K-1 Lawsuit has been filed in federal court today

[HRQX 4,145]

41 minutes ago, supportdesk said:

therefor no K-1. It was called out "you guys are issuing visitor visas".

Plaintiffs recent response didn't say that. It listed student visas, E visas, H-2 visas, etc. When it mentioned ESTA (which isn't a visa) it left out the pertinent fact that VWP is entirely managed by CBP, not DOS. CBP is a part of DHS. Contradictory to concede "Plaintiffs are not challenging the lawfulness of the Presidential Proclamations, Plaintiffs are not asking Defendants to immediately resume routine visa services, and Plaintiffs are not challenging the decisions of consular officers." while listing DHS as a Defendant. The "No Visa Policy" was from DOS.

[imsan 41]

1 hour ago, HRQX said:

Plaintiffs recent response didn't say that. It listed student visas, E visas, H-2 visas, etc. When it mentioned ESTA (which isn't a visa) it left out the pertinent fact that VWP is entirely managed by CBP, not DOS. CBP is a part of DHS. Contradictory to concede "Plaintiffs are not challenging the lawfulness of the Presidential Proclamations, Plaintiffs are not asking Defendants to immediately resume routine visa services, and Plaintiffs are not challenging the decisions of consular officers." while listing DHS as a Defendant. The "No Visa Policy" was from DOS.

Yes they did say that. I read the whole document. They said that not issuing visa because of travel ban is capricious. Travel ban if you have been in a country banned is legitimate but issuance of visa because of ban is illegal since you can easily overcome that by visiting country not banned for 14 days. Also, they are giving student and visitor visas in places where there is no ban but still denying to interview K1s. This rebuttal righly points that fact out.

[HRQX 4,145]

30 minutes ago, imsan said:

and visitor visas in places where there is no ban but still denying to interview K1s. This rebuttal righly points that fact out.

Nope. They didn't mention tourist visitor visas (B-2). As I mentioned, ESTA isn't a visa.

[imsan 41]

21 minutes ago, HRQX said:

Nope. They didn't mention tourist visitor visas (B-2). As I mentioned, ESTA isn't a visa.

Don't you think we are splitting hairs? They are technically the same category: temporary visitors. What privilege does ETSA have that tourists don't have once they enter US?

Edited October 22, 2020 by imsan

[HRQX 4,145]

23 minutes ago, imsan said:

Don't you think we are splitting hairs?

No. Major difference. Bringing up student visas, J-1 visas, E visas, H-2 visas, etc. is valid when challenging the unlawful* "No Visa Policy." Mentioning ESTA (which is not a visa) is irrelevant when challenging the aforementioned policy.

 

*I have continously stated that the Plaintiffs are likely to win on the challenges to the "No Visa Policy":

On 10/7/2020 at 3:08 PM, HRQX said:

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:

 

 

[TBoneTX 45,284]

2 hours ago, supportdesk said:

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..

Four posts containing outside links have been removed, per above request.

Edited October 22, 2020 by TBoneTX

[Just Paul 4,595]

29 minutes ago, imsan said:

Don't you think we are splitting hairs? They are technically the same category: temporary visitors. What privilege does ETSA have that tourists don't have once they enter US?

ESTA isn't handled by DOS.  You apply for a ESTA via CBP/DHS.  Arguing anything about ESTA is irrelevant. The issue at hand has nothing to do with DHS.

 

There are actually are requirements on an ESTA entrance that don't apply to a B2. 

An ESTA holder must have a return ticket or ticket out of the US.

ESTA is only available to nationals of certain low fraud countries.

ESTA is valid for the sooner of two years or until the passport expires.

ESTA is only allowed to AOS under a very few circumstances.

[sl1pstream 551]

Why are a bunch of clearly-not-lawyers with clearly zero experience arguing immigration law in court or even studying immigration law in the first place pretending that they're actually knowledgeable on this subject?

[HRQX 4,145]

1 hour ago, sl1pstream said:

pretending that they're actually knowledgeable

Lol. I recall when you totally misread PP10052 and were stubborn about your flawed interpretation:

[sl1pstream 551]

Yeah, no. They're literally sending everyone in travel banned countries the message that they're interpreting it as such, so it's not like my interpretation was any different than what consulates understood it meant.

We've emailed them from the start of this whole thing and that was their excuse. It's still their excuse today.

That doesn't change anything about this lawyer roleplay circle that's happening here, now that we've actually involved lawyers who know better than the people in this thread.

Edited October 22, 2020 by sl1pstream

[elkski 28]

what is the current status? I thought interviews for K1's were being scheduled now.. I have read a couple has a rescheduled interview Dec 23 in BKK.

Many couples like us are getting NOA2's

[HRQX 4,145]

5 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

It's still their excuse today.

No. The few that incorrectly sent emails referencing PP10052 and K-1 later clarified with different reason(s). Reread PP10052: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/25/2020-13888/suspension-of-entry-of-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-who-present-a-risk-to-the-united-states-labor

 

Back then you asked, "Did this EO just shut down the US or am I reading this all wrong?" It was the latter: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics/nonimmigrant-visa-statistics/monthly-nonimmigrant-visa-issuances.html

Edited October 22, 2020 by HRQX

[Gatekeeper 35]

So has there been any positive outcome for K-1 applicants in countries subject to the travel ban?... I see a lot of Different opinions in this forum but can’t find an “official” communication of any kind...

[HRQX 4,145]

6 minutes ago, Gatekeeper said:

but can’t find an “official” communication of any kind...

Recent discussion followed the posting (link has since been removed) of Plaintiffs reply brief which was filed on October 19th. If you have PACER, the case is 1:20-cv-02631 in D.C. District Court.

[Gatekeeper 35]

2 minutes ago, HRQX said:

Recent discussion followed the posting (link has since been removed) of Plaintiffs reply brief which was filed on October 19th. If you have PACER, the case is 1:20-cv-02631 in D.C. District Court.

I unfortunately don’t have PACER.  Can you tell me if a final decision was made by the judge or not? I understand from the comments here that for K-1 plaintiffs, they were only granted the right to proceed with their claim/suit. This means that there’s no conclusions regarding K-1 at this stage, is my understanding correct?