drona
07-10 12:53 PM
Easy Saimrathi. I am posting it for people who have just joined us.
Update from english_august
Siva tells me that the flowers are indeed being delivered to the USCIS office. It has created quite a stir.
Of course, we do need to keep the entire campaign in perspective. It is not something that Brian Williams is going to open his evening news with. In fact, he might not cover it at all. After all, when you compare it with the immigration rallies of last year - this is miniscule.
But we did generate quite a bit of media attention with this, we did prove that the skilled, legal immigrant community can take collective action and we did prove that the decisions made by US lawmakers and the beaureaucracies end up hurting real people behind the numbers.
I think all that was worth my 30 dollars.
Update from english_august
Siva tells me that the flowers are indeed being delivered to the USCIS office. It has created quite a stir.
Of course, we do need to keep the entire campaign in perspective. It is not something that Brian Williams is going to open his evening news with. In fact, he might not cover it at all. After all, when you compare it with the immigration rallies of last year - this is miniscule.
But we did generate quite a bit of media attention with this, we did prove that the skilled, legal immigrant community can take collective action and we did prove that the decisions made by US lawmakers and the beaureaucracies end up hurting real people behind the numbers.
I think all that was worth my 30 dollars.
wallpaper evidence against Amanda
kaisersose
03-25 05:16 PM
About three years back I was in India working for a major US silicon company. They have a policy that an employee can seek other jobs inside the company after 18 months in the currrent position.
Per this policy some employees from the India division were filling in US positions through L visas which bothered some of the top guys who quickly clamped this down.
They said US positions cannot be filled by Chinese, Indians and Israelies as this would open a floodgate as every employee in these countries will queue up to relocate to the US. Other countries were fine. But the problem was such a restriction is against the standard US policy of "no discrimination b nationality....". So they solved the problem by not writing down this ban. It was orally communicated to hiring managers and when they saw resumes from India employees, they would just delete them.
So everyone knows about this ban, but it is not written down anywhere. On paper, the company continues to be open and does not discriminate hiring based on nationality.
Per this policy some employees from the India division were filling in US positions through L visas which bothered some of the top guys who quickly clamped this down.
They said US positions cannot be filled by Chinese, Indians and Israelies as this would open a floodgate as every employee in these countries will queue up to relocate to the US. Other countries were fine. But the problem was such a restriction is against the standard US policy of "no discrimination b nationality....". So they solved the problem by not writing down this ban. It was orally communicated to hiring managers and when they saw resumes from India employees, they would just delete them.
So everyone knows about this ban, but it is not written down anywhere. On paper, the company continues to be open and does not discriminate hiring based on nationality.
seekerofpeace
10-06 04:34 PM
guys,
I replied to the PMs abd as req I sent the letter sample that I sent to Janet N. Kewlchap and fatjoe I didn't get ur email ids......
You can get my letter from caliguy or gbof I sent them my letter too.
YES I DID APPROACH CIS OMBUDSMan
Regards,
SoP
I replied to the PMs abd as req I sent the letter sample that I sent to Janet N. Kewlchap and fatjoe I didn't get ur email ids......
You can get my letter from caliguy or gbof I sent them my letter too.
YES I DID APPROACH CIS OMBUDSMan
Regards,
SoP
2011 A. A key prosecution
sobers
02-21 04:04 PM
what i mean is you should take out the H1B part from the letter and then send it to your lawmakers. the letter is modifiable- you can add, delete or change content before sending it.
that is what i have done. Took me less than 5 minutes!
that is what i have done. Took me less than 5 minutes!
more...
logiclife
06-15 01:40 PM
I filed a G28 to allow me to represent my wife. I did not use an attorney. If you are filing for more than one person then I think that a G28 is worth it. It is a trivial form.
Will correct the first post accordingly.
Will correct the first post accordingly.
brshankar
08-07 10:16 AM
I am no Gandhi and don't want to be one. I am just a common man trying to make my ends meet. Only thing I know is that if you come before me in the line I am affected. It is not a DMV line where every one will get their License, it is a ration line where the items are limited.
Call it selfish call it any thing else but these are the facts after being in the USA for last 12 years and two different labors.
You are correct this is a selfish world. I support you. You are most welcome to go ahead with the lawsuit. I am EB3 and been here for 10 years and have no intention of porting to EB2. I will be most happy to see you get your GC.
May be I am being selfish too because I dont want any EB3 to jump up the line before me. :D
"76% of the people oppose this initiate, this is something to feel positive about". This shows that we are still united.
Call it selfish call it any thing else but these are the facts after being in the USA for last 12 years and two different labors.
You are correct this is a selfish world. I support you. You are most welcome to go ahead with the lawsuit. I am EB3 and been here for 10 years and have no intention of porting to EB2. I will be most happy to see you get your GC.
May be I am being selfish too because I dont want any EB3 to jump up the line before me. :D
"76% of the people oppose this initiate, this is something to feel positive about". This shows that we are still united.
more...
chanduv23
01-13 09:21 PM
wGpSCdeEkB4
Posted on http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com/
Posted on http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com/
2010 He went on to say that Knox is
desi3933
06-16 03:37 PM
--
Who actually controls the work? The client.
.
Sir, the question is not
Who actually controls the work?
the question is
Who actually controls the L1 person by directly managing him/her?
big difference.
Who actually controls the work? The client.
.
Sir, the question is not
Who actually controls the work?
the question is
Who actually controls the L1 person by directly managing him/her?
big difference.
more...
nrk
08-17 02:05 PM
congrats enjoy.
Hi guys
Just now (12.30 PM EST) I got a mail from USCIS saying your application has been approved. I didn't do anything (never opened SR or contacted Senator) but last week I did had an info pass appointment which was useless. MY PD was Feb 2005 EB2 INDIA (The fun part is My AP and EAD are still pending for over 4 months)
Wish you good luck guys
Thanks again
Hi guys
Just now (12.30 PM EST) I got a mail from USCIS saying your application has been approved. I didn't do anything (never opened SR or contacted Senator) but last week I did had an info pass appointment which was useless. MY PD was Feb 2005 EB2 INDIA (The fun part is My AP and EAD are still pending for over 4 months)
Wish you good luck guys
Thanks again
hair Amanda Knox has been granted a
lazycis
04-17 05:06 PM
8 USC 1324b
(a)(1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment�
(A) because of such individual�s national origin, or
(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual�s citizenship status.
(3) �Protected individual� defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term �protected individual� means an individual who�
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(4) Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.
So EAD folks are excluded from "protected individuals" and employer has a right to prefer US citizens according to this.
(a)(1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment�
(A) because of such individual�s national origin, or
(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual�s citizenship status.
(3) �Protected individual� defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term �protected individual� means an individual who�
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(4) Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.
So EAD folks are excluded from "protected individuals" and employer has a right to prefer US citizens according to this.
more...
srinivas_o
10-10 10:32 PM
I am july 2nd filer, got my receipt numbers by calling USCIS. My data was entered in their system on Oct 5th. I called them today and the Immigration Official gave them. I also filed for my wife, but still her information is not yet there in the system. My application went to NSC, signed by R.Mickels at 9:01 AM, but transferred to TSC as my receipt number starts with SRC.
Good Luck to everybody else who yet to receive the receipts...
Good Luck to everybody else who yet to receive the receipts...
hot rrdb wondered: Amanda Knox
asdqwe2k
04-17 03:50 PM
I applied on Feb 12 and got my EAD yesterday.. This is my 4th EAD and from NSC.. I applied 3 1/2 months before my current one expires..
more...
house 2011 Amanda Knox attends the amanda knox trial. amanda knox trial photos.
greencard_fever
10-02 03:23 PM
That's good news APB.
I guess it may either be the SR that I opened for my wife or the letter I wrote to Napolitano...my wife got a call from a CSR from DC and she told that her case is pending because of the Biometrics, she said she is issuing new biometrics...the speaker phone was on...and I interjected...how come I got approved w/o the Biometrics...she was clueless...I told her how many times can Biometrics notice be issued...my attorney called TSC on 10th of Sept and that time a notice was issued which we never received and then again two weeks later someone else issued another notice.....then someone else told that Biom is fine it just needs uploading and it has been two weeks since then the only thing that is happening is the Visas getting used up .....I said what's the point of FP/Biom if visas are no longer available which surely will be the case in 3 weeks....
In any case didn't expect a phone call from them so was surprised.
SoP
Hi SOP..
I was looking at all your posts and i can tell you how hard your trying to get your Wife's GC..Good Job Dude keep it up..i feel like you are fighting with USCIS to get GC...I am in a similar situtaion like you do but not same..i think my case has not been approved because of my wife's FP's was not able to read by FBI (she gave FP's 3 time in May) and never sent to USCIS by FBI..can you tell me how to escalate this issue to Napolitano or any other USCIS officals...:mad:
Thanks
GF.
I guess it may either be the SR that I opened for my wife or the letter I wrote to Napolitano...my wife got a call from a CSR from DC and she told that her case is pending because of the Biometrics, she said she is issuing new biometrics...the speaker phone was on...and I interjected...how come I got approved w/o the Biometrics...she was clueless...I told her how many times can Biometrics notice be issued...my attorney called TSC on 10th of Sept and that time a notice was issued which we never received and then again two weeks later someone else issued another notice.....then someone else told that Biom is fine it just needs uploading and it has been two weeks since then the only thing that is happening is the Visas getting used up .....I said what's the point of FP/Biom if visas are no longer available which surely will be the case in 3 weeks....
In any case didn't expect a phone call from them so was surprised.
SoP
Hi SOP..
I was looking at all your posts and i can tell you how hard your trying to get your Wife's GC..Good Job Dude keep it up..i feel like you are fighting with USCIS to get GC...I am in a similar situtaion like you do but not same..i think my case has not been approved because of my wife's FP's was not able to read by FBI (she gave FP's 3 time in May) and never sent to USCIS by FBI..can you tell me how to escalate this issue to Napolitano or any other USCIS officals...:mad:
Thanks
GF.
tattoo Amanda Knox, the U.S. student
gclessland
08-14 10:21 AM
Finally got the CPO emails/texts today morning for both me and my wife.
...
If there is one thing I learned wrt immigration, it is do things ASAP. Never postpone anything at all. As much as possible get first in the queue.
A general piece of advice: Never reject an option you don't have. [this is more to do with folks who say, "I am only in year 1 in h1..I don't know if I need gc..let me see after 2-3 years.." - guess what einstein, it is easy to give up your gc after you get it, then to get it when you desperately need it.]
...
Congrats!
It is a great piece of advice. I remember being that Einstein long time ago & regretted several times.
...
If there is one thing I learned wrt immigration, it is do things ASAP. Never postpone anything at all. As much as possible get first in the queue.
A general piece of advice: Never reject an option you don't have. [this is more to do with folks who say, "I am only in year 1 in h1..I don't know if I need gc..let me see after 2-3 years.." - guess what einstein, it is easy to give up your gc after you get it, then to get it when you desperately need it.]
...
Congrats!
It is a great piece of advice. I remember being that Einstein long time ago & regretted several times.
more...
pictures Amanda Knox Trial
Guest007
06-29 06:38 PM
My stupid big law firm delayed filing until monday this week. With all this hoopla.. Any ideas or rumors floating around about ppl who did not get reciept yet.
dresses Amanda Knox thrilled by latest
Humhongekamyab
08-21 11:18 AM
Along with free india callling you also have the basic feature of calling unlimited in US for 24.99. Which looks pretty good to me. I already have a vonage service for 24.99 and it was a free upgrade to this new plan(after i called the customer service rep) and still i am paying the same 24.99 which is good.
Thanks for the information about your Vonage plan but the question was if it is only limited to 5000 minutes. Lot's of people like me use Trueroots/ Reliance with no home line so I was thinking aloud if it is worth signing up for the service.
Thanks for the information about your Vonage plan but the question was if it is only limited to 5000 minutes. Lot's of people like me use Trueroots/ Reliance with no home line so I was thinking aloud if it is worth signing up for the service.
more...
makeup 1 of 13. Amanda Knox gestures
sunty
10-01 10:40 AM
According to Ron Gotcher:
"There shouldn't be any debate, as the statute is explicit:"
EB2 INDIA future for fiscal year 2010 - Page 2 - Immigration Information Discussion Forum (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/9181-eb2-india-future-for-fiscal-year-2010-a-2.html)
Let's see if DOS follows the law as the USCIS pending numbers clearly demonstrate that spill over to oversubscribed countries will be required(by law) in the first quarter, moreso with the new "Pending I485 numbers" report that will be released by USCIS hopefully in a month or two (since Aug25, 2009 report didn't reflect the EB2I approvals in Sepetember 2009).
So December 2009 Visa Bulletin Dates should include spillover visas. Hoping for the best.
"There shouldn't be any debate, as the statute is explicit:"
EB2 INDIA future for fiscal year 2010 - Page 2 - Immigration Information Discussion Forum (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/9181-eb2-india-future-for-fiscal-year-2010-a-2.html)
Let's see if DOS follows the law as the USCIS pending numbers clearly demonstrate that spill over to oversubscribed countries will be required(by law) in the first quarter, moreso with the new "Pending I485 numbers" report that will be released by USCIS hopefully in a month or two (since Aug25, 2009 report didn't reflect the EB2I approvals in Sepetember 2009).
So December 2009 Visa Bulletin Dates should include spillover visas. Hoping for the best.
girlfriend Witness in Knox trial says he
loudobbs
10-22 11:46 AM
Which organization is the cause of the namecheck delay....
FBI or USCIS?
If I am not wrong, USCIS sends the data to be checked on a weekly basis to FBI on a Electronic disk or tape. More than 90 % of the cases are returned, I assume on a disk or tape back to USCIS. So only a small fraction should be stuck in name check...
Could it be that USCIS is not updating the files in a timely manner with the namecheck information?
Also looking at data, a whole bunch of people got their namwecheck claered in a couple of months...
Any thoughts???
FBI or USCIS?
If I am not wrong, USCIS sends the data to be checked on a weekly basis to FBI on a Electronic disk or tape. More than 90 % of the cases are returned, I assume on a disk or tape back to USCIS. So only a small fraction should be stuck in name check...
Could it be that USCIS is not updating the files in a timely manner with the namecheck information?
Also looking at data, a whole bunch of people got their namwecheck claered in a couple of months...
Any thoughts???
hairstyles In Victory For Amanda Knox,
vicsthedude
09-24 11:10 PM
My turn to share the most anticipated emai. I got it today.
Rayyan
08-19 10:51 AM
Today I callled up USCIS 1-800 number and found out from level2 representative that my spouse name check is not clear :mad::mad: .
I am the primary and I got my approval and GC on 07/16 . Spouse still pending....
Is there anything I can do about it?
Please advise..
Thanks
I am the primary and I got my approval and GC on 07/16 . Spouse still pending....
Is there anything I can do about it?
Please advise..
Thanks
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).