s**g
发帖数: 709 | 1 大家有空可以研究援引典型案例的适用性。特别是当年未用的VISA可否以后再用？
此案未经国会通过，法庭搞定。政府上诉后，依然输了。
粗看了一下，RECAPTURE没非多大功夫，名额怎么分却大伤脑筋。
RECAPTURE BILL过后也会有着一出。好在如今SUPPLY MORE THAN DEMAND.
当年方案是按比例分，看来EB2分SPILLOVER严格按PD分也是可以商榷的。
SILVA v. BELL, 605 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1979)
Proceeding was brought to determine how to distribute wrongfully issued visa
numbers after it was conceded that policy of Immigration and Naturalization
Service of charging visa numbers assigned to Cuban refugees against Western
Hemisphere quotas was erroneous. The United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, John F. Grady, J., entered
judgment, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Tone, Circuit Judge,
held that evidence established that the charged visa numbers should be
allocated among the Western Hemisphere applicants on the waiting list in
accordance with historical immigration pattern for countries involved,
rather than chronologically without regard to national origin.
Reversed and remanded.
*979 Lauri Steven Filppu, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for
defendants-appellants.
Bruce L. Goldsmith, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before CUMMINGS and TONE, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior District
Judge. [FN*]
TONE, Circuit Judge.
During the period from 1968 to 1976, 144,999 Cuban refugees were granted
permanent resident status pursuant to the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, Pub.
L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161. The visa numbers assigned to them were charged
against the *980 Western Hemisphere immigration quota, thereby making those
visa numbers unavailable to applicants from Western Hemisphere countries
other than Cuba. In 1976 it was determined that the Cuban charging was in
error. The question in this case is how the erroneously charged visa numbers
should be allocated among the Western Hemisphere applicants on the waiting
list, chronologically without regard to national origin, as plaintiffs
contend and the district court ordered, or in accordance with the historical
immigration patterns for the countries involved, as the defendants contend.
Also in issue are the standing of class members who are non-resident aliens
, the proper composition of the plaintiff class, and the need for subclasses.
Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and a class of visa applicants from
Western Hemisphere countries whose applications were filed between July 1,
1968, and December 31, 1976, but have not yet been processed. Defendants are
the Attorney General of the United States, other federal officials
responsible for the implementation of the immigration laws, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Department of State.
I
The Facts
An understanding of the problem presented requires knowledge of the recent
history of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the defendants' errant
attempts to implement amendments to the Act and later to correct earlier
mistakes.
When Congress enacted the present Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952,
Pub.L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163, See 8 U.S.C. ss 1101 et seq., it placed no
restriction on the number of Western Hemisphere [FN1] immigrants who could
obtain permanent residence visas. 8 U.S.C. s 1101(a)(27)(C) (1964). In the
1965 amendment of the Act, Pub.L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911, Congress created
a select commission to study the problems of Western Hemisphere immigration
and to recommend appropriate changes in the immigration laws, Id. at ss 21(
a) through (d), 79 Stat. 920-921. Western Hemisphere immigrants were
classified as “special immigrants,” Id. at s 8, 79 Stat. 916, but were not
immediately subject to any quota. Congress did, however, provide that
unless it enacted legislation to the contrary in the intervening time period
, a numerical limitation on Western Hemisphere immigrants of 120,000 per
fiscal year would become effective on July 1, 1968. Id. at s 21(e), 79 Stat.
921.
FN1. The Western Hemisphere consists of “Canada, the Republic of Mexico,
the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the
Canal Zone, (and the) independent countr(ies) of Central (and) South America
.” Pub.L. No. 82-414, s 101(a)(27)(C), 66 Stat. 169 (1952), superseded
effective December 1, 1965, by 22 C.F.R. s 42.1.
After the adoption of the 1965 Amendment but before the effective date of
the s 21(e) quota on Western Hemisphere immigration, Congress enacted the
Cuban Adjustment Act, Pub.L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (1966), to alleviate
the barrier to permanent residence that immigration laws interposed for
Cuban political refugees who had fled from Cuba to the United States after
the revolution in that country. Admitted to the United States by the
Attorney General pursuant to his discretionary parole power, 8 U.S.C. s 1182
(d)(5), these refugees did not have visas granting them permanent residence
status. Because, as s 1182(d)(5) prescribes, parole admittance is temporary
and a paroled alien must eventually either secure a visa through regular
procedures or return to his countr | s**o
发帖数: 15 | 2 狂顶.
老猪都这样点明了, 这些EB2还不快行动.特别是PD 08, 09 年的,你们在等什么? 想等
到2020年在拿绿卡?
援引该案例，当年2007， 2008 SPILLOVER 时就应该按比例分， 那末中国EB2排期早该
current了. PD晚的EB2, 行动起来,准备诉讼,控告名额分配不公平. 至于结果, 最坏就
是输了官司, 跟现在比什么也没有损失, 跟现在情况一样地等排期. 赢了呢, 每年多出
5000~10000 名额, 很快排期就到 2010年了. 这种只可能有百利,而无一害的事,为什么
还等? 沉默?
WAKE UP, guys!
【在 s**g 的大作中提到】
: 大家有空可以研究援引典型案例的适用性。特别是当年未用的VISA可否以后再用？
: 此案未经国会通过，法庭搞定。政府上诉后，依然输了。
: 粗看了一下，RECAPTURE没非多大功夫，名额怎么分却大伤脑筋。
: RECAPTURE BILL过后也会有着一出。好在如今SUPPLY MORE THAN DEMAND.
: 当年方案是按比例分，看来EB2分SPILLOVER严格按PD分也是可以商榷的。
: SILVA v. BELL, 605 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1979)
: Proceeding was brought to determine how to distribute wrongfully issued visa
: numbers after it was conceded that policy of Immigration and Naturalization
: Service of charging visa numbers assigned to Cuban refugees against Western
: Hemisphere quotas was erroneous. The United States District Court for the
| S*******r
发帖数: 11017 | 3 赞精神
但是问题是SO按PD分已经写进CFR了，算是法律了。怎么去ARGUE法律不合法？这个还希
望专业人士出面指教啊。
【在 s**o 的大作中提到】
: 狂顶.
: 老猪都这样点明了, 这些EB2还不快行动.特别是PD 08, 09 年的,你们在等什么? 想等
: 到2020年在拿绿卡?
: 援引该案例，当年2007， 2008 SPILLOVER 时就应该按比例分， 那末中国EB2排期早该
: current了. PD晚的EB2, 行动起来,准备诉讼,控告名额分配不公平. 至于结果, 最坏就
: 是输了官司, 跟现在比什么也没有损失, 跟现在情况一样地等排期. 赢了呢, 每年多出
: 5000~10000 名额, 很快排期就到 2010年了. 这种只可能有百利,而无一害的事,为什么
: 还等? 沉默?
: WAKE UP, guys!
| h****g
发帖数: 2216 | 4 花钱请律师做research。NIU可以看看有没有人愿意挑头。
EB2的关键是现在心不齐，没有带头人。等到再过两年排期死活不动了。估计就有人出
来了。
【在 S*******r 的大作中提到】
: 赞精神
: 但是问题是SO按PD分已经写进CFR了，算是法律了。怎么去ARGUE法律不合法？这个还希
: 望专业人士出面指教啊。
| c*********n
发帖数: 60 | 5 之前不知是LIA还是NIU花钱请人研究过了。结果是EB2的诉讼很不好搞。Spillover按PD
分是清清楚楚写在法律上的。不然移民局也不敢光明正大，每年分一万多个名额给老印
。从spill over分配不公上入手，不好立案。
个人看法是，这个案例，可以支持“法院可以直接判recapture”，但并不可以引例来
证明移民局分配不公。现在如果中国每年EB2都拿多过2800的话，立案就有很大困难。
我也研究了一些时间，发现09年,08年韩国EB2拿的名额都比我们多。两年加起来大约多
了2000多个。这是明显不符合原则的。除非当年韩国有很多老PD突然冒出来。比中国的
老。如果真的要告，可以以这个为切入点。但最大的问题是证明不了我们损失了多少，
不像EB3，清清楚楚可以算出来。
还有一点是，如果我们可以举证移民局故意浪费名额，或许可以要求法院判决
recapture.
【在 h****g 的大作中提到】
: 花钱请律师做research。NIU可以看看有没有人愿意挑头。
: EB2的关键是现在心不齐，没有带头人。等到再过两年排期死活不动了。估计就有人出
: 来了。
|
|
