原文
首先,這裏 提到過得7個案子合並在一起(6個沒麵試的公民案子, 一個I485案子),但在上次聽證會前告知唯一的那個I485NC已經做完了,移民局應該很快能把那個案子處理,所以這次就不再討論那個案子裏. "the record also shows that USCIS has issued a "fact sheet" dated April 25, 2006 which describes the process for immigration security checks. This documents make clear that FBI name check are not required for all applications, but does not disclose how a decision is made whether to require a name check 我們一直以為每個人都要做Name Check, 結果這裏告訴你並不是這樣的,但是這裏並沒有告訴你以什麽樣的標準決定什麽人要Name Check, 什麽人不要Name Check,原來移民也分三類九等呀 ! Indeed, one looking at this issue from a national security perspective could seriously question the priorities adopted by USCIS in its dealing with the one percent of naturalization applicants for whom name checks cannot be completed promptly, i.e. within six months. If these individuals are potentially dangerous to the security of the United States, it seems their applications should be expedited over all other work. The government should not allow individuals who are threats to the security of our country to remain at large in the United States. These individuals should instead be placed in custody as quickly as possible, have their LPR status revoked, and be deported, forthwith. Thus, the principal legal question is whether USCIS can properly require a name check for all naturalization applicants without any Congressional statute, authorization or rule promulgation within its own agency-particularly where name check process for plaintiffs is taking several years for completion, and information as to the complete date or reason for the delay is unavailable. Another legal issue remains as to whether, if relief is to be granted to the Plaintiffs, the Court should do so in these proceedings, or remand to the USCIS, with or without time limits 在這次報告中,法官提出幾個尖銳的問題:1. 他認為從真正的國家安全角度來看,如果真的這些等了這麽久的申請人有可能危害國家安全的話,他們的案子應該優先審查,這樣真有問題就可以盡快下一步(比如遣返)處理. (按照這樣的思維,是不是可以認為,不友好國家來的人的案子應該優先處理,而盟國人的案子應該最後,而現在好象正好相反?) 2.在沒有明確的國會授權下(在聽證會上,移民局的高層代表確實不能明確回答他們是否被國會授權這樣做),USCIS這樣要求對所有公民申請人進行NC是不是合法? 3.如果申請人的訴求被法庭接受,那本庭該總麽做:是就在本庭判決他們的公民申請,還是退回到USCIS要他們處理?那該不該設定一個期限? (這個我們在前麵的公民案 中也討論過) http://www.donkeyroad.com 提供
首先,這裏 提到過得7個案子合並在一起(6個沒麵試的公民案子, 一個I485案子),但在上次聽證會前告知唯一的那個I485NC已經做完了,移民局應該很快能把那個案子處理,所以這次就不再討論那個案子裏. "the record also shows that USCIS has issued a "fact sheet" dated April 25, 2006 which describes the process for immigration security checks. This documents make clear that FBI name check are not required for all applications, but does not disclose how a decision is made whether to require a name check 我們一直以為每個人都要做Name Check, 結果這裏告訴你並不是這樣的,但是這裏並沒有告訴你以什麽樣的標準決定什麽人要Name Check, 什麽人不要Name Check,原來移民也分三類九等呀 ! Indeed, one looking at this issue from a national security perspective could seriously question the priorities adopted by USCIS in its dealing with the one percent of naturalization applicants for whom name checks cannot be completed promptly, i.e. within six months. If these individuals are potentially dangerous to the security of the United States, it seems their applications should be expedited over all other work. The government should not allow individuals who are threats to the security of our country to remain at large in the United States. These individuals should instead be placed in custody as quickly as possible, have their LPR status revoked, and be deported, forthwith. Thus, the principal legal question is whether USCIS can properly require a name check for all naturalization applicants without any Congressional statute, authorization or rule promulgation within its own agency-particularly where name check process for plaintiffs is taking several years for completion, and information as to the complete date or reason for the delay is unavailable. Another legal issue remains as to whether, if relief is to be granted to the Plaintiffs, the Court should do so in these proceedings, or remand to the USCIS, with or without time limits 在這次報告中,法官提出幾個尖銳的問題:1. 他認為從真正的國家安全角度來看,如果真的這些等了這麽久的申請人有可能危害國家安全的話,他們的案子應該優先審查,這樣真有問題就可以盡快下一步(比如遣返)處理. (按照這樣的思維,是不是可以認為,不友好國家來的人的案子應該優先處理,而盟國人的案子應該最後,而現在好象正好相反?) 2.在沒有明確的國會授權下(在聽證會上,移民局的高層代表確實不能明確回答他們是否被國會授權這樣做),USCIS這樣要求對所有公民申請人進行NC是不是合法? 3.如果申請人的訴求被法庭接受,那本庭該總麽做:是就在本庭判決他們的公民申請,還是退回到USCIS要他們處理?那該不該設定一個期限? (這個我們在前麵的公民案 中也討論過) http://www.donkeyroad.com 提供
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
