@ceronimo, içinde söyledi: DV2021 Goodluck V Biden Davası (Mayıs 2021)
@gucarslan hükümet minimum sayıda önerecektir diye düşünüyorum. Ben dinleyemedim neden Mehta'yı pozitif buldunuz?
Olmaz dediğimizin olduğu, görmeyiz dediğimizi gördüğümüz, yaşamayız dediğimizi yaşadığımız böyle bir senede, olan, gördüğümüz, yaşadığımız onca şeyden sonra ve özellikle de davacılar için, bundan daha olumlu bir duruşma hayal edemiyorum açıkçası. Bence, bu sene başımıza gelmiş en (tek?) olumlu şey bu duruşma. Ha, bende bu şans varken (13. başvurumda kazanmış olmam, yüksek bir dosya numarasına sahip olmam, kazandığım dönemin Trump gibi bir "şey"in ABD'ye başkan olduğu, bir virüsün dünyada 4,5 milyon insan öldürdüğü seneye denk gelmiş olması hasebiyle), özellikle de ben bunu söyledikten sonra, hakim rezervasyon adedinin belirlenmesinde davalıyı haklı bulur ve nihai kararda 3 (yazı ile, "üç") vize rezerve eder; hakim vize rezerve eder ama, Ankara "Benim kapasitem yok; ben mülakat tarihi vermiyorum" der; davalı davayı temyize götürür ve birkaç ay, belki sene daha kaybederiz; temyizden olumsuz karar çıkar, vs, vs; onlar ayrı. Zira, işin o kısmı "remains to be seen"...
Bundan sonrası, Goh v. Blinken avukatlarının (ImmPact Litigation Team) duruşma özetinden alıntıdır:
"Today the District Court for the District of Columbia held a status conference to discuss the potential reservation of diversity visas beyond the September 30 fiscal year deadline. The Court began with questions for Charles Kuck on behalf of Goh Plaintiffs. Mr. Kuck explained that first and foremost, the Court should reserve visas specifically for Goh Plaintiffs. To show that the number was reasonable, the Goh team had first argued that Defendants’ bad faith administration of the DV-2021 program meant that the court should reserve enough visas to make sure all 55,000 visa numbers were used. Or, in the alternative, the Court should reserve a large percentage of remaining visas, at least 20,000, proportional to the Department of State’s proven ability to process other types of visas.
Judge Mehta expressed some hesitation that such an order for named plaintiffs from Goh and the Goodluck cases would actually put plaintiffs in a more advantageous position than they would have been had the government behaved lawfully throughout. Mr. Kuck, and Rafael Urena on behalf of Goodluck plaintiffs, urged that named plaintiffs had brought these claims and deserved to have the chance to benefit from relief ordered.
The government attorney argued that the reservation of visas for plaintiffs would effectively rewrite the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow plaintiffs to jump ahead of non-plaintiffs. Mr. Kuck explained that DoS targets the number of selectees to get to approximately 55,000 per year, and that a significant number of selectees either do not pursue or do not qualify for diversity visas. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to try to level plaintiffs’ chances to what their chances would have been amongst all DV-2021 selectees.
In the end, Judge Mehta said that perhaps an order specific to plaintiffs would not be unfair to non-plaintiffs. Rather, it is the end of fiscal year 2021 that naturally disadvantages plaintiffs, because they would no longer be eligible for visas without this lawsuit anyway.
Mr. Kuck argued that because summary judgment has already been granted to Goh plaintiffs, DoS should process any reserved visas immediately, and the court should order the government to complete all adjudications of reserved visas for Goh Plaintiffs in fiscal year 2022.
The government attorney argued that the court should not reserve any visas. Judge Mehta asked government counsel, if he disagrees with them, do they have a number or a framework to suggest for how many visas should be reserved? The government attorney said they had not discussed the matter with Department of State. Judge Mehta requested that the government file something by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, September 28, explaining this issue.
Judge Mehta announced he would make his decision by September 30."
