K-1 Lawsuit has been filed in federal court today

[HRQX 4,145]

20 minutes ago, YueQian said:

In a recent post, State Deparment included fiances in immediate relatives.

This was discussed in a recent thread:

As mentioned above, the sentence is clearly missing a comma. IR and fiancé would have same priority at posts, but by law fiancé is not IR.

[YueQian 22]

11 minutes ago, HRQX said:

This was discussed in a recent thread:

As mentioned above, the sentence is clearly missing a comma. IR and fiancé would have same priority at posts, but by law fiancé is not IR.

Then it's just a vague statement about priority which has been made back in like August... doesnt even say SAME priority as IRs.

[Ollieh97 20]

14 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

We won. Partially. We did it. We beat them.

Not considering this a win until I have my visa in hand. The judge hasn’t told them they have to issue visas, just that they can’t use proclamations as an excuse. Doesn’t mean they won’t think of a million and one more excuses to not issue visas.

[Gatekeeper 35]

On 11/19/2020 at 7:34 PM, supportdesk said:

 

From the full opinion That can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.222172/gov.uscourts.dcd.222172.20.0.pdf

(This exact document is also viewable in PACER)

 

It's a very good read.

Thanks for sharing. I’m not sure to understand the conclusion though (my level of English is to blame, sorry!): “enjoin the state department to follow the presidential EO”?...does this means that The Court says the DS was RIGHT in interpreting the EO as an order to stop issuing visas?...In any case, this does not seem to me a clear-cut victory at all...or is my understanding not correct?...

[supportdesk 42]

1 minute ago, Gatekeeper said:

Thanks for sharing. I’m not sure to understand the conclusion though (my level of English is to blame, sorry!): “enjoin the state department to follow the presidential EO”?...does this means that The Court says the DS was RIGHT in interpreting the EO as an order to stop issuing visas?...In any case, this does not seem to me a clear-cut victory at all...or is my understanding not correct?...

It means the government cannot use that executive order as an excuse. It's not exactly clear cut as I personally would have liked, however an important thing to note is many consulates have been using that excuse to avoid visa adjudication.They have now been put in the position where if they start making other excuses it has the potential to raise suspicions within the court.

 

[Gatekeeper 35]

Just now, supportdesk said:

It means the government cannot use that executive order as an excuse. It's not exactly clear cut as I personally would have liked, however an important thing to note is many consulates have been using that excuse to avoid visa adjudication.They have now been put in the position where if they start making other excuses it has the potential to raise suspicions within the court.

 

Thank you for clarifying! And congratulations to the plaintiffs for this 1st step toward a (hopefully) positive outcome.

[HRQX 4,145]

2 hours ago, Gatekeeper said:

And congratulations to the plaintiffs for this 1st step toward a (hopefully) positive outcome.

The judge didn't rule on the NIE part of the suit as the Plaintiffs requested. So if the K-1 traveler doesn't meet one of the exemptions (e.g. biological parent of US citizen child, etc.) then the K-1 can't travel directly to the US. The K-1 traveler would need to go to unrestricted country (e.g. Serbia, Croatia, Turkey, Mexico, Canada, South Korea, etc.) for 14 days before attempting US entry. Here is an example of someone from Spain spending 14 days in Mexico before going to the US with K-1 visa:

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by HRQX

[sl1pstream 551]

On 11/20/2020 at 3:21 PM, Ollieh97 said:

Not considering this a win until I have my visa in hand. The judge hasn’t told them they have to issue visas, just that they can’t use proclamations as an excuse. Doesn’t mean they won’t think of a million and one more excuses to not issue visas.

Were you part of the lawsuit?

[sl1pstream 551]

20 hours ago, HRQX said:

The judge didn't rule on the NIE part of the suit as the Plaintiffs requested.

As I understand it, those can be granted by the individual embassies and considering that no one in this suit has had their interview since, we don't know how the embassies are going to interpret it. Even if they don't grant one, the weather in Mexico is pretty great this time of year. I think we all deserve a vacation at this point.

[pialia 0]

Has anyone sent an email to the embassy asking about the judges decision?

[supportdesk 42]

4 minutes ago, pialia said:

Has anyone sent an email to the embassy asking about the judges decision?

I contacted Guangzhou with the results from the judge but got another response citing the proclamation and saying nope. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt they have not been given updated directions yet, I'm contacting them again tomorrow

[Gatekeeper 35]

On 11/22/2020 at 10:20 AM, pialia said:

Has anyone sent an email to the embassy asking about the judges decision?

Somebody (in another thread) wrote to the embassy in the UK. The embassy confirmed they were aware of the Miligan vs Pompeo Court Order and that they were waiting for guidance from the DOS. Said any update regarding K-1 processing would be posted on the travel state.gov website...

[Ollieh97 20]

On 11/22/2020 at 2:47 PM, sl1pstream said:

Were you part of the lawsuit?

Yes, I am.

I have had 2 interviews cancelled from London embassy. When I emailed them they told me they was aware of the order but can only process spousal/child visas. I don’t expect them to act in good faith and start issuing visas unless they are ordered to by the court. At this moment I don’t see this as a win for anybody. Hopefully things change.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Ollieh97

[Gatekeeper 35]

17 minutes ago, Ollieh97 said:

Yes, I am.

I have had 2 interviews cancelled from London embassy. When I emailed them they told me they was aware of the order but can only process spousal/child visas. I don’t expect them to act in good faith and start issuing visas unless they are ordered to by the court. At this moment I don’t see this as a win for anybody. Hopefully things change.

Hasn’t your lawyer been accompanying you to communicate with the embassy, following the Court decision?...Or has he planned to prepare a letter for them in that regard? Or to liaise with the DOS to have the decision enforced on your case at least?...

besides, I understand that there will be a status hearing on December 3rd. That is the kind of topic (cascading the order to embassies to resume processing) that may be decided/negotiated with the judge then?....

Edited November 23, 2020 by Gatekeeper
Added a question

[Ollieh97 20]

30 minutes ago, Gatekeeper said:

Hasn’t your lawyer been accompanying you to communicate with the embassy, following the Court decision?...Or has he planned to prepare a letter for them in that regard? Or to liaise with the DOS to have the decision enforced on your case at least?...

besides, I understand that there will be a status hearing on December 3rd. That is the kind of topic (cascading the order to embassies to resume processing) that may be decided/negotiated with the judge then?....

The lawyers sent out email templates for plaintiffs to contact the embassies/nvc. There is a status hearing December 3rd and I’m sure there will be conversations with the plaintiffs lawyers and government lawyers before then. It will come down to weather or not the government want to litigate this case now that the injunction was partially granted. In regards to them liaising with the DOS to have the decision enforced, there isn’t anything to enforce as the judge didn’t order them to process visas, just told them they can’t use the travel ban excuse.