c*e
2 楼
准备让老妈和老公一起过来呆段时间，我知道这种好像还是需要给两个人分别预约，如
果预约的时间一样，到时候签证的时候，如果叫到一个，另一个可以上去一起签吗？还
是要自己签自己的，怕我妈听不懂签证官的口音，如果可以，我需要发传真什么的给大
使馆说明吗？谢谢！
果预约的时间一样，到时候签证的时候，如果叫到一个，另一个可以上去一起签吗？还
是要自己签自己的，怕我妈听不懂签证官的口音，如果可以，我需要发传真什么的给大
使馆说明吗？谢谢！
s*g
3 楼
EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
, and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
this putative class action to allege that the Defendants — who include the
United States, United States Department
1 Hereinafter, this order refers to paragraphs in the Complaint (Dkt. # 1)
using bare “¶”marks.
of State (“State Department”), the United States Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“
USCIS”), and the respective agency heads — violated the provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) relating to the allocation of
employment-based third-preference (“EB-3”) immigrant visa numbers. Id.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that in fiscal years 2008 and 2009,
Defendants violated INA § 203(e) by not adhering to the priority-date order
set out
by the statute. The named Plaintiffs claim that their applications for
adjustment of status have been unlawfully delayed as a result of Defendants
’ conduct. See ¶¶ 8-12.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, on the basis
that Plaintiffs lack standing and, in the alternative, the Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards.
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “the court is to take all well-
pleaded factual allegations as true and to draw all reasonable inferences
therefrom in favor of the plaintiff.” Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner
Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 663 (9th Cir. 1998). Facts alleged in
the complaint are assumed to be true. See Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284
F.3d 1027, 1030 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002). The issue to be resolved on a motion
to dismiss is whether the plaintiff is entitled to continue the lawsuit to
establish the facts alleged, not whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed
on the merits. See Marksman Partners L.P. v. Chantal Pharm. Corp., 927 F.
Supp. 1297, 1304 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
A complaint must provide more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action, and must assert facts that “raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 1965 (2007). The Ninth Circuit has summarized Twombly’s plausibility
standard to require that a complaint’s “nonconclusory ‘factual content,’
and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive
of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937,1949 (2009)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. at 1949.
B. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Bring this Lawsuit Against the State
Department.
Plaintiffs’ claims are brought under the Administrative Procedures Act (“
APA”),which authorizes lawsuits by a “person suffering legal wrong because
of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action
within the meaning of a relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. The APA also
authorizes suits based on an agency’s failure to act, if “agency action [
is] unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). A
court may compel an agency only to take a discrete action required by law;
the APA does not provide relief for a plaintiff seeking to improve an agency
program or to direct an agency to exercise its discretion in a particular
way. See Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64-65 (
2004).
Before considering the Plaintiffs’ specific allegations, a background in EB
-3 immigrant visas must be considered. An immigrant’s eligibility to apply
for an immigrant visa is determined by the preference category (EB-3, in
this case) and priority date. The EB-3 visa application procedure begins
when an employer files an immigrant visa petition or an application for
labor certification with the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”),
requesting a certification that there are no qualified workers in the United
States available for a job opening. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182. The date that
this application or petition is submitted to the DOL is considered the “
priority date.” See 8 C.F.R. § 204(d).
If DOL approves the certification request, then the employer may file a
petition for alien worker, requesting that USCIS approve the alien in the EB
-3 category, and then the alien may file an application for adjustment of
status with USCIS once the alien’s priority date becomes current. See 8 U.S
.C. § 1255(a). USCIS adjudicates applications for adjustment of status
within its statutory discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). USCIS promulgated
8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(ii) to explain that USCIS may not approve an
application for adjustment of status until the State Department allocates a
visa number for that alien. The request for a visa number is triggered by
USCIS’s determination that the applicant is eligible for adjustment of
status, after which point USCIS enters the alien’s information in the State
Department’s Immigrant Visa Allocation Management System (“IVAMS”).
Federal law vests authority for controlling the availability of visa numbers
in the State Department. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.51; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(g). The
State Department’s Visa Office makes monthly allocations of visa numbers in
compliance with the applicable statutory formulas, taking into account the
monthly and quarterly limits, the numerical allocation for each preference
category, country-specific limitations, and annual limits.
See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (worldwide limit); 8 U.S.C. § 1152 (country-
specific limits).State Department documents explain the allocation process:
At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report for
each consular post listing totals of documentarily qualified immigrant visa
applicants in categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped
by foreign state chargeability/preference/priority date.
No names are reported. . . . During the first week each month, this
documentarily qualified demand is tabulated.
VO subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified
by the INA into monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified
applicants which have been reported to VO, are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of how
many numbers are available requires consideration of several of variables,
including: past number use; estimates of future number use and return rates;
and estimates of additional [USCIS] demand based on cut-off date movements.
Once this is done, the cut-off dates are established and numbers are
allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the
oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all
reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “
Current”. For example: If the monthly allocation target is 3,000 and we
only have demand for 1,000 applicants the category can be “Current”.
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a
category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the
particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a
visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the
priority
date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be
accommodated for a visa number. For example: If the monthly target is
3,000 and we have demand for 8,000 applicants, then we would need to
establish a cut-off date so that only 3,000 numbers would be allocated. In
this case, the cut-off would be the priority date of the 3,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. . . .
Not all numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some
are returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers available
for later allocation during the fiscal year. . . .
When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular
country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical
limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed.
Oversubscription may require the establishment of a cutoff date which is
earlier than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide
basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the
same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. . . .
State Department Administrative Record (Dkt. # 21) at 4-6 (emphasis added).
In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek review of the State Department’s visa cut-
off dates in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 (because they contend that dates
were based on arbitrary and capricious estimates), and they further allege
that the State Department misallocated visa numbers because they failed to
maintain waiting lists as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1153(e)(3). Though
Plaintiffs also name USCIS as a Defendant with regard to those allocations,
they have not cited any statutory authority requiring USCIS to participate
in the establishment of cut-off dates or the maintenance of waiting lists.2
2 The Plaintiffs cite only 8 U.S.C. § 1153(e) as the source of the duty
imposed on USCIS, but that statute does not mention USCIS, let alone impose
any duty on USCIS. The statute references only the Secretary of State.
Though at oral argument Plaintiffs’ counsel instructed the court to look at
the overall structure of the immigrant visa program in order to determine
USCIS’s duties, an APA claim must be based upon a plaintiff’s
identification of a “particular ‘agency action’ that causes it harm.”
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990).
Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to state an APA claim against USCIS, and the
remainder of the court’s order will address the allegations regarding the
State Department. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue
claims against the State Department because (1) to the extent that visa
numbers were allocated improperly in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, those
numbers cannot be recaptured and then reallocated at this time, and (2) to
the extent that the Plaintiffs request prospective relief, this court cannot
order an agency to ignore the Congressionally imposed limitations on
visanumber allocation.
1. Plaintiffs Have Not Provided Any Authority for a Court-Ordered
Allocation of Visa Numbers From a Previous Fiscal Year During This
Fiscal Year.
Plaintiffs request that this court find that the State Department
misallocated visa numbers in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and that the court
order that the State Department recapture the misallocated and unused visa
numbers and allocate them during this fiscal year. Prayer for Relief ¶&
para; 7-8. The Plaintiffs have not, however, provided any authority showing
that the State Department can recapture visa numbers from a previous year
and allocate them in a current year. It is true that in specific
circumstances, Congress has provided for the recapture and reallocation of
visa numbers (see Oppenheim Decl. (Dkt. #
36-1)), but in general, the State Department’s visa-number allocation
system is based on per-fiscal-year calculations and does not contemplate
that unused visa numbers will rollover to the next fiscal year. See USCIS
Ombudsman Annual Report (Dkt. # 15-2) at 33 (“[W]hen employment-based visas
are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not
available for future use without special legislation.”) See also 151 Cong.
Rec. S3887 (daily ed. Apr. 19, 2005) (statement of Rep. Hutchinson)
(“[Unused visa numbers] go out of existence and cannot be recaptured except
by an act of Congress.”). Thus, according to Defendants, Plaintiffs’
claims relating to the 2008 and 2009 visa numbers are moot because this
court cannot order that those numbers be recaptured.
To rebut that argument, Plaintiffs rely on Silva v. Bell, 605 F.2d 978 (7th
Cir.
1979), wherein the court ordered that the government recapture and reissue
wrongfully issued visa numbers. But that case is factually distinguishable
from this case, because in Silva the governmental defendants conceded that
visa numbers had been misallocated and had been in the process of altering
its allocation policies when Congress amended the INA to impose a limitation
on the total number of immigrant visas available during a fiscal year to
natives of any one state in the Western Hemisphere. See Silva, 675 F.2d at
981. The governmental defendants thereafter designed and subsequently
restructured a program to recapture and reissue misallocated visa numbers,
and the plaintiffs challenged the methods by which the defendants allocated
those visa numbers. See Silva, 675 F.2d at 983. Thus, the question before
the Silva court was not whether recapture and reallocation was possible, but
how it should be conducted; here, the Defendants’ have not conceded any
error and have not undertaken efforts to recapture and reallocate any visa
numbers issued in prior fiscal years. As a result, Silva is not particularly
analogous to this case.
Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to identify any authority that would show that
the State Department can effectuate the relief requested, namely recapturing
visa numbers from previous fiscal years. As a result, the court finds that
the claims related to visa numbers from previous fiscal years are moot. See
Iddir v. I.N.S., 166 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1258-59 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (finding a
case to be moot because the plaintiffs had fail to show that the
governmental defendants had the power to issue visas to the plaintiffs via a
particular eligibility program beyond the fiscal year in which they were
found eligible). The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
moot claims, and thus those claims must be dismissed. See Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496-97 (1969) (dismissing a case as moot because “
the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome”).
2. The Complaint Does Not State a Non-Moot Claim for Prospective
Relief.
The Plaintiffs’ claims are primarily based on allegations that the State
Department allocated visa numbers out of priority order during fiscal years
2008 and 2009. See ¶¶ 3, 36-40, 44. Plaintiffs request that, in
the event the court does not order that visa numbers from those years be
recaptured and allocation, the court order that visa numbers from fiscal
year 2010 be allocated to Plaintiffs. Defendants have, however, submitted
evidence that the EB-3 visa numbers reached their annual limits in fiscal
year 2010 (see Notice (Dkt. # 32), Ex. 1), which suggests that there may be
no unused visa numbers from 2010 to recapture.
But regardless of whether there are currently any unused visa numbers that
could be recaptured and reallocated during this fiscal year, the Plaintiffs
’ allegations nonetheless focus on alleged violations that occurred during
fiscal year 2008 and 2009. While it is understandable that the complaint is
limited to those years, because those were the years immediately following
the Plaintiffs’ applications for adjustment of status, the court cannot
provide any relief for alleged violations in years past, because those
claims are now moot (as explained in the previous section). Prospective
relief is not possible because the court will not disturb the State
Department’s process by which it allocates visa numbers, particularly given
that the Plaintiffs have clarified that they do not challenge that process.
See Pltfs.’ Opp’n (Dkt. # 30) at 4:3-4. Because the Plaintiffs’ claim
for prospective relief is grounded only on past alleged violations (see
Pltfs.’ Opp’n at 4:5-7), which cannot be undone, the Plaintiffs have not
presented a live controversy to the court and thus the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion (Dkt.
#23).
Dated this 15th day of March, 2011.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
, and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
this putative class action to allege that the Defendants — who include the
United States, United States Department
1 Hereinafter, this order refers to paragraphs in the Complaint (Dkt. # 1)
using bare “¶”marks.
of State (“State Department”), the United States Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“
USCIS”), and the respective agency heads — violated the provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) relating to the allocation of
employment-based third-preference (“EB-3”) immigrant visa numbers. Id.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that in fiscal years 2008 and 2009,
Defendants violated INA § 203(e) by not adhering to the priority-date order
set out
by the statute. The named Plaintiffs claim that their applications for
adjustment of status have been unlawfully delayed as a result of Defendants
’ conduct. See ¶¶ 8-12.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, on the basis
that Plaintiffs lack standing and, in the alternative, the Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards.
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “the court is to take all well-
pleaded factual allegations as true and to draw all reasonable inferences
therefrom in favor of the plaintiff.” Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner
Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 663 (9th Cir. 1998). Facts alleged in
the complaint are assumed to be true. See Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284
F.3d 1027, 1030 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002). The issue to be resolved on a motion
to dismiss is whether the plaintiff is entitled to continue the lawsuit to
establish the facts alleged, not whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed
on the merits. See Marksman Partners L.P. v. Chantal Pharm. Corp., 927 F.
Supp. 1297, 1304 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
A complaint must provide more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action, and must assert facts that “raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 1965 (2007). The Ninth Circuit has summarized Twombly’s plausibility
standard to require that a complaint’s “nonconclusory ‘factual content,’
and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive
of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937,1949 (2009)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. at 1949.
B. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Bring this Lawsuit Against the State
Department.
Plaintiffs’ claims are brought under the Administrative Procedures Act (“
APA”),which authorizes lawsuits by a “person suffering legal wrong because
of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action
within the meaning of a relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. The APA also
authorizes suits based on an agency’s failure to act, if “agency action [
is] unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). A
court may compel an agency only to take a discrete action required by law;
the APA does not provide relief for a plaintiff seeking to improve an agency
program or to direct an agency to exercise its discretion in a particular
way. See Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64-65 (
2004).
Before considering the Plaintiffs’ specific allegations, a background in EB
-3 immigrant visas must be considered. An immigrant’s eligibility to apply
for an immigrant visa is determined by the preference category (EB-3, in
this case) and priority date. The EB-3 visa application procedure begins
when an employer files an immigrant visa petition or an application for
labor certification with the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”),
requesting a certification that there are no qualified workers in the United
States available for a job opening. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182. The date that
this application or petition is submitted to the DOL is considered the “
priority date.” See 8 C.F.R. § 204(d).
If DOL approves the certification request, then the employer may file a
petition for alien worker, requesting that USCIS approve the alien in the EB
-3 category, and then the alien may file an application for adjustment of
status with USCIS once the alien’s priority date becomes current. See 8 U.S
.C. § 1255(a). USCIS adjudicates applications for adjustment of status
within its statutory discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). USCIS promulgated
8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(ii) to explain that USCIS may not approve an
application for adjustment of status until the State Department allocates a
visa number for that alien. The request for a visa number is triggered by
USCIS’s determination that the applicant is eligible for adjustment of
status, after which point USCIS enters the alien’s information in the State
Department’s Immigrant Visa Allocation Management System (“IVAMS”).
Federal law vests authority for controlling the availability of visa numbers
in the State Department. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.51; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(g). The
State Department’s Visa Office makes monthly allocations of visa numbers in
compliance with the applicable statutory formulas, taking into account the
monthly and quarterly limits, the numerical allocation for each preference
category, country-specific limitations, and annual limits.
See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (worldwide limit); 8 U.S.C. § 1152 (country-
specific limits).State Department documents explain the allocation process:
At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report for
each consular post listing totals of documentarily qualified immigrant visa
applicants in categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped
by foreign state chargeability/preference/priority date.
No names are reported. . . . During the first week each month, this
documentarily qualified demand is tabulated.
VO subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified
by the INA into monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified
applicants which have been reported to VO, are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of how
many numbers are available requires consideration of several of variables,
including: past number use; estimates of future number use and return rates;
and estimates of additional [USCIS] demand based on cut-off date movements.
Once this is done, the cut-off dates are established and numbers are
allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the
oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all
reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “
Current”. For example: If the monthly allocation target is 3,000 and we
only have demand for 1,000 applicants the category can be “Current”.
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a
category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the
particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a
visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the
priority
date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be
accommodated for a visa number. For example: If the monthly target is
3,000 and we have demand for 8,000 applicants, then we would need to
establish a cut-off date so that only 3,000 numbers would be allocated. In
this case, the cut-off would be the priority date of the 3,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. . . .
Not all numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some
are returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers available
for later allocation during the fiscal year. . . .
When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular
country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical
limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed.
Oversubscription may require the establishment of a cutoff date which is
earlier than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide
basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the
same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. . . .
State Department Administrative Record (Dkt. # 21) at 4-6 (emphasis added).
In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek review of the State Department’s visa cut-
off dates in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 (because they contend that dates
were based on arbitrary and capricious estimates), and they further allege
that the State Department misallocated visa numbers because they failed to
maintain waiting lists as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1153(e)(3). Though
Plaintiffs also name USCIS as a Defendant with regard to those allocations,
they have not cited any statutory authority requiring USCIS to participate
in the establishment of cut-off dates or the maintenance of waiting lists.2
2 The Plaintiffs cite only 8 U.S.C. § 1153(e) as the source of the duty
imposed on USCIS, but that statute does not mention USCIS, let alone impose
any duty on USCIS. The statute references only the Secretary of State.
Though at oral argument Plaintiffs’ counsel instructed the court to look at
the overall structure of the immigrant visa program in order to determine
USCIS’s duties, an APA claim must be based upon a plaintiff’s
identification of a “particular ‘agency action’ that causes it harm.”
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990).
Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to state an APA claim against USCIS, and the
remainder of the court’s order will address the allegations regarding the
State Department. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue
claims against the State Department because (1) to the extent that visa
numbers were allocated improperly in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, those
numbers cannot be recaptured and then reallocated at this time, and (2) to
the extent that the Plaintiffs request prospective relief, this court cannot
order an agency to ignore the Congressionally imposed limitations on
visanumber allocation.
1. Plaintiffs Have Not Provided Any Authority for a Court-Ordered
Allocation of Visa Numbers From a Previous Fiscal Year During This
Fiscal Year.
Plaintiffs request that this court find that the State Department
misallocated visa numbers in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and that the court
order that the State Department recapture the misallocated and unused visa
numbers and allocate them during this fiscal year. Prayer for Relief ¶&
para; 7-8. The Plaintiffs have not, however, provided any authority showing
that the State Department can recapture visa numbers from a previous year
and allocate them in a current year. It is true that in specific
circumstances, Congress has provided for the recapture and reallocation of
visa numbers (see Oppenheim Decl. (Dkt. #
36-1)), but in general, the State Department’s visa-number allocation
system is based on per-fiscal-year calculations and does not contemplate
that unused visa numbers will rollover to the next fiscal year. See USCIS
Ombudsman Annual Report (Dkt. # 15-2) at 33 (“[W]hen employment-based visas
are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not
available for future use without special legislation.”) See also 151 Cong.
Rec. S3887 (daily ed. Apr. 19, 2005) (statement of Rep. Hutchinson)
(“[Unused visa numbers] go out of existence and cannot be recaptured except
by an act of Congress.”). Thus, according to Defendants, Plaintiffs’
claims relating to the 2008 and 2009 visa numbers are moot because this
court cannot order that those numbers be recaptured.
To rebut that argument, Plaintiffs rely on Silva v. Bell, 605 F.2d 978 (7th
Cir.
1979), wherein the court ordered that the government recapture and reissue
wrongfully issued visa numbers. But that case is factually distinguishable
from this case, because in Silva the governmental defendants conceded that
visa numbers had been misallocated and had been in the process of altering
its allocation policies when Congress amended the INA to impose a limitation
on the total number of immigrant visas available during a fiscal year to
natives of any one state in the Western Hemisphere. See Silva, 675 F.2d at
981. The governmental defendants thereafter designed and subsequently
restructured a program to recapture and reissue misallocated visa numbers,
and the plaintiffs challenged the methods by which the defendants allocated
those visa numbers. See Silva, 675 F.2d at 983. Thus, the question before
the Silva court was not whether recapture and reallocation was possible, but
how it should be conducted; here, the Defendants’ have not conceded any
error and have not undertaken efforts to recapture and reallocate any visa
numbers issued in prior fiscal years. As a result, Silva is not particularly
analogous to this case.
Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to identify any authority that would show that
the State Department can effectuate the relief requested, namely recapturing
visa numbers from previous fiscal years. As a result, the court finds that
the claims related to visa numbers from previous fiscal years are moot. See
Iddir v. I.N.S., 166 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1258-59 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (finding a
case to be moot because the plaintiffs had fail to show that the
governmental defendants had the power to issue visas to the plaintiffs via a
particular eligibility program beyond the fiscal year in which they were
found eligible). The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
moot claims, and thus those claims must be dismissed. See Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496-97 (1969) (dismissing a case as moot because “
the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome”).
2. The Complaint Does Not State a Non-Moot Claim for Prospective
Relief.
The Plaintiffs’ claims are primarily based on allegations that the State
Department allocated visa numbers out of priority order during fiscal years
2008 and 2009. See ¶¶ 3, 36-40, 44. Plaintiffs request that, in
the event the court does not order that visa numbers from those years be
recaptured and allocation, the court order that visa numbers from fiscal
year 2010 be allocated to Plaintiffs. Defendants have, however, submitted
evidence that the EB-3 visa numbers reached their annual limits in fiscal
year 2010 (see Notice (Dkt. # 32), Ex. 1), which suggests that there may be
no unused visa numbers from 2010 to recapture.
But regardless of whether there are currently any unused visa numbers that
could be recaptured and reallocated during this fiscal year, the Plaintiffs
’ allegations nonetheless focus on alleged violations that occurred during
fiscal year 2008 and 2009. While it is understandable that the complaint is
limited to those years, because those were the years immediately following
the Plaintiffs’ applications for adjustment of status, the court cannot
provide any relief for alleged violations in years past, because those
claims are now moot (as explained in the previous section). Prospective
relief is not possible because the court will not disturb the State
Department’s process by which it allocates visa numbers, particularly given
that the Plaintiffs have clarified that they do not challenge that process.
See Pltfs.’ Opp’n (Dkt. # 30) at 4:3-4. Because the Plaintiffs’ claim
for prospective relief is grounded only on past alleged violations (see
Pltfs.’ Opp’n at 4:5-7), which cannot be undone, the Plaintiffs have not
presented a live controversy to the court and thus the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion (Dkt.
#23).
Dated this 15th day of March, 2011.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
f*2
4 楼
Good idea.
找4到5个就可以。4-5个中，应该有两个铁杆，肯定给你strong recommendation.不确
定的两、三个再机动处理。
找4到5个就可以。4-5个中，应该有两个铁杆，肯定给你strong recommendation.不确
定的两、三个再机动处理。
w*s
5 楼
可以，交材料一起，签的时候也一起上去
【在 c*******e 的大作中提到】
: 准备让老妈和老公一起过来呆段时间，我知道这种好像还是需要给两个人分别预约，如
: 果预约的时间一样，到时候签证的时候，如果叫到一个，另一个可以上去一起签吗？还
: 是要自己签自己的，怕我妈听不懂签证官的口音，如果可以，我需要发传真什么的给大
: 使馆说明吗？谢谢！
【在 c*******e 的大作中提到】
: 准备让老妈和老公一起过来呆段时间，我知道这种好像还是需要给两个人分别预约，如
: 果预约的时间一样，到时候签证的时候，如果叫到一个，另一个可以上去一起签吗？还
: 是要自己签自己的，怕我妈听不懂签证官的口音，如果可以，我需要发传真什么的给大
: 使馆说明吗？谢谢！
q*i
6 楼
上诉！
虽然我的PD不是那么痛苦，但决不能饶了那帮孙子！
为了自己，也为了后人。
就算不能让它们把屎坐回去，也要涂在它们脸上，让它自己闻，让别人看。
如果这一次还需要捐钱，我捐。
感谢诉讼组的努力，无论成败与否，我们支持你！
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
虽然我的PD不是那么痛苦，但决不能饶了那帮孙子！
为了自己，也为了后人。
就算不能让它们把屎坐回去，也要涂在它们脸上，让它自己闻，让别人看。
如果这一次还需要捐钱，我捐。
感谢诉讼组的努力，无论成败与否，我们支持你！
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
c*e
7 楼
谢谢，还有一个疑问，这种情况，是不是两个人有一套我的资料就行了，在窗口递交材
料的时候，两个人的护照一起交，需要再那个时候叫我的材料吗？还是签证官文的时候
才给？谢谢！
料的时候，两个人的护照一起交，需要再那个时候叫我的材料吗？还是签证官文的时候
才给？谢谢！
m*m
8 楼
法律方面我们不是很懂,靠老猪和相关人士决定.上诉的话需要多少钱,现在缺多少,让我
们做到有数.
我赞成死磕.
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
们做到有数.
我赞成死磕.
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
q*i
9 楼
其实当初也没想能怎么样，或真能怎么样。美国政府的三权分立系统只适用与白人，但
既然这个系统存在，就得用一下。
【在 m******m 的大作中提到】
: 法律方面我们不是很懂,靠老猪和相关人士决定.上诉的话需要多少钱,现在缺多少,让我
: 们做到有数.
: 我赞成死磕.
:
: com
: #
: evidence
: explained
既然这个系统存在，就得用一下。
【在 m******m 的大作中提到】
: 法律方面我们不是很懂,靠老猪和相关人士决定.上诉的话需要多少钱,现在缺多少,让我
: 们做到有数.
: 我赞成死磕.
:
: com
: #
: evidence
: explained
h*g
10 楼
这种事情既然告了就没有回头路了，上诉吧。
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
p*g
11 楼
只要老猪继续领导，我接着捐。
l*7
12 楼
已然到这份上了，只能前进，不能后退。
d*y
13 楼
support!
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
d*8
14 楼
看了一下,好象该法官对政府的行为有保护行为,只要是对政府有利就上,对原告有利的
就找不到法律依据,
建议上诉,也就是换个法官,来过.
钱够就好办,让律师死磕.
就找不到法律依据,
建议上诉,也就是换个法官,来过.
钱够就好办,让律师死磕.
s*d
15 楼
老猪，可以问一下你是什么想法？
上诉希望渺茫但是还是值得一试，钱大家可以凑。希望你还有当年的激情。
【在 q****i 的大作中提到】
: 上诉！
: 虽然我的PD不是那么痛苦，但决不能饶了那帮孙子！
: 为了自己，也为了后人。
: 就算不能让它们把屎坐回去，也要涂在它们脸上，让它自己闻，让别人看。
: 如果这一次还需要捐钱，我捐。
: 感谢诉讼组的努力，无论成败与否，我们支持你！
:
: com
: #
: evidence
上诉希望渺茫但是还是值得一试，钱大家可以凑。希望你还有当年的激情。
【在 q****i 的大作中提到】
: 上诉！
: 虽然我的PD不是那么痛苦，但决不能饶了那帮孙子！
: 为了自己，也为了后人。
: 就算不能让它们把屎坐回去，也要涂在它们脸上，让它自己闻，让别人看。
: 如果这一次还需要捐钱，我捐。
: 感谢诉讼组的努力，无论成败与否，我们支持你！
:
: com
: #
: evidence
C*5
16 楼
D
i*y
17 楼
不知道大家是不是都读了opinion，法院grant motion to dismiss是基于lack of
standing，理由是
1. 不管当初是否misallocate了visa number，都没有现行法律支持今天或者以后来
recapture。因此，法院也没法compell USCIS来执行recapture。
2. recapture会violate limitations on visa number，即使当年错了，也不能用犯法
的方法来弥补
3. 不管你们有没有损失，你们要求的relief（recapture）没法实现，因此claim is
moot，法院失去了subject matter jurisdiction，你们也lack standing，所以这案子
只能dismiss了。
律师有讲哪个argument是weakly reasoned吗？
我读下来的感觉是法院说这个事情不是judiciary branch可以解决的，法律没给我这个权利，建议你们去congress那边周旋变法。
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
standing，理由是
1. 不管当初是否misallocate了visa number，都没有现行法律支持今天或者以后来
recapture。因此，法院也没法compell USCIS来执行recapture。
2. recapture会violate limitations on visa number，即使当年错了，也不能用犯法
的方法来弥补
3. 不管你们有没有损失，你们要求的relief（recapture）没法实现，因此claim is
moot，法院失去了subject matter jurisdiction，你们也lack standing，所以这案子
只能dismiss了。
律师有讲哪个argument是weakly reasoned吗？
我读下来的感觉是法院说这个事情不是judiciary branch可以解决的，法律没给我这个权利，建议你们去congress那边周旋变法。
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
c*o
18 楼
上诉，钱不是问题。
i*y
19 楼
上诉不是换个法官来过的问题。
lz这个案子是dismissed with prejudice吗？
【在 d****8 的大作中提到】
: 看了一下,好象该法官对政府的行为有保护行为,只要是对政府有利就上,对原告有利的
: 就找不到法律依据,
: 建议上诉,也就是换个法官,来过.
: 钱够就好办,让律师死磕.
lz这个案子是dismissed with prejudice吗？
【在 d****8 的大作中提到】
: 看了一下,好象该法官对政府的行为有保护行为,只要是对政府有利就上,对原告有利的
: 就找不到法律依据,
: 建议上诉,也就是换个法官,来过.
: 钱够就好办,让律师死磕.
s*d
20 楼
Google了一下：
A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after
adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same
claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res
judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it.
如果是那样的话，就是说没戏了...
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: 上诉不是换个法官来过的问题。
: lz这个案子是dismissed with prejudice吗？
A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after
adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same
claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res
judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it.
如果是那样的话，就是说没戏了...
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: 上诉不是换个法官来过的问题。
: lz这个案子是dismissed with prejudice吗？
i*y
21 楼
can appeal, just can't bring it again in the same or a different court.
But on appeal, the judge does not review the entire case, but only the issues with respect to application of law.
res
【在 s**d 的大作中提到】
: Google了一下：
: A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after
: adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same
: claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res
: judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it.
: 如果是那样的话，就是说没戏了...
But on appeal, the judge does not review the entire case, but only the issues with respect to application of law.
res
【在 s**d 的大作中提到】
: Google了一下：
: A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after
: adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same
: claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res
: judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it.
: 如果是那样的话，就是说没戏了...
m*1
22 楼
官司输了，谁来监督今年绿卡名额。要是又少了，大家如何办
issues with respect to application of law.
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: can appeal, just can't bring it again in the same or a different court.
: But on appeal, the judge does not review the entire case, but only the issues with respect to application of law.
:
: res
issues with respect to application of law.
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: can appeal, just can't bring it again in the same or a different court.
: But on appeal, the judge does not review the entire case, but only the issues with respect to application of law.
:
: res
J*7
23 楼
谢谢 ironny 的分析，有理性，有深度。
我们有60天时间准备上诉，但是我个人认为开弓没有回头的箭，这个官司必须继续走下
去，否则前功尽弃。
正如ironny 所说的那样, appeal to recapture 超出了法庭的权利，当然，这点有待
和律师进一步商榷。 但是我个人倾向于不妨先从EAD，AP免费 renew 入手，这个要求
政府经济赔偿的诉求不和移民法条款的执行矛盾，应该是在法庭的裁决能力内的。
欢迎大家各抒己见，出谋划策，展开讨论。
issues with respect to application of law.
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: can appeal, just can't bring it again in the same or a different court.
: But on appeal, the judge does not review the entire case, but only the issues with respect to application of law.
:
: res
我们有60天时间准备上诉，但是我个人认为开弓没有回头的箭，这个官司必须继续走下
去，否则前功尽弃。
正如ironny 所说的那样, appeal to recapture 超出了法庭的权利，当然，这点有待
和律师进一步商榷。 但是我个人倾向于不妨先从EAD，AP免费 renew 入手，这个要求
政府经济赔偿的诉求不和移民法条款的执行矛盾，应该是在法庭的裁决能力内的。
欢迎大家各抒己见，出谋划策，展开讨论。
issues with respect to application of law.
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: can appeal, just can't bring it again in the same or a different court.
: But on appeal, the judge does not review the entire case, but only the issues with respect to application of law.
:
: res
l*i
24 楼
上诉 我们愿意捐款
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
l*u
25 楼
尼玛这完全是秋菊的口气。
60天
Dkt.
permanent
【在 q****i 的大作中提到】
: 上诉！
: 虽然我的PD不是那么痛苦，但决不能饶了那帮孙子！
: 为了自己，也为了后人。
: 就算不能让它们把屎坐回去，也要涂在它们脸上，让它自己闻，让别人看。
: 如果这一次还需要捐钱，我捐。
: 感谢诉讼组的努力，无论成败与否，我们支持你！
:
: com
: #
: evidence
60天
Dkt.
permanent
【在 q****i 的大作中提到】
: 上诉！
: 虽然我的PD不是那么痛苦，但决不能饶了那帮孙子！
: 为了自己，也为了后人。
: 就算不能让它们把屎坐回去，也要涂在它们脸上，让它自己闻，让别人看。
: 如果这一次还需要捐钱，我捐。
: 感谢诉讼组的努力，无论成败与否，我们支持你！
:
: com
: #
: evidence
l*u
26 楼
很感动。真的。第一回有点看懂米国的法律文件。N多的熟悉的词。虽然放在一起还不
是很清楚在搞什么，但是看了亲切。
com
#
evidence
explained
the
the
order
Defendants
basis
in
284
succeed
of
plausibility
Service,
because
agency
EB
apply
United
EB
.S
promulgated
a
State
numbers
in
the
visa
grouped
specified
the
rates;
movements.
a
available
worldwide
cut-
,
2
impose
at
cannot
court
;&
showing
visas
not
Cong.
except
7th
limitation
allocated
but
particularly
that
recapturing
that
See
a
years
be
Plaintiffs
during
is
given
process.
Dkt.
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
是很清楚在搞什么，但是看了亲切。
com
#
evidence
explained
the
the
order
Defendants
basis
in
284
succeed
of
plausibility
Service,
because
agency
EB
apply
United
EB
.S
promulgated
a
State
numbers
in
the
visa
grouped
specified
the
rates;
movements.
a
available
worldwide
cut-
,
2
impose
at
cannot
court
;&
showing
visas
not
Cong.
except
7th
limitation
allocated
but
particularly
that
recapturing
that
See
a
years
be
Plaintiffs
during
is
given
process.
Dkt.
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
L*a
27 楼
我有个朋友的先生（美国人）职业是法官，要不要请教一下他？
d*p
28 楼
愿意支持上诉，不过我觉得法官的决定并不weak啊
不论是USCIS无法作为被告，还是法庭无权命令state department recapture previous
fiscal year visa number都没有法理上的错误吧。
我觉得除非能找出其他方面的政府错误，否则上诉成功希望很小
不过上诉至少能继续敲打敲打USCIS和state department，让他们今年不会故意减少中
国的分配数量
不论是USCIS无法作为被告，还是法庭无权命令state department recapture previous
fiscal year visa number都没有法理上的错误吧。
我觉得除非能找出其他方面的政府错误，否则上诉成功希望很小
不过上诉至少能继续敲打敲打USCIS和state department，让他们今年不会故意减少中
国的分配数量
a*d
29 楼
支持上诉！首先符合法律规定，不是我们无理取闹。关键是作为弱势群体，如果被打压
一下就认，以后搁谁眼里都成不折不扣的软柿子了，不欺负你欺负谁，大不了大伙再捐
一次。
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
一下就认，以后搁谁眼里都成不折不扣的软柿子了，不欺负你欺负谁，大不了大伙再捐
一次。
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
Q*K
30 楼
支持！！！
继续sue呀移民局狗X的
需要钱我就继续捐
【在 q****i 的大作中提到】
: 上诉！
: 虽然我的PD不是那么痛苦，但决不能饶了那帮孙子！
: 为了自己，也为了后人。
: 就算不能让它们把屎坐回去，也要涂在它们脸上，让它自己闻，让别人看。
: 如果这一次还需要捐钱，我捐。
: 感谢诉讼组的努力，无论成败与否，我们支持你！
:
: com
: #
: evidence
继续sue呀移民局狗X的
需要钱我就继续捐
【在 q****i 的大作中提到】
: 上诉！
: 虽然我的PD不是那么痛苦，但决不能饶了那帮孙子！
: 为了自己，也为了后人。
: 就算不能让它们把屎坐回去，也要涂在它们脸上，让它自己闻，让别人看。
: 如果这一次还需要捐钱，我捐。
: 感谢诉讼组的努力，无论成败与否，我们支持你！
:
: com
: #
: evidence
Q*K
31 楼
it's a good idea
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢 ironny 的分析，有理性，有深度。
: 我们有60天时间准备上诉，但是我个人认为开弓没有回头的箭，这个官司必须继续走下
: 去，否则前功尽弃。
: 正如ironny 所说的那样, appeal to recapture 超出了法庭的权利，当然，这点有待
: 和律师进一步商榷。 但是我个人倾向于不妨先从EAD，AP免费 renew 入手，这个要求
: 政府经济赔偿的诉求不和移民法条款的执行矛盾，应该是在法庭的裁决能力内的。
: 欢迎大家各抒己见，出谋划策，展开讨论。
:
: issues with respect to application of law.
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢 ironny 的分析，有理性，有深度。
: 我们有60天时间准备上诉，但是我个人认为开弓没有回头的箭，这个官司必须继续走下
: 去，否则前功尽弃。
: 正如ironny 所说的那样, appeal to recapture 超出了法庭的权利，当然，这点有待
: 和律师进一步商榷。 但是我个人倾向于不妨先从EAD，AP免费 renew 入手，这个要求
: 政府经济赔偿的诉求不和移民法条款的执行矛盾，应该是在法庭的裁决能力内的。
: 欢迎大家各抒己见，出谋划策，展开讨论。
:
: issues with respect to application of law.
p*8
32 楼
感谢老猪的努力！
感谢大家的支持！
感谢大家的支持！
j*e
33 楼
support! Will donate...
t*a
34 楼
继续上诉，关键就是要闹。只要凑的够钱，就要一直告，直到最高法院。
n*n
35 楼
这个赞成， 而且要把以前交的钱要回来。
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢 ironny 的分析，有理性，有深度。
: 我们有60天时间准备上诉，但是我个人认为开弓没有回头的箭，这个官司必须继续走下
: 去，否则前功尽弃。
: 正如ironny 所说的那样, appeal to recapture 超出了法庭的权利，当然，这点有待
: 和律师进一步商榷。 但是我个人倾向于不妨先从EAD，AP免费 renew 入手，这个要求
: 政府经济赔偿的诉求不和移民法条款的执行矛盾，应该是在法庭的裁决能力内的。
: 欢迎大家各抒己见，出谋划策，展开讨论。
:
: issues with respect to application of law.
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢 ironny 的分析，有理性，有深度。
: 我们有60天时间准备上诉，但是我个人认为开弓没有回头的箭，这个官司必须继续走下
: 去，否则前功尽弃。
: 正如ironny 所说的那样, appeal to recapture 超出了法庭的权利，当然，这点有待
: 和律师进一步商榷。 但是我个人倾向于不妨先从EAD，AP免费 renew 入手，这个要求
: 政府经济赔偿的诉求不和移民法条款的执行矛盾，应该是在法庭的裁决能力内的。
: 欢迎大家各抒己见，出谋划策，展开讨论。
:
: issues with respect to application of law.
J*7
36 楼
诉状里包括了以前交钱renew的要赔偿。
【在 n***n 的大作中提到】
: 这个赞成， 而且要把以前交的钱要回来。
【在 n***n 的大作中提到】
: 这个赞成， 而且要把以前交的钱要回来。
i*n
37 楼
其实这个诉讼已经起到了一定的作用，去年EB3C就拿到了3400个，我不信跟这个诉讼没
关系。
关系。
J*7
38 楼
官司已经打了大半年了，我们打算继续下去，旷日持久的官司本身也是在一直敲打国务
院和移民局不要怠慢中国所有的职业移民，起到监督不要浪费中国绿卡名额的作用。
院和移民局不要怠慢中国所有的职业移民，起到监督不要浪费中国绿卡名额的作用。
M*n
39 楼
support
I'll donate!
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
I'll donate!
com
#
evidence
explained
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: EB3C的律师说决定very weakly reasoned。 我们正在讨论下一步的策略, 是否在60天
: 内上诉。先向大家通报一下，大家有意见和建议，请发电邮至：e********[email protected]
: I. INTRODUCTION
: This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #
: 23).The court has considered the parties’ briefing and supporting evidence
: , and has heard from the parties at oral argument. For the reasons explained
: below, the court GRANTS the motion (Dkt. # 23).
: II. BACKGROUND
: Plaintiffs are individuals from China who are seeking to acquire permanent
: resident status in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs filed
b*e
40 楼
Support!
t*e
41 楼
就是为了出口气，我要跟政府抗争到底
t*a
42 楼
支持！大家一等就是7-8年，官司也要7-8年！
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 官司已经打了大半年了，我们打算继续下去，旷日持久的官司本身也是在一直敲打国务
: 院和移民局不要怠慢中国所有的职业移民，起到监督不要浪费中国绿卡名额的作用。
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 官司已经打了大半年了，我们打算继续下去，旷日持久的官司本身也是在一直敲打国务
: 院和移民局不要怠慢中国所有的职业移民，起到监督不要浪费中国绿卡名额的作用。
t*a
43 楼
支持！大家一等就是7-8年，官司也要7-8年！
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 官司已经打了大半年了，我们打算继续下去，旷日持久的官司本身也是在一直敲打国务
: 院和移民局不要怠慢中国所有的职业移民，起到监督不要浪费中国绿卡名额的作用。
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 官司已经打了大半年了，我们打算继续下去，旷日持久的官司本身也是在一直敲打国务
: 院和移民局不要怠慢中国所有的职业移民，起到监督不要浪费中国绿卡名额的作用。
J*7
44 楼
现在的策略是，少花钱（律师费），打持久战。
要求政府经济赔偿的诉求在原来的appeal 就有，所以下一个回合，估计律师不会
charge 我们多少钱，把球踢回给被告，让他们花一段时间研究怎么应诉。
要求政府经济赔偿的诉求在原来的appeal 就有，所以下一个回合，估计律师不会
charge 我们多少钱，把球踢回给被告，让他们花一段时间研究怎么应诉。
s*g
45 楼
Mismanagement 造成 harm, 其中EAD, AP的FEE也是，这个法庭有权限。
能要来赔偿，对错自然明了。
能要来赔偿，对错自然明了。
i*y
46 楼
prayor里面有没有要求declaratory judgment？
如果只为求个对错黑白，可以要求那个的。
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: Mismanagement 造成 harm, 其中EAD, AP的FEE也是，这个法庭有权限。
: 能要来赔偿，对错自然明了。
如果只为求个对错黑白，可以要求那个的。
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: Mismanagement 造成 harm, 其中EAD, AP的FEE也是，这个法庭有权限。
: 能要来赔偿，对错自然明了。
p*o
47 楼
i read it carefully.
1. the judge got USCIS off the hook by declaring "failed to state a
claim" first
2. the main thing the judge was trying to "reason" is to get State
Dept off the hook by declaring "lack of standing"
3. "standing" is a murky ground, by no way this concept is solid.
4. the main reason of "lack of standing" is due to redressability.
5. is it prudent to throw the whole case out due to part of the
remedy actions is not doable? the Silva case reasoning is weak
6. should appeal to ninth circuit court. hopefully a liberal-leaning
judge in California can pick this up
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: 不知道大家是不是都读了opinion，法院grant motion to dismiss是基于lack of
: standing，理由是
: 1. 不管当初是否misallocate了visa number，都没有现行法律支持今天或者以后来
: recapture。因此，法院也没法compell USCIS来执行recapture。
: 2. recapture会violate limitations on visa number，即使当年错了，也不能用犯法
: 的方法来弥补
: 3. 不管你们有没有损失，你们要求的relief（recapture）没法实现，因此claim is
: moot，法院失去了subject matter jurisdiction，你们也lack standing，所以这案子
: 只能dismiss了。
: 律师有讲哪个argument是weakly reasoned吗？
1. the judge got USCIS off the hook by declaring "failed to state a
claim" first
2. the main thing the judge was trying to "reason" is to get State
Dept off the hook by declaring "lack of standing"
3. "standing" is a murky ground, by no way this concept is solid.
4. the main reason of "lack of standing" is due to redressability.
5. is it prudent to throw the whole case out due to part of the
remedy actions is not doable? the Silva case reasoning is weak
6. should appeal to ninth circuit court. hopefully a liberal-leaning
judge in California can pick this up
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: 不知道大家是不是都读了opinion，法院grant motion to dismiss是基于lack of
: standing，理由是
: 1. 不管当初是否misallocate了visa number，都没有现行法律支持今天或者以后来
: recapture。因此，法院也没法compell USCIS来执行recapture。
: 2. recapture会violate limitations on visa number，即使当年错了，也不能用犯法
: 的方法来弥补
: 3. 不管你们有没有损失，你们要求的relief（recapture）没法实现，因此claim is
: moot，法院失去了subject matter jurisdiction，你们也lack standing，所以这案子
: 只能dismiss了。
: 律师有讲哪个argument是weakly reasoned吗？
J*7
48 楼
谢谢楼上专业人士的评论，看来这里藏龙卧虎，诉讼需要各路高手的指导以整合我们有
限的资源。
限的资源。
p*o
49 楼
ft. not "专业人士" at all. just summarize the main points. still
need to consult a good lawyer.
it is an uphill battle against government for sure. good luck.
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢楼上专业人士的评论，看来这里藏龙卧虎，诉讼需要各路高手的指导以整合我们有
: 限的资源。
need to consult a good lawyer.
it is an uphill battle against government for sure. good luck.
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢楼上专业人士的评论，看来这里藏龙卧虎，诉讼需要各路高手的指导以整合我们有
: 限的资源。
J*7
50 楼
回楼上，我知道 ironny 是法律业内人士（但不是民事诉讼类的），所以，专业人士是
泛指，呵呵
泛指，呵呵
r*h
51 楼
请教一下如何捐款啊？我也想捐。
【在 p*****g 的大作中提到】
: 只要老猪继续领导，我接着捐。
【在 p*****g 的大作中提到】
: 只要老猪继续领导，我接着捐。
i*y
52 楼
我是民事诉讼类的呀，不是做刑事的，哈哈。
民事（civil action）是一个很大很大的范围，这个案子以standing驳回，基本是等于
threshold问题都没过，没涉及substantive的东西，所以虽然不是做移民的，还能说上
两句。
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 回楼上，我知道 ironny 是法律业内人士（但不是民事诉讼类的），所以，专业人士是
: 泛指，呵呵
民事（civil action）是一个很大很大的范围，这个案子以standing驳回，基本是等于
threshold问题都没过，没涉及substantive的东西，所以虽然不是做移民的，还能说上
两句。
【在 J****7 的大作中提到】
: 回楼上，我知道 ironny 是法律业内人士（但不是民事诉讼类的），所以，专业人士是
: 泛指，呵呵
J*7
53 楼
呵呵，我印象里你好像做的不是民事诉讼，有记错处，请原谅。
我们小组正在讨论下一步怎么走，楼上那位朋友建议换个地方重新起诉，我们需
要综合考虑，财力不允许是我们眼下最大的顾虑，所以，不打算换法院和律师了。
以后专业问题还要向您讨教和请示方略。
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: 我是民事诉讼类的呀，不是做刑事的，哈哈。
: 民事（civil action）是一个很大很大的范围，这个案子以standing驳回，基本是等于
: threshold问题都没过，没涉及substantive的东西，所以虽然不是做移民的，还能说上
: 两句。
我们小组正在讨论下一步怎么走，楼上那位朋友建议换个地方重新起诉，我们需
要综合考虑，财力不允许是我们眼下最大的顾虑，所以，不打算换法院和律师了。
以后专业问题还要向您讨教和请示方略。
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: 我是民事诉讼类的呀，不是做刑事的，哈哈。
: 民事（civil action）是一个很大很大的范围，这个案子以standing驳回，基本是等于
: threshold问题都没过，没涉及substantive的东西，所以虽然不是做移民的，还能说上
: 两句。
f*s
54 楼
能否这样：
1. 如果证明Misallocate visa number 是事实，而这是USCIS的fault，应由USCIS承担
过错的责任。
2. recapture不是用犯法来弥补，而是弥补当年的过错，应该计算到misallocation的
当年。recapture有过先例，是否可以reference.
3. USCIS有过错，并造成损失。如果不order USCIS为过错承担责任，USCIS以后可以继
续abuse其misallocation的权利而无需承担任何责任。
关于所要求的relief的实现
recapture是方法之一，还可以有免费EAD,提早交485，尤其可以在allocate ROW
spillover特别考虑弥补中国当初的名额损失，在于老印捆绑之前，先提取名额补偿中
国的损失，然后再与老印分享剩余的spillover.
spillover的部分不受年度名额限制，不违反现有法律。中国提取弥补损失的名额后与
老印分享，也不违反spillover分配原则。法律上可行。
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: 不知道大家是不是都读了opinion，法院grant motion to dismiss是基于lack of
: standing，理由是
: 1. 不管当初是否misallocate了visa number，都没有现行法律支持今天或者以后来
: recapture。因此，法院也没法compell USCIS来执行recapture。
: 2. recapture会violate limitations on visa number，即使当年错了，也不能用犯法
: 的方法来弥补
: 3. 不管你们有没有损失，你们要求的relief（recapture）没法实现，因此claim is
: moot，法院失去了subject matter jurisdiction，你们也lack standing，所以这案子
: 只能dismiss了。
: 律师有讲哪个argument是weakly reasoned吗？
1. 如果证明Misallocate visa number 是事实，而这是USCIS的fault，应由USCIS承担
过错的责任。
2. recapture不是用犯法来弥补，而是弥补当年的过错，应该计算到misallocation的
当年。recapture有过先例，是否可以reference.
3. USCIS有过错，并造成损失。如果不order USCIS为过错承担责任，USCIS以后可以继
续abuse其misallocation的权利而无需承担任何责任。
关于所要求的relief的实现
recapture是方法之一，还可以有免费EAD,提早交485，尤其可以在allocate ROW
spillover特别考虑弥补中国当初的名额损失，在于老印捆绑之前，先提取名额补偿中
国的损失，然后再与老印分享剩余的spillover.
spillover的部分不受年度名额限制，不违反现有法律。中国提取弥补损失的名额后与
老印分享，也不违反spillover分配原则。法律上可行。
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: 不知道大家是不是都读了opinion，法院grant motion to dismiss是基于lack of
: standing，理由是
: 1. 不管当初是否misallocate了visa number，都没有现行法律支持今天或者以后来
: recapture。因此，法院也没法compell USCIS来执行recapture。
: 2. recapture会violate limitations on visa number，即使当年错了，也不能用犯法
: 的方法来弥补
: 3. 不管你们有没有损失，你们要求的relief（recapture）没法实现，因此claim is
: moot，法院失去了subject matter jurisdiction，你们也lack standing，所以这案子
: 只能dismiss了。
: 律师有讲哪个argument是weakly reasoned吗？
J*7
55 楼
allocate ROW spillover和EB3这个类别基本没有什么关系，EB3 ROW 也是有排期的， 不会有剩余名额。 另外， EB3 老中和老印没有捆绑之说。
E*r
56 楼
官司一直打下去就是胜利.起码这其间USCIS会老实点.
如果RECAPTURE不行,让USCIS变相补点名额过来也行.
不管如何,这也增加了EBC的影响力.
如果RECAPTURE不行,让USCIS变相补点名额过来也行.
不管如何,这也增加了EBC的影响力.
t*y
57 楼
"The Plaintiffs have not, however, provided any authority showing
that the State Department can recapture visa numbers from a previous year
and allocate them in a current year. It is true that in specific
circumstances, Congress has provided for the recapture and reallocation of
visa numbers (see Oppenheim Decl. (Dkt. #
36-1)), but in general, the State Department’s visa-number allocation
system is based on per-fiscal-year calculations and does not contemplate
that unused visa numbers will rollover to the next fiscal year. See USCIS
Ombudsman Annual Report (Dkt. # 15-2) at 33 (“[W]hen employment-based visas
are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not
available for future use without special legislation.”) See also 151 Cong.
Rec. S3887 (daily ed. Apr. 19, 2005) (statement of Rep. Hutchinson)
(“[Unused visa numbers] go out of existence and cannot be recaptured except
by an act of Congress.”). Thus, according to Defendants, Plaintiffs’
claims relating to the 2008 and 2009 visa numbers are moot because this
court cannot order that those numbers be recaptured."
关于"when employment-based visas
are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not
available for future use without special legislation". 这就是ombudsman report和congressman提出法案里提到的而已。法律是规定了每年visa有上
限，但是哪条法律(statute)明确规定的visa number过了当年就totally lost不能
recapture？
"The Plaintiffs have not, however, provided any authority showing
that the State Department can recapture visa numbers from a previous year
and allocate them in a current year."
但是从另个角度看，也没有法律prohibit recapturing visa，所以法庭不是没有权利order recapture的。
反正就这么回事，白的能说成黑的，黑的也能说成白的，看法官的偏向性，撞到一个坏
的手里就是倒霉，没办法。看他一开始就先把uscis摘出去，就知道这是个什么货色了。
that the State Department can recapture visa numbers from a previous year
and allocate them in a current year. It is true that in specific
circumstances, Congress has provided for the recapture and reallocation of
visa numbers (see Oppenheim Decl. (Dkt. #
36-1)), but in general, the State Department’s visa-number allocation
system is based on per-fiscal-year calculations and does not contemplate
that unused visa numbers will rollover to the next fiscal year. See USCIS
Ombudsman Annual Report (Dkt. # 15-2) at 33 (“[W]hen employment-based visas
are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not
available for future use without special legislation.”) See also 151 Cong.
Rec. S3887 (daily ed. Apr. 19, 2005) (statement of Rep. Hutchinson)
(“[Unused visa numbers] go out of existence and cannot be recaptured except
by an act of Congress.”). Thus, according to Defendants, Plaintiffs’
claims relating to the 2008 and 2009 visa numbers are moot because this
court cannot order that those numbers be recaptured."
关于"when employment-based visas
are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not
available for future use without special legislation". 这就是ombudsman report和congressman提出法案里提到的而已。法律是规定了每年visa有上
限，但是哪条法律(statute)明确规定的visa number过了当年就totally lost不能
recapture？
"The Plaintiffs have not, however, provided any authority showing
that the State Department can recapture visa numbers from a previous year
and allocate them in a current year."
但是从另个角度看，也没有法律prohibit recapturing visa，所以法庭不是没有权利order recapture的。
反正就这么回事，白的能说成黑的，黑的也能说成白的，看法官的偏向性，撞到一个坏
的手里就是倒霉，没办法。看他一开始就先把uscis摘出去，就知道这是个什么货色了。
t*y
58 楼
同意这个。即使没有补偿，如果要求了declaratory relief，这个上头能判定个violation，还能给以后留个口子。
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: prayor里面有没有要求declaratory judgment？
: 如果只为求个对错黑白，可以要求那个的。
e*o
59 楼
捐！
d*8
60 楼
首先看领头人:猪坚强是否愿意继续领头上诉?否则要重新推原告.
律师的意见:有的律师自己就信心不足的话,也没用.
这两点解决了再谈上诉的事,所以看猪坚强和律师的表态,再说.
再上诉的话,建议绕过此法官,否则结果不言而喻.
钱的话我看还是有潜力的,毕竟去年中国的职业移民指标问题没乱来.包括EB2,EB3.
律师的意见:有的律师自己就信心不足的话,也没用.
这两点解决了再谈上诉的事,所以看猪坚强和律师的表态,再说.
再上诉的话,建议绕过此法官,否则结果不言而喻.
钱的话我看还是有潜力的,毕竟去年中国的职业移民指标问题没乱来.包括EB2,EB3.
l*6
61 楼
去年的名额没有少分,一是因为数据公开后减少了奥本犯错的可能,另外EB3小组采用了
LIA的游说代表. 官司是去年6月份才递上去,8月份法官才开始初步审理的.所以我们不
能认为去年的名额是由于官司的原因而没有少分.今年,用官司来监控移民名额的分配是
猪坚强的打官司的目的之一,不管我个人过去对官司有什么不一样的看法,现在真心希望
猪坚强不要半途而废,坚持把官司打下去. 一是为大家出口气,二是帮助大家监控今年6
月以后的名额分配.
【在 d****8 的大作中提到】
: 首先看领头人:猪坚强是否愿意继续领头上诉?否则要重新推原告.
: 律师的意见:有的律师自己就信心不足的话,也没用.
: 这两点解决了再谈上诉的事,所以看猪坚强和律师的表态,再说.
: 再上诉的话,建议绕过此法官,否则结果不言而喻.
: 钱的话我看还是有潜力的,毕竟去年中国的职业移民指标问题没乱来.包括EB2,EB3.
LIA的游说代表. 官司是去年6月份才递上去,8月份法官才开始初步审理的.所以我们不
能认为去年的名额是由于官司的原因而没有少分.今年,用官司来监控移民名额的分配是
猪坚强的打官司的目的之一,不管我个人过去对官司有什么不一样的看法,现在真心希望
猪坚强不要半途而废,坚持把官司打下去. 一是为大家出口气,二是帮助大家监控今年6
月以后的名额分配.
【在 d****8 的大作中提到】
: 首先看领头人:猪坚强是否愿意继续领头上诉?否则要重新推原告.
: 律师的意见:有的律师自己就信心不足的话,也没用.
: 这两点解决了再谈上诉的事,所以看猪坚强和律师的表态,再说.
: 再上诉的话,建议绕过此法官,否则结果不言而喻.
: 钱的话我看还是有潜力的,毕竟去年中国的职业移民指标问题没乱来.包括EB2,EB3.
d*8
62 楼
另外EB3小组采用了LIA的游说代表. 官司是去年6月份才递上去,8月份法官才开始初步
审理
游说一说就不要提了，当年游说期间浪费名额，不然也没这官司，去年实批数据可拿到
否？
奥大爷把游说代表当猴耍。
审理
游说一说就不要提了，当年游说期间浪费名额，不然也没这官司，去年实批数据可拿到
否？
奥大爷把游说代表当猴耍。
l*6
63 楼
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=EB23&gid=31273
过去的就不想争论了，容易伤和气。 如上文，今年由于巨量EB1名额剩余，我们EB2会
有很大前进。现在谁去看住奥本海姆，保证中印按排期密度分配。
【在 d****8 的大作中提到】
: 另外EB3小组采用了LIA的游说代表. 官司是去年6月份才递上去,8月份法官才开始初步
: 审理
: 游说一说就不要提了，当年游说期间浪费名额，不然也没这官司，去年实批数据可拿到
: 否？
: 奥大爷把游说代表当猴耍。
过去的就不想争论了，容易伤和气。 如上文，今年由于巨量EB1名额剩余，我们EB2会
有很大前进。现在谁去看住奥本海姆，保证中印按排期密度分配。
【在 d****8 的大作中提到】
: 另外EB3小组采用了LIA的游说代表. 官司是去年6月份才递上去,8月份法官才开始初步
: 审理
: 游说一说就不要提了，当年游说期间浪费名额，不然也没这官司，去年实批数据可拿到
: 否？
: 奥大爷把游说代表当猴耍。
d*8
64 楼
实事求是!!!!
没你的事,就别往自己脸上贴金.
没你的事,就别往自己脸上贴金.
g*e
65 楼
干他个鱼死网破
r*9
66 楼
why not a class action sue for monetary compensation to damage? This should
move forward easily.
move forward easily.
g*g
67 楼
怎么捐钱？？我捐过，忘了
m*t
68 楼
Please check this link:
http://www.eb3chinese.org/3.html
方法#1：利用 Paypal 帐户捐款至: e*********[email protected]
如果您没有 Paypal 帐户，请按上面Donation按钮，用信用卡捐款.
Note: If you see an error message when using IE to donate, please enable
cookies in IE. For example: if you are using IE7, please go to "Tools",
then "Internet Options", then "Privacy", then "Advanced", then check
"Override automatic cookie handling", AND select both "Accept", AND
check "Always allow session cookies". Then restart IE. If the above
steps don't work, please use Firefox or Chrome instead.
方法#2：支票捐款邮寄地址：
China EB3 Legal Trust
P.O.Box 25073
Houston, TX 77265
Please make check payable to " China EB3 Legal Trust ".
请附上您的Email地址，便于联系，向您通报诉讼进展。
支票寄出后请用e*********[email protected]通知我们，便于查询。
http://www.eb3chinese.org/3.html
方法#1：利用 Paypal 帐户捐款至: e*********[email protected]
如果您没有 Paypal 帐户，请按上面Donation按钮，用信用卡捐款.
Note: If you see an error message when using IE to donate, please enable
cookies in IE. For example: if you are using IE7, please go to "Tools",
then "Internet Options", then "Privacy", then "Advanced", then check
"Override automatic cookie handling", AND select both "Accept", AND
check "Always allow session cookies". Then restart IE. If the above
steps don't work, please use Firefox or Chrome instead.
方法#2：支票捐款邮寄地址：
China EB3 Legal Trust
P.O.Box 25073
Houston, TX 77265
Please make check payable to " China EB3 Legal Trust ".
请附上您的Email地址，便于联系，向您通报诉讼进展。
支票寄出后请用e*********[email protected]通知我们，便于查询。
m*6
69 楼
坚决支持上诉！！！
b*w
70 楼
小声说一句，我方提交的brief中似乎citation不太符合规范。例如，在
http://www.eb3chinese.org/resources/PLAINTIFF$27S+REPLY.pdf
中
（1）第10页9th Cir.的th为上标，而7th Cir.的th为普通字体。（且不
说上标不符合规范；就算上标可以接受，至少同一页中不应该出现两种字体）
（2）第11页Tang v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2462187(E.D. Ky., 2007)使用
unpublished opinion，却只注年份，不注具体日月。
（3）Silva v. Bell, 605 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1979)的full-form citation
在第7和第11页两次出现。
等等。另外，在
http://www.eb3chinese.org/resources/PRELIMINARY+INJUCTION+R.pdf
中，下面这句话（14页）似乎有语法问题：
In Silva v. Bell, 605 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1979), the Seventh Circuit class
wide relief for the misallocation of visas by the Department of
State.
这些问题说大不大，但说小也不小，会给法官留下不好的印象。
http://www.eb3chinese.org/resources/PLAINTIFF$27S+REPLY.pdf
中
（1）第10页9th Cir.的th为上标，而7th Cir.的th为普通字体。（且不
说上标不符合规范；就算上标可以接受，至少同一页中不应该出现两种字体）
（2）第11页Tang v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2462187(E.D. Ky., 2007)使用
unpublished opinion，却只注年份，不注具体日月。
（3）Silva v. Bell, 605 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1979)的full-form citation
在第7和第11页两次出现。
等等。另外，在
http://www.eb3chinese.org/resources/PRELIMINARY+INJUCTION+R.pdf
中，下面这句话（14页）似乎有语法问题：
In Silva v. Bell, 605 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1979), the Seventh Circuit class
wide relief for the misallocation of visas by the Department of
State.
这些问题说大不大，但说小也不小，会给法官留下不好的印象。
相关阅读
EAD和AP是一张卡吧？H1B签证系统查不到I797怎么回事？【EB2 2015九月第2绿】12年9月PD，2-3-2，绿了RFE求解惑 （RD 05/2015，TSC NIW）是不是下个月EAD/AP就要等很久了？请问h1b 签证有效的话，应该用什么回来副总统，没吃到包子，再发一个吧。下个月应该又是绿潮了吧[TSC] EAD/AP Approved没抽到H1b再转H4 EAD是不是会有gap？EB2 cutoff data 01May14EB 2-3-2，错过了潮水，问大侠这次什么时候能绿？二类还有必要降级吗Birth of Certificate VS familiy recordPerm等待中能接受promotion吗急切问：485job title和PERM不一致会导致悲剧吗？问个问题：关于I-131和EAD（485）" following receipt of notification from the National VisaSR expedite 被据，还要继续SR 75天吗？请问eb2 140 非pp需要多久才能通过呢？