District court judge dismissed this adam walsh I-129F lawsuit

[C0881 2]

Full pages of judge's opinion, discussion and order can be found here:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/3:2010cv00803/98510/40/

I want to know why this petitioner's attempt has failed. Are his arguments not right? or that he filed the lawsuit to the wrong court (district court of oregon)?!

My understanding is that if the I-129F is denied by USCIS, a petitioner can file an appeal to AAO. Of course this will take many years for AAO to make a decision. If let say the appeal is finally denied, can the petitioner appeal to a higher court like circuit court of appeals OR just file a lawsuit against DHS topdown to USCIS (napotliano et al)?

If it's an I-130/I-485 petition that involves the adam walsh act, the petitioner can appeal to the BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals). But if BIA denies the appeal after several years of waiting, should the petitioner just appeal to the circuit court of appeals or just sue DHS/USCIS?

According to the above court ruling, the lawsuit was dismissed by the judge for "lack of subject matter jurisdiction". So what is the right court to file such immigration lawsuit? Supreme Court? But don't the district courts handle initial hearings of those supreme court cases first?

Also, the judge mentioned the "unreviewable discretion" of the agency (USCIS/DHS). Under what circumstances can a petitioner challenge such standard? Can there be an abuse of discretion? How can one prove it? If the discretion is unreviewable, what jurisdiction would have a right to review a case that brings such argument?

It is so easy for these district court judges to dismiss a case just citing lack of jurisdiction........

any feedback welcome

[eagerly 2]

Full pages of judge's opinion, discussion and order can be found here:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/3:2010cv00803/98510/40/

I want to know why this petitioner's attempt has failed. Are his arguments not right? or that he filed the lawsuit to the wrong court (district court of oregon)?!

My understanding is that if the I-129F is denied by USCIS, a petitioner can file an appeal to AAO. Of course this will take many years for AAO to make a decision. If let say the appeal is finally denied, can the petitioner appeal to a higher court like circuit court of appeals OR just file a lawsuit against DHS topdown to USCIS (napotliano et al)?

If it's an I-130/I-485 petition that involves the adam walsh act, the petitioner can appeal to the BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals). But if BIA denies the appeal after several years of waiting, should the petitioner just appeal to the circuit court of appeals or just sue DHS/USCIS?

According to the above court ruling, the lawsuit was dismissed by the judge for "lack of subject matter jurisdiction". So what is the right court to file such immigration lawsuit? Supreme Court? But don't the district courts handle initial hearings of those supreme court cases first?

Also, the judge mentioned the "unreviewable discretion" of the agency (USCIS/DHS). Under what circumstances can a petitioner challenge such standard? Can there be an abuse of discretion? How can one prove it? If the discretion is unreviewable, what jurisdiction would have a right to review a case that brings such argument?

It is so easy for these district court judges to dismiss a case just citing lack of jurisdiction........

any feedback welcome

Maybe it should have been filed to the Circuit Court of Appeals..as this is a federal case ..not so sure tho.

[danik713 21]

The lawsuit is a joke and the Judge seemed to do his best not to make a complete mockery of it in his discussion.

Only the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security have jurisdiction over this issue, no court may address the case. Although it was filed appropriately it is a moot case and an easy dismissal for the Judge.

Furthermore, only the given Secretary has discretion to determine if the petition does or does not pose a risk to the beneficiary. This discretion is unreviewable. So if the petitioner fails to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that s/he poses no threat then the petitioner is pretty much SOL, to put it plainly.

As I understand it if you are an AWA petitioner and get a NOID you have one shot to prove beyond any reasonable doubt you are of no threat. If this is not accepted and you are denied based upon this issue then that is the final verdict. Given that the Secretary's discretion (trickles down to the individual adjusicator) is unreviewable, even the Attorney General cannot help you. If the denial is upon other grounds there may be other options and possibilities as the OP stated - I am only responding directly to the subject of Beeman v. Napolitano et al.

Hope this helps to clarify the given case.

[A and T 82]

The problem is a lack of transparency, a lack of guidelines to show what is and what isn't beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be much easier if they gave a time frame, and a list a requirements and stick to it. Simple as that

<div><br></div><div>I would think, personally, if a person completes all requirements and doesn't get in trouble again and it has been many years since the case , that the person should be approved.  But we know thats not always the case.   </div><div><br></div><div>I wish the lawsuit would go through for the simple fact that they need some guidelines listed out , rather than hide the information.  What if the person that reviews your case discriminates against you for some other reason? You have no way to know, as you have no guidelines to go by to compare your case. </div>

Edited June 2, 2011 by Adam and Thet

[danik713 21]

Hi Adam and Thet,

"Reasonable doubt" is relatively subjective - the problem is once there has been an offense a reasonable person is going to believe there is still a risk, regardless of post action, so the burden of proof for the petitioner is very heavy. As for guidelines, they will tell you those are listed out - don't get in trouble in the first place. It is also impossible to give absolute post conviction guidelines as each case is addressed individually. Regardless, it unfortunately is an uphill battle and a reminder that immigration is a privilege rather than an entitlement.

Good luck in your journey.

[m & t 0]

answer this? How many innocent men,women and CHILDREN, has the U.S Goverment killed? In its 236 years?

[danik713 21]

answer this? How many innocent men,women and CHILDREN, has the U.S Goverment killed? In its 236 years?

This has nothing to do with the original post. To clarify, 2011 marks the 150th anniversary for the US Civil War.

[m & t 0]

1776 or 1865, the goverment you serve has caused harm to innocent children. But stands in judgement of those who have done the same!

1776 or 1865, the goverment you serve has caused harm to innocent children. But stands in judgement of those who have done the same!

1776 or 1865, the goverment you serve has caused harm to innocent children. But stands in judgement of those who have done the same!

[danik713 21]

According to Maylyn & Troy's logic two wrongs make a right.

Yeah, that's intelligent - believe it or not I will pass on that, thanks.

[m & t 0]

ok, two wrongs! But one is punished and the other is'nt? One is shamed, the other honored! So i guess its good ole american hypocrisy! Very intelligent!

[evli1966 88]

ok, two wrongs! But one is punished and the other is'nt? One is shamed, the other honored! So i guess its good ole american hypocrisy! Very intelligent!

I am assuming you refer to times of war and what we as americans did to the innocent that were slaves etc....How do you punsih this? not that it should ever be forgotten or left unchallenged.

Acts of harming other people by an uindividual should be punishable; but let those that serve time and that work towards a safe live trying to reintegrate to society do so.

We as a nation live in uneducated fear because the mass populace feels better hating and harming someone else, so the uneducated politicians or those who forget the wrongs they do each day exploit you the uneducated person.

The Media such as Nancy Gray prey on the populace fear because it makes her rich and her network because suzis mom wants to live there and hear these media personalities justify the ignorant, hurtful laws passed by those politicians which in reality protect no one.

[A and T 82]

My biggest problem with the Adam Walsh Act, is that a Sex offender (who is a usa citizen) can marry any other USA citizen without it being reviewed by government, or any agency. But yet when a Sex offender marries someone from overseas, suddenly the double standard kicks in .

Its discriminatory against the wifes or husbands of sex offenders , its the same as saying that our government feels they (the wifes and husbands) have no judgement for themselves? Or maybe our government thinks people from overseas aren't as "smart" as usa citizens? (keeping in mind usa citizens marrying other usa citizens goes unchecked regardless of background)

I don't see how its not a form of discrimination

But this topic is beating a dead horse, I just hope someone re-files the lawsuit and continues to fight for what is right . Sue the department of homeland security, that seems to be where the cases get stuck at and lack any transparency