Zixiang Li, et al v. Hillary Clinton, et al

From EBGreenCard
Jump to navigation Jump to search

这是2010年5月递交的诉讼,原因是2008年中国EB3只发了2057,2009年更只发了1077,远低于法定名额2803个。由于中国能获得2803个名额的基础就是“发绿卡必须按PD”(详见 绿卡名额分配),所以,基于此法条,在2010年初,DOS公布年度名额后,提起诉讼。诉讼结果是被法庭dismiss,上诉后再次被dismiss。


根据法庭文件 https://www.ilw.com/seminars/201005_citation3c.pdf,本次官司的诉求为:

A. 国务院违法,因为国务院没有按照PD进行排期(即:没有发满中国,而却发给了ROW,不满足移民法关于“按照PD发卡”的要求)

B. 移民局违法,因为移民局没有按照PD进行批准

C. 移民局违法,因为即使国务院没有分配名额,移民局也没有按照PD来批准

D. 被告人(国务院、移民局等)没有按照法律要求,公布PD的分布情况

E. 被告人(国务院、移民局等)没有按照法律要求,公布 I-140 和 I-485 的库存



判决书 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca9-11-35412/pdf/USCOURTS-ca9-11-35412-0.pdf

针对“USCIS需要按PD批卡”:移民法写的是,国务院要按照 PD 安排移民签证,没有说 USCIS 要怎样,所以针对 USCIS 的指控不成立

针对“USCIS需要公开数据”:移民法对于 waitlist 的要求是,国务院需要发布排期表。USCIS 没有法定义务公开任何排期数据。

判卷词原文:原告没有找到相应的法律条文,我们也没找到法律条文,说USCIS必须按PD批卡,或者公开待审核数据。Plaintiffs provide no authority, and we can locate none, suggesting that USCIS has a specific duty to maintain such an elaborate system for monitoring priority dates or the number of pending applications. Instead, USCIS's responsibilities are carefully circumscribed and tied to the actions of other agencies.

针对“预留名额”:移民法对于每年的名额规定是写死的,法官无权要求增加。错了就错了,财年一过,就只有国会能重新立法修改数字了。原文:It does not matter whether administrative delays and errors are to blame for an alien not receiving a visa number on time. Once a visa number is gone, it cannot be recaptured absent an act of Congress.

针对“纠正错误”:法庭没有时间机器,不能回到过去。Since courts are not time machines, we are unable to order DOS to go back in time and not do something it already did, let alone determine which individuals awarded visa numbers in the past should have their numbers taken away because they should have been awarded to Plaintiffs.


法官对于中国申请人表示同情,但法律就是这样,他也没有办法。判决书 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca9-11-35412/pdf/USCOURTS-ca9-11-35412-0.pdf


Nevertheless, without accurate information from USCIS regarding the number of pending applicants for EB-3 visas from each country, the Visa Office was unable—for at least two years, and likely for much longer—to ensure that the correct number of immigrant visas were made available to individuals from each country. Plaintiffs, and thousands of others like them, were prejudiced as a result, in that they were required to wait far longer for their visas than other individuals who applied at the same time.


The misallocation of visas that Plaintiffs complain of is not, however, the result of the violation of any specific duty, imposed on any specific defendant by Congress and identified as such in the Complaint. It appears, nevertheless, that the failure to effectuate the purpose of the statutory scheme could have been entirely avoided had the Defendants taken more seriously their joint responsibility to ensure the proper functioning of the immigrant visa system. Had the Visa Office simply asked USCIS for the necessary information regarding pending applications for immigrant visas—or, conversely, had USCIS simply provided to the Visa Office the full information that office required to create an accurate waiting list—the misallocation of visas that Plaintiffs complain of likely could have been averted.