This document is a memorandum opinion from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia regarding a motion from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeking to extend a stay of vacatur for an interim final rule. The court had previously vacated the rule for lack of notice and comment procedures but stayed the vacatur for 6 months to allow DHS time to issue a new rule. DHS now seeks a 90 day extension of the stay, arguing it needs more time to avoid a regulatory gap. The plaintiff opposes, arguing the court lacks jurisdiction during the pending appeal and DHS fails to show extraordinary circumstances for relief. The court grants DHS's motion, finding it has jurisdiction and DHS has shown circumstances warrant
17 Months STEM OPT Extension revoked for F1 Visa Studentshappyschools
17 Months STEM OPT Extension revoked for F1 Visa Students by Federal U.S. Court.
Questions?
http://www.happyschools.com/17-months-opt-stem-extension-invalidated/
17 Month OPT Rule Extension Cancellation by US Federal Court - August 2015redbus2us
This document is a memorandum opinion from a United States District Court case involving a challenge to an interim final rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extending the duration of optional practical training (OPT) for eligible STEM students. The plaintiff, a collective bargaining organization representing STEM workers, alleges that the OPT program exceeds DHS's statutory authority. The court finds that the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits from members who are computer programmers and have applied for jobs, to establish standing to challenge the OPT rule and modifications. While DHS argues the plaintiff has not shown direct competition, the court concludes the evidence demonstrates the plaintiff's members are part of the STEM labor market and in competition
This document is the Defendant's Reply Brief in support of its motion under Rule 60(b)(6) for limited relief from the Court's order vacating the 2008 STEM OPT Extension rule. It argues the Court has jurisdiction to modify its previous order staying vacatur. It asserts extraordinary circumstances exist to justify extending the stay of vacatur by 90 days through May 10, 2016, to allow DHS time to implement its new STEM OPT rule and provide guidance. It requests the Court decide its motion expeditiously given the impact on thousands of students and employers.
Stem OPT Extension : DHS Requestion Court for 3 Months Extension of Deadlinehappyschools
DHS on Dec 22, 2015 requested Federal Court to extend the deadline of Feb 12, 2016 by another 3 months to May 10, 2016 to implement the Rule due to high volume of comments.
I140 EAD AP - Public Comments - Sample Comments Templatehappyschools
The document provides comments opposing a proposed rule regarding employment-based green cards. The author argues that the rule fails to address major issues faced by skilled immigrants stuck in long green card backlogs. Specifically, the rule does not grant work authorization and travel flexibility as promised in an earlier Executive Order. Additionally, the requirements to qualify for work authorization under the rule are too strict. The author proposes alternative solutions that would better align with the original goals of reforming the broken immigration system.
EAD for I140 - Text of the Proposed Rule - Dec 2015happyschools
Actual proposed Rule for folks with Approved I-140 to get EAD and host of other benefits with H1B Visa Grace Period, Retaining Priority Dates while changing employers, Ability to Accept Promotions to obtaining EAD Card under Compelling Circumstances.
The document discusses Canada's temporary resident visa (TRV) refusal process. It states that while there is no formal right of appeal for TRV decisions, an applicant can reapply and may seek judicial review through the Federal Court of Canada if they believe the visa refusal process was unfair or unlawful. The Federal Court review involves a two-stage "leave" and "application" process where the applicant must show an error was made and the Court can intervene in a visa officer's decision if certain grounds are met, such as if the officer acted without jurisdiction, failed to observe natural justice, or made an unreasonable decision. Specific examples of grounds where the Court has intervened include if the officer inappropriately considered an applicant's dual
17 Months STEM OPT Extension revoked for F1 Visa Studentshappyschools
17 Months STEM OPT Extension revoked for F1 Visa Students by Federal U.S. Court.
Questions?
http://www.happyschools.com/17-months-opt-stem-extension-invalidated/
17 Month OPT Rule Extension Cancellation by US Federal Court - August 2015redbus2us
This document is a memorandum opinion from a United States District Court case involving a challenge to an interim final rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extending the duration of optional practical training (OPT) for eligible STEM students. The plaintiff, a collective bargaining organization representing STEM workers, alleges that the OPT program exceeds DHS's statutory authority. The court finds that the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits from members who are computer programmers and have applied for jobs, to establish standing to challenge the OPT rule and modifications. While DHS argues the plaintiff has not shown direct competition, the court concludes the evidence demonstrates the plaintiff's members are part of the STEM labor market and in competition
This document is the Defendant's Reply Brief in support of its motion under Rule 60(b)(6) for limited relief from the Court's order vacating the 2008 STEM OPT Extension rule. It argues the Court has jurisdiction to modify its previous order staying vacatur. It asserts extraordinary circumstances exist to justify extending the stay of vacatur by 90 days through May 10, 2016, to allow DHS time to implement its new STEM OPT rule and provide guidance. It requests the Court decide its motion expeditiously given the impact on thousands of students and employers.
Stem OPT Extension : DHS Requestion Court for 3 Months Extension of Deadlinehappyschools
DHS on Dec 22, 2015 requested Federal Court to extend the deadline of Feb 12, 2016 by another 3 months to May 10, 2016 to implement the Rule due to high volume of comments.
I140 EAD AP - Public Comments - Sample Comments Templatehappyschools
The document provides comments opposing a proposed rule regarding employment-based green cards. The author argues that the rule fails to address major issues faced by skilled immigrants stuck in long green card backlogs. Specifically, the rule does not grant work authorization and travel flexibility as promised in an earlier Executive Order. Additionally, the requirements to qualify for work authorization under the rule are too strict. The author proposes alternative solutions that would better align with the original goals of reforming the broken immigration system.
EAD for I140 - Text of the Proposed Rule - Dec 2015happyschools
Actual proposed Rule for folks with Approved I-140 to get EAD and host of other benefits with H1B Visa Grace Period, Retaining Priority Dates while changing employers, Ability to Accept Promotions to obtaining EAD Card under Compelling Circumstances.
The document discusses Canada's temporary resident visa (TRV) refusal process. It states that while there is no formal right of appeal for TRV decisions, an applicant can reapply and may seek judicial review through the Federal Court of Canada if they believe the visa refusal process was unfair or unlawful. The Federal Court review involves a two-stage "leave" and "application" process where the applicant must show an error was made and the Court can intervene in a visa officer's decision if certain grounds are met, such as if the officer acted without jurisdiction, failed to observe natural justice, or made an unreasonable decision. Specific examples of grounds where the Court has intervened include if the officer inappropriately considered an applicant's dual
This document summarizes the agenda for a Case Management Discussion regarding the case of Gardiner v EXSTO UK Ltd. The claimant alleges multiple complaints against the respondent, including direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimization, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unfair dismissal, failure to pay notice or holiday pay, and detriment suffered for whistleblowing. The claimant seeks an unspecified financial remedy and requests disclosure of correspondence between the respondent and other parties. Witnesses proposed include individuals from the respondent company and Peninsular Business Services. The claimant estimates the hearing will take 10 days and involves questioning multiple witnesses under oath.
Us department of labor (cases addressing waiver)VogelDenise
This document is an amicus brief in support of reconsidering a court order denying a motion for judgment. It argues that a Department of Labor regulation barring waiver of FMLA rights prohibits only prospective waivers and does not bar settlement of past FMLA claims. It asserts the regulation aims to prevent bargaining away future rights, not releasing claims based on past conduct. Allowing settlements without court or Department approval enables employees to promptly obtain compensation due and avoids litigation delays.
This document is a court decision in an Article 78 proceeding brought by Sheri Glederman against New York education officials. Glederman, a teacher, received a growth score of 1 out of 20 for the 2013-2014 school year, designating her performance as "ineffective". She challenged this score as arbitrary. The court found that Glederman has standing to bring the case because her growth score dropped significantly from the prior year, lowering her overall rating and harming her reputation. The court denied the motion to dismiss and reserved on Glederman's request for discovery pending the administrative record.
Tami Ott brought a Title VII sexual discrimination claim against her employer AirTran Airways, alleging she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment. She claimed that on a few occasions, she briefly saw nude pictures of women on coworkers' computer screens. She also alleged that supervisor Thomas O'Neil would sometimes rub against her from behind as he walked by. Additionally, she overheard supervisor Tom Cross make several sexually inappropriate and demeaning comments on various occasions. However, the district court granted AirTran's motion for summary judgment, finding Ott was not subjected to a sexually hostile work environment.
This document provides guidance on handling further submissions from asylum applicants in the UK. It outlines a two-stage process for applying Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules: [1] consider whether to grant leave, and if not, [2] decide if the further submissions constitute a fresh claim. It defines key terms and explains the criteria and process for applying Paragraph 353, including determining if there is a "realistic prospect of success" to constitute a fresh claim. The document provides guidance on procedures for refusing fresh claims or rejecting further representations.
This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding a dispute over the expansion of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration approved Broward County's plan to extend a runway and close another, over objections that an alternative plan would be preferable environmentally. The opinion finds that the FAA approval is a final order, the petitioners have standing, and that the FAA did not act arbitrarily or in violation of relevant statutes in approving the county's plan rather than the alternative.
Can my employer fire me for no reason?
an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of
Can my employer retaliate against me?
Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit.
Are there exceptions to employment at-will?
employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ...
Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason?
Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct.
What is illegal discrimination?
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ...
What is illegal harassment?
(see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ...
Can I take medical or parental leave?
State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ...
Is my employer required to accommodate my disability?
Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.
Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin
the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing
Prison guard union vote allowed by state
On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
President Obama praises Gap for raising wages
behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ...
Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement
attorney who has
This document is a summary of the Supreme Court case Bilski v. Kappos regarding the patent eligibility of business methods and processes. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's judgment that the patent application in question claimed an unpatentable abstract idea, but rejected the Federal Circuit's view that the machine-or-transformation test is the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a process under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The Court held that while the machine-or-transformation test is a useful clue for determining patent eligibility, it is not the sole test. The Court also rejected a categorical exclusion of business methods from Section 101's definition of patentable processes.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's ruling that the claimed invention in the patent application is not patent eligible. The Court rejected two approaches advocated by the Federal Circuit and respondents: 1) that the machine-or-transformation test is the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a process, and 2) that business methods are categorically excluded from patentability. However, the Court found that the claimed invention in this case was attempting to patent the abstract idea of hedging risk, which is not patent eligible subject matter.
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This document has been prepared in support of DEPRIVATION OF JURY TRIAL(S) - i.e. as “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” – as set forth in the United States of America’s DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Furthermore, provides a copy of a Court Order FALSELY accusing Newsome of RACIAL and ANTI-SEMITIC SLURS for addressing for what are KNOWN to be Terrorist Acts, War Crimes, Apartheid Practices/Crimes Against Humanity, and other Criminal Acts launched against her by the United States of America’s NAZI’S and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists!
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Are those WHO played ROLES in the FOUNDING of Israel as the Nazis and/or WHITE Jewish/Zionists/Supremacists Law Firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz: https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-founder-of-state-of-israel
The DENIAL of JURY TRIAL is also a defense that may be used in seeking INTERNATIONAL Judicial Review, INVESTIGATIONS and PROSECUTIONS, etc. – i.e. in taking matter(s) before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals!
Mandamus actions in immigration avoiding dismissal and proving the caseUmesh Heendeniya
This document provides guidance on filing mandamus actions in federal court to compel government agencies to act on immigration matters. It discusses the three required elements for a successful mandamus case: (1) the plaintiff has a clear right to the requested relief based on statutory rights created by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); (2) the defendant agency has a mandatory duty to take the requested action, such as adjudicating an application; and (3) no other remedy is available. The document provides examples from case law and analyzes how courts have approached determining whether these elements are met in different immigration contexts, such as application adjudication delays and failure to initiate removal proceedings.
The document discusses two motions in the case of Stephen M. Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.
1) The court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to quash the third deposition notice but ordered that the plaintiff submit to a final deposition of no more than 10 hours on a mutually agreeable date.
2) The court denied the plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena for production of documents from the plaintiff's previous attorney. The court found that the plaintiff waived privilege by suing both the defendant and previous attorney and putting the attorney's conduct at issue. The documents were ordered to be produced.
Cell Phones/Devices - The Government has provided a proposed Order that directs the manufacturer to provide “reasonable technical assistance” in unlocking the device although omits process allows challenge. Cell Phone Seizure, Search Warrant.
'Madhavi Vuppalpati & Anandhan Jayaraman defeated in their attempt to derail ...mh37o
Madhavi Vuppalpati and her husband Anandhan Jayaraman are defeated in their attempt to derail the trial in Washington Court with this denial by Hon Madam Justice Marsha j. Pechman
This document is a memorandum opinion from a United States District Court case concerning the validity of 18 agency rules that overhaul the criteria for asylum applicants to obtain work authorization. Five non-profit organizations that provide services to immigrant and asylum populations brought suit against the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and the Department of Homeland Security challenging the rules. The plaintiffs argue the rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act, Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and Homeland Security Act. The plaintiffs moved to stay or preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the rules, which went into effect in August 2020. The court must now decide whether to grant the preliminary injunction.
This document provides an introduction and overview of judicial review in the UK, including:
- An explanation of the key procedural rules under CPR Part 54 that govern judicial review applications.
- A discussion of the requirement to obtain permission from the court, as well as time limits that usually require an application within 3 months of the grounds arising.
- An analysis of the concept of "standing" in judicial review cases and the broad approach now taken by courts in considering whether a claimant has a sufficient interest.
- Additional considerations around time limits, including that applications must also be made "promptly" which can require filing within 3 months, and factors such as undue delay that courts may consider under the Senior
The Tribunal was seized with requests from both parties regarding interim measures and jurisdiction. Regarding interim measures, the Tribunal ordered an expert to commence inventorying goods stored by Claimant and transferred some goods to a more suitable warehouse. The Tribunal also ordered Respondents to deposit additional funds to cover expert costs. However, the Tribunal declined to fully grant Respondents' request to transfer all goods, reserving final jurisdiction determination. The Tribunal invited both parties to submit evidence on jurisdiction by a set deadline.
This case involves a dispute over insurance proceeds from an automobile accident settlement. Plaintiff Glenn Cody received $25,000 from the insurer of the at-fault driver, but had over $29,500 in medical expenses. Defendant MILA paid $17,632.18 of Plaintiff's medical expenses and asserts an equitable lien over the settlement funds. Plaintiff disputes the validity of MILA's lien. Plaintiff was also insured by Defendant Farm Bureau, which provided $25,000 in UM coverage, but disputes its applicability. The Court must determine the validity of MILA's lien to then address potential liability of Farm Bureau.
This order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia addresses sanctions against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jared Wheat, Sean Smith, and Dr. Terrell Mark Wright for contempt of previous court orders. The court had previously found the defendants in contempt for making unsubstantiated advertising claims about weight loss products in violation of injunctions against deceptive marketing practices. At an evidentiary hearing, the court considered evidence to determine the appropriate nature and amount of sanctions. In this order, the court issues findings of fact regarding the defendants' roles and responsibilities at Hi-Tech, and reserves judgment to issue conclusions of law on the sanctions imposed.
This document is the syllabus from the Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al. It summarizes the following key points:
1) Current and former female Walmart employees sued the company for discrimination against women in pay and promotions. They sought to certify a class of 1.5 million women for their claims.
2) Both the District Court and Court of Appeals certified the class. However, the Supreme Court took up whether the class was properly certified under the standards of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that the class was not properly certified, finding that the plaintiffs did
This document summarizes the agenda for a Case Management Discussion regarding the case of Gardiner v EXSTO UK Ltd. The claimant alleges multiple complaints against the respondent, including direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimization, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unfair dismissal, failure to pay notice or holiday pay, and detriment suffered for whistleblowing. The claimant seeks an unspecified financial remedy and requests disclosure of correspondence between the respondent and other parties. Witnesses proposed include individuals from the respondent company and Peninsular Business Services. The claimant estimates the hearing will take 10 days and involves questioning multiple witnesses under oath.
Us department of labor (cases addressing waiver)VogelDenise
This document is an amicus brief in support of reconsidering a court order denying a motion for judgment. It argues that a Department of Labor regulation barring waiver of FMLA rights prohibits only prospective waivers and does not bar settlement of past FMLA claims. It asserts the regulation aims to prevent bargaining away future rights, not releasing claims based on past conduct. Allowing settlements without court or Department approval enables employees to promptly obtain compensation due and avoids litigation delays.
This document is a court decision in an Article 78 proceeding brought by Sheri Glederman against New York education officials. Glederman, a teacher, received a growth score of 1 out of 20 for the 2013-2014 school year, designating her performance as "ineffective". She challenged this score as arbitrary. The court found that Glederman has standing to bring the case because her growth score dropped significantly from the prior year, lowering her overall rating and harming her reputation. The court denied the motion to dismiss and reserved on Glederman's request for discovery pending the administrative record.
Tami Ott brought a Title VII sexual discrimination claim against her employer AirTran Airways, alleging she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment. She claimed that on a few occasions, she briefly saw nude pictures of women on coworkers' computer screens. She also alleged that supervisor Thomas O'Neil would sometimes rub against her from behind as he walked by. Additionally, she overheard supervisor Tom Cross make several sexually inappropriate and demeaning comments on various occasions. However, the district court granted AirTran's motion for summary judgment, finding Ott was not subjected to a sexually hostile work environment.
This document provides guidance on handling further submissions from asylum applicants in the UK. It outlines a two-stage process for applying Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules: [1] consider whether to grant leave, and if not, [2] decide if the further submissions constitute a fresh claim. It defines key terms and explains the criteria and process for applying Paragraph 353, including determining if there is a "realistic prospect of success" to constitute a fresh claim. The document provides guidance on procedures for refusing fresh claims or rejecting further representations.
This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding a dispute over the expansion of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration approved Broward County's plan to extend a runway and close another, over objections that an alternative plan would be preferable environmentally. The opinion finds that the FAA approval is a final order, the petitioners have standing, and that the FAA did not act arbitrarily or in violation of relevant statutes in approving the county's plan rather than the alternative.
Can my employer fire me for no reason?
an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of
Can my employer retaliate against me?
Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit.
Are there exceptions to employment at-will?
employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ...
Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason?
Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct.
What is illegal discrimination?
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ...
What is illegal harassment?
(see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ...
Can I take medical or parental leave?
State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ...
Is my employer required to accommodate my disability?
Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.
Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin
the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing
Prison guard union vote allowed by state
On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
President Obama praises Gap for raising wages
behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ...
Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement
attorney who has
This document is a summary of the Supreme Court case Bilski v. Kappos regarding the patent eligibility of business methods and processes. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's judgment that the patent application in question claimed an unpatentable abstract idea, but rejected the Federal Circuit's view that the machine-or-transformation test is the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a process under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The Court held that while the machine-or-transformation test is a useful clue for determining patent eligibility, it is not the sole test. The Court also rejected a categorical exclusion of business methods from Section 101's definition of patentable processes.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's ruling that the claimed invention in the patent application is not patent eligible. The Court rejected two approaches advocated by the Federal Circuit and respondents: 1) that the machine-or-transformation test is the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a process, and 2) that business methods are categorically excluded from patentability. However, the Court found that the claimed invention in this case was attempting to patent the abstract idea of hedging risk, which is not patent eligible subject matter.
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This document has been prepared in support of DEPRIVATION OF JURY TRIAL(S) - i.e. as “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” – as set forth in the United States of America’s DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Furthermore, provides a copy of a Court Order FALSELY accusing Newsome of RACIAL and ANTI-SEMITIC SLURS for addressing for what are KNOWN to be Terrorist Acts, War Crimes, Apartheid Practices/Crimes Against Humanity, and other Criminal Acts launched against her by the United States of America’s NAZI’S and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists!
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Are those WHO played ROLES in the FOUNDING of Israel as the Nazis and/or WHITE Jewish/Zionists/Supremacists Law Firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz: https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-founder-of-state-of-israel
The DENIAL of JURY TRIAL is also a defense that may be used in seeking INTERNATIONAL Judicial Review, INVESTIGATIONS and PROSECUTIONS, etc. – i.e. in taking matter(s) before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals!
Mandamus actions in immigration avoiding dismissal and proving the caseUmesh Heendeniya
This document provides guidance on filing mandamus actions in federal court to compel government agencies to act on immigration matters. It discusses the three required elements for a successful mandamus case: (1) the plaintiff has a clear right to the requested relief based on statutory rights created by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); (2) the defendant agency has a mandatory duty to take the requested action, such as adjudicating an application; and (3) no other remedy is available. The document provides examples from case law and analyzes how courts have approached determining whether these elements are met in different immigration contexts, such as application adjudication delays and failure to initiate removal proceedings.
The document discusses two motions in the case of Stephen M. Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.
1) The court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to quash the third deposition notice but ordered that the plaintiff submit to a final deposition of no more than 10 hours on a mutually agreeable date.
2) The court denied the plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena for production of documents from the plaintiff's previous attorney. The court found that the plaintiff waived privilege by suing both the defendant and previous attorney and putting the attorney's conduct at issue. The documents were ordered to be produced.
Cell Phones/Devices - The Government has provided a proposed Order that directs the manufacturer to provide “reasonable technical assistance” in unlocking the device although omits process allows challenge. Cell Phone Seizure, Search Warrant.
'Madhavi Vuppalpati & Anandhan Jayaraman defeated in their attempt to derail ...mh37o
Madhavi Vuppalpati and her husband Anandhan Jayaraman are defeated in their attempt to derail the trial in Washington Court with this denial by Hon Madam Justice Marsha j. Pechman
This document is a memorandum opinion from a United States District Court case concerning the validity of 18 agency rules that overhaul the criteria for asylum applicants to obtain work authorization. Five non-profit organizations that provide services to immigrant and asylum populations brought suit against the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and the Department of Homeland Security challenging the rules. The plaintiffs argue the rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act, Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and Homeland Security Act. The plaintiffs moved to stay or preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the rules, which went into effect in August 2020. The court must now decide whether to grant the preliminary injunction.
This document provides an introduction and overview of judicial review in the UK, including:
- An explanation of the key procedural rules under CPR Part 54 that govern judicial review applications.
- A discussion of the requirement to obtain permission from the court, as well as time limits that usually require an application within 3 months of the grounds arising.
- An analysis of the concept of "standing" in judicial review cases and the broad approach now taken by courts in considering whether a claimant has a sufficient interest.
- Additional considerations around time limits, including that applications must also be made "promptly" which can require filing within 3 months, and factors such as undue delay that courts may consider under the Senior
The Tribunal was seized with requests from both parties regarding interim measures and jurisdiction. Regarding interim measures, the Tribunal ordered an expert to commence inventorying goods stored by Claimant and transferred some goods to a more suitable warehouse. The Tribunal also ordered Respondents to deposit additional funds to cover expert costs. However, the Tribunal declined to fully grant Respondents' request to transfer all goods, reserving final jurisdiction determination. The Tribunal invited both parties to submit evidence on jurisdiction by a set deadline.
This case involves a dispute over insurance proceeds from an automobile accident settlement. Plaintiff Glenn Cody received $25,000 from the insurer of the at-fault driver, but had over $29,500 in medical expenses. Defendant MILA paid $17,632.18 of Plaintiff's medical expenses and asserts an equitable lien over the settlement funds. Plaintiff disputes the validity of MILA's lien. Plaintiff was also insured by Defendant Farm Bureau, which provided $25,000 in UM coverage, but disputes its applicability. The Court must determine the validity of MILA's lien to then address potential liability of Farm Bureau.
This order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia addresses sanctions against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jared Wheat, Sean Smith, and Dr. Terrell Mark Wright for contempt of previous court orders. The court had previously found the defendants in contempt for making unsubstantiated advertising claims about weight loss products in violation of injunctions against deceptive marketing practices. At an evidentiary hearing, the court considered evidence to determine the appropriate nature and amount of sanctions. In this order, the court issues findings of fact regarding the defendants' roles and responsibilities at Hi-Tech, and reserves judgment to issue conclusions of law on the sanctions imposed.
This document is the syllabus from the Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al. It summarizes the following key points:
1) Current and former female Walmart employees sued the company for discrimination against women in pay and promotions. They sought to certify a class of 1.5 million women for their claims.
2) Both the District Court and Court of Appeals certified the class. However, the Supreme Court took up whether the class was properly certified under the standards of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that the class was not properly certified, finding that the plaintiffs did
This document provides an overview of pre-trial motions, including the pros and cons of filing pre-trial motions, options after a pre-trial motion is lost, the basics of filing motions, and types of common pre-trial motions such as motions to quash, motions to strike, demurrers, judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment motions, and motions in limine. It discusses the requirements and purpose of each type of motion, and provides concrete examples to illustrate how each motion may be used.
In this talk from Balisage 2017, I present my paper, "Automatically Denormalizing Document Relationships." Abstract: "Native XML databases provide no exception to the problem that data may not be easily contained by any single data storage idiom. Many-to-many relationships, in particular, present a unique problem for documents, as strategies for joining across documents are a potential minefield of software maintenance and performance problems. Automatic denormalization shifts the responsibilty for managing relationships to write-time, making an explicit trade-off for simplicity and speed at runtime. This paper discusses existing strategies for managing relationships across documents and explores design patterns and use cases for performing automatic denormalization and their trade-offs."
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdfHindenburg Research
The Court of Chancery grants Elon Musk's motion to amend his counterclaims against Twitter to include allegations from a whistleblower complaint filed by a former Twitter employee. However, the Court denies Musk's request to extend the October 17 trial date, citing the risk of irreparable harm to Twitter from further delay. The Court will allow only limited additional discovery for Musk related to the new allegations and maintains the existing case schedule to proceed to trial as planned.
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...mh37o
Federal court denied the motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and Anandhan Jayaraman. Court confirmed that PISL India and PISl PA are one and the same companies.
Similar to Stem OPT Extension Judge Decision - Jan 23, 2016 (20)
Sprintax Federal Tax Filing Checklist + Reviewshappyschools
SprinTax Review - http://bit.ly/1PjQ0uK
Are you on F1 Visa?
Do you want to know how to file your taxes on the go without hassle?
Use Sprintax. Here's the checklist you would get after completing their questionnaire online.
Sample Bank Statement Template to Study in USAhappyschools
Here's one of the best template for bank statement to Study in USA.
Source: http://studyabroad.mst.edu/media/academic/studyabroad/documents/SampleBankStatement.pdf
Instructions STEM OPT Extension Mentor and Training Plan happyschools
1. The Form I-910 document outlines the requirements for completing a STEM OPT Mentoring and Training Plan. It details six sections that must be filled out including student information, student and employer certifications, employer information, a STEM mentoring and training plan, supervisor certification, and evaluations of student progress.
2. Section 1 requires personal details about the student such as name, contact information, degree details, as well as school information. Section 2 is student certification of the accuracy of the information.
3. Section 3 requires employer details like company name, address, employee size, and E-Verify number. Section 4 is employer certification of accuracy.
4. Section 5 is the STEM
Campus France Application instructions in Englishhappyschools
1) This user guide helps independent students fill out their CampusFrance form online through the PASTEL system as the first step to acquire a student visa.
2) It is important to fill out the form thoroughly and accurately, as the information will be compared to documents provided at the visa appointment.
3) The guide walks through creating an account, filling out each section of the form including education history and language skills, and officially submitting the completed form. Supporting documents like an acceptance letter must also be mailed.
Proposed Rule Text from DHS on H4 Visahappyschools
This document proposes a rule to extend eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders who are seeking lawful permanent resident status. Specifically, it would provide work authorization to H-4 dependent spouses whose H-1B spouse is either the beneficiary of an approved permanent residence petition or has obtained an extension under AC21 legislation. The proposed rule aims to reduce economic hardship for these families and encourage retention of skilled foreign workers during their transition to permanent residence.
The document summarizes the key highlights of the One Year MBA program at the University of Redlands in California. The program offers the same curriculum as the two-year MBA in a condensed one-year format. The University of Redlands is ranked highly in various rankings and the average graduate salary is $90,000. The program provides strong career assistance services including internship opportunities, alumni networking, mentorship matching, and assistance from the career services center, leading graduates to have salaries comparable to top universities like UC Berkeley and UCLA.
University of Redlands - 1 Year MBA FAQ'shappyschools
The document provides frequently asked questions about the Accelerated MBA for International Students program at the University of Redlands. The program takes one year to complete with two classes per 8-week session. It costs $37,613 and students live in furnished on-campus apartments that house 4 students. International students must have a valid F-1 visa and meet minimum English proficiency requirements. The application deadline is January 1st for the March program and June 2nd for the September program.
This document is a petition form from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a nonimmigrant worker visa (Form I-129). It collects information about the petitioner, the beneficiary, and their employment. The petitioner must provide details about their company, the beneficiary's job and wages, as well as certification that releasing controlled technology is properly licensed. The beneficiary's background and history in the US is also requested. Supplemental forms provide additional information depending on the visa classification sought, such as E visas for treaty traders/investors or H/L visas under various free trade agreements.
This document provides instructions for submitting an H-1B visa petition, including required forms and fees. It notes that petitioners must include: the base I-129 fee of $325; additional fees such as the Fraud Prevention fee of $500 if applicable; original signatures on required forms; a certified Labor Condition Application; and completed forms I-129 and H-1B Data Collection. It also lists the filing addresses and required fees, and provides brief instructions for cap-exempt, extension of stay, Chile/Singapore, and advanced degree exemption cases.
Optional Practical Training Gao Report 2014happyschools
The report examines DHS oversight of the OPT program, which allows foreign students to work in the US during and after academic study. It finds that DHS has not identified or assessed risks of fraud or noncompliance by schools recommending OPT or students approved for it. DHS also lacks complete information on OPT students' employment and cannot fully ensure they maintain legal status while working. The report recommends DHS identify and assess OPT risks, and require schools and students to report more employment information.
Globalization has led to a five-fold increase in the number of students enrolling in higher education programs outside their home country since 1975. While most international students currently come from Asia and study in North America, trends vary by world region. Factors like a country's economic development and domestic education capacity influence outbound student mobility rates and destination choices. As cross-border higher education expands, it could impact global patterns of student flows while offering opportunities for collaboration between education systems.
How and When to apply for OPT - F1 Visa Studentshappyschools
International students after completing college degree in USA are eligible to apply for OPT - Optional Practical Training. Which will give them work authorization to work in USA.
There are various timeline and rules to be followed while applying for OPT. This presentation from Stanford University shows step by step process of how and when to apply for OPT.
H1B Visa 2015 - Dates, Cap Count, Fees and FAQ'shappyschools
Learn about H1B Visa 2015 ( October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015). In this set of slides you can find information about
- Important Dates ( Start Date for H1B)
- H1B Visa Cap Count
- Processing Times
- When to start working
- Frequently Asked questions
- Latest News from USCIS
- H1B Visa Processing Fees
If your H1B sponsor is charging your HIGH fees, then beware of the employer. Lot of people trying to apply for H1B Visa form outside USA ( like India) might get ripped-off by consulting companies.
17 Months STEM OPT Extension without Thesishappyschools
STEM 17 months OPT Extension is now available without completion of Thesis.
A student who only has the thesis or equivalent remaining may either apply for pre-completion OPT or post-completion OPT while completing his thesis.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
WASHINGTON ALLIANCE OF )
TECHNOLOGY WORKERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 14-529 (ESH)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )
SECURITY )
)
Defendant. )
)
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has moved under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) for limited relief from the Court’s August 12, 2015 Order. (Def.’s Mot.
for Limited Relief [ECF No. 47].) In relevant part, that Order vacated on procedural grounds an
interim final rule promulgated by DHS, but it stayed the effect of vacatur for six months in order
to allow DHS to cure those procedural defects. (See Mem. Op. [ECF No. 43] at 37 (issued Aug.
12, 2015).) At present, the stay is set to expire on February 12, 2016. (See Aug. 12, 2015
Order.) DHS now seeks to extend the stay by approximately ninety days, which it claims is
necessary in order to issue a new rule in place of the vacated interim rule, thereby avoiding a
regulatory gap. (Def.’s Mot. for Limited Relief at 1.) Plaintiff opposes DHS’s motion, arguing
that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief due to plaintiff’s pending appeal
to the D.C. Circuit, and (2) DHS fails to show “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief
under Rule 60(b)(6). (See Pl.’s Opp’n [ECF No. 49] at 5-6.) For the reasons that follow, DHS’s
motion for limited relief will be granted.
2. 2
BACKGROUND
The facts of this dispute have been laid out in greater detail in the Court’s prior opinion.
(See Mem. Op. at 1-5.) As relevant here, DHS permits nonimmigrant foreign nationals on an F-1
student visa to receive optional practical training (“OPT”) during and after completing their
studies at a U.S. educational institution. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii). In April 2008, DHS
promulgated an interim final rule that extended the maximum OPT period from twelve months to
twenty-nine months for students with qualifying degrees in science, technology, engineering, or
math (“STEM”). See Extending Period of Optional Practical Training by 17 Months for F-1
Nonimmigrant Students with STEM Degrees and Expanding Cap-Gap Relief for All F-1
Students With Pending H-1B Petitions, 73 Fed. Reg. 18,944 (Apr. 8, 2008) (the “2008 Rule”).
DHS issued the 2008 Rule without notice and public comment. See id. at 18,950. It claimed that
the need “[t]o avoid a loss of skilled students through the next round of H-1B filings in April
2008” provided it with “good cause” to dispense with notice-and-comment under 5 U.S.C. §
553(b). See id.
Plaintiff filed suit in March 2014 raising numerous challenges to the OPT program, and
in particular, whether DHS had good cause to waive notice-and-comment before promulgating
the 2008 Rule. (See Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 229-49.) In March 2015, the parties cross-moved
for summary judgment. (Pl.’s Cross Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 25]; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J.
[ECF No. 27].) DHS argued that “good cause” existed because an economic crisis would have
resulted if the 2008 Rule had not been immediately issued, as the U.S. high-tech sector would
have lost much-needed STEM workers to foreign competitors. (See Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at
42-45.) The Court held otherwise, finding no justification for waiving notice-and-comment—
even accepting the importance of STEM workers to the economy, DHS had long been aware of
3. 3
the purported “emergency” and had failed to act until 2008. (See Mem. Op. at 32-34.) The
Court further held that the appropriate remedy was vacatur of the 2008 Rule, but it found that
“substantial hardship for foreign students and a major labor disruption for the technology sector”
would result if “thousands of young workers had to leave their jobs in short order.” (Id. at 36.)
Therefore, it stayed the effect of vacatur for six months to allow DHS enough time to promulgate
a replacement rule. (Id. at 37.)
ANALYSIS
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court has discretion under Rule 60(b) to relieve a party from a final order for a
series of specific, enumerated reasons or for “any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Murray v. Dist. of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353, 355 (D.C. Cir. 1995). To invoke this
“catch-all” provision, the movant must demonstrate that (1) none of the enumerated grounds for
relief are applicable, Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 2007), (2) the motion was
“made within a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1), and (3) the requested relief is justified
by extraordinary circumstances that are beyond the movant’s control, Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). The “extraordinary circumstances”
requirement derives from the principle that “[t]here must be an end to litigation someday, and
free, calculated, deliberate choices are not to be relieved from.” See Ackermann v. United States,
340 U.S. 193, 198 (1950). As such, the Court “must balance the interest in justice with the
interest in protecting the finality of judgments.” Summers v. Howard Univ., 374 F.3d 1188, 1193
(D.C. Cir. 2004).
4. 4
II. JURISDICTION
Plaintiff first argues that its pending appeal to the D.C. Circuit divests this Court of
jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, unless the Court first issues an indicative ruling and then
seeks remand of the case from the Circuit. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 5-6.) It is true that the filing of a
notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals, but “the district court only
surrenders ‘its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” See Horn &
Hardart Co. v. Nat'l Rail Passenger Corp., 843 F.2d 546, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting Griggs
v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Moreover, divestiture during appeal
is a prudential, “judge-made doctrine designed to avoid the confusion and waste of time that
might flow from putting the same issues before two courts at the same time. It should not be
employed to defeat its purposes nor to induce needless paper shuffling.” Kern Oil & Ref. Co. v.
Tenneco Oil Co., 840 F.2d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting 9 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's
Federal Practice ¶ 203.11 (2d ed. 1987)). In Kern Oil, for instance, the Ninth Circuit held that
the district court retained jurisdiction to enter findings of fact while an appeal was pending,
because requiring a remand solely to enter the necessary findings would be unduly formalistic.
See 840 F.2d at 734 (“A better example of ‘needless paper shuffling’ would be hard to
imagine.”). In doing so, the court distinguished cases in which the district court impermissibly
amended findings of fact while an appeal was pending, which affected the issues being
considered by the appeals court. See 840 F.2d at 734.
Thus, the Court must determine whether consideration of the stay extension would create
confusion and inefficiency—because that issue is already before the Circuit—or whether seeking
remand would itself be nothing more than inefficient paper shuffling.
5. 5
Plaintiff states broadly that “remedy is a specific issue on appeal,” and therefore, the
Court has been divested of jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 5.)
However, plaintiff does not offer any further explanation than that, and a review of its opening
appellate brief makes clear that the issue before the Circuit is distinct from the issues raised here
by defendant’s motion. (See Opening Br. of Pl.-Appellant [Doc. 1589829], Case No. 15-5239
(D.C. Cir. Dec. 21, 2015).) In short, plaintiff has argued to the appeals court that it was improper
for this Court to stay its vacatur of the interim rule, because doing so enabled DHS to defeat the
purpose of notice-and-comment “by insincerely going through the motions” of re-implementing
the very same policy. (See id. at 54-55.) By contrast, DHS’s motion for limited relief does not
invite the Court to reconsider the propriety of its stay, but simply asks for an extension because
unexpected circumstances have made it impossible to avoid the regulatory gap that would be
caused by the stay’s February 12th expiration. (See Def.’s Mot. for Limited Relief at 1.) If, on
appeal, the Circuit ultimately agrees with plaintiff that the stay was improper, then nothing this
Court has said or done in temporarily extending the status quo will have impeded that
determination. Cf. Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d
841, 844 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (stay of injunctive relief pending appeal is generally “preventative, or
protective; it seeks to maintain the status quo” pending the appeals court’s determination);
Coastal Corp. v. Texas E. Corp., 869 F.2d 817, 820 (5th Cir. 1989) (district court retains
jurisdiction to modify stay of injunctive relief pending appeal, as long as the modification
preserves the status quo).1
1
The parties dispute whether the Court’s stay is a type of injunction, which would allow it to be
modified under Rule 62(c) without first seeking remand from the Circuit. (See Def.’s Reply Br.
at 2-3.) Plaintiff cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), for
the proposition that a stay is not the same as an injunction. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 428-30.
Plaintiff is correct that Nken distinguished injunctions and stays pending appeal, see id., but this
6. 6
Because an extension of the stay would not have any effect on the issues currently on
appeal, the Court finds that it retains jurisdiction over defendant’s motion and need not seek
remand. See Committee Notes on Rules—2009, Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 (“If the district court
concludes that it has authority to grant relief without appellate permission, it can act without
falling back on the indicative ruling procedure”). In fact, if the stay expires as scheduled on
February 12, 2016, then that would almost certainly render plaintiff’s appeal of the stay moot.
(See Clerk’s Order [Doc. 1587112], Case No. 15-5239 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2015) (noting that
appellate briefing will not conclude until February 24, 2015); see also Monzillo v. Biller, 735
F.2d 1456, 1457 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“Because the court's order has expired on its own terms, we
dismiss these appeals as moot.”).) In other words, rather than interfering with the D.C. Circuit’s
jurisdiction, a three-month extension would actually protect it, making it conceivable that the
Circuit could rule on the stay’s propriety before that issue becomes moot.
III. RULE 60(b)(6)
As discussed, Rule 60(b)(6) vests the Court with discretion to relieve DHS from the
effect of the August 12, 2015 Order for “any other reason that justifies relief,” provided that
certain conditions are met. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The parties do not dispute the fact that
the catch-all provision is properly invoked here, because none of the other grounds for relief
under Rule 60(b) is applicable. Nor do they dispute that the motion was made within a
Court did not issue a stay pending appeal. Instead, it exercised its “power to delay the [vacatur] .
. . for a reasonable period” in order to avoid “a temporary regulatory vacuum.” See Small
Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. U.S.E.P.A., 705 F.2d 506, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Moreover, the Court is considering a Rule 60(b)(6) request for relief, not a Rule 62(c) request for
injunctive modification. While it is true under Nken that injunctions and stays are not exactly the
same, the injunction analogy is instructive. Just as injunctive modifications during a pending
appeal are permissible if they maintain the status quo, a stay extension here would do the same.
7. 7
reasonable time—approximately thirty days after the close of the public comment period, when
DHS “determined with a reasonable degree of certainty” that it would not be able to meet the
February 12, 2016 deadline. (See Def.’s Mot. for Limited Relief at 4.) As such, the only issue
before the Court is whether “extraordinary circumstances” exist that warrant modifying the
Court’s previous Order.
DHS argues that its unexpected inability to promulgate a replacement rule before the
stay’s expiration constitutes extraordinary circumstances. (See id. at 5-9.) It states that, at the
time the Court entered its six-month stay, it believed it could meet the Court’s deadline and
thereby avoid a regulatory gap. (See Decl. of Rachel Canty [ECF No. 47-1] ¶ 5.) As such, it
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 19, 2015, and sought comments from
the public. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 11.) However, it then received an “unexpected and unprecedented” public
response—50,500 comments, more than it received in response to its “next four most-
commented-on DHS rules combined.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Moreover, the content of those comments
suggested that the new rule would create “substantial uncertainty and confusion” without
extensive training of agency personnel and outreach to the regulated community. (See id. ¶ 6.)2
Therefore, DHS argues, when considered alongside the hardship that a regulatory gap would
cause participating workers and employers, these difficulties constitute extraordinary
circumstances justifying limited relief. (See Def.’s Mot. for Limited Relief at 8-9.)
2
Plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute these assertions, but only questions how many
comments are significant enough to require a response by DHS. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 7 n.1.)
Plaintiff also suggests that DHS has intentionally provided the public with conflicting guidance
in order “to maximize the vacatur order’s disruptive effect.” (Id. at 15.) Even if the Court were
to credit something an immigration law firm reports that a DHS field office allegedly told a third
party (the American Immigration Lawyers Association (id.)), it would not find bad faith merely
because DHS offered guidance and subsequently corrected it.
8. 8
In response, plaintiff offers examples of circumstances that have been deemed
sufficiently “extraordinary” to justify relief: disclosure of a previously undisclosed fact so
material that it calls the initial judgment into question; gross attorney negligence; or a litigant’s
disabling illness, which would be exacerbated by participation in litigation. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at
4.) The implication, of course, is that DHS’s proffered circumstances do not meet the standard—
discovery of material facts that pre-date the judgment can be sufficient, but facts that did not
exist at the time of the judgment are not. Indeed, plaintiff argues that granting relief under Rule
60(b) where such circumstances arose after the judgment’s entry would “undermine the finality
of judgments . . . [and] make the litigated process open-ended.” (Id. at 17-18.) Plaintiff may
indeed be correct where relief is sought from a monetary judgment, but a change in
circumstances post-judgment is properly considered where the judgment has a prospective effect.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5).3
This case presents an unusual situation, in which the Court delayed the effectiveness of
its own judgment for six months, in order to allow DHS to engage in notice-and-comment
rulemaking and thereby avoid a regulatory gap. (See Mem. Op. at 37.) At that time, the Court
believed that six months would be sufficient for those purposes, and apparently so did DHS.
(See Decl. of Rachel Canty ¶ 5.) However, subsequent events have proven the Court’s timetable
for re-promulgation to be overly optimistic, thus warranting an extension. (See Def.’s Mot. for
Limited Relief at 1-2.) The Court finds such a circumstance analogous to relief under Rule
60(b)(5), which allows a court to modify an order granting an injunction or consent decree if
3
Further illustrating this point, plaintiff argued at a January 21, 2016 hearing that, if a plaintiff
who suffered property damage received a $100,000 judgment, no court would grant post-
judgment relief if the plaintiff later learned that the damage cost twice as much to repair. (See
Jan. 21, 2016 Hearing Tr. at 52:13-20.) But plaintiff’s own example addresses only relief from a
monetary judgment, not a judgment with prospective effect.
9. 9
changed circumstances make that relief “no longer equitable.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5);
Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (Rule 60(b)(5) “provides a means by which a party
can ask a court to modify or vacate a judgment or order if a significant change either in factual
conditions or in law renders continued enforcement detrimental to the public interest”) (internal
quotations omitted). In other words, changed circumstances have proven the assumptions
underlying the stay’s length to be unrealistic, and thus ending the stay after only six months is no
longer equitable.
By the same token, the equities that warranted a stay in the first place—undue hardship to
STEM OPT participants and employers—remain the same. The significance of that hardship
cannot be overstated. According to DHS, there are approximately 23,000 STEM OPT
participants; 2,300 dependents of STEM OPT participants; 8,000 pending applications for STEM
OPT extensions; and 434,000 foreign students who might be eligible to apply for STEM OPT
authorizations. (See Jan. 21, 2016 Hearing Tr. at 39:16-20; 40:9-10, 20-21; 41:14-16.) If the
stay is not extended, many of these people would be adversely affected, either by losing their
existing work authorization, not being able to apply for the OPT extension, or not knowing
whether they will be able to benefit from the extension in the future. And of course, the U.S.
tech sector will lose employees, and U.S. educational institutions could conceivably become less
attractive to foreign students. The Court does not doubt that U.S. tech workers might feel some
adverse effect from a ninety-day extension, but it has not been provided with any reliable data to
support this proposition, and thus, it finds that the balance of equities clearly weighs in favor of
an extension. Therefore, the limited relief sought by DHS is warranted under Rule 60(b)(6).
Plaintiff’s remaining arguments to the contrary are unavailing. It first argues that relief
under Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be grounded on harm to third parties not present before the Court,
10. 10
and thus no consideration should be given to the disruption that would be imposed on those
workers currently present in the U.S. under a STEM OPT extension (or their employers). (See
Pl.’s Opp’n at 13 (noting that “[n]o OPT beneficiary or ‘tech sector’ employer ever sought to
appear as amicus in this proceeding”).) What plaintiff fails to recognize is that “Rule 60(b)(6) is
essentially an equitable catch-all provision,” see, e.g., In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1,
1983, 156 F.R.D. 18, 23 (D.D.C. 1994), which by necessity requires consideration of the public
interest. See U.S. Bancorp Mort. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994) (“As always
when federal courts contemplate equitable relief, our holding must also take account of the
public interest.”); see also In re Mid-Atl. Fuels, Inc., 121 B.R. 207, 211 (Bankr. S.D.W. Va.
1990) (granting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) in order to prevent migration of hazardous substances
and resultant harm to public). As such, in balancing the equities, the Court has properly
considered the significant hardship that a regulatory gap would cause for current and future
participants in the STEM OPT program.
Next, it argues that DHS’s difficulties are entirely self-inflicted, resulting from “strategic
choices” from which the Court should not now relieve it. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 6-16.) First, it claims
that DHS should have anticipated the Court’s August 12, 2015 vacatur and begun promulgating a
new rule as early as August 8, 2008, when it promulgated the now-vacated rule. (See id. at 7-8.)
That is, DHS should have recognized all along that it lacked good cause to do away with notice-
and-comment, as this Court ultimately held, and that failure to do so was self-inflicted. (See id.)
It also faults DHS for not taking corrective measures in response to an earlier challenge to the
2008 Rule, even though the district court and Third Circuit both found that the challenger lacked
standing. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 8 (discussing Programmers Guild, Inc. v. Chertoff, 338 F. App’x
239 (3d Cir. 2009)).) The Court is not aware of any doctrine or case law that holds that a litigant
11. 11
should be penalized for advancing a non-frivolous argument, or for failing to anticipate the
argument’s rejection. DHS has argued to this Court that it was exempt from notice-and-
comment requirements, and although the Court ultimately held otherwise, DHS had a good faith
basis to make that argument. The mere fact that DHS did not take corrective action years earlier,
in anticipation of the Court’s 2015 ruling, is not a “self-inflicted” wound that disqualifies it from
relief.
Similarly, plaintiff argues that the need to train DHS staff and educate the public about
the new rule is also self-inflicted, because DHS made the “strategic choice” to make a
“comprehensive rule change[].” (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 10-12.) Here, plaintiff is arguing out of both
sides of its mouth. On one hand, it faults DHS for offering a “meaningless, pro forma notice and
comment period” when it had already decided to reaffirm the 2008 policy (see id. at 19-23); on
the other hand, it faults DHS for offering a replacement rule that varies from the original (see id.
at 10-12). The Court stayed its vacatur in order to allow DHS to “submit the 2008 Rule for
proper notice and comment,” but that stay was not conditioned upon the exact same rule being
promulgated again. (See Mem. Op. at 36-37.) In fact, DHS had a legal obligation to reevaluate
its policies in promulgating the new rule based on current circumstances. See 5 U.S.C. 553(c).
DHS’s decision to incorporate public feedback into the proposed rule—including feedback
offered by labor groups like plaintiff to “prevent[] adverse effects to U.S. workers” (see Def.’s
Mot. for Limited Relief at 1 n.1)—responds to the very criticisms leveled at it by plaintiff
throughout this litigation. Moreover, the confusion felt by commenters was by no means a
foregone conclusion once DHS decided to amend the 2008 Rule. See Improving and Expanding
Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and Cap-Gap
Relief for All Eligible F-1 Students, 80 Fed. Reg. 63,375 (Oct. 19, 2015) (proposed changes to
12. 12
2008 Rule would include (1) extending the 17-month STEM OPT extension to 24 months, (2)
adding the possibility of a second 24-month extension, and (3) creating an employer certification
process designed to protect U.S. workers). Finally, there is no suggestion in the record that DHS
has dragged its feet in any way in issuing the new rule. To the contrary, it is undisputed that
DHS has taken an “‘all-hands-on-deck’ approach, in which multiple offices from throughout
DHS and other agencies helped develop and review the draft regulation on an expedited basis.”
(See Decl. of Rachel Canty ¶ 9.) As such, the Court finds no merit to the argument that the
changes proposed by DHS—or the uncertainty those changes have occasioned—disqualify DHS
from the limited relief it seeks here.
Finally, plaintiff argues that DHS has failed to give proper notice-and-comment for the
2015 Proposed Rule (see Pl.’s Opp’n at 19-23), but that issue is not before the Court at this time.
The only issue pending now is whether vacatur of the prior rule should be stayed for an
additional ninety days, and the Court has found that it should. Plaintiff indicates that, even if
DHS’s motion is granted, the parties will “be back in court litigating over [the replacement] rule”
and whether it was properly issued. (Id. at 22.) The Court has little reason to doubt this
assertion, but the replacement rule can only be challenged in future litigation.
In closing, the Court notes that it has considered the need to protect the finality of its
judgments, but as stated, it has concluded that the limited modification requested here is
warranted. Nonetheless, it emphasizes that it will not consider any additional requests for relief.
CONCLUSION
DHS’s motion for limited relief will be GRANTED, and the Court’s August 12, 2015
stay of vacatur will be extended until May 10, 2016. A separate order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.