Isn’t the RFP just the introduction to the new green cards with more security features (holographic images, RFID chips)? They talked about the changes back in 2010?
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=31962
“USCIS will replace Green Cards already in circulation as individuals apply for renewal or replacement.”
Also what is the template? It looks like a court opinion. Aren’t they normally written by the judge at the end of the procedure after all the motions are filed? Is it going to be submitted along with the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as a suggestion for the judge?
First look at post #2 where it says to highlight in yellow (after downloading except the link in #2 no longer works, a working link is in #28) page 5 and page 28 under Section 4 last sentence. The RFP is clearly written for immigration reform and there is no law yet for immigration reform. This RFP solicitation is for Executive Amnesty and therefore is an unlawful act in and of itself as there is no basis in current law for its creation.
To your second point, yes this is a memo of opinion that explains the federal injunction order to follow. A motion draft should be patterned on lines following this memorandum. I could not find handily the original motion, it may be out there but it is not necessary. The Judge’s ruling is what carries weight and any lawyer or office with standing can use this ruling opinion template to draft a motion that leads to such an opinion. Lawyers do it all the time and work backwards.
It is best to work backward from a judge’s ruling opinion than to craft a motion de novo. There can be additions that a lawyer feels are important that were left out of a particular judge’s ruling, but the process is a back and forth one that results in a motion that is as bulletproof as possible.
One of the big pluses of this approach is that it does not require a full blown case presentation. It can be short and to the point. A federal judge can grant an injunction as long as the basis and analysis is covered sufficiently and you can find some of those elements in this template.
This approach is designed to BUY TIME and not to win outright. It can buy as much as a year or more and that is essential to allow states to get organized and better positioned.
It is also an oppotune time to introduce this as the public is getting ready to vote and they are in a very nasty anti-amnesty mood. So this effort helps political incumbents and candidates who benefit from the anti-amnesty sentiment. For example, Abbott in Texas could file a motion this week and gain a lot of positive attention that he is doing something about Obama’s back door amnesty which is stealthily moving with an RFP to manufacture millions upon millions of green card like IDs for the purpose of future immigration reform. It’s illegal to spend anything on issues that are politically contested and which are not yet law.
The current annual work ID and green card production is less than a million. Anything more than that is for the purpose of Executive Amnesty. If the proposal manager scrubs the RFP so that it appears to be benign, the evidence is already out there that it is not.
A Motion For Preliminary Injunction should not only seek to shutdown this card production solicitation but also leave open any activity the court deems unlawful in connection with Obama’s announced bypassing of Congress for Executive Amnesty. So if there be more discoveries of attempts to bypass Congress on immigration law, then it will be stopped by general restrictions of the preliminary injunction.
(LucyT you might this to be informative)