Filing lawsuit against the embassy and Uscis

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 hours ago, Ron12345 said:

It would be illegal to deny a case because the govt has not completed its own security processing. They would be sued. They must provide a legal reason for denial. 

The legal reason would be them not having completed the security check and can therefore not approve the application due to national security etc.

[John & Rose 7,239]

3 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

The legal reason would be them not having completed the security check and can therefore not approve the application due to national security etc.

That is what I see too.  They are forced to make a decision so the decision will be denial.  They will always error on the side of safety.  

[MsNina 184]

18 hours ago, bestluck said:

I was in Administrative process more them 3 years Alot of poeople telling me  sue the embassy i wait and wait and wait been really hard times waiting for visa to be with my wife , finally embassy move on with new form ds 230 and picture and all information request by embassy issued my visa i got visa Sep 2014 and my case was file in 2009 and 2011 was my interview so just imagine how hard that could be just be patient and wait for embassy cos there is nobody can tell you when they will complete administrative process during this time Home Investigator , Make sure saved all your documents and ones a while check your case status and follow the embassy my thoughts to you that  good luck and if u got any more question feel free to message me please ,

Good luck   

Why was your AP so long? And did they tell you that you were approved and then put on AP?

[Ron12345 16]

31 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

The legal reason would be them not having completed the security check and can therefore not approve the application due to national security etc.

Do you actually believe that would hold up in a court of law as to why someone was refused? What provision is that?

 

The judge would laugh. Dare I suggest, they might even order the officer to issue the visa.

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 minutes ago, Ron12345 said:

Do you actually believe that would hold up in a court of law as to why someone was refused? What provision is that?

 

The judge would laugh. Dare I suggest, they might even order the officer to issue the visa.

Yes, actually, I do believe it would hold up in court as it is a perfectly valid reason. Unless you have any real evidence of the contrary I think you are speaking out of your ###. Haven't seen you back any of your claims up with any sources etc.

[Going through 5,671]

Agree that sources would be a good learning reference.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

19 minutes ago, Ron12345 said:

Do you actually believe that would hold up in a court of law as to why someone was refused? What provision is that?

 

The judge would laugh. Dare I suggest, they might even order the officer to issue the visa.

And how could the judge do that when security checks have not been completed and the judge therefore cannot know whether or not the applicant is actually eligible for a visa? 

I rather suspect the judge would laugh at your suggestion, too.

Edited January 14, 2019 by SusieQQQ

[John & Rose 7,239]

24 minutes ago, Ron12345 said:

Do you actually believe that would hold up in a court of law as to why someone was refused? What provision is that?

Absolutely!!!  National Security is a reason.  If they are forced to make a decision there is no way I see an approval. This is taking time for a reason.  They will never jeopardize national security because a foreigner is suing to be let into the country.  National Security will always win over making a foreigner happy.  If pushed, they should deny on the basis that they were not able to complete the process.  That seems perfectly logical to me.  If I were in their shoes (yes, there is some reason for the delay - they are not picking on you) I would deny in a heartbeat since I cannot legally justify approving a visa for someone who did not complete the AP process.  No judge in the land would force the Department of State to issue a visa to a person who has not been properly vetted.

 

A visa is a privilege, not a right.  

Edited January 14, 2019 by John & Rose

[Ron12345 16]

11 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

And how could the judge do that when security checks have not been completed and the judge therefore cannot know whether or not the applicant is actually eligible for a visa? 

I'm speculating. The main point is claiming that the government has not completed their own duty and using that as justification to refuse would never hold up in any court of law. There is no provision that authorizes such an action. They would be ordered to immediately complete their own processing and to then provide a proper decision. If they still refused, they would be ignoring a court order. I could imagine the judge ordering them to issue at that point.

 

Here is a recent example of a judge ordering the govt to print visas, despite the claim that they were still undergoing security checks:

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-brooklyn-judge-orders-visas-yemeni-nationals-20180601-story.html

Edited January 14, 2019 by Ron12345

[geowrian 22,337]

6 minutes ago, Ron12345 said:

Do you actually believe that would hold up in a court of law as to why someone was refused? What provision is that?

 

The judge would laugh. Dare I suggest, they might even order the officer to issue the visa.

Presumably INA 221(g) "Application does not comply with provisions of INA or regulations issued pursuant thereto". An incomplete background check means the application is incomplete.

 

The doctrine of consular non-reviewability comes into play as well. A judge cannot review a decision unless their is not a"bona fide and facially legitimate" reason provided for denying the visa. If security checks are not completed, I find it hard to believe a judge would determine this is not a bona fide reason nor an illegitimate basis for a visa refusal.

[Ron12345 16]

5 minutes ago, geowrian said:

a"bona fide and facially legitimate" reason provided for denying the visa.

The govt telling the judge that they have not completed their own background checks would not pass muster. You cannot deny on that basis.

Again, this is why it goes back to the original mandamus and what's a "reasonable" amount of time.

 

We are talking about an absolutely tiny number of cases. The vast, vast, vast majority are dismissed by plaintiff.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Ron12345

[geowrian 22,337]

Just now, Ron12345 said:

I'm speculating. The main point is claiming that the government has not completed their own duty and using that as justification to refuse would never hold up in any court of law. There is no provision that authorizes such an action.

 

Here is a recent example of a judge ordering the govt to print visas, despite the claim that they were still undergoing security checks:

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-brooklyn-judge-orders-visas-yemeni-nationals-20180601-story.html

The issue is "the government" cannot be sued or compelled to take such action. A proper jurisdiction is needed in order for the court to issue an order.

 

Your understanding of the issue in your example is incorrect. The visas were not denied due to security checks. They were denied due to an EO making them ineligible for the visa. That ineligability was found to be incorrectly applied.

[John & Rose 7,239]

3 minutes ago, Ron12345 said:

 

Here is a recent example of a judge ordering the govt to print visas, despite the claim that they were still undergoing security checks:

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-brooklyn-judge-orders-visas-yemeni-nationals-20180601-story.html

How is this relevant?  That is a legal challenge to the "Muslim Ban".  They will still not issue visas to anyone who doesn't deserve one.  The judge is telling them that they should not be singled out because they are from Yeman and part of the 7 country ban.  UAE was never part of that ban.  This is apple and oranges.  No way would this have any bearing on a UAE case.  I do understand your feelings but I think your emotions are effecting your logic.  

[John & Rose 7,239]

2 minutes ago, Ron12345 said:

The govt telling the judge that they have not completed their own background checks would not pass muster. You cannot deny on that basis.

Wrong, you can't "approve" on that basis!  You are looking at it backwards.  If it takes too long they have to just let you in without question?  That will never happen.  

[Ron12345 16]

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Your understanding of the issue in your example is incorrect. The visas were not denied due to security checks. They were denied due to an EO making them ineligible for the visa. That ineligability was found to be incorrectly applied.

The govt was claiming in court that they could not issue the visas because many of the applicants remained in security checks. The judge ordered them to print the visas.