Official Executive Order for Suspending Entry of Immigrants

[Quarknase 1,072]

4 hours ago, HRQX said:

On a closer look it's referring to Subsection 2(a)(iii) of the five proclamations (Schengen Area; UK and Ireland; Brazil; Iran; China). That link says, "parents (provided that his/her U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident child is unmarried and under the age of 21)" Thus it isn't talking about IR-5 since petitioners have to be 21 or older.

Those same five proclamations say the following are exempt:

New issuance is still banned per April 22 PP until the end of the year.

That’s how I’m reading it too. However, others interpret it different so I figured I come here for opinions. It does leave some room for hope hehe

[retheem 564]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 12:20 AM, Quarknase said:

That’s how I’m reading it too. However, others interpret it different so I figured I come here for opinions. It does leave some room for hope hehe

But you can't sponsor your parents until you are 21 yrs old and above. So IR-5 is affected

[Frank Zander 5]

What you guys think,how big are the odds that all the visas are gonna be suspended for 2021 too?

[Quarknase 1,072]

Nobody knows. There was a hearing yesterday challenging both PP's. It's now pending judgement from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta.

@geowrian did you listen in by any chance? I dialed in from Germany but the connection was so bad, I was unable to catch anything...

[geowrian 22,337]

14 hours ago, Quarknase said:

Nobody knows. There was a hearing yesterday challenging both PP's. It's now pending judgement from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta.

@geowrian did you listen in by any chance? I dialed in from Germany but the connection was so bad, I was unable to catch anything...

I did not...it's been a crazy week!

[JacobP 185]

14 hours ago, Quarknase said:

Nobody knows. There was a hearing yesterday challenging both PP's. It's now pending judgement from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta.

@geowrian did you listen in by any chance? I dialed in from Germany but the connection was so bad, I was unable to catch anything...

I think that hearing was mostly focused on DV2020 winners. No results yet but they think they'll hear back from the judge in under a week.

[Quarknase 1,072]

12 hours ago, geowrian said:

I did not...it's been a crazy week!

Ahhh I’m sorry. I hope that you get to enjoy the weekend. Was hoping to hear your take on the cases.

 

11 hours ago, JacobP said:

I think that hearing was mostly focused on DV2020 winners. No results yet but they think they'll hear back from the judge in under a week.

Not really. The hearing was a conjunction of 5 plaintiffs for the April 22nd (family visas) and June 22nd (DV, work visas). 

[Gar9 5]

On 8/28/2020 at 3:54 PM, Quarknase said:

Nobody knows. There was a hearing yesterday challenging both PP's. It's now pending judgement from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta.

@geowrian did you listen in by any chance? I dialed in from Germany but the connection was so bad, I was unable to catch anything...

 

What is the latest update on the Judgement by Mr. Mehta , especially with respect to Family / Immediate Relatives catagory ? Are these still banned ? 

[Quarknase 1,072]

1 minute ago, Gar9 said:

 

What is the latest update on the Judgement by Mr. Mehta , especially with respect to Family / Immediate Relatives catagory ? Are these still banned ? 

I haven’t read the 85 pages yet, but according to the summary yes, they’re still banned. The only win so far is for DV lottery - the DOS needs to process those visas by 09/30, and report on progress on 09/25.

[HRQX 4,145]

6 hours ago, Quarknase said:

The only win so far is for DV lottery - the DOS needs to process those visas by 09/30, and report on progress on 09/25.

Actually, the government essentially won. The government will get the visa processing fees and USCIS Immigrant Fee, but CBP can still enforce the proclamation by denying them entry: "Plaintiffs’ requests for the court to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Proclamations 10014 and 10052 against Plaintiffs are denied." https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.218517/gov.uscourts.dcd.218517.123.0.pdf Even if Trump loses in November, he'll still be President until January 20, 2021. So he may or may not extend the proclamations in December.

 

Also, the judge stated, "the court concludes that the Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their challenges to the Proclamations."

[Quarknase 1,072]

24 minutes ago, HRQX said:

Actually, the government essentially won. The government will get the visa processing fees and USCIS Immigrant Fee, but CBP can still enforce the proclamation by denying them entry: "Plaintiffs’ requests for the court to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Proclamations 10014 and 10052 against Plaintiffs are denied." https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.218517/gov.uscourts.dcd.218517.123.0.pdf Even if Trump loses in November, he'll still be President until January 20, 2021. So he may or may not extend the proclamations in December.

 

Also, the judge stated, "the court concludes that the Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their challenges to the Proclamations."

I disagree. The DV 2020 winners would “lose” their spot if visas are not issued by September 30. Meaning after the ban is lifted (whenever that may be) they would have lost the option to migrate to the US. This is a win, as in the judge requests that DOS issued visas. Once issued, they can travel after the ban ends, and/or renew the visa if it expires, in case the ban gets extended

[geowrian 22,337]

The way I read it, it essentially just kicks the can down the road. The judge is permitting the visas to be issued as they have a firm date to be issued by or else they are gone forever. If he didn't do that, the issue would settle itself before the merits of the case are actually assessed.

But he was not willing to actually suspend the proclamations as it applies to DV holders. Actually overcoming the EO's restrictions is something for which they don't have that strong of an argument.

 

I think the idea is he is hoping that either the EOs are not extended and the issue fixes itself as a result, or the EOs are extended and the issue of the ability to renew the visas can be litigated separately.

It was the minimum he could do to keep the case alive to avoid the immediate harm to DV winners, but doesn't really resolve any of the underlying issues.

[HRQX 4,145]

20 hours ago, Quarknase said:

or renew the visa if it expires, in case the ban gets extended

As @geowrian mentioned above, that would require separate litigation (that may or may not be successful).

[Ontarkie 14,218]

~~One post removed for changing the content of a quote to another language. Do not edit another members content (the quote) it is also English only in the main forums.~~