Official Appeal website 2012 - الموقع الرسمى للاستئناف 2012
Welcome to - Green Card Lottery 2012: The voice of 22,000 victims
Monday, July 23, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Dear Armande:
I am sorry to report that we were unsuccessful in our efforts to overturn the judge’s decision. It was always a difficult case and proved to be insurmountable. From the language the court recited, it was obvious that they believed that a great wrong had been done to the plaintiffs. However, they found no legal basis to overturn the decision. Please post this and a description of the decision below. With this decision our work is concluded on behalf of you and all the others who objected to the government’s treatment. It was our pleasure to represent you in this matter. Best regards, Ira Kurzban
This morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in the consolidated cases of Smirnov v. Clinton that affirmed the district court's rulings. The court summarized its decision by stating: "This case stems from a regrettable error in the State Department’s conduct of the fiscal year 2012 diversity visa lottery and its subsequent decision to void the results. Plaintiffs here are a group of those selected in that botched lottery. Ultimately, although we understand the plaintiffs’ frustration and heartbreak, there is no legal theory entitling them to enforce the results of a lottery rendered unlawful by the Department’s apparent negligence." The basis of the court's decision is that "[t]he first lottery was unlawful because it failed the regulation’s requirement that the petitions be 'rank-ordered at random' after the initial numbering is complete. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(c)." The court accepted the Amin declarations' description of why the lottery did not follow the required rank-ordering and concluded that despite Plaintiffs' questioning of Amin's explanation, the State Department "reasonably decided to void the results of the lottery." With regard to Plaintiffs' equitable estoppel argument, the court concluded that while negligence by the State Department may have taken place, more was needed to prove "affirmative misconduct." In addition, the court expressed concern that because the second lottery had taken place, "were we to reallocate visa numbers back to the winners of the first lottery, the unfairness to the winners of the second lottery would be at least as grave as that to the first set of winners."
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Ira Kurzban
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Karen Soares of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson presented the argument. She was thorough, well prepared and responded intelligently and completely to the Court's questions. We were fortunate to have her. Fried Frank undertook its co-counsel role in arguing the appeal without compensation on a pro bono basis.
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Ira Kurzban
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
We all need to think positive for this coming Friday. Please take a moment to consider just now, in this battle, the luck life is giving us to have the two best US international law firms fighting for us.
These people are the most experienced and well-known immigration lawyers in the US. They have fought cases at the international level for head of state and other well-known people.
None of us, individually, can afford these top-notch lawyers. But they are here fighting for us. A gesture of appreciation and generosity on your part is welcome.
Whatever the issue of this appeal, we are lucky just right now, because we have the best defense that very few average individuals can afford.
Please keep this in mind, be appreciative, and let it go. They know their job better than anybody else. Trust and Just think positive.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
- What will happen Friday? Is it like the first time?
- Will the judges make a decision on friday?
- Will they make a decision before the fiscal year for the lottery is done?
- Do you trust the person who will defend our case on Friday?
- Will she represent your ideas in the documents well or does he/she will change things you wrote?
Hello Armande,
Do you know if any of the 36 named plaintiffs (list below) won the second lottery or the 2013 lottery? If you're not sure, would you please post a message on the website asking people to e-mail you if they know of anyone who did win the second lottery or the 2013 lottery? Many thanks, Chris
Ilya Smirnov
Olga Leonova
Sabina Timilsina PLEASE EMAIL ME IF YOU, OR YOU
Jovanka Nicolic KNOW IF ONE OF THE NAMED
Omojevbe Igboin PLAINTIFFS WON DV2013.
Iva Zafirova
Omayma Izzeldin Kamil Amin VERY, VERY URGENT!!!
Stephanie Christelle Jeanjean
Anton Kuraev
Armande Gil AZILEE.FRANCE.34@GMAIL.COM
Stuart McBrien
Anna Gunya
Masako Yamao
Carina Steyl
Pegi Stoilkova
Dhana Mathema
Nargiza Akhmedova
Deborah Lempogo
Dieudonne Kuate
Neda Ghemmaghami Farahani
Vincenzo Carafone
Yosif Mourad Ibrahim
Moses Kakeeto
Mustafa Gulbudak
Eman Ahmed Emad Elzoheary
Marco Pavese
Amani Murshed Al Maamari
Jamal Glim
Mohamed Ifegh
Hiroshi Yamashioya
Victor Olaoluwa Oke
Alejandro Alvarez Alvarez
Luc Van Braekel
Andualem Tirusew Wube
Ajitum James Akaba
Kamil Ezz Eldin Amin
Christopher Rickerd
Friday, May 4, 2012
Hello Armande, Please see the attachment for our reply brief filed today. Best wishes, Chris
Click here for CRB
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Hello Armande,
Please see the attachment for the government's brief filed today.
Best wishes, Chris Rickerd.
Click here for government brief
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Click here for BRIEF
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Armande : Here is a motion we just filed to try and consolidate the appeal we recently filed when the lower court judge (i.e., Judge Jackson) refused to consider the Inspector General's report. We thought it was unlikely that she would accept it and we therefore asked the court of appeals to directly consider it.
To be doubly sure, however, we are appealing the judge's decision and trying to consolidate it with the case in front of the court of appeals. We do not want to delay the matter any further so we have asked for expedited briefing. Although this is an additional burden for us, we do not want to lose any more time on the appeal.
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Ira Kurzban
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Armande: I write to provide the most recent update regarding our case before the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. As you know, we have been trying to get the Inspector General's Report from the Department of State before the Court of Appeals (i.e., OIG report). The report was finally published after the district court's decision. We believe this report is necessary to make our argument based upon estoppel against the government. We have simultaneously submitted the Report (i.e., OIG report) to the Court of Appeals and asked them to take "judicial notice" of the Report. To cover all bases, however, we also filed the report (i.e., OIG report) in the district court and asked the district court to reconsider her decision in light of the report. Quite predictably, the district court turned us down. I am attaching the judge's two page order refusing to accept the Report.
We have now appealed that order simply to protect the record. We will ask the court of appeals if we can join this second appeal with our first appeal. We do not want to change the date of the argument in May so we will ask the court to expedite the briefing schedule on this second order.
As you can all see, this case has involved an unusual amount of work. We again kindly request that everyone make some contribution to this effort. Best wishes, Ira Kurzban
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Ira Kurzban
Click here Appeal
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Kurzban Kurzban
Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A
Ira Kurzban
Sunday, March 18, 2012
THIS IS URGENT AND CANNOT WAIT. FOR OUR CASE, I CANNOT PUBLISH BASED ON LEGAL ADVICE.
PLEASE PUBLISH THIS ON ALL FACEBOOK PAGES.
ONLY NAMED PLAINTIFFS (NOT THE 22,000).
THANK YOU.
ARMANDE
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Ira Kurzban
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
WE NEED DONATIONS. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE.OUR FIGHT HAS JUST STARTED FOR THIS APPEAL.
Attached is our reply to the government’s opposition to our effort to supplement the record in the district court so the court can reconsider our estoppel argument. We are working
simultaneously in the district court to get the judge to reconsider her decision in light of the Office of Inspector General’s report and at the same time trying to get the report in front of the court of appeals. Please let everyone know about our efforts and please encourage people to donate, even if they are small donations, because we have spent far more time and money , than people have contributed. Thank you. Ira Kurzban
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Ira Kurzban
Friday, February 17, 2012
From: Ira Kurzban ira@kkwtlaw.com
To: "azilee.france.34@gmail.com"
Date: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:45 PM
WE NEED TO CONTRIBUTE. THIS IS AN EMERGENCY. WE ARE AT RISK THAT THE LAWYER DECREASES THE INTENSITY OF HIS WORK, THE QUALITY OF THE WORK, AND THE TIME PUT INTO IT. YOU DECIDE.
Armande: How is the fundraising going? I am truly stunned that so small a group has contributed. This is costing us a huge amount of money. Ira.
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Mr. KURZBAN HAS DONE A FABULOUS JOB FOR US!!! PLEASE DONATE TO SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS. BE SUPPORTIVE AND GRATEFUL J AND HOPEFUL
We filed today our opening brief on appeal. The brief attacks the government’s case from two perspectives. First, we challenge the view that the selection of applicants was no random by demonstrating that the government’s assertions were not accurate. The government never provided a convincing explanation as to why 2% of the people were not taken from the first two days if the applications were all taken in numerical order. Second, they never explained why under their theory there were insufficient numbers from Africa, Asia and North America to obtain all the applicants they needed on the first day (Oct 5th) if the computer merely selected people by their registered number. We also challenged the decision of the district court on the basis of estoppel against the government. In light of the new OIG report, there is now enough evidence to suggest that the government’s actions constituted affirmative misconduct. This form of “affirmative misconduct” was the missing aspect to our prior claim of estoppel. In our view, the OIG report fills that gap by showing how the government willfully ignored their own criteria and regulations in the selection of the company and the process they utilized. If we were to win on estoppel it would mean that the government would be prevented (estopped) from denying the 22,000 people the right to be in the current lottery.
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
WE NEED DONATION FOR OUR CASE…Mr. KURZBAN KEEPS WORKING..PLEASE BE SUPPORTIVE.
Armande: We filed the attached documents yesterday in the district court. This is not our brief which we will file next week. We are trying to get the case reopened under the theory of estoppel against the government which we believe to be the strongest argument.
This motion is before the district court judge who heard the case originally [judge Amy Jackson] and ruled against you. We are asking her to reopen her decision to consider evidence of the government's bad conduct. At the same time we are proceeding with the expedited appeal in the higher court.