Appendix Exhibit 1

This Document contains legal arguments submitted in district court.

Submitted here For EMERGENCY Application.

Legal arguments about immigration denials what I argued in

"JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT" ECF 20(Page2-24) at
District court .

a) The Plaintiff alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. 1331, Federal question jurisdiction is a subject matter jurisdiction. and
5 U.S.C. 702 et seq.
Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1.
b) A case clearly arises under the Constitution for purposes of 1331 when the
plaintiff claims, that a government officer or employee i.e. DHS officials, acting
in his or her official capacity, injures the plaintiff by taking an action that
violates a provision of the Constitution or statute. The federal question
jurisdiction of the district courts also encompasses causes of action created by
federal statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. 1983, which explicitly authorizes a private
remedy for acts that are taken under color of law and violate rights secured by
law. In such cases, federal law both creates the cause of action, supplying the
underlying substantive rules
(Substantive law refers to the body of rules that determine therights and obliga
tions of individuals and collective bodies. ) that govern defendants conduct,
and authorizes plaintiffs to enforce the rights created.

c) The Supreme Court created a private damages action against federal officials
for constitutional torts (civil rights violations), which are not covered by the
FTCA. Supreme Court recognized the availability of damages and injunctive
relief for constitutional violations committed by individual federal defendants

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 1 of 25

 acting under color of federal law or authority. District courts have jurisdiction
over Bivens actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question statute). In
the immigration context, FTCA and Bivens claims often are brought together.
Bivens actions have a jury-trial right.
I did mentioned intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence (also
Madhuri alleged it in her lawsuit complaint as a claim and IIED is a Federal Tort
claim) in my administrative record submissions since 2013, in my I 140
petitions, Ombuds fillings and OIG fillings. I didnt use word TORT/FTCA but it is
implied and inferred. All defendants knew it ,But the agency didnt care to look
into it nor do any investigation. As per plaintiff pleading Executive branch has
been influenced by corporate GE and government officials prefer to have
corporate company on a side. Plaintiff believes that exhaustion of Federal Tort
Claims Act claims with administrative remedy with such LAWLESS agency is
NOT required. If Madhuri would have filled administrative claim, DHS could
have definitely done more harm in retaliation and even take extreme steps
to completely eliminate witness. Hence, District court (under such
extreme Hardship, complex and difficult circumstances) have Jurisdiction for
my FTCA and Bivens Claims.
d) PROHIBITION OF INTIMIDATION OR RETALIATION 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(5)
DHS has knowingly tried to cover up my report about GEs unfair employment
practice since 2013. And DHS have retaliated in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(5);
even though DHS has legal authority to investigation these charges, have a
hearing, issue order which requires such person or entity(i.e.GE) to cease and
desist from such unfair immigration-related employment practice. DHS and its
officials have deliberately failed to act upon it in any way. Hence have violated
public office duty statutes, committed obstruction of justice, perjury and witness
tampering. 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(5) and 8 U.S.C. 1324b as a whole. 1324b
clearly states when applicant complains about unfair employment practices, even
though Madhuri complained about all this.

e) 5 US Code 706 Scope of Review :

Also, This provision indicates that the type of judicial review may differ
depending on whether the court is reviewing formal or informal rulemakings
respectively substantial evidence or arbitrary and capricious. Congress has
Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 2 of 25
 sometimes required informal, notice-and-comment rulemakings to be reviewed
under the substantial evidence test. However, some have argued that the two
standards are the same, and commentators have stated that the substantial
evidence and arbitrary and capricious tests have tended to converge in
judicial review of informal rulemaking. The standard of judicial review that
concerns congressional delegations of legislative authority to administrative
agencies addresses whether an agency action is in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right. The Supreme
Court has stated that an administrative agencys power to regulate in the
public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from
Congress.

5 U.S.C. 706(2)(a) (authorizing courts to strike down agency

actions that are "arbitrary, capricious [or] an abuse of discretion");

Abuse of discretion occurs when agency makes decisions without rational

explanation. Makes decision on impermissible basis.

f) see also 5 U.S.C. 705 ("On such conditions as may be required and to the
extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the reviewing court ... may issue
all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of an
agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review
proceedings.").

g) Under federal question jurisdiction, federal statutes provide Plaintiff Madhuri

Trivedi to bring claims in district court for allegations of civil rights violations
by the federal government

h) Plaintiff also bring claims under Supplemental jurisdiction for her claims 28
U.S. Code 1367 (a)- Supplemental jurisdiction. Joinder of claims. Though
Under 28 U.S. Code 1367 (a) , state claims can be joined with federal claims
as long as there is a federal claim(in my case , even defendants have admitted
undisputedly that there is a federal question jurisdiction and under APA 702;
supplemental jurisdiction have evolved through common law, it is up to the

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 3 of 25

 court/judge to look into the light of current circumstances in which case is
presented.)
i) District court has jurisdiction for Trial like proceddings for Eb1 denial
for following reasons;
The criteria for Kazarian policy memo used in Evaluating /adjuncting
EB1 petitions are not written in the law or any regulation; hence is purely an
administratively created procedure and is described only in guidance for USCIS
adjudicators - specifically, Kazarian USCIS memoranda. As such, the decision
to grant any particular type of I 140 EB1 request is discretionary.
Several Amicus briefs have been filled about criticism of implementation of
Kazarian memo complaining that memo
Exercise abuse of discretion, inconsistency, amorphous- structureless,
indeterminate .
After ninth circuit appeal court ruled though; USCIS is not taking common
law, prior court rulings and objective evaluation but it is merely
subjective and depends on how adjunction officer uses his/her
discretion in evaluation analysis.
abuse and arbitrary decisions in EB1 /EB2 category by USCIS based on Kazarian
memo
including but not limited to Center for Immigration Services(CIS)-Ombuds as
per August 2015 (EXHIBIT 2 ) Stakeholders report that adjudications under
this policy memorandum have been inconsistent. The Office of the Citizenship
and Immigration Services Ombudsman makes these recommendations to
improve predictability and transparency in adjudications of extraordinary
ability . The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cisomb-
rec_extraordinaryability_petitions.pdf

1. Conduct formal rulemaking to clarify the regulatory standard, and if

desired, explicitly incorporate a final merits determination into the
regulations and.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) prescribes the process for agency
rulemaking and was written to bring regularity and predictability to the decisions
made by executive branch agencies.58 Generally, the APA ensures that the public
Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 4 of 25
has an opportunity to provide input in how federal statutes are applied by the
executive agencies charged with their enforcement. The various rulemaking
procedures set forth in the APA provide the

public with:

A notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register;

The opportunity to submit, in writing data, views, or arguments pertaining
to the proposal;
A statement of the agencys reason for proposing the rule and the legal
authority upon which the proposed rule is based; and
A 30-day notice before the new rule goes into effect.5
The use of the APA rulemaking process would assist both adjudicators and
stakeholders to clarify the adjudicatory standard for EB-1-1, EB-1-2, and EB-2s.
APA rulemaking provides the opportunity to submit written comments to the
proposed rule and requires a statement from the agency explaining how it
responded to the public comments. The APA rulemaking process would provide
substantive standards for ISOs to use in adjudications, and for individuals and
employers to use in preparing petitions. USCIS could promulgate regulations to
formally establish an objective two-part Kazarian-derived test as the standard by
which evidence offered in support of all EB-1-1, EB-1-2, and EB-2 petitions must
be evaluated. If public comment were negative, USCIS could incorporate
reasonable suggestions into a revised rule to accommodate legitimate
stakeholder concerns.

Reasons for recommendations:

Stakeholders are concerned that the current I-140 policy memorandum allows for
too much subjectivity for adjudicative petitions. Stakeholders presented in amicus
curiae briefing to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) that the Kazarian
decision does not require USCIS to implement a two-part review and that
application of the I-140 policy memorandum has not resulted in a clearer
adjudicatory standard.

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 5 of 25

USCIS Immigration Service Officers lack guidance that clearly demonstrates the
nature and type of evidence that typically establishes whether an individual
possesses extraordinary ability, Like an exercise of discretion, a subjective
consideration of facts does not mean the decision can be arbitrary, inconsistent or
dependent upon intangible or imagined circumstances. how to apply
subjectivity without leading to arbitrary or inconsistent adjudications.

The I-140 policy memo contains numerous examples of what does not constitute
proof of extraordinary ability. However, it does not provide adjudicators with
affirmative examples of the type of evidence that satisfies the governing law;
outstanding professor/researcher status; and, exceptional ability. Although these
categories are

too broad for USCIS to produce any type of exhaustive list of examples, solid
training materials containing approvable examples, from which adjudicators could
extrapolate, would significantly improve the quality adjudications. Affirmative
examples could be developed by expanding upon the brief descriptions of the
various criteria used by USCIS.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations seek to address stakeholders concerns with inconsistent

and subjective adjudications.

Rulemaking would provide the forum for USCIS to receive stakeholder concerns
and formally respond.

Plaintiff argue that the defendant's knowledge that

>Defendant Donald Neufeld denying Madhuris B1 business visa a week

before arbitration hearing (stating in denial letter to leave the country);

>would as a result make her unavailable to testify/conduct her arbitration

hearing

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 6 of 25

 >have been enough to fulfill the intent and other retaliatory requirement.

Plaintiff argue that the defendant's knowledge from Madhuri I 140 petition with
sequence and correlation of day/time that she is working with Quitam attorney
and have been in communication with FBI ;

>denying Madhuris I 140 petition, 765 petition for work authorization and
NOT give her in any way work authorization ; stating in denial letter to
leave the country (obstruction of justice, witness tampering, violation of 8
CFR 1324b(a)(5) )

>would as a result make her unavailable and unable to pursue Quitam case,
and also

current Ninth circuit lawsuit against DHS. And also prevent her from growing
her start up in healthcare field and/or work for Harvard medical school

>have been enough to fulfill the intent and other retaliatory requirement.

Actus Reus(action) and Mens Rea(intent)

A man who performs an act which it is known will produce a particular result
is from our common experience presumed to have anticipated that result and
to have intended it. Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 492, 496 (1896) ;
see United States v.Aguilar, 515 U. S. 593, 613 (1995) (Scalia, J., dissenting)
([T]he jury is entitled to presume that a person intends the natural and
probable consequences of his acts); see also G. Williams, Criminal Law 18, p.
38 (2d ed. 1961).

On December 2015, as shown in (EXHIBIT 1), Plaintiff Madhuri went to San

Fracisco USCIS

office (which defendant didnt admit, omitted and mislead court in their answer
paragraph 87). Upon called as a witness at the trial in this case to testify, the
USCIS officer would agree that Plaintiff Madhuri showed her all immigration
documents pertaining to her EB1-extra ordinary petitions; upon reviewing those,
she stated that Madhuri is a person of extra ordinary ability. She stated that ,
Madhuri is eligible under EB1- I (USCIS officer)can see that but San Francisco
Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 7 of 25
office does not adjuncate petitions hence she cant adjuncate. Madhuri persuaded
to expedite petition process on extreme hardship-financial, economic loss to a
person/company and distress. That USCIS officer stated that in to me ,you look
fine , and she was willing to submit expedite request only on humanitarian basis
(and not extreme hardship) and hence she submitted that.
None the less, MESSINA vs. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICE[3]underscores the basic administrative law tenet, which applies to every
regulatory agency, that an adjudicator may not only look to evidence which
supports the adverse decision but rather, must consider the entire record, make
specific findings, and reach cogent conclusions concerning all relevant claims
which have a bearing on the outcome of the decision.

The Supreme Court instructed lower courts to reject an agency decision as

arbitrary and capricious if it either failed to consider a relevant factor or relied
on an impermissible factor.

Madhuri given that the complaint alleged conspiracy based on information and
belief, and
because it did support that allegation with sufficient subsidiary factual allegations.

I have solid engineering tenure, qualifications, business credentials including

education from
prestigious MIT Sloan school; a person of extra ordinary ability . I submitted my
response to request of evidence to USCIS in November 2014(In this response I
mentioned communication with Quitam attorneys and FBI; so they mostly took my
INSIGHTS about precision medicine seriously). In my 63 pages response letter
(and also in April 2104 original submission), I heavily wrote about
personalized/precision medicine, my EB1 level contribution and that I
continue want to work in it. Robert Cunningham also wrote about this in his
letter(EXHIBIT 1 and 2 of plaintiff complaint). White House most likely Using
/stealing my ideas and implementing it while keeping me in DITCH (It also shows
how even though being eligible for EB1 ; I have been unlawfully denied that visa ).
When I shared Whitehouse precision initiative information with Pate Hale; he

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 8 of 25

wrote me back that he agrees to my thoughts about White House using my ideas
and implementing them, it is good that at white house level people are getting
motivated.

Administrative record: Filling of Madhuri Trivedi ; document named

Response Letter in November 2014 and October 2015.
Page 50 of 63
I want to continue work in genomics/personalized medicine/bioinformatics and
follow my passion for it. I believe this century is "Biology"'s century and I
want to/look forward be part of it.
Predictive and personalized medicine by using genome sequencing and
stem cell research; It allows physicians and healthcare professional to use
genomic information to predict diseases a person may get, prevent such
diseases all together in advance by personalized medicine or minimize the
impact of that diseases and find cure for life threatening disease. This would be
first step towards whole new era of medicines, drug discovery and emerging
medial field. Find mutations and cure diseases like cancer. Technological
advances would make it possible to manage incurable and chronic diseases;
help patients, families, physician and healthcare providers to work closely and
have access to right information at right time and make smarter decision and
provide smart care. Making Technologies feasible, available and
affordable would bring new revolution in healthcare.

Motivation and passion are keys to make differencethis give me tons

of energy to work on such projects; to combine solutions that have not
been brought together.

I am never tired of working, learning new things in healthcare. I have worked

nights and weekends with a drive to do an excellent work in improving health
care for families across America and across the world

$3.1 trillion U.S. health-care industry continue to adapt to new technologies,

solutions and a way to provide quality care to more people in cost-effective
manner.

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 9 of 25

 I believe in entrepreneurship, I have strong passion and aptitude for
entrepreneurship.

Page 51 of 63

I have extensive experience working in start-up, entrepreneur companies as

well as mid to large corporations in important and growing technology areas in
the US such as bioinformatics, genomics, and genomics instruments, and
personalized medicine development. Allowing me to continue work in US and in
these fields would contribute to improving US healthcare systems and reducing
healthcare costs. Approving of this petition would allow her to continue
work in leading engineering role in this area at distinguished institute
at Wyss institute Harvard Medical School.

I intend to continue to contribute in innovative work projects. I have consistently

delivered results that generated millions of revenue and delivered values to
stake holders. Page 52 of 63

Extensive experience working in start-up, entrepreneur companies as well as

mid to large corporations in important and growing technology areas in the US
such as bioinformatics, genomics, and genomics instruments, drug discovery
and personalized medicine development. I intend to continue to contribute in
innovative work projects. I have consistently delivered results that generated
millions of revenue, made significant and original contributions and delivered
values to stake holders.

Below is a white house announcement on January 2015.

It's health care tailored to you. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/precision-

medicine) .

In his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he's
launching the Precision Medicine Initiative a bold new research effort to
revolutionize how we improve health and treat disease.

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 10 of 25

Until now, most medical treatments have been designed for the average
patient. As a result of this one-size-fits-all approach, treatments can be very
successful for some patients but not for others. Precision Medicine, on the other
hand, is an innovative approach that takes into account individual differences in
peoples genes, environments, and lifestyles. It gives medical professionals the
resources they need to target the specific treatments of the illnesses we
encounter, further develops our scientific and medical research, and keeps our
families healthier.

I also called white house main line in April 2015 and spoke with volunteer
about my whole situation and she said she will notify Obama administration
about this. As per her instructions, I also wrote a letter online to Whitehouse
requesting that I need assistance with a federal agency DHS. In that letter also I
mentioned personalized medicine.

As stated by Pat Hale in (EXHIBIT 3 )of plaintiff complaint that President

Obama also awarded founder of 20 people start up where I worked(genomics)
Dr.Jonathan Rothberg ; again while keeping me in this hostile situation.

These email from FBI supervisor is of probative value; to assert cause of action
and claims I raised in my complaints.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Wible, Clayton M. (MW) (FBI)" <Clayton.Wible@ic.fbi.gov>
Date: August 25, 2015 at 6:37:26 AM PDT
To: Madhuri Trivedi <mcis99@gmail.com>

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 11 of 25

Subject: RE: Please contact US att General Loretta Lynch
Madhuri,

As we have discussed before, I am unable to intervene or lobby

on your behalf. While the following does not represent legal
advice, I can only suggest the very action(s) I have suggested in
the past: hire new, or keep working with existing, legal
representation to address your immigration matters. For the
above reasons and more, I cannot and will not be contacting AG
Lynch as you requested.

Sincerely,

SSA Wible

From: Madhuri Trivedi [mailto:mcis99@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:39 PM
To: Wible, Clayton M. (MW) (FBI)
Subject: Please contact US att General Loretta Lynch

Please help me and ask her for help... Apology for bugging
you.. Thanks in advance..

After I raised several unsuccessful concerns during my arbitration about GEs

performance appraisal system where i.e. In Madhuris case even though my
performance was fine ..GE framed me in Growth Value(soft skills) as a way to
get rid of me for raising quality and safety concerns. After that last year or so;
GE has abandoned its performance appraisal that GE used for me.(GE
abandonment of it performance appraisal system after Madhuri bring claims in
arbitration ALREADY PROVES that Madhuri is a PERSON OF EXTRA ORDINARY
ABILITY- my management insights GE used) As a federal agency officials ; it is
their public duty to look into this case of unlawful retaliation and termination
and not let Madhuri suffer in Immigration terms as a result of GEs unlawful
conduct.

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 12 of 25

 Congresswoman Tulsi in Hawaii as she is the ONLY Hindu congress person, her
office has my
documents. Their office manager ANYA have stated that for keeping you in this
situation like this; GE and immigration people needs to be in a JAIL. This is again
a DICTA. Her office forwarded my matter to Mike Honda and nothing came out
from Mike Hondas office.

Given I have tried Article I, Aticle II branches to get justice with NO SUCCESS in
this lawless environment, now it rests on Article III branch. Though I havent
gone into All Writs Act, but would like to bring jurisdiction All Writs Act provide
and judge can issue WRIT to grant relief to plaintiff as she requested. We , as
Humanity have many serious problems to work on and find solutions.
When I reported security issues at GE product and whistleblowing activity; in
my B1 visa
documents in October 2013, and that denial letter which was signed by Donald
Nuefled in April 2014 (EXHIBIT 4) even though being Department of Homeland
Security official , Mr. Nuefled ignored to at least have an special counsel assigned
as per 1324b ..nor did any investigation and told me in a letter even though he
knew that I had an arbitration hearing next weekThis clearly is a crime.
Essentially, the crime is where a person, having a public duty entrusted to him,
willfully neglects to carry out that dutyReporting to public about security
issues/defects in 100,000 medical devices and at least doing investigation; is
public duty of DHS officials. Donald

Nuefleds deliberate failure to perform a duty owed to the public, with serious
potential or actual consequences for the public. During my conversation with FDA
official Charles Meyer (Plaintiff complaint EXHIBIT 12) in February 2013, Mr.
Meyers did acknowledged that GE defects I reported are not acceptable by FDA
and he wants to do public release today but there is a loophole. Untill unless FDA
finishes investigation , he cant do public release. (GE general manager Josh
Hanna knew that and told me that it will take FDA years to come after us, we have
screwed up, but by the time FDA will come after us, Madhuri-you will be gone to
India) In December 2015 , FDA is proposing new rule in federal register about

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 13 of 25

public release of emerging signal of defects and issues of medical/pharma
products and services. I am glad that FDA took it seriously after numerous
communications I had with them.

GE spends billions in Lobbying this is a FACT everybody knows; and I am

seeing GEs lobbying money investment is working very well in their favor and
how they are getting away from fraud prosecution and my employment case.
As Pat Hale also agreed/nodded that by spending lobbying money by GE such
crisis and government taking legal action against GE can be avoided. Also
government and public /private sector use revolving door policy.
Plaintiff sees the legal issues as: In this case, it is striking that USCIS failed to
conclude that the Plaintiff, a gifted engineer/technocrat who is clearly engaged
in a continued endeavor to work in her field of expertise and whose presence
will substantially benefit the United States, failed to satisfy even one of the
remaining three-of-ten regulatory prerequisites for an extraordinary ability
visa.
U.S. v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (if the petitioner submits
relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads USCIS to believe that the
claim is probably true or more likely than not, the applicant or petitioner
has satisfied the standard of proof). Including but not limited to Support letter
from a Pat Hale president of International council of systems
engineering(INCOSE) and a director of systems design and management
program at prestigious MIT is a credible evidence, so does a letter from Harvard
medical executive Robert Cunningham, a start up veteran and director of MIT
entrepreneurship club of Northern California Vandana.Letter from Philips
healthcare manager does not have exact word for EB1, but it does states.
Alien had constitutional standing to challenge the denial of her petition for an
employment visa (with job offer from Wyss Institute/Harvard medical executive
Robert i.e. Exhibit 1 in plaintiff complaint)under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA); alien lost a significant opportunity to receive an
immigrant visa, ability to continue stay in a country where she invested 13
years of her life and contributed in extra-ordinary capacity and that lost
opportunity was itself a concrete injury, and a favorable decision would redress

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 14 of 25

 that injury. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, 2, cl. 1. (It is undisputed fact between
plaintiff and defendants that Plaintiff is a person of exception ability/advanced
degree/national waiver category i.e. EB2 ; as proven from PERM labor
certification and defendants admitting that in answer to my complaint and in
Motion to dismiss in Part; despite DHS is knowingly being lawless and harassing
me..This clearly shows DHS officials are reckless ).Whether agency while
making its decision to unlawfully deny petition considered relevant
factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found
and choice made.

If the agency fails to consider the evidence and make the proper findings on all
relevant issues, the court will oblige and make findings which may not be
palatable to the agency.
Claim of liability under the Civil Rights Act if the intentional infliction of
emotional distress TORT was committed while the defendant was depriving the
plaintiff of federal rights under color of law, including but not limited to Equal
protection clause under US constitution, where similarly situated class of
people would have not told to leave the country and as a result prevent from
pursuing arbitration and False claims Act case, Immigration visa petitions.
The causal relationship for retaliation case, causing injury; The defendant ;be
officials such as the named defendants, to whom GE has influenced for the
immigration denial decision and GE withdrew my H1 even though I was
undergoing mediation/arbitration (and Immigration officials knew about it,
despite didnt take any action EXHIBIT 11 from plaintiff complaint). The Court
views this as "successful retaliatory inducement to put Madhuri in a situation in
which Madhuri is currently". The required causal connection is therefore
between the retaliatory motive of one person(GE/USCIS ) and the action of
another (USCIS).
In Dr. Kazarians own words: I have lived in America and contributed to its
astrophysics research interests for so long, I cannot consider myself as
anything other than an American scientist. Beyond the implications for my
immigration status, I am frightened for the future of this country I love so much
when I see the great pains its government is taking to ensure that brilliant

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 15 of 25

 scientists who offer nothing but a benefit to America are forced to leave. If the
terrible USCIS policy bearing my name is not reversed, it will be the final nail in
the coffin for American innovation and economic progress. - See more at:
http://connect.wolfsdorf.com/?p=974
Virtually every member of the immigration bar is familiar with Dr. Kazarians
plight and the Wolfsdorf Immigration Law firms successful 9th Circuit petition
for panel rehearing on his denied extraordinary ability petition.
The Buletini holding has been followed for years and was subsequently echoed
in Muni v. INS, 891 F.Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995). The Muni Court confirmed
USCIS decisions cannot rest on an impermissible basis which is against the
weight of the evidence and deviate[s] from its own policies and precedents.
Sadly, USCIS Interim Memo and Policy Memorandum have ignored the clear
findings of the Buletini and Muni Courts, which clearly articulated the
appropriate method of analysis for USCIS adjudication of extraordinary ability,
outstanding professor/researcher, and exceptional ability immigrant visa
petitions. The Kazarian decision does not support the approach outlined in the
Policy Memorandum; indeed, it explicitly condemns the implementation of new
regulatory and evidentiary requirements.
Defendants have exhibit 7 of plaintiff complaint . Where plaintiff submitted
with evidences i.e. credible evidences, true analysis stating why Madhuri meets
three of ten EB1 criteria and final merit determination (Though final merit
determination along with whole adjunction of EB1 process has been
widely criticized as inconsistent, abusive, subjective in nature to
adjuctive officers personal experience and discretion), support letters
from highly distinguished/ credible individuals, detailed resume, chronological
facts.

As the Adjudicators Field Manual recognizes, Even in non-discretionary cases,

the consideration of evidence is somewhat subjective. USCIS officers could wield
(have and be able to use (power or influence). ) its discretion through arbitrary
denials, creating an unfair and unpredictable process in EB1 selectivity process.

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 16 of 25

One report indicated that adjudicators have an average of twenty-three minutes
to decide an EB-1-1 case. AILA recently noted that these cases are often
complicated and require an in-depth understanding of an applicant's field of
endeavor, the applicant's qualifications, and the complicated legal
[87]
standard. Numerous commentators have called for adjudicators to visit
research facilities and national laboratories, as occurred during the limited
collaboration between the California Service Center, the California Institute of
Technology, and NAFSA (an association of international educators). USCISs
resource constraints make this prospect unlikely. An officer with a liberal arts
degree and twenty-three minutes to review a petition simply does not have time
to familiarize himself with a highly specialized field. the [USCIS] has effectively
established itself as an expert in areas where its expertise is most assuredly
lacking.

Questionable agency actions of DHS privilege, backed by and supported by

government

An abuse of discretion is a failure to take into proper consideration the facts and
law relating to a particular matter. Positive use of discretion would have resolved
this disputes....If Obama admin is trying to keep illegals here.try to send me
back and remove me from USA is also abuse of discretion by DHS. It also shows
how desperately DHS people want to harass me under GEs influence. (JUST so to
set up an example/send a message for all current /future GE employee that if you
speak up as a whistleblower /fraud/security/qualityyou will be put in a situation
like Madhuri and also clearly sending a message that not a single government
body will be on a side of JUSTICE ; rather on corporate GE side.)

The First Amendment right to criticize public officials is well-established and

supported by ample caselaw; a public official's retaliation against an individual
exercising his or her First Amendment rights is a violation of 1983.
1. Biven action claims and clarification even done at District
court level
1) while the defendant was
depriving the plaintiff of federal rights under color of law.

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 17 of 25

Joint case management statement ECF 20, page 22 line 5: while the defendant
was depriving the plaintiff of federal rights under color of law, including but not
limited to Equal protection clause under US constitution, where similarly situated
class of people would have not told to leave the country and as a result prevent
from pursuing arbitration and False claims Act case, Immigration visa petitions.
The Fifth Amendments Equal Protection Clause directs that all persons similarly
situated should be treated alike

Plaintiff did mention punitive damages in her complaint pleadings. And that was
for individual capacity based claims.

2) Court generally allows amendment; while this is also clarification and

to resolve
ambiguity. Supreme court of United States in Foman v. Davis 371 U.S. 178
(1962) Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend "shall be freely given when
justice so requires"; this mandate is to be heeded. See generally, 3 Moore, Federal
Practice (2d ed. 1948), 15.08, 15.10. If the underlying facts or circumstances
relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded
an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or
declared reason -- such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, futility of amendment, etc. -- the leave sought should, as the rules
require, be "freely given."

Defendants could not demonstrate bad faith or dilatory motive on Plaintiffs part.
To the contrary, Plaintiffs seek to amend /clarify these claims to more thoroughly
frame the relevant constitutional issues before this Court.

I. The Efficient Administration of Justice Requires That Plaintiffs be

Given Leave to File an Amended Complaint

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 18 of 25

II. Defendants Will Not Suffer Substantial Prejudice, and There Is No
Other Reason Plaintiffs Should Not Be Given Leave to Amend

III. Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their complaint because their amendments
would not be futile

Defendants will not be prejudiced by Plaintiffs amended complaint. The liberal

concepts of notice pleading is to make the defendant aware of the facts.
Harrison, 174 F.3d at 253 (emphasis added) (quoting Hanson v. Hoffman, 628 F.2d
42, 53 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). Accordingly, a plaintiff is not bound by the legal theories
originally alleged unless a defendant is prejudiced on the merits.

3) Thus adding/clarifying Bivens claim does not substantially change the legal
theory at this early stage of litigation.
4) The court must construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff and grant
plaintiff the benefit
of all inferences derived from the facts. Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605,
608 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

5) 28 U.S.S. 1391(b) Biven venue personal injury actions.. 5th Amendment

Equal Protection Clause: and due process cause to have a hearing.
Providing a remedy under Bivens: Serves to deter future constitutional violations
by holding federal officers accountable for unlawful actions

Claim for damages arises directly under Constitution without explicit statutory
cause of action (implied constitutional cause of action)

Money damages for constitutional tort committed by defendant acting under color
of federal law/authority

Biven cause of action:

Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected right;

Federal officer acting under color of federal law/authority violated that

right;

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 19 of 25

 Plaintiff lacks a statutory cause of action, or an available statutory cause of
action does not provide a meaningful remedy; and An appropriate remedy,
namely damages, can be imposed.

6) Below email is from attorney David Nelson at from Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
David looked in to my voluminous GE documents and stated that Madhuri has
SEC security Exchange commission claim . Because of my immigration
situation (partly due to GEs Godzilla influence )that SEC right also hasnt been
exercised.
From: David Nelson <dnelson@bsfllp.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: should I send my deposition ?
To: Madhuri Trivedi <mcis99@gmail.com>
Cc: Aaron Marcus <amarcus@bsfllp.com>
Madhuri, today is hectic and I have some meetings tomorrow. Is Wednesday
possible for you at some point? Dave

David Nelson
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
401 East Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
(Ph) 954.356.0011
(Direct) 954.377.4233
(Cell) 954.213.8810

7) Biven claims against individually named defendants. Under fifth and

fourteen amendments of constitution . Right to have a hearing. Donald Neufeld
(defendant )signed a denial letter in April 2013 (Exhibit 4 of ECF 4 Plaintiff Joint
case management statement) knowingly a week before my arbitration hearing
and threatened that Madhuri Must leave the country immediately. Madhuri
had a Due process constitutional right to have administrative hearing and court
proceeding for her immigration matter in immigration content along with
exercising 8CFR 1324 b unfair employment practice . Donald prevented
Madhuri from exercising such constitutional rights .
Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 20 of 25
 The Requirements of Due Process.Although due process tolerates
variances in procedure "appropriate to the nature of the case," it is nonetheless
possible to identify its core goals and requirements. First, "[p]rocedural due
process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from
the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Thus, the
required elements of due process are those that "minimize substantively unfair
or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which
a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. The core of these
requirements is notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Due process
may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and
for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record,

Defendants have admitted in all of their court fillings that Madhuri s right
related to her ex employer GE for HIPPA violations, Patient safety act, civil rights ,
8CFR 1324b , False claims act. Despite Have knowingly and intentionally
deprived Madhuri from exercising those rights.

a) Individually named defendants violated my rights

b) These rights were clearly established at the time of defendants
conduct.
Gregory Richardson-defendant had a knowledge as Madhuri mentioned in her
immigration petition fillings about her communication with FBI , FBI stating that
GE matter is False claims act matter and Madhuri working with False claims Act
attorney Andrew Beato. (ECF -1 complaint exhibit 5,6,8). False claims act has a
retaliation provision which prohibits employer from retaliating against
employee who reported such fraudulent action (apart from monetary
compensation). Under False claims act retaliation claim and protection as
a whistleblower Plaintiff Madhuri had constitutional right to address
her immigration situation caused by GE/USICS and seek appropriate
remedy /relief in IMMIGRATION CONTEXT (due process , have a hearing ,
equal protection right clause under constitution ) Constitution also prohibits
retaliation to whistleblower (including but not limited to for both False claims
act and 8CFR 1324b)when whistleblower reports disparate treatment under
gender, nationality, race , discrimination again in Immigration context.
Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 21 of 25
 If USCIS since May 2015 is giving unrestricted work authorization to spouses of
H1B visa whose green card is pending (total up to 80,000 work authorization to
be given in first year only); NOT giving Madhuri immigration work authorization
violated Equal protection clause , also Madhuri is NOT Married so she has been
treated differently .

2. Whistleblower capacity as per supreme court in DHS vs

MacLean
Oral arguments have been standard in whistleblowing is do you reasonably
believe -that there is a specific and substantial danger to public safety and
health.? . and uncovered a violation of matters relating to specific danger to
public health or safety. " Congress each time has looked at this situation and
has said every single time, we need more whistleblowers to come forward,
because that's the human failsafe against a machine bureaucracy; it is so hard
for whistleblower to come forward. in name of public interest such
whistleblower put their own job in line... Chief Justice John Roberts announced
opinion and stated That statute protected employees who disclosed
information revealing any violation of any law, rule, or regulation or revealing
a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

2.1. Though this applies to government employees under WPA ..using this
common law

doctrine application to non-government employee as well statute protect

employees- Plaintiff Madhuri Trivedi when I released similar danger to public
health and safety . And as a result have systematically and consistently suffered
retaliation from GE and DHS. From defendants lawsuit documents; it is clear that
DHS is admitting that DHS as an federal agency has no obligation to protect
Madhuri and does not care to redress unlawful situation Madhuri has been kept
in.In Plaintiff Madhuri case ;. Releasing highly defective, serious performance issue
;

product Insite Exc was dangerous and illegal I put my own job and
immigration in line NOT realisign then that I will end up dealing with 500 pounds

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 22 of 25

of corrupt/Lawless government and GE. Madhuri talked to supervisor , team lead ,
executives at GE..but since they were knowingly releasing it for several years
..they retaliated; Later I reported to FBI, DHS ,talked to FBI agents

>>> slide number 3

Open Issues: 465 Design Non-Conformances means serious defects for several
years...

>>> slide number 2 Not-so-Good News

We have been experiencing a large number of issues on the device-facing side of the application. This
means that even though users can get into the Questra app, they cannot use remote service features of
the application. We have mechanisms to detect this issue, but not to do trending on it.
DHS hasnt given sufficient weight to the fact that an agency /agency officials have duty to lawfully
address such public policy violations.

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 23 of 25

Second quarter Review showed a massive decline in performance in February.

Investigation found that was a measurement error. We can now see our
performance is gradually getting worse as new devices are added, which matches
the reports we are getting from users.

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 24 of 25

Madhuri Trivedi vs. DHS Page 25 of 25