Provided further<\/em>, That a visa may be issued to an alien defined in section 1101(a)(15)(B) or (F) of this title, if such alien is otherwise entitled to receive a visa, upon receipt of a notice by the consular officer from the Attorney General of the giving of a bond with sufficient surety in such sum and containing such conditions as the consular officer shall prescribe, to insure that at the expiration of the time for which such alien has been admitted by the Attorney General, as provided in section 1184(a) of this title, or upon failure to maintain the status under which he was admitted, or to maintain any status subsequently acquired under section 1258 of this title, such alien will depart from the United States.”<\/p>\n\n\n\nJM probing the issuance of visas as different to entry. JM pointing out that 1202 is about ISSUANCE, whilst the administration assumed powers under 1182(F) – regarding ENTRY.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just to point out – the Judge will also probe from both sides. When the plaintiffs lawyers were talking he gave them challenging questions from an opposing point of view. He is now doing the same to probe the GOV lawyers. Sounds like he flipped – but that is normal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
JM asking GOV to point out where the law says the administration don’t have to adjudicate – when the GOV lawyer paused, JM says – “don’t worry, it’s not there”. Haha!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
GOV making a circular case that people can’t be issued, because they can’t be interviewed. Sheesh. Why is that? My twelve year old argues better than that. Mind you, to be fair – they don’t have much to defend on. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
JM clarifying that there were new criteria introduced. Again, that is an important point. He is boiling the arguments down to specific points. To simplify the arguments to be able to rule on clear points. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
GOV trying to say no new eligibilities were introduced – JM asking for the law that explains that, in respect to H1s as an example. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
JM putting another example about blocking immigrants if Trump says they commit more crimes than existing residents (known to be incorrect). Hypothetically, could POTUS block immigrants for that, and could a Federal Judge block that action. JM trying to establish whether there is ANY limit on POTUS’ power. There is, by the way – and JM knows that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
JM back to the point that there should be some evidence that justifies the EO action. GOV says none is required. JM may or may not accept that argument. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They are talking about non-reviewability. JM believes that applies when a case has been adjudicated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now moving to separation of powers – GOV says this is like the visa waiver program – an earlier case. JM asks for explanation of why POTUS should have such wide powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
12:42 GOV trying to articulate their position. I wish they would. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just understand, JM might ask questions that seem like he doesn’t understand the laws involved. He does. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
JM can see how 1182(f) about entry makes sense that POTUS has that power, but that is NOT about adjudicating cases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
JM trying to summarize. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
JM trying to follow up on why GOV feels DV should not be treated as emergency cases like some other visa classes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
GOV trying to say the EO was clear, JM points out that DV was not called out for especially BAD treatment. So – age out cases for example should be the same as DV – both deserved emergency treatment. To be clear, DoS decided things based on what they assumed Trump wanted or were told. JM asks whether there is documentation that explains that rationale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
GOV again making the case that they can’t be expected to do a lot of work. Poor darlings. JM pushes for where the administrative record documents that rationale. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oh man, GOV just introduced arbitrary and capricious, dangerous ground with this POTUS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Going to take another break of 5 minutes then wrap up with rebuttal arguments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
OK – we’re back. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
JM asking for “national interest exceptions” clarification. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
GOV says some worker visa categories and some family visas are qualified for the “national interest exceptions” and mission critical cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PL pointing out at least one case in NZ – because this goes to the earlier point that NZ could have been processed in NZ – and therefore the cases are being treated arbitrarily. There should be equal treatment under the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
PL continuing to make some follow up points of rebuttal to the earlier points by GOV. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
PL making a clear case of the capricious and arbitrary nature of the administration\/Trump. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CK rebuttal – again – pointing out that there are people that are being harmed and could be helped, even without the embassies being open. This tears down the case that this is not about COVID.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CK points out that the Trump versus Hawaii case is being misquoted\/misinterpreted – and by doing so, affecting law. Strong point. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CK also points out the unequal treatment of cases being issued in some countries and not in others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jesse Bless (AILA) talking about standing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He is clarifying that congress constructed the laws carefully, and Trump is clumsily throwing this away. Pointing out inconsistencies in the treatment of people under the proclamation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
PL continues to point out how the GOV lawyers have been unable to defend the actions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The hearing ended. I will post a video asap. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It would be hard to imagine that the Judge would not find standing, harm, and so on. I mean it would be hard to imagine that we don’t “win”. However, the question is – what remedy will there be. If the deadline is still in place, only a few cases can be helped. That would still be worth it, in my opinion, but obviously the bigger concern is the deadline and how people will be affected if we cannot get an extension. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think it will be a few days before we get an answer – hopefully by the end of next week. <\/p>\n\n\n\n