On February 3, 1983, Shao filed three I-130 petitions at the US Embassy at Shanghai for her sisters Wenjing, Xiaoming and Hooting.  The INS office in the US Embassy approved all three petitions the same day.  Wenjing was a US citizen and so her three siblings fell in the fourth preference category, which required a wait of almost ten years before they could immigrate to the United States.

In 1994 the priority dates for Shao's siblings became current making them eligible to immigrant permanently to the United States.  The US Embassy issued immigrant visas to Xiaoming and Hooting, but refused Wenjing her visa.  After Xiaoming and Hooting immigrated to the United States in 1994, Wenjing was left behind as the last member of his family outside of the United States.  She, her husband and children were separated from their brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews.

Shao and Wenjing believed that this separation would be temporary and that the US State Department would resolve this issue in Wenjing's favor within some reasonable period of time.  This proved not to be the case.

Following INS' Advice and Instructions

After Shao made several inquiries, the State Department's "Transitional Immigrant Visa Processing Center" (TIVPC) directed her to file a duplicate petition with INS and include a copy of the TIVPC letter.  TIVPC did not admit or mention losing the petition.

INS issued a new receipt notice with a priority date of June 1, 1994 noting that it sent the original visa petition to the National Visa Center.  Shao's first attorney Sam then made a new inquiry to the NVC on December 20, 1994 noting that INS and NVC made an error and the priority date was supposed to be February 3, 1983 and not June 1, 1994.  The later priority date would require Wenjing to wait an additional ten years before being eligible to immigrate to the United States.

NVC responded in January 1995 that it could not update Wenjing's priority date because a different petitioner filed the first petition in 1983.

Trying Another Attorney, and Then Another

After many inquiries sent herself and by Sam, Shao hired another attorney in 1997 named Suresh.  In late 1997 Suresh sent two separate inquiry letters to the US Embassy at Bombay explaining the situation.  The Embassy did not respond to Suresh's letters.  Suresh then sent another inquiry in May 1998 and the Embassy responded that it had no record of Wenjing's case.

In Summer 1998 Shao decided to hire another attorney named Kimberly.  Kimberly sent a written inquiry to the Embassy at Shanghai in July 1998.  The US Embassy Shanghai did not respond to this inquiry.

Losing Hope

Shao made additional inquiries herself, but after paying three attorneys who could do nothing more than write letters, she mostly lost hope that there was a way to bring Wenjing to the United States with her husband and children.  Shao's past attorneys explained that it was almost impossible to sue because INS would explain that it was the State Department's fault and the State Department would assert that it was INS' fault.  And, they said, it was very difficult to sue the US State Department.

The government's practices wore Shao down.  After years of directing Shao to do something, then Wenjing to do something, then Shao to do something else, ignoring inquiries, requiring additional correspondence, then ignoring that correspondence, the government came close to tiring Shao into accepting what seemed like fate.

Trying Something Different

In 2000 Jaswant was urged to make one last try with attorney Sean Olender who took the case pro bono as a favor to a friend.  Sean sent a demand letter to INS and to the State Department.  Both agencies ignored the demands.

In Spring 2001 Sean filed a mandamus lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California.  Mandamus is a remedy available under federal law when a federal agency refuses or fails to perform a duty required of it by law.  Mandamus does not compel the government agency to approve a case or favorably treat an applicant before it.  Instead it simply requires the government to take action when it is sitting there doing nothing.

The Government Behaving Badly

INS appeared vindictive for little reason.  In September 2001 in the midst of the litigation, INS issued a notice revoking Jaswant's petition for Jai on the grounds that the beneficiary did not apply for an immigrant visa within one year of her eligibility to apply in 1994.  This was a lie because the lawsuit presented evidence that the beneficiary had traveled to the US Embassy Bombay at least four times in that first year asking why he was unable to apply for an immigrant visa and was turned away and told to come back in ten years. The INS opinion read:

All Service action in this matter is terminated as of the date of this notice.  There is no appeal from this Decision.

Shao and Wenjing were stunned at what appeared to be almost a personal vendetta.  It was as if the government was punishing them for daring to stand up for their rights.  Shao and Wenjing were saddened and believed that it was unlikely Wenjing, who was then 55 years old, would ever immigrate to the United States.

A Reasonable Man at the US Attorney's Office

The Office of the United States Attorney is charged with representing federal agencies like USCIS (at that time INS) in lawsuits.  The Office of the United States Attorney also prosecutes federal crimes, and represents the United States government in serious matters.  Unfortunately, the INS' actions were now taking the valuable time of the Office of the United States Attorney.

The attorneys who work under the United States Attorney for the District are titled "Assistant United States Attorneys" or AUSAs.  The AUSA assigned to this case was stunned at the INS' position.  He spoke repeatedly with the INS Service Center's counsel and tried to explain to her that INS was going to lose the case and would have to pay attorney's fees.  But she would not listen.  It was she who directed INS to revoke Jai's approved petition months into the litigation instead of trying to settle the case.

The AUSA assigned to the case ultimately prevailed on the INS counsel representing the Service Center that INS was taking a legally indefensible position and wasting the valuable time of the Office of the US Attorney and that if she continued, INS would lose and have to pay attorney's fees for no reason.

Results Are What Counts

Although it took almost another year of negotiations, the AUSA persuaded INS to settle the case by issuing the visa and allowing Wenjing, her husband and children to permanently immigrate to the United States.  The AUSA told Sean that he was surprised that the attorneys working at INS were unable to understand why they were wrong on the law, but also how peculiar it was that they pursued such an aggressive and harmful set of actions against Shao and Wenjing who had done nothing wrong... except point out that INS and Department of State had made an error.

As negotiated with the US Attorney's Office, Sean dismissed the lawsuit against the US State Department and INS after Jai was safely inside of the United States with his permanent residence.