Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CSS / Lulac--_ UPDATE

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CSS / Lulac--_ UPDATE

    http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2...-northwest.pdf

    may be we should send this settlement to the AAO in washington before they take a decision on any pending css/lulac appealed cases!!

    what css/lulac class members think of this settlement?

  • #2
    http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2...-northwest.pdf

    may be we should send this settlement to the AAO in washington before they take a decision on any pending css/lulac appealed cases!!

    what css/lulac class members think of this settlement?

    Comment


    • #3
      Sure Depika, Any volunteers?

      Comment


      • #4
        any css ,can apply even there case been denied,
        sa

        Comment


        • #5
          Any CSS can apply even their i687 case denied from aao?
          sa

          Comment


          • #6
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any CSS can apply even their i687 case denied from aao? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Yes, BUT remember you must be able to prove that you entered with inspection and were already out of status before Jan 1 1982. These facts must have known to the Government at the time.

            This is not so easy my friend.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi unique,

              I don't think the application window is as narrow as that. The settlement is clear, thus:

              "The NWIRP case is a class action lawsuit that involved claims by individuals who were unable to apply 'or' who were deemed ineligible for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 because of issues as to whether unlawful status was "known to the government." (emphasis added)

              Furthermore:

              "The settlement agreement allows certain individuals who were unable to apply for legalization to apply now for legalization. The settlement also allows certain individuals whose applications were denied for certain reasons, to move to reopen their applications with USCIS for review under specified legal standards. In addition, the agreement allows certain individuals whose applications remain pending to alert USCIS to their cases."

              But anyway, we'll see how this differs from the CSS/Newman/LULAC application window in 2005. Many "free riders" were accommodated then, as you and I know, who at least were given EADs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Rough Neighbor,

                No disrespect to you, clearly you have only read the latest CIS post and not the actual settlement. I'm 100% correct in my statement.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I did, my friend, I did. Sorry, but I've been following this case very closely. [Just how I followed the Catholic Social Services (CSS) v. Ridge et al and the Newman/LULAC v. USCIS earlier]. You're correct by the way in the settlement's "known to the government" provision. But I'm talking partly about the USCIS's some kind of "accommodating" stance on the character of the class members who applied in 2005, when I think 30-40% of them had been "illegitimate." Just a handful of the applicants had been "legalized" actually, but 100% of them had received one-year EADs at least.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X