Philippines - lawsuits

[Tommyz44 67]

On 1/6/2021 at 7:05 PM, Dougefresh56 said:

While I appreciate that. It was not the reason my case was expedited. It was the lawsuit Milligan V Pompeo that got it moving. The Government wants to have the lawsuit dismissed. So they are pushing plaintiffs out by adjudicating our visas. I did not pay 5,000 dollars. 
 

my expedite request got denied. 
 

It was the Lawsuit. PERIOD.

Thanks for the info! I hadn't actually heard or seen anyone from PH get moved from it yet. Just rumors. I still don't understand the legality of this, since they ruled in your favor after plantiffs move the rest should now follow. Not just reward plantiffs and continue the stoppage. Seems strange to me. But I appreciate the reply!! I've been looking for who got moved from NVC forward from the case!! Congrats! 

[Dougefresh56 201]

3 hours ago, Tommyz44 said:

Thanks for the info! I hadn't actually heard or seen anyone from PH get moved from it yet. Just rumors. I still don't understand the legality of this, since they ruled in your favor after plantiffs move the rest should now follow. Not just reward plantiffs and continue the stoppage. Seems strange to me. But I appreciate the reply!! I've been looking for who got moved from NVC forward from the case!! Congrats! 

The reason is the Justice Department wants to get the lawsuit dismissed. Until all plaintiffs are mooted out they can’t do that. All plaintiffs from the Philippines have moved. Most have interviews scheduled. My fiancée and I were fortunate we were the first ones to get an interview.

[John & Rose 7,239]

The Milligan vs Pompeo suit ONLY impacts the Schengen Area and has NO impact on Covid related stoppages.  The information is readily available.  The plaintiffs did win (the case was settled in November and clarified in early December).  It has ZERO impact on the Philippines.  There is a second suit because while interviews did take place, the travel ban was still in effect so the approved beneficiary still needed to go to a third, non-banned country for 14 days before entering the US.  Here is the State Departments statement.  The plaintiffs paid $2000 each

 

On November 19, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined the government from suspending K-1 fiancée visa adjudications for the named plaintiffs in Milligan v. Pompeo due to the regional COVID-related Presidential Proclamations (P.P.s) 9984, 9992, 9993, 9996, and 10041.  These COVID-related regional proclamations suspend entry into the United States of aliens who have been physically present in the People’s Republic of China, Islamic Republic of Iran, Schengen Area, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, or Brazil in the 14-day period prior to their entry or attempted entry into the United States.  K-1 visa applicants who are named plaintiffs in Milligan v. Pompeo and subject to a regional proclamation should contact their nearest Embassy or Consulate for guidance on scheduling a visa interview.  While such applicants may, pursuant to the court order, be scheduled for a visa interview even though they are subject to a COVID-related regional proclamation, the court order does not require that plaintiffs be given special priority ahead of other K visa applicants who have requested interviews or who already have been scheduled for interviews.  Even if issued visas, K-1 plaintiff applicants remain subject to the regional P.P.s and, unless able to meet the criteria for an exception, are barred from entering the United States if they have been present in a country covered by a regional P.P. in the 14 days prior to entry.   

K visa applicants who are not plaintiffs in Milligan v. Pompeo and who are not subject to COVID-related regional proclamations will continue to have their applications prioritized and processed in accordance with existing phased resumption of visa services guidance. 

The resumption of routine visa services, prioritized after services to U.S. citizens, is occurring on a post-by-post basis, consistent with the Department’s guidance for safely returning our workforce to Department facilities.  U.S. Embassies and Consulates have continued to provide emergency and mission-critical visa services since March and will continue to do so as they are able.  As post-specific conditions improve, our missions will begin providing additional services, culminating eventually in a complete resumption of routine visa services.  Applicants should check the website of their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate for updates on what services that post is currently able to offer.

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/k-visa-processing-update.html

 

 

Edited January 11, 2021 by John & Rose

[SV Gwapa 25]

On 1/8/2021 at 7:40 AM, Dougefresh56 said:

The reason is the Justice Department wants to get the lawsuit dismissed. Until all plaintiffs are mooted out they can’t do that. All plaintiffs from the Philippines have moved. Most have interviews scheduled. My fiancée and I were fortunate we were the first ones to get an interview.

Does anyone know if there is a way to become a plaintiff from the Philippines at this point? or any other lawsuits that can be done to get out of NVC and schedule an interview?

[John & Rose 7,239]

31 minutes ago, SV Gwapa said:

Does anyone know if there is a way to become a plaintiff from the Philippines at this point? or any other lawsuits that can be done to get out of NVC and schedule an interview?

There are no lawsuits against Covid, only against the travel bans.  There were plaintiffs from the Philippines in the second Milligan lawsuit but they are spending money to help others as both the lawyers and the state department have stated that there is no impact to K-1s outside of the banned areas.  The lawyers are trying to get permission to add more plaintiffs but that will not help the Philippines.  It really didnt help the original plaintiffs much as they got interviewed but still cannot leave the country.

 

Unfortunately, the judge stopped short of issuing a broad injunction to lift the ban on entry to the United States for K visa applicants impacted by these proclamations.

This means that while the government must proceed with K visa processing, once a K visa has been issued, applicants residing within an impacted area remain barred from entering the United States unless they meet a national interest exception.

To put it simply – the injunction simply stops the government from refusing to process K visas based on the Coronavirus proclamations. It does not allow K visa applicants from impacted areas to enter the United States once K visas have been issued unless the applicant meets a national interest exception. According to the judge, the government may still prevent entry to such applicants as deemed necessary during the pandemic.

 

K visa applicants who are not plaintiffs in Milligan v. Pompeo and who are not subject to COVID-related regional proclamations will continue to have their applications prioritized and processed in accordance with existing phased resumption of visa services guidance.

The resumption of routine visa services, prioritized after services to U.S. citizens, is occurring on a post-by-post basis, consistent with the Department’s guidance for safely returning our workforce to Department facilities.

 

U.S. Embassies and Consulates will continue to provide emergency and mission-critical visa services for expedite and emergency travel requests.

Applicants who have urgent travel needs or believe they qualify for a national interest exception should contact an attorney as soon as possible to expedite visa issuance and entry to the United States.

 

According to the DOS response, only plaintiffs named in the lawsuit Milligan v. Pompeo who are subject to a regional proclamation may push their nearest Embassy or Consulate to schedule an interview. Even in such cases, applicants remain barred from entering unless they meet a national interest exception. Our office has been successful in obtaining numerous expedite requests based on the national interest exception for K visa applicants at Consulates and Embassies around the world.  We invite you to contact our office today to discuss whether you are eligible for such relief.

Edited January 12, 2021 by John & Rose

[NoMansLand2020 298]

17 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

 It really didnt help the original plaintiffs much as they got interviewed but still cannot leave the country.

 

You are saying they are being interviewed and approved, but not issued visas? 

[John & Rose 7,239]

6 minutes ago, NoMansLand2020 said:

You are saying they are being interviewed and approved, but not issued visas? 

No, in some cases issued the visas but if they cant leave their country for a 14 day stay somewhere else, they risk losing the visa because of the medical requirement.  People paid $2000 for the interview but outside of any medical extension that visa is still expired in 6 months.  Imagine "winning" the lawsuit only to have the visa expire because of the travel ban.  They can do a new medical but the victory isn't quite as good as they hoped for.  

 

I suppose it is still better to be approved and issued than to be waiting for an interview appointment.

Edited January 12, 2021 by John & Rose

[NoMansLand2020 298]

3 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

No, in some cases issued the visas but if they cant leave their country for a 14 day stay somewhere else, they risk losing the visa because of the medical requirement.  People paid $2000 for the interview but outside of any medical extension that visa is still expired in 6 months.  Imagine "winning" the lawsuit only to have the visa expire because of the travel ban.  They can do a new medical but the victory isn't quite as good as they hoped for.

I thought the US was allowing foreigners with the exception of those from the Schengen area and a few others like China and Brazil unless they had a 14 day stop ever in an allowed country. How does this affect the Philippines? 

[John & Rose 7,239]

8 minutes ago, NoMansLand2020 said:

I thought the US was allowing foreigners with the exception of those from the Schengen area and a few others like China and Brazil unless they had a 14 day stop ever in an allowed country. How does this affect the Philippines? 

This lawsuit ONLY covers the Schengen Area, China, Brazil, Iraq... It doesn't impact the Philippines at all.  I was letting people know because they are looking to join the lawsuit.  At $2000 a couple and no chance that it can help your case it isn't worth it.  There was a post here where someone claimed the US is trying to get the case thrown out and it helped them.  The fact is the case was completed and the judge ruled in November 2020 and it has no impact outside the actual plaintiffs and the impacted area.

 

The poster here may have been approved for expedite but according to the lawyers involved and the Department of State, this case had zero impact on that expedite decision.  Manila wasn't party to the case and either was NVC directly.  It was directed at Consular Services at the impacted countries because they were the ones not scheduling the K-1 interviews.

Edited January 12, 2021 by John & Rose

[NoMansLand2020 298]

4 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

This lawsuit ONLY covers the Schengen Area, China, Brazil, Iraq... It doesn't impact the Philippines at all.  I was letting people know because they are looking to join the lawsuit.  At $2000 a couple and no chance that it can help your case it isn't worth it.  There was a post here where someone claimed the US is trying to get the case thrown out and it helped them.  The fact is the case was completed and the judge ruled in November 2020 and it has no impact outside the actual plaintiffs and the impacted area.

 

The poster here may have been approved for expedite but according to the lawyers involved and the Department of State, this case had zero impact on that expedite decision.  Manila wants party to the case and either was NVC.  It was directed at Consular Services at the impacted countries

because they were the ones not scheduling the K-1 interviews.

It had to have been expedited somehow and as they claimed, the expeditie request was denied. Maybe he was lucky enough to get the attention of the right people. Did you see the article in the Southern Illinoisan? 

Edited January 12, 2021 by NoMansLand2020

[John & Rose 7,239]

11 minutes ago, NoMansLand2020 said:

It had to have been expedited somehow and as they claimed, the expeditie request was denied. Maybe he was lucky enough to get the attention of the right people. Did you see the article in the Marion paper? 

I believe it was expedited.  My information comes from the plaintiff's lawyers and the State Department.  I dont know why the lawyers and the state department would state that it has no impact when it does.  That would help the lawyers.  They already filed the second group of plaintiffs.  I completely believe the poster believes that was the reason but I am not 100% sure he is correct.  The end justifies the means so it really doesn't matter.  Keep in mind, the poster also said on Wednesday January 6, 2021 that the government wanted the suit dropped when the suit was already completed and ruled upon on November 19, 2020.  

 

Here are the lawyers comments

 

https://www.visalawyerblog.com/dos-issues-statement-in-compliance-with-k-visa-injunction-in-milligan-v-pompeo/

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by John & Rose

[Dougefresh56 201]

3 hours ago, John & Rose said:

I believe it was expedited.  My information comes from the plaintiff's lawyers and the State Department.  I dont know why the lawyers and the state department would state that it has no impact when it does.  That would help the lawyers.  They already filed the second group of plaintiffs.  I completely believe the poster believes that was the reason but I am not 100% sure he is correct.  The end justifies the means so it really doesn't matter.  Keep in mind, the poster also said on Wednesday January 6, 2021 that the government wanted the suit dropped when the suit was already completed and ruled upon on November 19, 2020.  

 

Here are the lawyers comments

 

https://www.visalawyerblog.com/dos-issues-statement-in-compliance-with-k-visa-injunction-in-milligan-v-pompeo/

 

Hmm the suit was dropped November 6th huh? No that was the preliminary injunction. So can I ask what lawyers told you this? I checked your article. That guy is not one of the Lawyers. 
 

I am a plaintiff I am in the Philippines. All 10 plaintiffs in the Philippines have either had or have interviews scheduled. 
 

You can choose to believe whatever you want. But the fact remains that the lawsuit is what got my visa moving. 

[Dougefresh56 201]

4 hours ago, NoMansLand2020 said:

You are saying they are being interviewed and approved, but not issued visas? 

Oh but we can leave the country. Another incorrect statement.

[John & Rose 7,239]

Just now, Dougefresh56 said:

Oh but we can leave the country. Another incorrect statement.

OK. I still trust the lawyer and the state department over a single post by someone who says both are lying. 

[Dougefresh56 201]

1 minute ago, John & Rose said:

OK. I still trust the lawyer and the state department over a single post by someone who says both are lying. 

If it’s not Greg Siskind, Charles Kuck, or Jeff Joseph. It doesn’t matter who they are.