The dreaded DS-5535 thread for Montreal. Post here and support each other (PART 2)

[Leo The Great 141]

17 minutes ago, Ahmad0606 said:

Seems like someone has deleted the CR1/IR1 data from the Montreal Spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is only displaying data for K1 visa’s.🤔

CR1/IR1 and other visa type data is still there. Looks like members are filtering the spreadsheet on Visa Type (K1) and not reverting back to "select all" once done.  

Edited November 16, 2023 by Leo The Great

[Irish89 44]

9 hours ago, northface said:

   

  I guess the office or DC process unit has no enough staff to clear tons of DS5535 form requests.   Observed the Embassy webpage for recruiting staff in October?. Also the DC head office posted a public comment request for Extension of DS5535 use , evaluate it necessary or not,, etc. The comment close date expiring soon. Interesting to take a look

 

www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2023-0028-0001

 

 

 

Interesting. Not really sure what this is about. They want the public to send in their own comments on the DS-5535 form, like leaving a review almost? 

[LYV 63]

3 hours ago, Irish89 said:

Interesting. Not really sure what this is about. They want the public to send in their own comments on the DS-5535 form, like leaving a review almost? 

Hmm..Yes, wonder if this means anything at all for us. 

[throwitaway 190]

On 11/15/2023 at 10:04 PM, Irish89 said:

100% agree and understand that. What we’d all like to try and find out is the particular reason behind the higher rate of Motions to dismiss for WOM’s. Which seems to be a more recent trend. 

Politics

[throwitaway 190]

21 hours ago, northface said:

   

  I guess the office or DC process unit has no enough staff to clear tons of DS5535 form requests.   Observed the Embassy webpage for recruiting staff in October?. Also the DC head office posted a public comment request for Extension of DS5535 use , evaluate it necessary or not,, etc. The comment close date expiring soon. Interesting to take a look

 

www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2023-0028-0001

 

 

 

They do this all the time, when DS-5535 was introduced they did it as well, it’s a part of how they make changes in the budget.

[ak47 32]

Has anybody who has interviewed in March or April filed a WOM ?

 

Technically folks from March or April have crossed the 6 month wait time and the WOM's should not be dismissed then. 

[Superluminal 146]

1 minute ago, ak47 said:

Has anybody who has interviewed in March or April filed a WOM ?

 

Technically folks from March or April have crossed the 6 month wait time and the WOM's should not be dismissed then. 

This is sadly not true. I filed a WoM at 3 months like many others in the past, and it got a motion to dismiss. In the dismissal motion, it said that waiting up to 3 years would not be considered an unreasonable time to wait. There have been cases this summer where a judge threw out a WoM case since the plaintiff had ONLY waited 16 or 17 months.

 

We have to take into consideration that the WoM cases have been growing at a rapid rate in the last couple of years. Several months back I had looked on PACER and found that WoM cases for AP were being filed at a rate of 2 - 4 per month in 2020 and 2021 and in early 2023 they were being filed at a rate of 30 - 50 per month. I imagine the State department is sick of these and will fight tooth and nail to stop the WoM lawsuits from being the cultural norm. The traditional wisdom for the WoM being effective was that a filing a WoM would give the state department the option to either (i) fight your WoM, or (ii) just process your case. Since fighting the WoM would be harder, they would just accelerate your case and be done with you. However now, likely because to the large number of filings happening, they are actually investing the effort in fighting the WoMs.

 

One final note on the WoM, is that none of us actually expected it to get to the point where a judge will issue a WoM. The costs for preparing the lawsuit only covers the filing, not actually fighting the case and hoping a judge will rule in our favour. This is why the motions to dismiss sting. You then have to pay your lawyer to respond, and each time there is a roadblock, it costs $$$$$.

 

All that being said, filing a WoM is totally up to you and you may have different luck given you waited a bit longer to file.

[ak47 32]

11 minutes ago, Superluminal said:

This is sadly not true. I filed a WoM at 3 months like many others in the past, and it got a motion to dismiss. In the dismissal motion, it said that waiting up to 3 years would not be considered an unreasonable time to wait. There have been cases this summer where a judge threw out a WoM case since the plaintiff had ONLY waited 16 or 17 months.

 

We have to take into consideration that the WoM cases have been growing at a rapid rate in the last couple of years. Several months back I had looked on PACER and found that WoM cases for AP were being filed at a rate of 2 - 4 per month in 2020 and 2021 and in early 2023 they were being filed at a rate of 30 - 50 per month. I imagine the State department is sick of these and will fight tooth and nail to stop the WoM lawsuits from being the cultural norm. The traditional wisdom for the WoM being effective was that a filing a WoM would give the state department the option to either (i) fight your WoM, or (ii) just process your case. Since fighting the WoM would be harder, they would just accelerate your case and be done with you. However now, likely because to the large number of filings happening, they are actually investing the effort in fighting the WoMs.

 

One final note on the WoM, is that none of us actually expected it to get to the point where a judge will issue a WoM. The costs for preparing the lawsuit only covers the filing, not actually fighting the case and hoping a judge will rule in our favour. This is why the motions to dismiss sting. You then have to pay your lawyer to respond, and each time there is a roadblock, it costs $$$$$.

 

All that being said, filing a WoM is totally up to you and you may have different luck given you waited a bit longer to file.

Which month was your interview ?

[Superluminal 146]

5 minutes ago, ak47 said:

Which month was your interview ?

April

[Darkknight574 1]

22 minutes ago, Superluminal said:

This is sadly not true. I filed a WoM at 3 months like many others in the past, and it got a motion to dismiss. In the dismissal motion, it said that waiting up to 3 years would not be considered an unreasonable time to wait. There have been cases this summer where a judge threw out a WoM case since the plaintiff had ONLY waited 16 or 17 months.

 

We have to take into consideration that the WoM cases have been growing at a rapid rate in the last couple of years. Several months back I had looked on PACER and found that WoM cases for AP were being filed at a rate of 2 - 4 per month in 2020 and 2021 and in early 2023 they were being filed at a rate of 30 - 50 per month. I imagine the State department is sick of these and will fight tooth and nail to stop the WoM lawsuits from being the cultural norm. The traditional wisdom for the WoM being effective was that a filing a WoM would give the state department the option to either (i) fight your WoM, or (ii) just process your case. Since fighting the WoM would be harder, they would just accelerate your case and be done with you. However now, likely because to the large number of filings happening, they are actually investing the effort in fighting the WoMs.

 

One final note on the WoM, is that none of us actually expected it to get to the point where a judge will issue a WoM. The costs for preparing the lawsuit only covers the filing, not actually fighting the case and hoping a judge will rule in our favour. This is why the motions to dismiss sting. You then have to pay your lawyer to respond, and each time there is a roadblock, it costs $$$$$.

 

All that being said, filing a WoM is totally up to you and you may have different luck given you waited a bit longer to file.

@Superluminal who was your lawyer? My interview was in July and I had a chat with Goldstein team recently. They strong recommended me to file a WoM as in their opinion my chance of success is close to 100%. Obviously they have financial motivation and I can’t accept it in face value. So wanted to see how genuine they are in offering these recommendations? Tnx 

[Superluminal 146]

1 minute ago, Darkknight574 said:

@Superluminal who was your lawyer? My interview was in July and I had a chat with Goldstein team recently. They strong recommended me to file a WoM as in their opinion my chance of success is close to 100%. Obviously they have financial motivation and I can’t accept it in face value. So wanted to see how genuine they are in offering these recommendations? Tnx 

I used PIC, and they had many recommendations from folks on this forum in the past. I was asked directly their success rate and was given a figure greater than 95%. 

 

If I were filing a WoM today, I would be asking directly to any lawyer about the recent actions by the state department to file dismissal motions on WoMs lawsuits. I would really question their ability to deliver if they don't have a concrete answer to that and how that wouldn't impact my case.

[throwitaway 190]

1 hour ago, Superluminal said:

This is sadly not true. I filed a WoM at 3 months like many others in the past, and it got a motion to dismiss. In the dismissal motion, it said that waiting up to 3 years would not be considered an unreasonable time to wait. There have been cases this summer where a judge threw out a WoM case since the plaintiff had ONLY waited 16 or 17 months.

 

We have to take into consideration that the WoM cases have been growing at a rapid rate in the last couple of years. Several months back I had looked on PACER and found that WoM cases for AP were being filed at a rate of 2 - 4 per month in 2020 and 2021 and in early 2023 they were being filed at a rate of 30 - 50 per month. I imagine the State department is sick of these and will fight tooth and nail to stop the WoM lawsuits from being the cultural norm. The traditional wisdom for the WoM being effective was that a filing a WoM would give the state department the option to either (i) fight your WoM, or (ii) just process your case. Since fighting the WoM would be harder, they would just accelerate your case and be done with you. However now, likely because to the large number of filings happening, they are actually investing the effort in fighting the WoMs.

 

One final note on the WoM, is that none of us actually expected it to get to the point where a judge will issue a WoM. The costs for preparing the lawsuit only covers the filing, not actually fighting the case and hoping a judge will rule in our favour. This is why the motions to dismiss sting. You then have to pay your lawyer to respond, and each time there is a roadblock, it costs $$$$$.

 

All that being said, filing a WoM is totally up to you and you may have different luck given you waited a bit longer to file.

You withdrew?

[Ontarkie 14,218]

~~Two posts have been removed. Please remember this thread is geared to Montreal only. If you would like to make a more general spreadsheet please go to the Waivers and 221G forum as there are already threads there about the DS5535.~~

[Superluminal 146]

1 hour ago, throwitaway said:

You withdrew?

We did

[northface 30]

4 hours ago, throwitaway said:

They do this all the time, when DS-5535 was introduced they did it as well, it’s a part of how they make changes in the budget.

For positive side, looks like they are aware of delays of DS -5535, asking more budget to clear those rather than dealing with WoMs, so after November 21,2023, if nobody against it ,the budget  be approved, the Ds-5535 process should be resume quickly.🤔