Friday, September 28, 2012
Reeves & Associates wins Ninth Circuit CSPA appeal
Reeves & Associates wins Ninth Circuit CSPA appeal
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
12 0 0 12
After years of litigation in federal courts, today heralded a victory for Reeves & Associates and our clients in the battle to expand coverage of protection under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) to “aged-out” derivative beneficiaries. Today, September 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published an en banc opinion in the class action CSPA lawsuit originally filed by Reeves & Associates. The Ninth Circuit granted Reeves & Associates’ appeal and held that “the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously grants automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries.” This means that for thousands of aged-out children, immigration relief is finally a possibility.
This litigation began when Reeves & Associates filed a class action complaint on behalf of thousands of children nationwide and across the globe who would be eligible for CSPA protection. Reeves & Associates was joined in this litigation by the Law Firm of Carl Shusterman, which represented two individual claimants. This precedent decision is a major victory for children who were derivatives of visas filed for their parents, but who were denied green cards in the United States because they turned 21 years old while waiting years and years for a visa to become available. Prior to this decision, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) took the position that when a child of a visa beneficiary turned 21, that child was no longer eligible for the visa afforded to his or her parents, unless the child qualified under a narrow exception for processing delays. Although the parents could file a new petition for the child, USCIS refused to allow the child to retain the priority date from the petition filed on behalf of the parents. The result was that the child had to go to the back of the immigration line and again wait many years before a visa would become available.
After encountering numerous clients in this dilemma, Reeves & Associates filed a class action lawsuit in California District Court to challenge USCIS’s interpretation of CSPA and to compel USCIS to allow these children to retain the priority date of the original petition (i.e., the petition filed on behalf of the child’s parents, often filed at a time when the child was very young), as provided by the plain language of CSPA. While the case was pending in District Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) published a decision (Matter of Wang), holding that CSPA did not permit aged-out children to retain the older priority date. The District Court deferred to the BIA and denied relief to the class.
Undeterred, Reeves & Associates took this matter up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge panel of the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the District Court, again deferring to the BIA opinion in Matter of Wang. Reeves & Associates requested a rehearing before a full 11-judge panel of the court. The court granted the request for an en banc rehearing, and earlier this year, the parties presented oral arguments before the 11-judge panel. Today, that panel issued its decision, reversing the District Court decision and remanding the matter for further proceedings.
Although we expect the government to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, this decision is a significant victory for all CSPA children. The Ninth Circuit has resoundingly indicated its refusal to defer to the unreasonable and unfair BIA decision in Matter of Wang, and has opened the door to new green card applications for derivative children. Reeves & Associates never conceded, and although the litigation has been long and grueling, the result is a windfall victory. Should this matter go up on appeal, Reeves & Associates will be prepared to continue to fight on behalf of the class, with confidence in continued success.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
REPLY TO CERTAIN CHRISTINE GORDON
9/25/12
 | | |||
Dear Christine,
With your express and written admission that you are the manager of
Ms. Debbie Zuccala, it follows that Ms. Zuccala is acting under your
full supervision and control. It follows further that based on the principle
of command responsibility, the willful neglect of duty to reply to my
e-mails as Ms. Debbie Zuccala has demonstrated is an act done with
your advise, decision, consent and approval. With your act of replying
to my letter supposedly addressed to her, you are obviously showing
discourtesy and protecting her from culpability. Unfortunately, with your
actions you even have proven her incompetence and inefficiency. She
could not even write a simple e-mail response and could not at least
showed she could explain herself. If really she is not capable of writing
e-mail response, she had at least informed me promptly, for
courtesy sake, that she did not know the answers and formally
endorsed somebody to write in her behalf and not left me waiting for
a long time. Ms Debbie Zuccala had never endorsed a person to act
on her behalf. Though you are her manager, courtesy dictates that
you need to be introduced to me by Ms. Debbie Zuccala so that the
same issues and questions which I posted for Ms. Debbie Zuccala
could be continually addressed without any alibi that you or the
person writing on her behalf are not aware of it.
You know, Christine, I believe you should not just interfere as it
seemed you did not know the facts yet. If you do at least some
reading you should have known that I do not have a phone to discuss
this issue with you. It is clearly written on my application form that
I wrote NONE for phone and equally clearly stated in my e-mail
communications that I do not have phone, why keep on asking me for
a phone when you can discuss all these issues with me through e-mail.
Your excuse that you have exerted much effort to contact me by
asking for my phone number or giving your phone number since
the start of this controversy is a lame alibi ab initio. For the record,
I would like to reiterate that in the application form that I have
submitted to your office, it showed clearly that I have no phone for you
to contact me with. This act of asking for a phone to contact me with
when you know that I have none resolutely exemplifies your collective
incompetence, inefficiency and willful neglect of duty causing
much disappointment, discomfort and frustration on my part.
Now, again, may I request that please allow or advise or instruct
Ms Debbie Zuccala to respond promptly and responsibly and give
her a chance to prove herself worthy of the trust and confidence
of the people she is duty bound to serve. Otherwise,
with all due respect, in my opinion she should not be there.
Sincerely,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
Dear Christine,
I have the pleasure to show my e-mail complaint letter
below levied against Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
September 6, 2012
Ms. Debbie Zuccala
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Operator Certification
Division of Financial Assistance
RE : IGNORED E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS
DEMONSTRATING INCOMPETENCE
INEFFICIENCY AND INEXCUSABLE
NEGLECT OF DUTY
Dear Ms. Zuccala,
I received a letter from you dated August 2, 2012 , informing
me among others that, " If you (me) have any question,
You gave me two options on how to communicate with you,
first by phone and the second via e-mail. I chose the second
option, through e-mail.
So, on August 8, 2012, the day I received your dated
August 2, 2012 letter, I sent you an e-mail telling you some
clarifications and asking some questions.
But you did not give me a reply.
So, on August 14, 2012. I sent you again the same e-mail.
Again, you did not give me a reply.
So, on August 15 ,2012, I sent you again the same e-mail
for the third time. Again, you did not give me a reply.
So, on August 16, 2012, I sent you again the same e-mail
through registered mail and as per confirmation records on
the Linda Vista Post Office showed the same was received
by your office on August 20,2012. But as of today I have not
received any response from you affirmative or otherwise.
Had you responded promptly, you could have asked and I
could have explained to you why I was misled into filling up
the " APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT
PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" form and not the
"EXAMINATION APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER
TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR" and eventually,
probably, be granted a reconsideration upon appreciation
of the merits I might have presented in due time.
I was separated from my work, bio-diesel plant operator,
at New Leaf Biofuel last July 24, 2012 and I devotedly
searched for another source of livelihood, another job or
career. Waste water treatment plant operations is one
field I thought interesting, challenging and rewarding. I surfed
the web and looked for waste water treatment plant operator
jobs and I noticed that all job openings in that field called
for a need to be certified before I could be considered for
the position. This led me to your site and browsed therein for
some information. After a few minutes of reading, I decided
that I should take the examination, having thoughts in my
mind that upon passing the examination, eventual certification
would be the consequence thereof .Being unaware of the
existence of a form specially intended for examination,
after clicking web pages I came across a form titled
"APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT
PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION". I filled it out, and
again, honestly I am not aware of the existence of another
form intended for examination. Actually, I thought that the
examination was an implied component of the certification
application. This belief is bolstered by the existence of the
form titled " WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
OPERATOR CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION SCHEDULE
AND INFORMATION" which shows undoubtedly that
certification and examination are combined together as one
unit or entity. In the same manner, may I invite your attention
to the last page of the form titled " APPLICATION FOR
WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR
CERTIFICATION" sub titled "PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE",
to wit:
xxxxx
PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE
This information is requested by the STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF
OPERATOR CERTIFICATION. The authority for maintaining
the requested information is the California Code of Regulations,
Division 4, Chapter 14. All information requested on the
application form must be provided by the applicant for
examination. Failure to complete any portion of this form
may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination.
The information provided is used to evaluate the applicant’s
eligibility for examination for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operators. No transfers of this information are anticipated.
For more information, or access to your records, contact the
Office of Operator Certification, PO Box 944212,
xxxxxx
May I cite the following sentences taken therein :
xxxx" All information requested on the application form must
be provided by the applicant for examination. Failure to
complete any portion of this form may result in delay or
denial of eligibility for examination. The
information provided is used to evaluate the applicant’s
eligibility for examination for
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators." xxxx
The first sentence requires that all information be provided
by the applicant on the form for examination. This sentence
clearly suggests that this form must be filled up for the purpose
of examination. This implicitly manifests that this form for
certification is one and the same form for examination. This
gives credence that this form for certification is the same
form for examination. By this form I would take the
examination and consequential certification upon
passing the examination.
The second sentence warns that failure to complete any
portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility
for examination. This sentence obviously establishes the
inseparability between the completeness of information
in this form and the delay or denial of eligibility to take the
examination. This instance conclusively conforms to my belief
the the examination and certification forms are one in the
operator certification form.
The third consistently proves complete connection between
the information contained in this form called certification
and applicants' eligibility for examination for Waste Water
Treatment Plant Operators. Again, examination and
certification are taken together in a single contextual form.
Hence, I was misled, then consequently erred in filling up the
form for WWTP Operator Certification.
Secondly, had you responded to my e-mail timely I could
have asked you and you could have explained why and
how you erroneously considered a form specifically titled
"APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT
PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" which I have filed,
be ridiculously taken as an application for
"WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION. These are
two titles of forms which are distinctly different from each
other. As you can see "PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION"
is obviously far from "PLANT OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING
CERTIFICATION. If you were efficient and competent enough
you should have sent me an e-mail reply and guided me to
correct deficiencies which you think I need to resolve so that
I might be able to take the October 6, 2012
GRADE 1 WWTP OPERATOR EXAMINATION than just
left me hanging in vain. Have you not committed a willful
neglect of duty, as demonstrated in this case, I should have
made remedial actions to avoid loss of time, money and
opportunity. By your negligence, I am required to pay
another application fee and wait for another examination
schedule and suffered prolonged agony,
distress and frustration.
Thirdly, had you been punctual to respond to my e-mail
I could have asked and you could have explained to me
why a five-year Bachelor of Science in
Management Engineering course would not merit
a 6 - educational point requirement
for GRADE 1 WWTP OPERATOR EXAMINATION.
As you could see from the educational records, I have
studied subjects dealing with engineering mathematics,
physics and chemistry.The course have subject studies
on civil, mechanical ,electrical and chemical engineering
reinforced with a great deal of business management
subjects. Anyway, just in case, the 5-year BACHELOR OF
SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING course
credentials or records that I have sent to you together with
my application did not merit a 6- point educational point,
then, may I request that the same be returned to me with
comments and annotations so that I may have a chance
to seek a professional third party opinion about the matter.
I will appreciate your kind and prompt response.
Sincerely,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
Jecjec's First Birthday....0318
Please see September 18,19,20,21,22,23,24 for more of Jecjec's....
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Jecjec's first Birthday...0319
Please see September 18,19,20,21,22,23,24 for more of Jecjec's...
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Jecjec's First Birthday...0320
Please see September 18,19,20,21,22,23,24 for more of Jecjec's....
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
