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

[kashmir]

Originally posted by kashmir
I received a letter from my representative Anna Eshoo today.
Don Neufeld's letter to her is attached.
-kashmir

I will reply to Anna Eshoo this Tuesday 1/13/2004 based on my comments above (at the previous page).
If you had some comment or request, please post it here.

Also, I am drafting a letter to all Congressional members so that everyone can send to one's representative and senators.
If you had a sugestion, please post it, too.
I will incorporate it into my draft.

[solarise]

I was going to draft a letter myself to my Congresswomen, but since you're already doing such a great job, it might just be better if we combine our efforts.

I thought it would be a good idea to begin a letter by invoking the famous words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

http://memory.loc.gov/const/declar.html

The entire document follows with charges against the British, but if we just follow Jefferson's reasoning, then USCIS already violated two out of the three "unalienable Rights" for all men, whether he or she is a citizen of the USA or not.

If we're talking about human rights, Nancy Pelosi (my district rep) and Tom Lantos (Holocaust survivor) are both on the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. They might be the right audience we want to target.

Regarding the letter sent by Don Neufeld to Anne Eshoo, I'm rather suspect of the CSC's capabilities to process any I-485 application. April 2004 sounds like a dinner date that might never materialize. It is imperative to receive more details regarding Neufeld's plan to reduce the backlog by September 2004.

I'm another frustrated soul who has been in contact with Sen. Boxer, Sen. Feinstein, and Rep. Pelosi's office regarding my EB I-485 before I discover immigration.com. Rep. Pelosi's office was the first to blow me off, followed by Sen. Feinstein's office. An assistant from Sen. Boxer's office is still trying to help me find out more about what is happening with the I-485s in the CSC. I'm supposed to follow up in 4 weeks.

[becky]

Thank you Kashmir for getting the result from Don Neufeld. News is depressing, but what did we expect. Most significantly, we've reached him...

Like Charley above, I've also heard nothing back from Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Pelosi, but had some interaction with Senator Boxer. This is also true for my US Citizen husband (who wrote letters as well)! I'm drafting a second round of letters to a) talk about the impacts of the new Presidential legislation and b) the GAO report that highlighted the delays.

One thing that keeps me going is knowing just how hard Kashmir has been working on this campaign. I know he didn't get that result without much repeated effort.

Please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to include in my own letters.

becky

[kadamtal]

Great job Kashmir...getting response is awesome but the response itself is awful....

I totally agree with the comments you posted. CIS says they will try to reduce the processing dealys to 12 months or less but Mr.President is promising to get it to 6 months...Totally out of control talk by these people.

Actually that letter is a means to show everyone how much disparity is there between the words of a politician and the dept. that executes it.

I think it is time again to start faxing concerns on the letter sent by CIS. Maybe, call it a different campaign/project and track it down. Once your letter is ready to these congressmen/congresswomen, we can start faxing them over to these people voicing it from all angles.

My thoughts might be naive but definitely appreciate all you are doing for this community....thanks once again...

[140_takes_4ever]

Just read Don Neufield's follow up letter! What a bloody joke! Going by what he is saying I should be approved within the next 6 months or so! How in the world can INS reduce the past 25 months of backlogs to 12 months within the next 8 months when they have done nothing about it for the past 3 years?

How does he anticipate that background checks will be more effective down the line when he uses it as an excuse for the past behaviour?

Kashmir, you are right we need more answers, we need firm commitment, and a timetable. Just empty promises that "shock and awe" you into believing that INS is going to do the job is not going to work. We have been at the receiving end of INS's stick for quite some time, and we are not going to believe one word they say until they prove their words with actions.

[kashmir]

Thanks for your inputs.
However, sorry but I don't have much time to focus drafting a letter right now because of a couple of urgent issues,
so please send your own letter to members of Congress without waiting my draft.
Also, if you can post your letter here, I'd appreciate it.
-kashmir

Originally posted by kashmir
I will reply to Anna Eshoo this Tuesday 1/13/2004 based on my comments above (at the previous page).
If you had some comment or request, please post it here.

Also, I am drafting a letter to all Congressional members so that everyone can send to one's representative and senators.
If you had a sugestion, please post it, too.
I will incorporate it into my draft.

[gcpend]

Backlog, What Aschcroft said years before

http://www.hawaiilawyer.com/articles...1_ashcroft.htm

During his campaign, President-Elect Bush called for the expenditure of $500 million over five years to reduce the immigration backlog. This proposal was similar to my bill, which has now become law. The President-Elect will have to submit his fiscal year 2002 budget to Congress in the coming weeks.
....

Please go thru the link above

[kashmir]

The core action team including Rajiv are working on new petition.
You can find the draft at the Complaint forum.
It will be sent to the U.S. President and Members of Congress, etc.

Also, to strengthen our new petition, we will have to get endorsements from organization, employers, and people on board with us.
I have been already contacting a couple of organizations.
Please start contacting such an organization to get an endorsement.


The Complaint forum has the FAQ thread.
The most asked question is:
Q2. How much time does it take for defendants to answer the complaint?
A2. They have 60 days from the date of service (12/22/2003). They often request (and we agree to) some additional time - typically 30 days or so.

[kashmir]

I found that a Congressional office responds to a letter sent by:
1) certified mail
2) in person at district office
3) town hall meeting
and that it usually doesn't respond to a letter sent by:
4) fax
5) e-mail

We did several FAX campaigns last year,
but we should shift the way to send letters to CERTIFIED MAIL this year to make our campaign more effective.

[kashmir]

I have been sometimes asked a copy of:
1) Don Neufeld's Letter to Anna Eshoo 12/22/2003
2) Anna Eshoo's Letter to Don Neufeld 11/11/2003

I'd like to support each of your activities for petition and lawsuit
but I don't want to distribute those letters publicly
because Anna Eshoo is one of the most important channels for me to keep for a long time to achieve my own goal on Immigration.

Also, as I don't have a scanner, I took an image by faxing to myself, so it includes information that I don't open publicly.

So, if you can commit the followings,
I will send those letters' images by e-mail in response to your e-mail.
1) attach those letters' copies to your petition letter
2) send your petition letter by certified mail (as posted above)
3) post your activity in the forum with certified mail tracking number.
Please send e-matil to kashmir@covad.net with the followings:
1) your login name at ImmigrationPortal.Com
2) whom you send a letter to

[kashmir]

Congressional office responds in written letter to Certified Mail,
but not to Fax or E-Mail usually.
Once you get a letter from Congresional office,
you may think a communication channel is established,
then you can communicate by fax, phone call, etc.
So, I recommend to get a written letter as the first step.

Originally posted by kashmir
I found that a Congressional office responds to a letter sent by:
1) certified mail
2) in person at district office
3) town hall meeting
and that it usually doesn't respond to a letter sent by:
4) fax
5) e-mail

We did several FAX campaigns last year,
but we should shift the way to send letters to CERTIFIED MAIL this year to make our campaign more effective.

[wittAAAA]

I visited Mike Honda and Zoe Lofgren's website, but didn't find any scheduled town hall meetings in 2004. I strongly believe attending town hall meetings is a very good way to raise your voice. How often does a congress person give town hall meetings usually? Anyone can shed some lights on those schudules.

Three weeks has passed in the new year. Any town hall meeting was attended?

[kashmir]

Originally posted by wittAAAA
I visited Mike Honda and Zoe Lofgren's website, but didn't find any scheduled town hall meetings in 2004. I strongly believe attending town hall meetings is a very good way to raise your voice. How often does a congress person give town hall meetings usually? Anyone can shed some lights on those schudules.
Three weeks has passed in the new year. Any town hall meeting was attended?

In my understanding,
the Primary limits Congressperson to hold a town hall meeting.

[kashmir]

In December 2003,
I received a letter written by Gina Bank at Dianne Feinstein Washington D.C. office.

It was exactly the same as one that I had received in November 2003.

December 5, 2003

(my name)
(my address)

Dear Mr. (my last name);

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about problems with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS). I have read your letter and welcome the opportunity to respond.

In 2000, I introduced and Congress enacted the "Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000." The Act required the Department of Justice to issue a report to Congress on the extent of the immigration and naturalization backlogs and the adequacy of the agency's automated systems to manage and reduce its pending workload. The report did not address all of my concerns, however, and BCIS has not issued an update to its efforts to reduce processing delays. Please know that I will continue to raise your concerns with Eduardo Aguirre, Director of BCIS.

Thank you again for writing. Should you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Best Regards.

Sincerely yours,
(Dianne Feinstein's signature)
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov . You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html .

DF:gb

It's her standard letter on Immigration.
It's doubtful that she will continue to raise your concerns with Eduardo Aguirre, Director of BCIS.

Anyway, Eduaro Aguirre is totaly useless and powerless.
He repeated utterances missing the point.

[kashmir]

I sent a letter to Dianne Feinstein by USPS Certified Mail last week.
It has 83 pages including attachments.

ImmigrationPortal.Com
5225 N. Wilson Blvd. Arlington VA 22205
Phone: (703) 908-4800

January 21, 2004

United State Senator Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 228-3954

RE: Class Action Lawsuit Against USCIS
GAO-04-309R
Request to CSC Director Don Neufeld

Dear Senator Feinsten;

You wrote in letters to me:
In 2000, I introduced and Congress enacted the "Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000." The Act required the Department of Justice to issue a report to Congress on the extent of the immigration and naturalization backlogs and the adequacy of the agency's automated systems to manage and reduce its pending workload. The report did not address all of my concerns, however, and BCIS has not issued an update to its efforts to reduce processing delays.
Obviously, it is illeagal that the USCIS has not taken any action to eliminate a huge backlog. On December 22, 2003, we have filed a lawsuit against USCIS challenging the delays in processing of some applications for employment based immigrants. A copy of the Complaint is attached.

Also, you wrote:
I will continue to raise your concerns with Eduardo Aguirre, Director of BCIS.
However, he repeated utterances missing the point. I wonder if he would understand the fact that the backlog has been growing every moment. The recently released GAO report GAO-04-309R Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees Are Not Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Operations proves my concern.

Especially in California, the I-485 processing date of 1/15/2003 was 11/16/2001, and the CSC updated it to 12/16/2001 only once at the report of 9/1/2003. This means the CSC has done almost nothing about I-485 backlog for a year, and unbelievably it had already reached over two years !! Please talk (or write) directly to CSC Director Don Neufeld and ask him the specific plan how to reduce I-485 backlog by the end of this fiscal year 9/30/2004.

Best regards,
(my signature)
(my name)
(my address)
(my contact information)

Attachments:

1. Dianne Feinstein's Letter - 12/05/2003
2. Dianne Feinstein's Letter - 11/12/2003
3. Complaint (26 pages) http://boards.immigration.com/attach...&postid=651497
4. GAO-04-309R (53 pages) http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04309r.pdf

[linuxrox]

great work kashmir!!

[kashmir]

I have been pretty busy for personal matters since mid December,
but now I'd like to start focusing Project Ocean again.

I am planning an e-mail campaign at first rather than fax
so that a lot of people can participate.

The first target is CSC Director Don Neufeld
to make sure that he will significantly increase resource allocations to I-485 adjudications
after 3/9/2004 deadline for TPS El Salvador.

"Ocean" E-MAIL Campaign #1 to CSC Director Don Neufeld

[kashmir]

I will follow it up to call her Washington DC office this week.
-kashmir

January 12, 2004

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
205 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515-0514
Fax: (202) 225-8890

RE: CSC Director Donald Nuefeld's response

Dear Congresswoman Anna Eshoo;

Thank you for having contacted CSC Director Mr. Donald Neufeld about the unreasonable delay of the EB I-485 applications and for forwarding me his response. I am very pleased to know that you got his reposnse and to see it even though I cannot feel his sincerity at all in his explanation and plan.

Frankly speaking, I am really disappointed at his plan to reduce the processing time for EB AOS applications. Nobody believes that he can achieve his goal by 9/30/2004 because:

1. EB I-485 is always set low priority, even lower than TPS El Salvador.
2. His excuse about 3/9/2004 deadline for TPS El Salvador is almost the same as a year ago, and EB I-485 process has never been resumed even after 3/9/2003, then another excuse about 9/30/2003 Religious Worker sunset appeared.
3. He doesn't show any specific numbers:
   o how many officers will be allocated beginning April 2004
   - He should show specific number such as 30 or 100 instead of significantly increase resource
   o how many cases will be adjudicated per month
   - specific numbers such as 6,000 in April, 8,000 in May, 10,000 in June, etc.
4. GAO report says the USCIS doesn't have enough money.
   GAO-04-309R : Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees Are Not Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Operations
5. The CSC has been wasting its resource to issue unnecessary RFEs.

Could you please discuss the above items with him ?

Best regards,
(my signature)
(my name)
(my addres)

Attachment:
1) Your letter - 1/9/2004
2) Donald Neufeld's letter to you - 12/22/2003

[kashmir]

I wrote a letter to Eduardo Aguirre, Jr. in August 2003 to ask the CSC to expedite my family's cases,
but I received the following letter in December 2003.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
HQCIS 70/48.20C

DEC 12 2003

Mr. (my name)
(my address)

Dear Mr. (my last name);

This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated August 12, 2003, to Mr. Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., concerning the four employment-based I-485 applications for adjustment of status that you filed on Febuary 15. 2002. The receipt number for thoese applications are WAC02124*****; WAC02124*****; WAC02124***** and WAC02124*****.

In your letter to Director Neufeld, you requested that the adjudication of your applications be expedited for family reasons. Those reasons included, among other things, the fact that your daughter could not obtain a student loan because she was not a lawful permanent resident.

Mr. (my last name), you and your family may remain in the United States during the pendency of your requests for permanent resident status. Currently, the California Service Center is adjudicating employment-based applications which were filed on December 16, 2001. Nothing can be done, in the interest of fairness to thoese who applied before you did, to expedite the adjudication of your applications.

I trust that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
(Dana Rollocks' signature)
Dana E. Rollocks
Supervisor, Customer Liaison Team
Customer Assistance Office


I sent a letter to Dana Rollocks by USPS Certified Mail yesterday.

ImmigrationPortal.Com
5225 N. Wilson Blvd. Arlington VA 22205
Phone: (703) 908-4800
United for Dignity, Equality and Acceptance

January 26, 2004

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
Attn: Dana E. Rollbacks
Supervisor, Customer Liaison Team
Customer Assistance Office
425 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

RE: USCIS' Backlog Elimination Plan and Lawsuit

Dear Dana Rollocks;

You wrote to me on December 12, 2003:
Currently, the California Service Center is adjudicating employment-based applications which were filed on December 16, 2001. Nothing can be done, in the interest of fairness to those who applied before you did, to expedite the adjudication of your applications.
OK, I respect fairness, so I will forget about expediting the adjudication of our applications.

However, it clearly means that the USCIS admitted the CSC had 24 months of backlog for EB I-485. This fact is illegal because it is against Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000. On December 22, 2003, we have filed a lawsuit against USCIS including Mr. Eduardo Aguirre, Jr. and Mr. Donald Neufeld. A copy of the Complaint is attached.

Please send me the USCIS' backlog elimination plan by March 9, 2004.

Sincerely,
(my signature)
(my name)
(my address)
WAC-02-124-***** (EB I-485)
pending for almost two years since February 2002

Attachments:
1) Your Letter - 12/12/2003
2) Complaint (26 pages) http://boards.immigration.com/attach...&postid=651497

[kashmir]

Originally posted by kashmir at srohit's thread
...
I have not heard anything from Mr. Tim Haugh, Acting Director of Congressinal Relations since I received a letter from Barbara Boxer on 11/13/2003.
I will follow it up next week, mentioning "Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000".

I sent a letter to Barbara Boxer by USPS Certified Mail yesterday.

ImmigrationPortal.Com
5225 N. Wilson Blvd. Arlington VA 22205
Phone: (703) 908-4800
United for Dignity, Equality and Acceptance

January 26, 2004

United States Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0505
Phone: (202) 224-3553
Fax: (202) 228-0426

RE: 1) Tim Haugh, Acting Director of Congressional Relations
2) Lawsuit Complaint

Dear Senator Boxer;

I have not heard anything from Mr. Tim Haugh, Acting Director of Congressional Relations for more than two months. Could you please follow up with him ?

Also, the I-485 backlog at California Service Center (CSC) had already reached 25 months. Unbelievably, now it is over two years !! This fact implys the USCIS has illeagally delayed the I-485 adjudication process because it is against Immigration Services and Infrastructure improvement Act of 2000. On December 22, 2003, we have filed a lawsuit against USCIS challenging the delays in processing of some applications for employment based immigrants. A copy of the Complaint is attached.

Could you please ask the USCIS about the backlog elimination plan, especially of CSC ?

Sincerely,
(my signature)
(my name)
(my address)
(my contact information)
WAC-02-124-***** (EB I-485)
pending for almost two years since February 2002

Attachments:
1) Senator's Letter - 11/13/2003
2) Complaint (26 pages) http://boards.immigration.com/attach...&postid=651497

[kashmir]

Originally posted by kashmir
...
I am planning an e-mail campaign at first rather than fax
so that a lot of people can participate.

The first target is CSC Director Don Neufeld
to make sure that he will significantly increase resource allocations to I-485 adjudications
after 3/9/2004 deadline for TPS El Salvador.

"Ocean" E-MAIL Campaign #1 to CSC Director Don Neufeld

Almost 30 members have sent e-mail to CSC Director Neufeld so far,
however no one has received a reply from him as usual.

I'd like to start the second e-mail campaign to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (or your representative)
so that we can get a response from Don Neufeld with more specific and achievable plan for I-485 backlog reduction.

"Ocean" E-MAIL Campaign #2 to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo or your representative

[kashmir]

If the CSC would fail to allocate resource to I-485 adjudication in March 2004,
I believe we will have no chance for next several months by the end of this fiscal year.
Also, it takes a month or more that E-MAIL campaigns will be bearing.
I think a next few weeks are very important for us to take actions.

Of course, I am not the only person to propose such a campaign,
so please be creative to introduce new campaign for the forum.
I am pleased to join them.

[kashmir]

(Originally posted by pathapati)

Couple of months ago, after we met Pete stark staff in Newark town hall meeting about green card process delays.

Next time when I visited Pete's office in Fremont, I was told that Pete doesn't want take up Issue with INS on behalf of Immigration.com forum.
She asked me, am I living in Fremont then we can enquire with INS only on your case.

Then I tried to explain them about our meeting with staff in Newark town hall. She got little frustrated and told me that they can enquire about people living in Fremont not other district people.

...

(Originally posted by kash777)

I just visited yesterday Pete's office and somewhat understood that they are reluctant to talk on immigrationportal issues .( May be court matter . I am not sure at all). Lady was totaly calm on this general petition. However I also noted that her earlier enthisiasam was also reduced to follw up on my case. ... If I hear anything in next week I will let you know.

[kashmir]

Almost four months ago, I posted the following message as the first one of this thread to start Project Ocean.

Originally posted by kashmir 4th October 2003 07:35 AM

A Guide to Naturalization (M-476)

Let's become a U.S. Citizen by 2008 and vote at 2008 Election !!

But, we have to solve the following problem.

General Naturalization Requirements
...
Residence and Physical Presence
An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:

• has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (see preceding section);
• has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with no single absence from the United States of more than one year;
• has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year shall disrupt the applicant's continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period)
• has resided within a state or district for at least three months

We have to wait for another five years after we get AOS approved.
However, we have(had) been already waiting only AOS approval for a long time due to EB I485 processing delay at the USCIS service centers.
It is extremely unfair to us.

So, INA(Immigration and Nationality Act) Sec. 316 must be amended.

Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427]

(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

It is still the final goal of Project Ocean to get U.S. Citizenship by 2008,
though we have been shifting our focus to the EB I-485 backlog reduction especially at the CSC.

Recently, I become interested in amendment of INA: ACT 245 (b) rather than 316 (a)
because it is simpler and stronger.
Here is INA: ACT 245.

INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE

Sec. 245. [8 U.S.C. 1255]

(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if

(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,

(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and

(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.

(b) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 202 and 203 within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.

The bold part at (b) should be amended to:
the application for the adjustment of status is filed.

If one's permanent residence starts on the day one filed AOS application,
Naturalization Requirement doesn't need to be changed at all.

But it may cause some legal trouble
because it affects the past on AOS approval.

Any comment or suggestion ?

[kashmir]

USCIS Prioritizes Backlog Reduction in FY2005 Budget

Washington, D.C.- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today requested $1.711 billion in the FY2005 budget, including a 60% increase in funding dedicated to the reduction of the immigration benefits backlog. The FY2005 budget requests $140 million in discretionary funding and $1.57 billon in mandatory funding, or fee revenues for legal immigration benefits. Read more, including fact sheet.


USCIS Proposes Fee Adjustment to Enhance Service

Washington, D.C, February 3, 2004 -- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced in the Federal Register a proposed adjustment to the fee structure for immigration benefits. The revised fees would add an average of $55 to the current cost of immigration applications, and increase the biometrics fee by $20 for certain applications. Read more, including fee history.

[cinta]

Originally posted by kashmir
Almost four months ago, I posted the following message as the first one of this thread to start Project Ocean. It is still the final goal of Project Ocean to get U.S. Citizenship by 2008,
though we have been shifting our focus to the EB I-485 backlog reduction especially at the CSC.

Recently, I become interested in amendment of INA: ACT 245 (b) rather than 316 (a)
because it is simpler and stronger.
Here is INA: ACT 245. The bold part at (b) should be amended to:
the application for the adjustment of status is filed.

If one's permanent residence starts on the day one filed AOS application,
Naturalization Requirement doesn't need to be changed at all.

But it may cause some legal trouble
because it affects the past on AOS approval.

Any comment or suggestion ?

kashmir,

It should be the date the LC is filed. In this way all the LC, the I-140 and I-485 backlogs/delays are all taken into account.
On a similar note, recent immigration proposals wrt the legalisation of the illegals propose a 3 year tax generating years of which at least one is after the enactment of any future act.

[kashmir]

Originally posted by cinta
kashmir,
It should be the date the LC is filed. In this way all the LC, the I-140 and I-485 backlogs/delays are all taken into account.
On a similar note, recent immigration proposals wrt the legalisation of the illegals propose a 3 year tax generating years of which at least one is after the enactment of any future act.

Ideally, I agree with cinta, but I'd like to pursur amendment of INA ACT 245(b) or 316(a) because:
1) LC is handled by not USCIS but DOL.
2) We can file I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
3) Using I-485 filing date makes amendment of INA simple.
(Considering LC and I-140 complicates amendment.)

Also, for my personal reasons:
4) My category is EB-1, so I am not familier with LC and LC doesn't matter to me.
5) I-485 filing date is enough for me.

I'd like to keep amendment of INA as simple as possible
to let a Congressperson introduce a bill.
I have no time to handle complex amendment or to draft a long bill.
However, if somebody takes the initiative, that's fine,
but most of people seem to be busy to think about one's own I-485 approval.
-kashmir

[kashmir]

SEC. 101. DATE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) Section 245(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(b)) is amended by striking "the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made" and inserting "the application for the adjustment of status is filed".

SEC. 102. FIVE-YEAR RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR NATURALIZATION
(a) Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the application for the adjustment of status is filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".

[solarise]

Here's an article of interest printed on 2/4/2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG984OI9I1.DTL

Basically, the USCIS proposes to hike up the fees to improve customer service and security measures. This proposal is open to public comments:

Comments can be sent by e-mail to rfs.regs@dhs.gov, or mailed to: Regulations and Forms Services Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dept. of Homeland Security, 425 I St. NW, Room 4034, Washington, DC 20536.

Please read through the article, and give the USCIS a piece of your mind. We can be heard!

[gcpend]

A very good press report from AILA pointing out the current situation in USCIS

http://www.aila.org/contentviewer.as...9,594,623,4576