Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LULAC UPDATE

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

  • LULAC UPDATE

    It is now reported that DHS has obtained final approval on LULAC and IAP v INS. They are now awaiting approval from Dept of Justice within next few weeks after which fairness hearing will be sought. Visit Fed court website washington

  • #2
    Update? Final approval of what?
    You're not telling us anything. No link, no story. I don't get it???

    Comment


    • #3
      The law suit challenging INS's interpretation of "known to the Government" and "continuous unlawful residence" for purposes of the legalization program) will soon be settled. It is part of LULAC, Visit pacer.gov, scroll to fed court Seattle Washington and type 88-0379 for latest info . All denied and pending petition will now be readjudicated on the basis of new settlement.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is an interesting update. I would suggest that we continue this in the following existing post:

        http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/902603441/m/4...10384341#41110384341

        It is amazing how creepy-crawly CIS has been regarding this case. Since about the middle of last year (2007) they have used the term "Settlement" so many times regarding this IAP case. You'd think that the word "settlement" actually means what an average person thinks it is, but CIS, DHS, etc. have their own interpretation of the word. Anyway, maybe they will indeed, truely "Settle" this case.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by WaitingToExhale:
          Anyway, maybe they will indeed, truely "Settle" this case.
          No they won't.

          This news from the court has no meaning for any person who entered without inspection. It is only for people who entered legally with a visa, and got out of status before 01 01 1982. Any Canadian citizen is excluded because Canadians don't need a visa to enter the USA. Most if not all Mexicans and Central Americans are excluded because almost all entered without inspection.

          For the rest of the people it's even worse. This is because almost all CSS/Newman/LULAC denials are due to the fact that the applicant cannot prove he/she was here before 01 01 1982. With this new deal not only do you have to prove that you were here before 01 01 1982, you also have to prove you were out of status. So it is in fact even more difficult than CSS/Newman. This brings the whole thing full circle back to ZERO.

          I highly doubt even 1 person will be legalized through this new deal.

          Comment


          • #6
            This news from the court has no meaning for any person who entered without inspection. It is only for people who entered legally with a visa, and got out of status before 01 01 1982. Any Canadian citizen is excluded because Canadians don't need a visa to enter the USA. Most if not all Mexicans and Central Americans are excluded because almost all entered without inspection.

            For the rest of the people it's even worse. This is because almost all CSS/Newman/LULAC denials are due to the fact that the applicant cannot prove he/she was here before 01 01 1982. With this new deal not only do you have to prove that you were here before 01 01 1982, you also have to prove you were out of status. So it is in fact even more difficult than CSS/Newman. This brings the whole thing full circle back to ZERO.

            I highly doubt even 1 person will be legalized through this new deal.
            I beg to differ. No, I do not beg to differ. I simply deffer. This settlement is not as bleak as you may think. Remember, the IAP case is widely known as "Known to the Government". Why? Because, the point of the case is that the illeagal status of these class members was "known to the government". How? Because, these are people who entered with non-immigrant visa (hence the government knew about them), and later violated their visa prior to January 1, 1982. Majority of those who will qualify are people who entered the country with student visa. They often violated their visa by working full time off-campus, taking less than the required number of credits, changing school without authorization, and MORE IMPORTANTLY (this includes all non-immigrant visas), FAILURE TO FILE QUARTERLY ADDRESS REPORT. Just this last part alone makes a lot of people who entered with non-immigrant visa qualify for benefit under this settlement. This violation is often referred to as section 265 violation. The District court in Seattle ruled, as far back as 1989, that failure to file address report constitutes illegal status that makes the person eligible for legalization. The court reasoned that if a person failed to file address report, then INS knew of that violation, and since the person was deportable just for that violation, then it is illogical for the INS to claim that the violation was not known to the government.

            So, it is not as bad as you may think. Having said all that, It is quite possible that, at the end of the day, BCIS may have already found a way to throw a monkey wrench to the whole settlement, as soon as the applications start rolling in.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by WaitingToExhale:

              I beg to differ. No, I do not beg to differ. I simply deffer. This settlement is not as bleak as you may think. Remember, the IAP case is widely known as "Known to the Government". Why? Because, the point of the case is that the illeagal status of these class members was "known to the government". How? Because, these are people who entered with non-immigrant visa (hence the government knew about them), and later violated their visa prior to January 1, 1982. Majority of those who will qualify are people who entered the country with student visa. They often violated their visa by working full time off-campus, taking less than the required number of credits, changing school without authorization, and MORE IMPORTANTLY (this includes all non-immigrant visas), FAILURE TO FILE QUARTERLY ADDRESS REPORT. Just this last part alone makes a lot of people who entered with non-immigrant visa qualify for benefit under this settlement. This violation is often referred to as section 265 violation. The District court in Seattle ruled, as far back as 1989, that failure to file address report constitutes illegal status that makes the person eligible for legalization. The court reasoned that if a person failed to file address report, then INS knew of that violation, and since the person was deportable just for that violation, then it is illogical for the INS to claim that the violation was not known to the government.

              So, it is not as bad as you may think. Having said all that, It is quite possible that, at the end of the day, BCIS may have already found a way to throw a monkey wrench to the whole settlement, as soon as the applications start rolling in.
              WaitingToExhale

              Okay, I agree with you in theory. In practice, I will be right. Here's why,

              The 1986 amnesty was originally intended primarily for agricultural workers. Millions were legalized, some were not. Most of the ones who were not legalized is because they did not qualify. I also believe that a very high percentage of the people who were legalized, did not qualify.

              The student type, that you are referring to had a different mentality than the migrant farm worker. Since nearly 3 decades have passed, most of these people have gotten married, got a GC through their job, left the Country decades ago, or died of natural causes, etc. I guarantee very few if any have lived under the radar for all these decades. Even if they did, they'd have had to have saved their old passport. Most Countries require the citizen to relinquish their old passport upon receiving a new one. Also remember if a person has chosen to live in the USA illegally, they would not want to keep their old passport around as it incriminates them. How could they ever have known that 27 years later they would need it???

              The kryptonite that could have killed them throughout their lifetime, is now what they need to save them. How ironic!!!!

              Might there be somebody out there who qualifies? Maybe, but this news is not on the front page of the "New York Times," they may never know or find out about it. Also never forget that the USCIS does not like these kind of cases, and are very reluctant to approve them. They are not as straight forward as your average fraudulent marriage, the constitutional rights of the USC are irrefutable. These settlement cases are easy for the CIS to deny. They can always find some reason to deny it.

              Remember,
              It is a million times easier to prove a fraudulent marriage, than a legitimate CSS/Newman/LULAC case.

              The big trouble with all these settlements is if it fails, you're much worse off than before you applied. If you're going to be an illegal alien, it's a millions times better to be un-documented than documented.

              Comment


              • #8
                Unique,

                Even though some parts of your argument make sense (e.g. most of those who will benefit may already have found other ways to legalize), you seem to be forgetting one point. In class action lawsuits, the defendant (in this case CIS), always tries to challenge all aspects of the case, every step of the way. In this particular case, CIS lawyers, less than two years ago, did try to make the same argument that you made"”that there aren't many people out there who still constitute this class. CIS went further to demand that the plaintiff attorneys provide a list of members that could be deposed. When names were forwarded to them, the CIS backed down and proceeded to settle. If they thought that there weren't enough people, they probably could have tried to get the court to nullify the class, or at least proceed to depose those class members, with the hope of debunking their claims. But instead, they (CIS) "blinked".

                As for your point that this case is not in the front page of New York Times, keep in mind that settlements like this don't get published until they have been finalized. In fact, part of the terms of the settlement is that CIS will be required to publicize the settlement in mass media as well as throughout their offices.

                Comment


                • #9
                  WaitingToExhale,

                  The USCIS is against this settlement. That's why they fought it in court. The court does not police the USCIS.

                  Lets put this into perspective.

                  Imagine a man who beats his wife. She takes him to court. The court orders the man to stop beating his wife. The court then puts the woman back into the mans custody, and does not ever inquire or check on the woman's safety.

                  The angry man then beats his wife to death for taking him to court.

                  While in court the CIS may agree to certain terms. When they get the alien applicant alone in a room, the court ruling is nothing more than a sick joke. Who's going to enforce the law?? They simply do whatever they want. If the adjudicating officer likes you. You will be legalized. If he does not like you, your dead.

                  It's just as simple as that!

                  Comment

                  Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                  Home Page

                  Immigration Daily

                  Archives

                  Processing times

                  Immigration forms

                  Discussion board

                  Resources

                  Blogs

                  Twitter feed

                  Immigrant Nation

                  Attorney2Attorney

                  CLE Workshops

                  Immigration books

                  Advertise on ILW

                  EB-5

                  移民日报

                  About ILW.COM

                  Connect to us

                  Questions/Comments

                  SUBSCRIBE

                  Immigration Daily



                  Working...
                  X