Lawsuits Discussion

[LightAtEndOfTunnel]

I didn't digress from discussion untill you pointed / questioned if I have any vested interest in promoting law-suit. For me it was an easy choice for others it may not be. I don't speak lawyer'ese but from what I understand (armored with my Google search), the basis of lawsuit, is unusual delays in processing I-485/765 applications. Current processing times published by USCIS in the worst case (California Service Center) go up to 65.5 months. Are the plaintiffs impacted/suffered hardships due to the delay ? Yes. Is there a merit to the case ? May be. Do I have anything to lose ? other than 2K not much.

[AceMan]

I didn't digress from discussion untill you pointed / questioned if I have any vested interest in promoting law-suit. For me it was an easy choice for others it may not be. I don't speak lawyer'ese but from what I understand (armored with my Google search), the basis of lawsuit, is unusual delays in processing I-485/765 applications. Current processing times published by USCIS in the worst case (California Service Center) go up to 65.5 months. Are the plaintiffs impacted/suffered hardships due to the delay ? Yes. Is there a merit to the case ? May be. Do I have anything to lose ? other than 2K not much.

You gave the email address and additional unsolicited information. And you are not having any valid opinions on why people should invest in this lawsuit.

You were all about optics like getting $2025 from gullible people is epitome of capitalism and 2000 is not a big deal and easy choice of not losing much.

Many long timers in this forum already know that Greg Siskind was the person who screwed it for EB2 candidates in 2015. They just don?t care.

Did you google search miss the fact the country was reeling under Covid and vaccinations started happening from February this year only? Greg Siskind using the first quarters filing information to present USCIS is going to waste visa is far from truth.

Just look at today?s bulletin to see what I mean.

[LightAtEndOfTunnel]

I didn't provide any unsolicited information, I was trying to help someone who was looking to get answers for the lawsuit. I had emails from the communication they sent to me and I shared it. I am not trying to convince anyone to join the lawsuit. I am just sharing my line of thinking, no one is obliged to think on the same lines. I bet you are trying to dissuade people from joining it, based on your opinion (which is fair). People can choose what they want to do.

[AceMan]

I didn't provide any unsolicited information, I was trying to help someone who was looking to get answers for the lawsuit. I had emails from the communication they sent to me and I shared it. I am not trying to convince anyone to join the lawsuit. I am just sharing my line of thinking, no one is obliged to think on the same lines. I bet you are trying to dissuade people from joining it, based on your opinion (which is fair). People can choose what they want to do.

I am driving home the point that people would be better off spending $2025 to charity instead of joining this frivolous lawsuit and gloat the money is not much.

It can result in better mental satisfaction.

[abcx13]

Let us limit our focus on the merits and demerits of this lawsuit please. The funding of USCIS is not the topic of lawsuit. I would like to keep away from personal "what if something happened" choices too.

The aim of the lawsuit from their FAQ - This lawsuit aims to force USCIS to adjudicate employment-based Adjustment of Status applications before the end of the fiscal year in September 2021, or to ?hold over? visa numbers so that they do not disappear if USCIS fails to timely adjudicate these cases.

Analyze the first part of the sentence.

Force USCIS to adjudicate EB based AOS before September 30th 2021. Anyone who has a reasonable understanding of EB based immigration should understand that US courts don't work under the time limit gun.

You can take a look at another lawsuit filed in 2015 on a topic I followed very closely. https://www.aila.org/infonet/dist-ct...jobs-usa-v-dhs. The suit is still running well into 6th year.

Hence the first part of the statement is not a workable goal.

Next part - To ?hold over? visa numbers so that they do not disappear if USCIS fails to timely adjudicate these cases. The laws is very clear on this. Use it or lose it.

IANAL, but I just spent the last hour or so reading judicial opinions in three EB5 unreasonable delay cases against USCIS in the last year where judges rejected USCIS's motions to dismiss.

This is a good summary with some excerpts from judge's opinions. And another summary.

But really, you should read the three judges' opinions yourself.

https://eb5projects.com/system/uploa...MTD__NDCA_.pdf
https://casetext.com/case/wurtz-v-us...NUMBER_GROUP=C
https://casetext.com/case/gutta-v-renaud

Notably, read USC 1571 referenced by the judges in these cases:

(b) Policy

It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application, except that a petition for a nonimmigrant visa under section 1184(c) of this title should be processed not later than 30 days after the filing of the petition.

Again, the judges say 180 days is not mandatory but that tilts it perhaps in our favor. And the irreperable harm to EB2-I from lost visas might further help our cause.

I also found this practice advisory on mandamus / APA delay cases for immigration.

I was starting to feel the lawsuit was pointless before, but as I have read more, I think there might be a decent shot perhaps? Again, IANAL and this is just what I found Googling around. Now these cases are for I526 applications (like I140 for EB5). The WasdenBanias people claim that I485 AoS applications are different and courts defer to USCIS.

wasdenbanias-green-card-lawsuit.jpg

On reserving visas, isn't the law also clear on Diversity Visas expiring at the end of the year? They were able to preserve those somehow?

[AceMan]

IANAL, but I just spent the last hour or so reading judicial opinions in three EB5 unreasonable delay cases against USCIS in the last year where judges rejected USCIS's motions to dismiss.

This is a good summary with some excerpts from judge's opinions. And another summary.

But really, you should read the three judges' opinions yourself.

https://eb5projects.com/system/uploa...MTD__NDCA_.pdf
https://casetext.com/case/wurtz-v-us...NUMBER_GROUP=C
https://casetext.com/case/gutta-v-renaud

Notably, read USC 1571 referenced by the judges in these cases:



Again, the judges say 180 days is not mandatory but that tilts it perhaps in our favor. And the irreperable harm to EB2-I from lost visas might further help our cause.

I also found this practice advisory on mandamus / APA delay cases for immigration.

I was starting to feel the lawsuit was pointless before, but as I have read more, I think there might be a decent shot perhaps? Again, IANAL and this is just what I found Googling around. Now these cases are for I526 applications (like I140 for EB5). The WasdenBanias people claim that I485 AoS applications are different and courts defer to USCIS.

wasdenbanias-green-card-lawsuit.jpg

On reserving visas, isn't the law also clear on Diversity Visas expiring at the end of the year? They were able to preserve those somehow?

That is some extensive research you have done.

Look at the details of the first one https://eb5projects.com/system/uploa...MTD__NDCA_.pdf

Plaintiffs? Motion to Expedite Discovery
The plaintiffs maintain that USCIS?s motion to dismiss goes beyond the pleadings and
relies on evidence. Hoping to put forward their own evidence to keep pace and to better defend
against USCIS?s motion, the plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite discovery. The Court need not
consider whether the plaintiffs? characterization of USCIS?s motion to dismiss is correct, for even
taking the motion to dismiss as it is, the Court has denied it. As no other grounds are asserted for
expediting discovery, the Court denies the plaintiffs? motion. Discovery shall proceed on the
timeline contemplated by the federal rules.


The second case https://casetext.com/case/wurtz-v-us...NUMBER_GROUP=C
Motion to dismiss Mandamus was denied by the court. So USCIS have to process according to that Writ. The plaintiff is already impacted by the delay and filed the writ, and USCIS went to court against it. This lawsuit being initiated by Siskind based on projection of visa loss even when the FY is not over.

The third case https://casetext.com/case/gutta-v-renaud Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

One key note of interest here. The court agrees that Plaintiffs' claim for relief based USCIS's alleged delay in forwarding approved petitions to the National Visa Center is not ripe for adjudication. A claim is not ripe "if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.
At the time that Plaintiffs filed this action, none of the petitions at issue had been adjudicated. Thus, no Plaintiffs had yet experienced any delay in their approved petition being forwarded to the National Visa Center. Any potential future delay is speculative and therefore not ripe for judicial consideration. Plaintiffs do not present any other reason why the claims of these four Plaintiffs are not moot.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to the claims of Begur, Das, Khan, and Bansal.


The bold text above should provide answer to the people who are thinking about joining this lawsuit.

[abcx13]

That is some extensive research you have done.

Look at the details of the first one https://eb5projects.com/system/uploa...MTD__NDCA_.pdf

Plaintiffs? Motion to Expedite Discovery
The plaintiffs maintain that USCIS?s motion to dismiss goes beyond the pleadings and
relies on evidence. Hoping to put forward their own evidence to keep pace and to better defend
against USCIS?s motion, the plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite discovery. The Court need not
consider whether the plaintiffs? characterization of USCIS?s motion to dismiss is correct, for even
taking the motion to dismiss as it is, the Court has denied it. As no other grounds are asserted for
expediting discovery, the Court denies the plaintiffs? motion. Discovery shall proceed on the
timeline contemplated by the federal rules.


The second case https://casetext.com/case/wurtz-v-us...NUMBER_GROUP=C
Motion to dismiss Mandamus was denied by the court. So USCIS have to process according to that Writ. The plaintiff is already impacted by the delay and filed the writ, and USCIS went to court against it. This lawsuit being initiated by Siskind based on projection of visa loss even when the FY is not over.

The third case https://casetext.com/case/gutta-v-renaud Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

One key note of interest here. The court agrees that Plaintiffs' claim for relief based USCIS's alleged delay in forwarding approved petitions to the National Visa Center is not ripe for adjudication. A claim is not ripe "if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.
At the time that Plaintiffs filed this action, none of the petitions at issue had been adjudicated. Thus, no Plaintiffs had yet experienced any delay in their approved petition being forwarded to the National Visa Center. Any potential future delay is speculative and therefore not ripe for judicial consideration. Plaintiffs do not present any other reason why the claims of these four Plaintiffs are not moot.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to the claims of Begur, Das, Khan, and Bansal.


The bold text above should provide answer to the people who are thinking about joining this lawsuit.

The first one is not relevant. They just denied a motion to expedite discovery.

The specific instance in the third one is a sort of minor win for the agency, not as big as you seem to be portraying. The plaintiffs seem to have been worried that USCIS would act in bad faith and adjudicate the application but not forward it to the NVC. The case was settled with adjudication by June 30 anyway. But more generally, on the second and third points, yes, the issue of ripeness is one I did consider and it might be a potential risk. The position that the claim is unripe until visas are wasted does sort of put plaintiffs in a Catch 22 position where their claim might not be justiciable at all. Because if you file suit after September 30, there is no way to recapture visas under the law as far as I know and get relief. If you file before, USCIS can argue wastage is hypothetical and thus unripe to be determined by the court. But perhaps you can use their own listed processing times against them, responses to Service Requests asking you to just wait, CO's statements, etc. to show that there will definitely be wastage and the Court needs to file a temporary injuction to grant relief otherwise irreparable harm would occur.

One important point here I think is that 2020 DVs were preemptively preserved by the judge in that case. I haven't yet started reading that docket, but I imagine many of these arguments about potential unripeness would apply there too and yet the judge did the "right thing". This is the summary history of that case. I will read the two opinions from the judge now.

Again, IANAL and I am not saying the lawsuit will succeed. There might be technicalities involved that I am unaware of that doom this line of reasoning above and it is obviously very dependent on the judge one gets. As you can see, there is huge variability with some judges saying 4 year delays are okay, while other judges have overturned and thrown that out as being unacceptable.

[AceMan]

I put it in bold not to portray the agency win, rather how that exact scenario would play out if the new lawsuit is moving forward and how this suit will be tossed out.
I agree with your assertion that individual Judges have certain preferences, however there is precedence of how these cases are going to be judged.

In layman terms it should be made very clear to the joining parties the lawsuit does not have any impact for them getting Greened or not greened before September 30th 2021.

[abcx13]

I put it in bold not to portray the agency win, rather how that exact scenario would play out if the new lawsuit is moving forward and how this suit will be tossed out.
I agree with your assertion that individual Judges have certain preferences, however there is precedence of how these cases are going to be judged.

In layman terms it should be made very clear to the joining parties the lawsuit does not have any impact for them getting Greened or not greened before September 30th 2021.

It seems you have definitively made up your mind and do not want to recognize nuance about how Courts in similar situations where the situation was 'unripe' but would quickly become 'ripe' without action have issued temporary injunctions, so I will let it rest, but I agree that the suit will almost certainly not result in adjudication before Sep 30, 2021 simply by virtue of the suit. But it could potentially reserve GCs which would otherwise be lost forever - and even if that doesn't directly benefit the individual plaintiff who could have been greened under next year's spillover, it might benefit the community.

[AceMan]

It seems you have definitively made up your mind and do not want to recognize nuance about how Courts in similar situations where the situation was 'unripe' but would quickly become 'ripe' without action have issued temporary injunctions, so I will let it rest, but I agree that the suit will almost certainly not result in adjudication before Sep 30, 2021 simply by virtue of the suit. But it could potentially reserve GCs which would otherwise be lost forever - and even if that doesn't directly the individual plaintiff who could have been greened under next year's spillover, it might benefit the community.

I had clearly mentioned in an earlier post, my dates are already current and I have no beef with this lawsuit. And every interpretation I presented was from the case notes you researched. We were reading the same topics. I highlighted the points from the judgement which denied the claims of plaintiff.

I know about this lawyer 6 years back when he executed a botched up lawsuit and the courts ruled in favor of USCIS and allowed them to decide when to accept filing date or final date. Filing date concept was introduced in 2015 after lot of discussions to enable people file in advance. Due to lawsuit by this particular individual everything was spoiled and handed over the advantage to USCIS. So when the same person comes up with another con job, it is important to educate the people not to approach the fire like flies.

Now you have put forward an interesting point, reserved GC. The law says the visa is use or lose it. It also says unused visas spill over from FB/EB. So if you think reserve GC from courts is what Siskind is gunning for, then you need to really understand what can happen to unused FB visas. It can get reserved back in FB itself.

So while you worry about make believe numbers from a lawyer who has a checkered track record on the subject, in reality you are considering to sign up for a lawsuit which can potentially put a stop to next year's spill over from FB to EB.

[LightAtEndOfTunnel]

It seems you have definitively made up your mind and do not want to recognize nuance about how Courts in similar situations where the situation was 'unripe' but would quickly become 'ripe' without action have issued temporary injunctions, so I will let it rest, but I agree that the suit will almost certainly not result in adjudication before Sep 30, 2021 simply by virtue of the suit. But it could potentially reserve GCs which would otherwise be lost forever - and even if that doesn't directly the individual plaintiff who could have been greened under next year's spillover, it might benefit the community.

Yes just having an opinion based on preconceived bias against a certain law firm helps to cloud the judgement further. One argument I heard was there is no provision in law to reclaim the lost visas and law is very clear about that. It can be counter argued that DV visas that were due to expire were also ordered to be withheld for the plaintiffs by judge in the lawsuit (there was no provision in law for that either). Judge's ruling allowing concession/relief supersedes any law. Have you been to traffic court and see people asking for reduced fine ? Judge will just allow it, based on random whim, but by law the charged person is supposed to pay fine in full amount. I guess I am signing off from any further arguments on this topic. For me, with zero progress on the case, it was no-brainer. Yeah of course, I could donate that money to charity too but I'll do that separately.

[abcx13]

I had clearly mentioned in an earlier post, my dates are already current and I have no beef with this lawsuit. And every interpretation I presented was from the case notes you researched. We were reading the same topics. I highlighted the points from the judgement which denied the claims of plaintiff.

I know about this lawyer 6 years back when he executed a botched up lawsuit and the courts ruled in favor of USCIS and allowed them to decide when to accept filing date or final date. Filing date concept was introduced in 2015 after lot of discussions to enable people file in advance. Due to lawsuit by this particular individual everything was spoiled and handed over the advantage to USCIS. So when the same person comes up with another con job, it is important to educate the people not to approach the fire like flies.

Now you have put forward an interesting point, reserved GC. The law says the visa is use or lose it. It also says unused visas spill over from FB/EB. So if you think reserve GC from courts is what Siskind is gunning for, then you need to really understand what can happen to unused FB visas. It can get reserved back in FB itself.

So while you worry about make believe numbers from a lawyer who has a checkered track record on the subject, in reality you are considering to sign up for a lawsuit which can potentially put a stop to next year's spill over from FB to EB.

Can you please set aside your prejudice for Siskind? I'm trying to figure out if this lawsuit or any lawsuit along these lines has merit or not. Judge doesn't care who Siskind is. They care what the law says. If our position has merit, other lawyers can be found. Now as an aside, I did find that some of their arguments in the Aker v. Trump DV 2020 lawusit were a bit sloppy and far-reaching compared to the other pro bono lawsuits that were filed (all were consolidated together), so I don't disagree with you that he might have a tendency (he certainly has an incentive!) to overpromise.

I am not an expert on FD and FAD since I have never been current until now, but doesn't that actually support our position? Clock starts ticking from FD, not from FAD. So even if we are current now, clock started ticking when we filed in October. The fact that USCIS has taken no steps to documentarily qualify many of us so far support our position.

Yes, I did think about the risk about reserving FB visas. Last year's FB spillover to EB this year is in the bag. There was no reservation of those visas. So this is actually more of a risk for everyone relying on FB->EB spillover next fiscal year. A lot of people who are already current, including me, are leaning on that if there is wastage this year. In theory, if FB folks sue and are able to reserve a ton of this year's potential spillover, then it actually hurts the EB folks who would get that spillover next year. So it sort of is in our interest to preserve this year's EB spillover at least if we can, because if we can do it, then so can FB and there is no guarantee for the preservation of this year's FB spillover to EB next year. Though the FB spillover has a marginally weaker preservation argument as it does spillover to EB, while EB->FB reverse spillover just disappears due to how immediate relatives of USCs are counted.

I read the judge's opinions in Gomez v. Trump where he is reserving 9000 DVs subject to final judgment. It clearly seems the court has the ability to reserve visas for future adjudication as long as the request for relief is filed before the fiscal year is up. You can see his preliminary injunction also and the reasoning there. And finally the miscellaneous relief where he basically ordered DoS to extend the dates on the DVs.

The Court seems to take into account Congressional intent of not wasting visas, timely adjudication times for immigration benefits, etc. For the agency, they take into account Covid conditions. That's why he didn't reserve all the DVs available - because even with good faith the DoS/USCIS would not have been able to process all of them due to Covid. Something similar might happen with EB visas that are potentially reserved. But the agency would have to show I think that they made a good faith effort. They can't just be like we normally process 140k and that's it. They will probably have to answer things like why they couldn't process more EBs if FB applications were down etc.

[AceMan]

You don't have take my words for this. You have researched and posted information from another lawyer group who had previously sued USCIS for H4EAD delay and their position and views about this lawsuit.

You said you are not an expert of FD and FAD. As a person following that since 2015, I can say that clock starts only when your final action is current and not from filing date as you are presenting.

You said are aware of the risk of reserving FB visas. Let me put it in numbers for you. Spec/RedSox diligently provides monthly visa usage information here in the forum. We are looking at around 135-140,000 visas spilled over to EB in FY 2022. FB people have no option to sue, because that is how it is defined in the rules.

I see a a change in your position from wastage of 100,000 you are now "leaning on" wastage this year. All you need to see is the movement of visa dates in the month for July 2021 to see USCIS is on target to reach near dates they set in October 2020.

USCIS has improved the process by leaps and bounds since the previous administration. And even after all of these if Siskind wants to proceed with a lawsuit, it is clearly obvious that the target is only to get few people to fund for his money making juggernaut.

[abcx13]

You said you are not an expert of FD and FAD. As a person following that since 2015, I can say that clock starts only when your final action is current and not from filing date as you are presenting.

I see a a change in your position from wastage of 100,000 you are now "leaning on" wastage this year. All you need to see is the movement of visa dates in the month for July 2021 to see USCIS is on target to reach near dates they set in October 2020.

Why would clock start from when FAD is current? The whole point of FD is to documentarily qualify people in advance so visas are NOT wasted.

There is no change in my position. Even CO is saying USCIS will waste EB spilled-over visas this year. Who know how many but tens of thousands doesn't seem ridiculous. What I am saying is that many people are figuring that doesn't matter and "leaning on" spill-over from this year's FB to next year's EB.

I am not sure that FAD dates that CO sets in VB mean USCIS will process those by end of the year. Many people have been current by FAD for months and have heard nothing from USCIS. I guess we will see what CO says tomorrow.

[AceMan]

The whole point of FD is to have a pool of people ready to use the visas in the final quarter of a FY when there are ample number of visas available and to minimize the wastage of visa. This was part of the improvement plan in 2014-15 resulting in the introduction of Filing Date and Final Action Date.

The law allows only for a certain % of visas for each countries for first 3 quarters. In most cases Eb1 visas are processed first in the beginning of the FY, followed by EB2 and finally EB3. It means if a Greece born person applies for EB based GC in March 2021, his petition will be prioritized over an over subscribed applicant who filed in October 2020.

CO is from DOS and he does not have the authority on USCIS work. Last year same CO said USCIS will waste 25,000 visas and when DOS released statistics for FY 2020 USCIS had issued 148K visas of the maximum 156 K visas, a tremendous effort when we had lost 3 months due to covid. I appreciate your efforts in researching and finding the details. Don't take my word for it, you can check for visa statistics in the official sites for yourself.

FAD does not mean anything if your petition is incomplete. The term Documentarily Qualified is associated with Consular Processing interview and not really valid for AOS. Lot of candidates did not submit their medicals in time. Why, their lawyers said so. Just follow the main thread and see how many people said the same thing?

People getting GC - In trackitt there is a thread https://www.trackitt.com/usa-discuss...-movement-data

The thread creator updates the thread every week and you can see how many applicants are getting greened. It is all real time data and no ambiguity involved. People are getting greened !!! See for yourself. If in doubt, pick some random number from the google document and check for the status in the document and the website.

[abcx13]

The law allows only for a certain % of visas for each countries for first 3 quarters. In most cases Eb1 visas are processed first in the beginning of the FY, followed by EB2 and finally EB3. It means if a Greece born person applies for EB based GC in March 2021, his petition will be prioritized over an over subscribed applicant who filed in October 2020.

CO is from DOS and he does not have the authority on USCIS work. Last year same CO said USCIS will waste 25,000 visas and when DOS released statistics for FY 2020 USCIS had issued 148K visas of the maximum 156 K visas, a tremendous effort when we had lost 3 months due to covid. I appreciate your efforts in researching and finding the details. Don't take my word for it, you can check for visa statistics in the official sites for yourself.

I forgot about SO only being applied in Q4 but I don't know how many case are sitting ready to be greened... I guess we will find out next month.

And thanks for sharing last year's statistics. I was looking for something like that in the main thread.

People getting GC - In trackitt there is a thread https://www.trackitt.com/usa-discuss...-movement-data

The thread creator updates the thread every week and you can see how many applicants are getting greened. It is all real time data and no ambiguity involved. People are getting greened !!! See for yourself. If in doubt, pick some random number from the google document and check for the status in the document and the website.

Yes, I know people are getting GCs without interview... just the pace is hard to know.

[abcx13]

Are you still planning to join the lawsuit then? I am still on the fence. My downgrade application is in TSC (RD 11/4) and so far no action or FP appointment yet. I have been following on Trackitt and there aren't many TSC cases with movement.

I am leaning towards not joining. I think we might get greened by end of this FY or early next year. But I am at NSC.

Also, I think if things aren't looking good, you can always file individual lawsuit before the fiscal year ends asking for similar relief. Might cost a bit more though. Or wait till early next fiscal year and see how things are then consider filing or hopefully get your GC then.

EDIT: They might also do another round of onboarding for this case itself.

[vedu]

I am part of Siskind's lawsuit now, and during 2015 as well. Fooled twice? May be yes, May be no. 2k USD will not make me poor but few months of delayed GC will.

I failed to understand how a few months of delayed GC will make you poor now that you already have an EAD which can be renewed for free and you are going to join a new job soon with a very good offer....can you please clarify? On the other hand, assuming that you are going to live a minimum of 40 years more from now, $2,000 invested in S&P 500 with its historical 8% rate of return will become $43,449 in 40 years. Add to that, I don't know how much you paid last time for a similar lawsuit (let's assume $2,000), that can be another $44,000. So, a total loss close to $88,000...just saying!

[AceMan]

I failed to understand how a few months of delayed GC will make you poor now that you already have an EAD which can be renewed for free and you are going to join a new job soon with a very good offer....can you please clarify? On the other hand, assuming that you are going to live a minimum of 40 years more from now, $2,000 invested in S&P 500 with its historical 8% rate of return will become $43,449 in 40 years. Add to that, I don't know how much you paid last time for a similar lawsuit (let's assume $2,000), that can be another $44,000. So, a total loss close to $88,000...just saying!

You miss the important point. He learned lot from this forum and filed AOS by himself and saved 2000+$ an attorney would charge.

He is using the money he saved for Siskind lawsuit.

[vedu]

You miss the important point. He learned lot from this forum and filed AOS by himself and saved 2000+$ an attorney would charge.

He is using the money he saved for Siskind lawsuit.

Honestly, I was very impressed when I started reading his post to know that he did all the application work by himself. But by the time, I reached the end of the post, I had the feeling that they finally got him.

Also, USCIS processing time isn't completely that bad in his case. He got his receipt notices, FP notices, EAD/AP, etc. in reasonable time. He will also get his green card in next 4-5 months, but little bit of patience is necessary. Afterall, we all know that the USCIS has been busy this year, first with acknowledging all the new applications, then clearing 2009-2010 cases first before they can get to the newly filed applications.

[qesehmk]

I think it is a bit condescending Vedu on your part to judge other person's ability to know what's in their best interest.

I don't know Siskind or any other lawyer at his firm and have no particular opinion on their lawsuit. But generally speaking I do think it's a good idea and your right to slap USCIS in the face with a lawsuit since they seem to be on path to waste 50K visas.

2K is peanuts money for most of us having spent 15-20 years in this country. Besides not all things in life are about money cash flow and future value of your current dollars.

[vedu]

I think it is a bit condescending Vedu on your part to judge other person's ability to know what's in their best interest.

I don't know Siskind or any other lawyer at his firm and have no particular opinion on their lawsuit. But generally speaking I do think it's a good idea and your right to slap USCIS in the face with a lawsuit since they seem to be on path to waste 50K visas.

2K is peanuts money for most of us having spent 15-20 years in this country. Besides not all things in life are about money cash flow and future value of your current dollars.

Q, yes I agree. I should have toned down my response to OP. As I said before, I was impressed to know that he did all the application work for himself and his family on his own to save money. But by the end of his post, I was quite disappointed to know that he is/was part of two lawsuits (frivolous in my personal opinion) and couldn't help but respond. But as you said, everybody is quite capable of making the decisions in their best interest and I am nobody to tell them what to do. But, me being a cheapskate wouldn't have spent 2K (actually more than that considering the federal, state, and local taxes I would have to pay to earn that 2K) and of course the big future opportunity cost of that money. But that's just me. And I forgot, this is an immigration forum and not the Money Mustache forum!, so I apologize (with all the sincerity)!

[qesehmk]

Q, yes I agree. I should have toned down my response to OP. As I said before, I was impressed to know that he did all the application work for himself and his family on his own to save money. But by the end of his post, I was quite disappointed to know that he is/was part of two lawsuits (frivolous in my personal opinion) and couldn't help but respond. But as you said, everybody is quite capable of making the decisions in their best interest and I am nobody to tell them what to do. But, me being a cheapskate wouldn't have spent 2K (actually more than that considering the federal, state, and local taxes I would have to pay to earn that 2K) and of course the big future opportunity cost of that money. But that's just me. And I forgot, this is an immigration forum and not the Money Mustache forum!, so I apologize (with all the sincerity)!

Vedu - I didn't mean you to apologize nor I meant to lecture. I just like to think freely and it also means affording the same to others!

People can discuss anything under the sun including money. Nothing is off limits. Have a great fathers day BTW to you and to everybody else!

[LightAtEndOfTunnel]

Vedu - I didn't mean you to apologize nor I meant to lecture. I just like to think freely and it also means affording the same to others!

People can discuss anything under the sun including money. Nothing is off limits. Have a great fathers day BTW to you and to everybody else!

Happy belated father's day to all awesome Papas on this group.

I was really trying to practice abstinence over weekend, to not try refresh the page and check new updates. ha ha.. This forum is addictive.