K-1 Lawsuit has been filed in federal court today

[HRQX 4,145]

4 minutes ago, stuckonyou said:

So is there any timeline now that this has gotten started as to when a decision will actually be made?

A final decision on the case is still many months away. The plaintiffs affected by PPNCOVs have the the main goal of getting preliminary relief of the judge agreeing that they are likely to win on argument about difference between issuance and entry, and also that DOS be forced to include K-1 as National Interest Exception so that K-1 travelers in restricted countries can go directly to the US. That is best case scenario.

 

Note that the first half of the goal is potentially more viable than getting the whole goal. In that case, K-1 travelers in restricted countries would still be subject to the PPNCOV and would have to travel to an unrestricted country for 14 days before going to the US:

 

[imsan 41]

This lawsuit is our only hope as embassy in Stockholm said K1 won't be interviewed until full routine visa services resume.

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by imsan

[supportdesk 42]

There are lots of good tidbits in here. Particularly:

Quote

Thus, while the K visa is technically a nonimmigrant visa, Congress always intended that a fiancé(e) who entered the U.S. and married the U.S. citizen “would be classifiable as an ‘ immediate relative,’” because the fiancé(e) adjusts status as the spouse of a United States citizen. Matter of Sesay , 25 I&N Dec. 431, 436 (BIA 2011) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, at 8, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2758, 1970 WL 5815 at **8)

 

[HRQX 4,145]

47 minutes ago, supportdesk said:

Redacted TRO/PI

*Plaintiffs motion for TRO/PI

 

Judge still hasn't issued decision on said motion.

[powerpuff 6,703]

@supportdesk

Thanks for the updates! Keep them coming 

Edited October 13, 2020 by powerpuff

[imsan 41]

3 hours ago, HRQX said:

*Plaintiffs motion for TRO/PI

 

Judge still hasn't issued decision on said motion.

The lawyers have asked the judge to rule by 10/20/2020.

[Jody and Misho 99]

Exactly. This isn’t going to be a months’ long wait. We’ve already been doing that. I know we will succeed. 

[stuckonyou 75]

15 hours ago, imsan said:

The lawyers have asked the judge to rule by 10/20/2020.

So basically we'll know next week what will happen with this? 😇

If they rule in favor of the law suit, does that mean that the embassies "have to" issue my visa after that because the judge will order them to start doing so again? I'm not too informed about the whole lawsuit, but I've had my interview already (in March) and the only reason that they still haven't issued my visa is because they're saying they can't take action on any K1 case due to the travel ban that Sweden is included in. I'm aware that they'll most likely ask me to redo the medical, but that should be it, right? So even if they take the plaintiffs first, I already had my interview so I wouldn't need to wait for an appointment at the embassy...

[HRQX 4,145]

4 hours ago, stuckonyou said:

If they rule in favor of the law suit, does that mean that the embassies "have to" issue my visa after that because the judge will order them to start doing so again? I'm not too informed about the whole lawsuit,

Hard to predict. It's possible for the judge to rule partly in favor and partly against the plaintiffs by only partially granting the TRO/PI. We'll have to wait to see exactly how the judge adjudicates the TRO/PI.

Edited October 14, 2020 by HRQX

[Ollieh97 20]

13 hours ago, stuckonyou said:

So basically we'll know next week what will happen with this? 😇

If they rule in favor of the law suit, does that mean that the embassies "have to" issue my visa after that because the judge will order them to start doing so again? I'm not too informed about the whole lawsuit, but I've had my interview already (in March) and the only reason that they still haven't issued my visa is because they're saying they can't take action on any K1 case due to the travel ban that Sweden is included in. I'm aware that they'll most likely ask me to redo the medical, but that should be it, right? So even if they take the plaintiffs first, I already had my interview so I wouldn't need to wait for an appointment at the embassy...

This lawsuit isn’t a class action so it will only affect plaintiffs if the judge rules in favour of the lawsuit. There is the possibility that this could have an affect on other k1 cases, but nobody knows for certain what will happen, and as of right now only plaintiffs will benefit.

[supportdesk 42]

21 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

Can you summarize? 

Basically it's saying "the government is wrong"; a few key countering points:

1. The .gov said we are challenging the EOs banning entry, forcing issuing visas, and telling them how to do their job. This is wrong and was called out.
2. The .gov said routine visa services were suspended worldwide; therefor no K-1. It was called out "you guys are issuing visitor visas".
3. The .gov said "no harm in not processing K-1 visas". It was called out family separation is a legally defined thing.
4. The .gov said processing the K-1 visas would overburden the system. It was called out that 190 couples worldwide in the suit is not going to destroy the system if they were processed.

These are some key things, grossly simplified. There's plenty more, but I'm not awesome at summarizing stuff

 

[Ermehgerdd 172]

27 minutes ago, supportdesk said:

Basically it's saying "the government is wrong"; a few key countering points:

1. The .gov said we are challenging the EOs banning entry, forcing issuing visas, and telling them how to do their job. This is wrong and was called out.
2. The .gov said routine visa services were suspended worldwide; therefor no K-1. It was called out "you guys are issuing visitor visas".
3. The .gov said "no harm in not processing K-1 visas". It was called out family separation is a legally defined thing.
4. The .gov said processing the K-1 visas would overburden the system. It was called out that 190 couples worldwide in the suit is not going to destroy the system if they were processed.

These are some key things, grossly simplified. There's plenty more, but I'm not awesome at summarizing stuff

 

So you know the record is sealed, why are you sharing information that wasn't made public?

[supportdesk 42]

1 minute ago, Ermehgerdd said:

So you know the record is sealed, why are you sharing information that wasn't made public?

Plaintiff information has been sealed/redacted. Nothing I've shared is either outstanding strategy/stuff you can't find on dropbox by sleuthing(or posted on twitter at some pint).

[Ermehgerdd 172]

Just now, supportdesk said:

Plaintiff information has been sealed/redacted. Nothing I've shared is either outstanding strategy/stuff you can't find on dropbox by sleuthing(or posted on twitter at some pint).

No official documents have been shared on Twitter or other public platforms, they've only been directly sent to plaintiffs via confidential correspondence from their retained attorneys. 

 

[supportdesk 42]

If there's concern about these links remaining, I'd be happy to remove them, but it seems I can't edit posts after an hour..