Four more new mandamus actions filed this week

We have filed four more new mandamus action in the federal district court for Northern California. One case is a new kind worth mentioning here. This case involves the denial of immigrant visa to our client's husband and two stepchildren by the visa officer in American Consulate in Guangzhou, China. Based on past experience, consular return and CIS action on returned petitions may take years and our client did not want to wait. We are asking the court to compel the consulate to immediately return the petition and the CIS to make a decision in a reasonable time, not in years.

Recently, we see an increasing number of consular refusals of family immigrant visas, especially those involving marriages. Most families cannot wait for years to have their chance to be heard so they practically abandon their petitions. As a result, many families are dissolved. Our client is determined not to let this happen to her. We will report later on the development of this case.

We are also in the process of filing a declaratory judgment in federal court on CSPA's retention of priority date provision(INA section 203(h)(3)). When parents are immigrated to the U.S., if their son or daughters are aged out under CSPA, the law provides that the parent can file a new I-130 and use the original priority date of the old petition. In our case, the old priority date is 1991. CIS has failed to promulgate regulations or issue policy memorandum on this issue. Asa result, USCIS refuses to accord the old priority date to the new I-130. As far as we know, this would be the first such lawsuit in federal court. We will again discuss the progress of this lawsuit when it becomes available.

BIA remands an appeal of I130 visa petition denial

On October 31, 2007, Board of Immigration Appeals(BIA) remanded an appeal of an I-130 visa petition denial by San Francisco District Director with instruction to consider relevant evidence.

Our client married a USC and she filed I-130 petition for him. After the interview, CIS denied the petition. CIS main reason is that there were several discrepancies in their responses to officer's questions at the interview.

BIA, in its decision remanding the case back to San Francisco District Office for further processing, states that the district office failed to follow 8 CFR section 204.1(h) in allowing our clients the opportunity to respond to derogatory information.BIA states that several "discrepancies" concern relatively minor areas of disagreement and the district director did not discuss the areas which the parties provided consistent response.

It has been a practice of CIS San Francisco Office to heavily rely on interview and overlook any other evidence in determining the bona fides of a marriage. We have another similar appeal currently pending at BIA.

The remand has given our clients a chance to prove their marriage and is a victory and vindication of our position that CIS San Francisco did not follow the regulations and settled case laws in the 9th Circuit.