Another EB-5 LawsuitCourtney Carlsson et al. v. USCIS et al., was filed on September 13, 2012, in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Central District of California (Western Div. L.A.)Leading the charge is: Plaintiffs are listed as:Ira J Kurzban Courtney Carlsson (as the Lead)Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt PA Badrialsadat Hashemi Farsadani2650 SW 27th Avenue Suite 200 Guidong JiangMiami, FL 33133 DeQing Kong305-444-0060 Ye Yen LaiFax: 305-444-3503 Wong Ai LeeEmail: email@example.com Ni Li Wei LiPACER INFORMATION: Jimin LimCIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: Nuong Lien Luong2:12-cv-07893-CAS-AGR David Martin Patel N RajeshbhaiThe Compliant is now available. Giti Seyedsalehi Hongli Shihttp://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/17/RomanEm Amrit Pal Toorpire.pdf Van Der Ham Mengyou YaoMy essay about this is here. Eun Sook YooI first saw the story was via a Google news alert set for “Immigration”. This contained a link toan article entitled: “Immigrants Claim U.S. Improperly Denied them Residency After they SpentMillions Creating Jobs” and attributed as: Submitted by Courthouse News on Sep 17, 2012. Ifollowed the link for “Courthouse News” to: http://www.opposingviews.com/user/27136/track andfound a wealth of links commenting on many court cases.On Behalf of Defendants: It was reported that these 18 plaintiffs invested $500KGeoffrey Forney each in the renovation of office and warehouse space inUS Department of Justice Riverside, CA with an expectation of creating aroundOffice of Immigration Litigation (OIL) 278 jobs. The article indicates an asserted affiliationDistrict Court Section with American Life via a Limited Partnership called “14575 Innovation Drive”. It was reported that this case450 5th Street NW Room 6104 involved Notices of Intent to Revoke (NOIRs) for someWashington, DC 20001 of the I-526s while the remainder got RFEs. It is hard toPhone: 202-532-4329 Fax: 202-305-7000 tell from the article exactly what transpired becauseEmail: firstname.lastname@example.org terminology is inconsistent. It is MOST LIKELY that a few I-526s were revoked and the rest were denied. There appears to be some discussion of the poorly named “Tenant Methodology”. However, there are other factors at work here because there is a some discussion changes not being “material”. I hope we hear more accurate details soon.