Project "Ocean" : Become a U.S. Citizen by 2008 Election !!

[cosmos]

I realized just now that some people who apply for 140 directly (without labor) might benefit more with kashmir’s proposal. I have a feeling a greater majority (who go through labor) would benefit more from my proposal.

May be we should find a way to include both. Comments, anyone?

[kashmir]

I have no idea how to describle about "Laber Certification" in the amendment.
In my understanding, LC is basically not related to the specific person, so it looks difficult to include LC term.


By the way, cosmos' proposal is to add:
"or has resided continuously within the United States for six and half years, and has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence",
but 6.5 years may not be related to LPR nor even LPR petition/application such I-485 and I-140, so I cannot find any strong reason.

[kashmir]

(Originally posted by dsatish at the Fund Collection discussion thread at the VSC forum 11th July 2004, 06:11 AM)

Action Plan decided
Yester day, the board members of ip.org had a pretty good discussion about how we should spend the money collected so far. Fortunately, this time every one was on the same wave length and we all agreed on our final decision which is to spend the money for the purpose for which we have collected it, namely, to hire a person or lobbying firm to work for our cause. This way we would have kept our word. It is very important for us to do what we promise.

The discussion then weered around how to get a person or lobbying firm to work for our cause. The problem with hiring a lobbying firm, if at all if we can find one that works for 20K, is that they might work only for 2 months for this amount and we may not be able to achieve any thing in 2 months if we have to successfully get a bill introduced and passed in US congress to address our issues. The alternative solution is to hire some individual to work for us either full time for 2 months or part time (4 hrs / day) for 4 months. It is decided to talk to Rajiv if he knows some one who can be put on this job. We will pay to that person for the time he spends on ip.org. I will be talking to Rajiv about it. But our first preference is to hire a lobbying firm, if we can find one, that is capable of influencing congress to introduce and pass a bill incorporating our key demands.

So here is our action plan for the next week or two :
1) All the board members will do some research on internet about lobbying irms in DC area and talk to those firms and get an idea of how much they are expecting to make the congress pass a bill with our demands. So i request all of you to do some research on internet on lobbying firms and talk to them if possible and post the results here.
2) All the members(or some) will do research on current bills which are under review in congress and which have highest support. We should do research to find out if the congress men supporting these bills, will include our demands in those bills. Kashmir, edison etc are pretty good in this type of research. But let as many people as possible work on this research.

So that's our action plan, agreed unanimously.

[kashmir]

I will send a newsletter to Project Ocean campaign participants.
If you want to participate in future campaigns, visit Project Ocean #16 Poll Thread for the detail.

[kashmir]

This thread is only for participants in Project Ocean.
If you are not interested in Project Ocean, you don't need to read the following messages at this thread.
Also, if you don't want to participate in any Project Ocean campaigns, you should not post a negative message against Project Ocean nor me (kashmir).
Even if such a message being posted, I have no time to respond.

In order to make a right decision for Project Ocean campaigns,
we need to understand the current processing status at the CSC correctly.
It had really depended upon Project Kashmir for a long time.
Now, Project Kashmir had been cancelled, and pinnacle_man's Open Scanning Project would take over what Project Kashmir had been doing.
However, it takes a long time and it requires a lot of efforts to start up such a project.
Until his project becomes stable, I will continue getting the latest status as much as possible.
The latest information will be included in the newsletter that is sent to the campaign participants for the above purpose.
For the detail, please visit Project Ocean #16 thread.

If you want just a scan result, you may not participate in Project Ocean.
Instead, you had better contribute to pinnacle_man's project.

Newsletter for Campaign Participants
I will send a newsletter to Project Ocean campaign participants.
If you want to participate in future campaigns, visit Project Ocean #16 Poll Thread for the detail.

[kashmir]

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Sunday, August 8, 2004

Northside Community Center
Community Hall
488 North 6th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
1:00 PM

Evergreen Valley High
Cougar Hall
3300 Quimby Road
San Jose, CA 95148
2:30 PM


Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
Town Hall Meetings are currently being planned for September 11 and 18.
http://eshoo.house.gov/townhall.aspx

[kashmir]

(Originally posted at Ocean Campaign #15 thread 24th July 2004, 11:52 AM)

The current my strategy is:
1) Fax to all of 44 Congressinal members by 7/27/2004 (fax campaign #15)
2) Fax the specific request refering 1) to Zoe Lofgren (fax campaign #17) 7/26-7/29
3) Call to Zoe Lofgren Office to arrange the meeting around 8/8/2004 by CA 16 Resident 7/29-7/30
4) Town Hall Meeting in San Jose 8/8/2004
5) Another Meeting (if possible, depending on 3)

If you have any suggestion, please let me know.

[ruxrux]

I live in CA-15 so I faxed one to Mike Honda as well. Of course, I changed Zoe to Mike.
Interesting... most of the 44 Congresspeople are D. Guess who I'll vote for one day ....

[kashmir]

Newsletter #1 - Project Ocean - for campaign participants
July 22, 2004

Thanks for your having signed up at Project Ocean #16 poll thread.
This is the first newsletter for Project Ocean campaign participants.

In order to make a right decision to take an action,
we have to understand the current situation correctly.
Attached is the latest report for WAC-02 I-485 case status.

I may provide this kind of information until pinnacle_man's
Open Scanning Project becomes stable.
His team has been doing a good job and it shows some progress
though it requires a lot of time and efforts to start up
this kind of project.

If you want to drop from this mailing list, let me know.

Thanks,

-kashmir
kashmir@kashmir2.us

Attachments:
wac02-i485-20040721.zip

[kashmir]

Newsletter #2 - Project Ocean
July 26, 2004

This is the second newsletter for Project Ocean campaign participants.
This is being sent only to those who have participated in Campaign #17.

As I wrote at the first newsletter,
in order to make a right decision to take an action,
we have to understand the current situation correctly.
Attached is the latest report for WAC-03 I-485 case status.

Currently, we are targetting Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
to introduce a bill to amend the INA about five-year
residential requirement for Naturalization.

If you want to drop from this mailing list, let me know.

Thanks,

-kashmir
kashmir@kashmir2.us

Attachments:
wac03-i485-20040725.zip

[kashmir]

Newsletter #3 - Project Ocean - for campaign participants
July 27, 2004

This is the third newsletter for Project Ocean campaign participants.
The second one has been sent only to those who have participated in Campaign #17.
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=136076

Currently, we are targetting Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
to introduce a bill to amend the INA about five-year
residential requirement for Naturalization.

The current our strategy is:
1) Fax to all of 44 Congressinal members by 7/27/2004 (Campaign #15)
2) Fax the specific request refering 1) to Zoe Lofgre 7/26-7/29 (Campaign #17)
3) Call to Zoe Lofgren Office to arrange the meeting around 8/8/2004 by CA 16 Resident 7/29-7/30
4) Town Hall Meeting in San Jose 8/8/2004
5) Another Meeting (if possible, depending on 3)
http://immigrationportal.com/showthr...331#post855331

If you want to drop from this mailing list, let me know.

Thanks,

-kashmir
kashmir@kashmir2.us

[kashmir]

The CSC has processed more than 6,000 I-485 cases only in July, even though I have not confirmed the number yet.
If this trend would continue, the CSC might be able to eliminate the I-485 backlog within a year.

However, there are a couple of concerns about I-485 process at the CSC in August, September, and FY2005.
I hope that the CSC would keep the current trend and that everyone would get approved accordingly.
Good luck.

[kashmir]

Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks.
This means USCIS itself is proving that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks.
Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay,
the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants,
and such an injust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.

[max2k1]

Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks.
This means USCIS itself is proving that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks.
Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay,
the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants,
and such an injust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.

Good point Kashmir .... but what if USCIS responds with a stock answer along these lines ....
========
It took all of the security agencies(FBI, ???) a lot of time to get to the level of efficiency that they are in right now.
During late 2002 and all of 2003, they were trying to upgrade their systems and processes to gear up to this demand. Now they're partially there and hence the improvement in processing speed.
We still maintain that the delays were caused by security checks.
Also, they were more involved in issues of national security and terrrorism and blah blah during those times -- hence name checks were not their top priority.
As long as they can maintain this new found efficiency, we can do processing in 60/90/120 whatever days ....
(basically, we're not responsible if it slows down to 2/3 years sometime later) !!
========

What can we do if we get BS like that ?

[kashmir]

Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks.
This means USCIS itself is proving that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks.
Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay,
the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants,
and such an injust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.

The CSC is approving I-485 application concurrently with I-140 only in 2 months under the pilot program.
On the other hand, most of I-485 applicants who filed in early 2002 have/had been waiting for more than 2 years just for I-485 adjudication.
In addition to that, these I-485 applicants were not allowed to file I-485 until their I-140 got approved,
so it takes almost 3 years from I-140 filing date to I485 approval date.

To apply Naturalization, one must be resident for 5 years after I485 approval,
so most of I-485 applicants who filed in late 2001 through 2002 are victims of the government's illegal immigration policy during 2003
because they have to wait 3 years more to apply Naturalization.
Congress should provide a relief to those innocent victims to amend Section 316(a)(1) of INA about 5-year residential requirement for Naturalization.
Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a) being filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Here, the "petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a)" means I-140 (or I-130).

[kashmir]

Good point Kashmir .... but what if USCIS responds with a stock answer along these lines ....
========
It took all of the security agencies(FBI, ???) a lot of time to get to the level of efficiency that they are in right now.
During late 2002 and all of 2003, they were trying to upgrade their systems and processes to gear up to this demand. Now they're partially there and hence the improvement in processing speed.
We still maintain that the delays were caused by security checks.
Also, they were more involved in issues of national security and terrrorism and blah blah during those times -- hence name checks were not their top priority.
As long as they can maintain this new found efficiency, we can do processing in 60/90/120 whatever days ....
(basically, we're not responsible if it slows down to 2/3 years sometime later) !!
========
What can we do if we get BS like that ?

It doesn't matter.
Our target is only Congress to amend the INA,
and it is the fact that the government had illegally delayed I-485 process during 2003, even though the process has been recently improved.

Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks.
This means USCIS itself is proving that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks.
Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay,
the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants,
and such an injust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.
The CSC is approving I-485 application concurrently with I-140 only in 2 months under the pilot program.
On the other hand, most of I-485 applicants who filed in early 2002 have/had been waiting for more than 2 years just for I-485 adjudication.
In addition to that, these I-485 applicants were not allowed to file I-485 until their I-140 got approved,
so it takes almost 3 years from I-140 filing date to I485 approval date.

To apply Naturalization, one must be resident for 5 years after I485 approval,
so most of I-485 applicants who filed in late 2001 through 2002 are victims of the government's illegal immigration policy during 2003
because they have to wait 3 years more to apply Naturalization.
Congress should provide a relief to those innocent victims to amend Section 316(a)(1) of INA about 5-year residential requirement for Naturalization.
Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a) being filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Here, the "petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a)" means I-140 (or I-130).

[kashmir]

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Town Hall Meeting

Sunday, August 8, 2004
1:00 PM

Northside Community Center
Community Hall
488 North 6th Street
San Jose, CA 95112

1. H.R. 3701 - V Visa
2. Introduce a Bill to Amend
   Section 316(a)(1) of the INA
   about 5-Year Residential Requirement
   for Naturalization
3. Petition for I-140 Backlog at the CSC

[kashmir]

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Town Hall Meeting

Sunday, August 8, 2004
1:00 PM

Northside Community Center
Community Hall
488 North 6th Street
San Jose, CA 95112

1. H.R. 3701 - V Visa
2. Introduce a Bill to Amend
   Section 316(a)(1) of the INA
   about 5-Year Residential Requirement
   for Naturalization
3. Petition for I-140 Backlog at the CSC

About a dozen of people attended the meeting yesterday on 8/8/2004.
The half were members of (formerly) I-485 CSC forum to pursue the above 2nd agenda.
Another half were members of I-140 CSC forum for I-140 backlog petition that askgc's leading.
After I talked to Congresswoman Loe Zofgren, we handed hundreds of pages of documents and our petition letters to Ms. Sandra, the Chief of Staffs.
We will follow it for the detail dicussion later.

[kashmir]

ImmigrationPortal.Com
Community for Information,
Action and Reform

August 8, 2004

RE: Bill to Amend Section 316(a)(1) of the INA
as the relief for innocent victims of the government's immigration policy
which had illegally discriminated I-485 applicants during 2003

Dear Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren;

We are very pleased that you and 43 Congressional Members have written to USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre on June 15, 2004 to address immigration petition backlog. Meanwhile, USCIS updated its Backlog Elimination Plan, and introduced a couple of pilot programs. Over two years of the current I-485 backlog would be eliminated by the end of FY2006.

Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks. This means USCIS itself proves that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks. Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay, the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants, and such an unjust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.

While the CSC is approving I-485 application concurrently with I-140 only in 2 months under the pilot program, most of I-485 applicants who filed in early 2002 have been waiting for more than 2 years just for I-485 adjudication. In addition to that, these I-485 applicants were not allowed to file I-485 until their I-140 got approved, so it takes almost 3 years from I-140 receipt date to I485 approval date.

To apply Naturalization, one must be resident for 5 years after I485 approval, so most of I-485 applicants who filed in late 2001 through 2002 are victims of the government's illegal immigration policy during 2003 because they have to wait 3 years more to apply Naturalization. Congress should provide a relief to those innocent victims to amend Section 316(a)(1) of INA about 5-year residential requirement for Naturalization.
Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a) being filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Here, the "petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a)" means I-140 (or I-130). We believe this kind of amendment is the only way that the U.S. Congress can implement the justice for Immigrants who have been contributing the United States for a long time with their commitment and hard work.

Sincerely,

[kashmir]

...
Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a) being filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Here, the "petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a)" means I-140 (or I-130).
...

My targetting 5-year starting date is I-140 receipt date as above.
Several people have asked me to change it to Priority Date or to consider Laber Certification, but I have no idea how to describe.
If you'd really push PD or LC starting date instead of I-140 receipt date, please draft the specific statement for amendment of INA Section 316(a)(1), otherwise, I must push my original plan.

[kashmir]

http://www.house.gov/honda/

Campbell/Los Gatos Town Hall
Campbell Community Center
Monday, August 16th
6:30-7:30 pm
1 W. Campbell Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
Roosevelt Room Room Q-80

Santa Clara Town Hall
Santa Clara Senior Center
Monday, August 23rd
6:30-7:30 pm
1303 Fremont St.
Santa Clara, CA 95050

Gilroy Town Hall
Solorzano Middle School
Tuesday, August 24th
6:30-7:30 pm
7121 Grenache Way
Gilroy, CA 95020

San Jose Town Hall
Wednesday, August 25th
6:30-7:30 pm
70 W. Hedding St.
Isaac Newton Senter Auditorium
San Jose, CA 9510

Milpitas/Berryessa/Alviso Town Hall
Thursday, August 26, 2004
6:30-7:30 pm
Milpitas Community Center Auditorium
457 East Calaveras Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035

Cupertino Town Hall
Cupertino City Council Chambers
Friday, August 27
6:30-7:30 pm
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3232

[kashmir]

Service Center Processing Dates for California Posted August 18, 2004

I-485
Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status
Employment-based adjustment applications
January 15, 2003


We have won the I-485 backlog reduction at the CSC.

[solarise]

I am in shock right now. My I485 was submitted back in Nov 2002 and I still have not received any decisions or RFEs.

[kashmir]

Mike Honda (D CA 15)
Santa Clara Town Hall
Santa Clara Senior Center
Monday, August 23rd
6:30-7:30 pm
1303 Fremont St.
Santa Clara, CA 95050

[kashmir]

Mike Honda (D CA 15)
Santa Clara Town Hall
Santa Clara Senior Center
Monday, August 23rd
6:30-7:30 pm
1303 Fremont St.
Santa Clara, CA 95050

askgc (I-140 CSC forum), fellow_lpr, bkarth (V Visa forum), and I (kashmir) attended the town hall meeting today.
We talked directly with Mike Honda to push our agenda, and had the detail discussion with Ms. Bernardette Arellano.

[kashmir]

askgc (I-140 CSC forum), fellow_lpr, bkarth (V Visa forum), and I (kashmir) attended the town hall meeting today.
We talked directly with Mike Honda to push our agenda, and had the detail discussion with Ms. Bernardette Arellano.

Here is askgc's report.

Spoke with Congressman Michael Honda (CA 15)

I have attended the town hall meeting alone from I-140 forum.
Kashmir as expected was present and there were couple of people
from immgrationportal fighting for spouse joining GC holders (HR 3701).

I have met Mr Jeff of MH team who took privacy release form from me
in my last visit to their office. He said the he has not heard anything from
USICS regarding the fax they made to USCIS. I have given the docuemnt to
the representative of Congressman.

MySelf and Kashmir waited to meet congrressman after the townhall
meeting. MH is very knowldegable and he himself said oh this is
about AC 21 portability. He asked me question saying that how can they
(USCIS)do that (override a law with memo)? then he himself said that is what
you are requesting me to look into. He said will definitely follow up with
USCIS.

Later we have given another copy to one another staff of MH as he pointed
and told that we spoke with congressman. She also pointed us to Bernardette
Arellano, who is the immigration policy person in MH team. We spoke with her
and she said that they will write to USCIS team asking to explain about the
whole stuff. She said she will take me as point of contact for immigrationportal.com
representation and took my details and another copy of the same document.

Finally I was told I will hear from them as soon as they hear from USCIS.
Hope this helps. Thanks a lot kashmir. I felt very good after the whole event.

[kashmir]

Got an e-mail reply from Congresswoman Lofgren's office

Got an e-mail reply which stated that "She is very concerned with the tremendous backlog of all types of applications" and recommend me to contact Congressman Dreier's office. I replied to the e-mail with asking Congresswoman Lofgren to ask USCIS to reinterpret AC21 so that the candidate is allowed to use AC21 i.e. change jobs after 180 days has passed by after filing I-140 and I-485 concurrently, irrespective of I-140 status.

Visited CA District 26 David Dreier's office.

Received letter from Anna Eshoo's Office

The office acknowledged they received my fax and she has contacted CSC on our behalf(regarding the I-140 delays) and will keep us in touch as soon as she hears anything from the CSC.

In the interim she said to contact Patty Kim with any questions.

===========

Additionally, from my company lawyers I heard that this issue was raised today morning in a meeting in Washington, and the CSC pointed out to the reduction in I-485 backlogs and said that they will go aggressively after the I-140 backlogs next.

[kashmir]

http://immigrationportal.com/showthr...646#post887646

Actually first time when we (self and gc369) went to MH office they said
they are already working with USCIS about backlogs along with
Congresswoman ZL (CA 16), Congresswoman AE(CA 14).

I got the same doubts about the lawsuit when Bernardette said that there
is lawsuit. I guess they might be refering to our lawsuit on I-485 backlog.
This is where it helps if there are more people then they can ask such
questions.

Bottom line I am planning anyway to attend one more townhall meeting on
this friday (6:30 - 7:30PM). Can you and/or somebody else join me? May
be you can modify/prepare the doc to address backlog and I agree it is
benificial to everybody. We should explain saying lawsuit is on 485 and not
140 may be (or) check with them saying is there any other 140 backlog suit.

By the way I was alone from the 140 forum and if more people come
then it makes difference. Please understand that we (immigrationportal.com)
already have recognition. Also lot of people from immigrationportal who got
green cards like (kashmir,140, dm, ... etc) are also coming for this townhall
meeting. Details of townhall meeting are below.

Cupertino Town Hall
Cupertino City Council Chambers
Friday, August 27
6:30-7:30 pm
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3232

By the way I am not very happy with the support / motivation from 140
forum. We need to follow up and do more. Unless we go meet our
representatives, attend town halls and keep on sending one or the other
mail / fax nothing is going to happen. I have participated in 485 forum before
and the conditions back then were very bad. Will you believe me if I say I got
all the times from congressman MH earlier saying I will work for only citizens
from my CA 15 ... when I was writing about 485 delays. I thought I will try
again by going to his office. Things are changed and I got very good
reception at his office. This change is because of the amount of pressure 485
forum has put, this year is election year. If we cannot get the
representatives now moving then we cannot get anything any time.

Also AE (CA 14) worked very extensively for 485 as Kashmir went on meeting
her her at townhalls and office. She remembered him and called him by his
name and answered his questions in one of the townhall meetings during
last december I guess. This is the reason whorl1quote got a good reply from
AE (CA 14). As I was mentioning earler goto your representative's website
find what they are doing for us, praise them and go requesting either it is for
commuinty or personal.

Going back following up with congress people help? Yes ablsoutely, we have
seen in CSC 485 processing. I am not saying only due to this, there is pressure
from all sides, meaning Rajiv thru lawsuit also. To give very specific
example congressperson Linda Sanchez made his Service Center approve GCs
faster by putting pressure on their Service Center. Few people here
participate here but dont post it, so how will others know / get encouraged? I
was doing sometimes initally but then I changed.

Hope this helps.

[kashmir]

San Jose Town Hall
Wednesday, August 25th
6:30-7:30 pm
70 W. Hedding St.
Isaac Newton Senter Auditorium
San Jose, CA 9510

Milpitas/Berryessa/Alviso Town Hall
Thursday, August 26, 2004
6:30-7:30 pm
Milpitas Community Center Auditorium
457 East Calaveras Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035

Cupertino Town Hall
Cupertino City Council Chambers
Friday, August 27
6:30-7:30 pm
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3232

[kashmir]

08/25/2004: USCIS Dilemma of I-140 Portability and Concurrent Filing/Concurrent Adjudication

• People may recall the background of enactment of AC 21 legislation. The legacy INS was in a total mess and backlogs kept piling up, particularly I-485 and H-1B processing. When the law was enacted, the employment-based immigration proceedings were bifurcated and unless I-140 was approved, no one could file EB-485. The backlog the Congress was interested in was I-485 applications and I-140 petition proceeding backlog was not within the parameter of the legislative intent. This is clear from the reading of I-140 portabilty provision under AC 21 and not well publicized portion of the legislation which strongly recommended the legacy INS to adjudicate I-485 in 180 days. It was a recommendation and not a mandate. The I-140 portability legislation was assumedly enacted to pressure the legacy INS to reduce I-485 processing times to 180 days. Bush's proclaimed announcement of immigration benefits processing time to 180 days was not a coincidence.
• The problem is that the agency conceived the idea of concurrent I-140/I-485 filing prior to the enactment of AC 21 and apparently by the time it was enacted as a regulation, the agency probably did not review seriously the impact of the concurrent filing to the I-140 portability provision in the AC 21 Act. Consequently, the agency had to deal with the difficult task of reconciling between the legislative provision that allows the I-485 filers to change employment after 180 days of filing and the same legislative provision that provided portability of I-140 petition and not I-485 application. If this conflict was created by the agency for oversight, there are only two remedies available for the agency to correct their mistakes. One is to introduce a legislation to amend the relevant provision of AC 21 or better yet the agency process the concurrently filed I-140 petitions within 180 days so that the I-140 can be ported after passage of 180 days of I-485 filing. We realize the predicament of the agency to accept the concept of I-140 portability when I-140 has yet to be adjudicated. When there is no approved I-140 petition, at least theoretically, there is no I-140 to be ported.
• Unfortunately, the agency has been moving completely opposite direction when it announced concurrent adjudication of I-140/I-485. Since the announcement, the concurrently filed I-140 has been held hostage assumedly in order for the agency to adjudicate I-140 and I-485 concurrently. The backlog of I-485 is not something which the agency can achieve in the near future, not probably until September 30, 2006. We cannot tolerate the AC 21 legislation remained beaten and bruised so hard by the agency's failure to coordinate its action with the spirit and intent of the AC 21 legislation. It is not impossible task for the agency to correct its mistakes and reconcile the conflicts: Agengy should set a goal of adjudicating the concurrently filed I-140 petition within 180 days and adjudication of I-140 petition for the concurrently filed cases should not be held hostage to implement its concurrent adjudication of concurrently filed I-140 and I-485. The agency should never betray the legislative intent of a law, AC 21 in the instant situation, by blocking implementation of the legislative intent through a circumbent action to lay a road block to the I-140 portability and change of employement for the I-485 filers after 180 days.