I send u a PM.
--MC
Thanks mchundi. I replied to your PM. Please continue to contribute to this forum with ideas, information and participation that would help everybody here. Your participation is very important as it motivate others.
Thanks again.
WaldenPond
I send u a PM.
--MC
Thanks mchundi. I replied to your PM. Please continue to contribute to this forum with ideas, information and participation that would help everybody here. Your participation is very important as it motivate others.
Thanks again.
WaldenPond
more...
pictures terrell owens eagles. bkarnik
crystal
07-10 09:49 PM
immigrationvoice.com also works as it redirects to immigrationvoice.org
you can try and test it
Oh website refers incorrect website address. I hope that's not a big deal.
"This camapaign has been initiated and pushed ahead by the immigrationinvoice.com group. Salute to the members of this group for the job well done."
you can try and test it
Oh website refers incorrect website address. I hope that's not a big deal.
"This camapaign has been initiated and pushed ahead by the immigrationinvoice.com group. Salute to the members of this group for the job well done."
dresses and Terrell Owens stopped
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.
more...
makeup Owens may be right.
abhis0
09-27 04:43 PM
Right now checked my bank account and all 6 checks (for me and wife) cashed. All receipt numbers are at the back of the check. AsI was expecting the package was transferred to Texas.
All receipt numbers start with SRC******
This is the happiest day since July 17 for us....
I am very very hopeful that you guys will get it. Check your bacnk too today.
Do you think USCIS came to know about your "List compilation" activity and hence your receipt......I think I should take over list compilation now :p
Happy for you man...
All receipt numbers start with SRC******
This is the happiest day since July 17 for us....
I am very very hopeful that you guys will get it. Check your bacnk too today.
Do you think USCIS came to know about your "List compilation" activity and hence your receipt......I think I should take over list compilation now :p
Happy for you man...
girlfriend Moss and Terrell Owens.
kshitijnt
01-29 05:07 PM
I had already mentioned my EAD status when they had the interview. But after acceptiing it I mentioned it again in the conext of I9 form. Then they said they cant offer me emp;oyment due to my being on EAD.
This is a pretty big company. I understand that H1B is not protected under anti-discrimination for employment, but EAD holders, specifically those with AOS pending, are a protected against employment discrimination.
Does anyone have any links to the above conclusion ? I am so tired of this BS. I have spent long enough in this immigration c**p that if I have leave, might as well leave with a fight.
regards
just anotherone of the expendable non-citizens
All employees are protected by employment discrimination laws. Once H1Bs are hired. They are protected as well.
This is a pretty big company. I understand that H1B is not protected under anti-discrimination for employment, but EAD holders, specifically those with AOS pending, are a protected against employment discrimination.
Does anyone have any links to the above conclusion ? I am so tired of this BS. I have spent long enough in this immigration c**p that if I have leave, might as well leave with a fight.
regards
just anotherone of the expendable non-citizens
All employees are protected by employment discrimination laws. Once H1Bs are hired. They are protected as well.
hairstyles hot Terrell-owens-eagles-
pappu
11-06 03:28 PM
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
beautifulMind
09-23 04:21 PM
I guess we'll need to ADD to that number:
1. BEC stuck folks who could not file in July 07
2. PERM approvals starting August 07
to the 47,728. Plus multiply by 2.1( for dependents ). That'll give the total VISA numbers required for this category to make it Current.
If I have to guess-- (1) would be very less, may be 100-200 max
(2) around 5000 ( just a PUMA)
So, there are about 53000 EB2 I applications. and 2.1 * 53000 = 111300.
If we can create 111300, EB2 I visas then it'll be CURRENT. easy:)
Pending applications should include dependents as they have their own 485
1. BEC stuck folks who could not file in July 07
2. PERM approvals starting August 07
to the 47,728. Plus multiply by 2.1( for dependents ). That'll give the total VISA numbers required for this category to make it Current.
If I have to guess-- (1) would be very less, may be 100-200 max
(2) around 5000 ( just a PUMA)
So, there are about 53000 EB2 I applications. and 2.1 * 53000 = 111300.
If we can create 111300, EB2 I visas then it'll be CURRENT. easy:)
Pending applications should include dependents as they have their own 485
pmb76
07-14 02:39 PM
On the other day Congressman Tom Tancredo was in Lou Dobbs program and they as usual ranted about H1-B visas. I almost fell from the chair when Tom T said H1B visa is valid for 5 years and there are around 700,000 people overstaying their visas. He clearly implied the thousands of people from all over the world staying here legally as illegals.
Here is the youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi_c9ep9uKI
Since Lou Dobbs didn't challenge Tom I'm sure he agrees with him. I wish somone create a video explaining how H1 can be extended beyond six years, interview some USCIS ( even ex employee), immigration lawyers and put a fitting response to this video in Youtube itself.
The Rep Tom Tancredo a vociferous anti-immigrant both legal and illegal. The very fact that Lou Dobbs allowed his show as a mouthpiece to propagate incorrect information "about H1-Bs being illegal" is worthy of a lawsuit.
How about a petition to the CEO of Time Warner asking Lou to apologize ?
Here is the youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi_c9ep9uKI
Since Lou Dobbs didn't challenge Tom I'm sure he agrees with him. I wish somone create a video explaining how H1 can be extended beyond six years, interview some USCIS ( even ex employee), immigration lawyers and put a fitting response to this video in Youtube itself.
The Rep Tom Tancredo a vociferous anti-immigrant both legal and illegal. The very fact that Lou Dobbs allowed his show as a mouthpiece to propagate incorrect information "about H1-Bs being illegal" is worthy of a lawsuit.
How about a petition to the CEO of Time Warner asking Lou to apologize ?
