212 (A) 3 (B) asylees/refugees potential lawsuit headcount

J

justnjust

Registered Users (C)
This thread is for asylees/refugees affected by 212 (A) 3 (B) material support bar to admission into the US , some of them has been waiting for more than 15 years to recieve a green card , non has been convicted of any terrorism charges , they were put on indefinite hold awaiting exercise of available exemptions . The asylees/refugees decided to challenge this injustice in the court of law despite knowing the risks of this move , they decided to challenge it for loved ones seperated thousands of miles away from their new home here in the US. please you will find in the attachement a form to fill and submit to the lawyer who is willing to take it along with others to the court of law . lets keep the hope a life in meeting a son/daughter a husband/a wife who were unjustufiably affected by implimentation of this law. Those who elected not to join please keep us in your prayers .
 
About time!

I really hope Napolitina gets tagged in this too. She doesn't deserve to be the head of USCIS. This is inhumane.
 
The responses or people coming forward has been a major disappointment. We should be supporting each other and taking on this unjust hold as a massive group.
 
The responses or people coming forward has been a major disappointment. We should be supporting each other and taking on this unjust hold as a massive group.

I agree with The.walker. I would want to assume that others have responded to Mr. Thomas without formally mentioning it here on this thread. If the reverse is true, then it's rather unfortunate. If you go back and read previous comments, you’ll fell the rage and disappointment from us towards lawmakers or the administration for not standing up on our behalf’s, now we all have an option to fight for our rights, but it looks like people don't want to participate. I guess some are just waiting/ wishing that others take the frontline. At the end of the day, that’s the way it works in real life.
 
If we have few who are die hard type of guys it will work for all , people are different some are upfront while others are at the back seat never the drivers , there are more than 230 views on this thread , 32 people who opened the the attachment I am assuming only 32-7 ( people on this thread) = 25 which probably include the the forum supervisor/s then we might be left with 20 . I am assuming 30% sent to the lawyer which will come up to 6 people in 2 days . many out there don't know the forum or have no idea about what we doing so lets spread it among them, I am sure there are people dying to do something but never got the chance to learn about us.
 
Justnjust, no point worrying about others.

Judging by the "views" and "replies" on the main thread, there are at least 100 "active" members who've been affected by this hold. If they don't have balls to do what's required, its their loss.
 
count me in
i did e-mail the lawyer the questionnaire..............
good luck everyone .. .................lets see with a class lawsuit action whats these guys gonna do ...
 
New users

Hi, I have the same problem as you, and I'm with you I will fill the questioner. I have recived this information in my email today, it's the last update from the uscis it's like 18 pages I can'e past the URLS becasue I'm new in the board, so zi will try to copy past.

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Recommendation Regarding the Processing of Waivers of Inadmissibility
WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
NEEDED TO ENHANCE THE CURRENT FILING PROCESS AND
MINIMIZE RELUCTANCE TO FILE
Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, DC 20528

June 10, 2010
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Recommendation Regarding the Processing of Waivers of Inadmissibility WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ENHANCE THE CURRENT FILING PROCESS AND MINIMIZE RELUCTANCE TO FILE Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman U.S. Department of Homeland Security Mail Stop 1225 Washington, DC 20528/CISOmbudsman Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Recommendation Regarding the Processing of Waivers of Inadmissibility WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ENHANCE THE CURRENT FILING PROCESS AND MINIMIZE RELUCTANCE TO FILE Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman U.S. Department of Homeland Security Mail Stop 1225 Washington, DC 20528 /CISOmbudsman[/url] June 10, 2010
Congress created the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman in part, to recommend ways to improve the administrative delivery of citizenship and immigration services. Today we do so with the goal of increasing transparency and uniformity in the Form I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility adjudication process.
Since the early days of immigration law in this nation, the United States has provided a form of relief to otherwise ineligible individuals seeking to immigrate to the United States. Today, individuals seeking to overcome inadmissibilities may do so by filing Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility.
The Ombudsman learned that challenges in the current waiver process oftentimes discourage applicants, many pro se, from applying. As well, immigration practitioners are often reluctant to advise their clients to enter into the waiver process.
The Ombudsman recognizes that USCIS has made improvements to this process, including the implementation of the I-601 Waiver Adjudication Program at the Ciudad Juarez Field Office (CDJ) in March 2007, which significantly improved caseload management. In addition, USCIS recently implemented a CIS Ombudsman proposal to issue more specific Requests for Evidence. USCIS also revised Form I-601 and developed a quality assurance pilot and a new standard operating procedures checklist to promote standardization in adjudications. Those steps already taken coupled with the recommendations here represent an opportunity to further improve the I-601 adjudication process both for applicants and those who administer this waiver of inadmissibility.
I thank my staff for their work in researching and developing this review. We welcome feedback on these recommendations and suggestions for future areas of focus. We can be reached at .
Thank you,
January Contreras
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS:

1. Centralize the I-601 adjudication process;

2. Allow applicants to concurrently file Form I-601 and Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative;

3. Prioritize the finalization of the USCIS overseas case management system (currently in development) in order to provide for accurate statistical reporting of Forms I-601, allowing for posted processing times, and enabling I-601 applications processed at CDJ to be tracked via the case status online feature on the USCIS website;

4. Publish clear filing instructions to guide customers in need of expedited Form I-601 processing;
5. Increase coordination between DOS consular officers and USCIS adjudicators at CDJ who work with Form I-601; and
6. Allow USCIS employees to request digitized Alien Files upon receipt of interview schedules, amending CDJ’s current office policy.
REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS


• Limited access to information for customers about processing times and case status frustrates applicants.

• There is no standard process for applicants in urgent situations who are seeking expedited processing.

• Discrepancies in interpretation of the extreme hardship standard lead to a lack of uniformity in decision-making.

• Predictability and transparency are critical to this process as many applicants perceive the waiver application process as high-risk because it involves departure from the United States, and waiver denial may result in a lengthy bar on re-entry.
 
June 10, 2010
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, provides independent analysis of problems encountered by individuals and employers interacting with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and proposes changes to mitigate those problems.
Introduction
The concept of providing a form of relief to otherwise inadmissible foreign nationals is a historic one that dates back to early U.S. immigration law. The Immigration Act of 1891, for example, provides for the exclusion of, among others, individuals likely to be a public charge, individuals carrying contagious diseases, and individuals convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.1
Relief for many violations involved payment of fines at ports-of-entry and/or evidence of recovery from disease. Although these policies addressed issues relevant to particular eras — labor shortages, spread of contagious diseases — they set the foundation for future adaptations both of grounds of inadmissibility and of forms of relief from them.
Executive Summary
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and staff (Ombudsman) examined the processing of waivers of inadmissibility, a form of relief available to certain foreign nationals ineligible to enter the United States or adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) while in the United States, if deemed to have violated section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).2 The INA provides a list of inadmissibility grounds that includes, but is not limited to, criminal, health, immigration, and security violations. Individuals seeking to overcome inadmissibilities may do so by filing Form I-601 (Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility), with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).3
The Ombudsman focused this assessment on the processing hub of today’s waiver of inadmissibility system, the USCIS Ciudad Juarez Field Office (CDJ). Co-located with the largest U.S. consulate in the world, CDJ has processed the majority of I-601s received by USCIS over the past few years. At its peak in FY 2008, CDJ received approximately 22,000 waiver applications, 86 percent of the total number of I-601s filed with USCIS abroad.4 During this time, the agency also accumulated a backlog that at one point amounted to nearly 10,000 cases from CDJ,5
leading to filing, processing, and adjudicatory challenges.
Although this study does not thoroughly review Form I-212 (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States after Deportation or Removal) or I-601s filed at locations other than CDJ, its findings warrant discussion
 
and recommendations affecting overall waiver processing. The Ombudsman will continue to closely monitor the processing of waivers at CDJ and USCIS efforts to improve the system.
Ombudsman Findings
The Ombudsman found that USCIS made significant improvements in caseload management through initiation of the I-601 Waiver Adjudication Program at CDJ in March 2007.6
This restructured program entails a triage-type process of all I-601s, leading to the approval of many clearly approvable applications within a matter of days, and referral for further review of those applications needing more research or investigation. Additionally, as discussed later, USCIS implemented agency-wide procedural innovations and quality assurance measures intended to improve adjudication rates, customer service, and overall efficiency.
Despite these advancements, the agency has not been able to overcome fully challenges affecting both USCIS and its customers in several operational and procedural areas, including:
• Disparity of Processing Times between On-Site Adjudicated and Referred Cases out of CDJ. Under the current structure, CDJ approves within a matter of days approximately 50 percent of waivers filed, while the other 50 percent are referred for additional review,7 which, at the time of writing this review, takes 10-12 months for full adjudication.8
• Limited Access to, and Standardization of, Information for Customers. Customers filing at CDJ cannot access processing times or the online My Case Status feature for their pending I-601s. Nor is there a standard practice for requesting expedited processing. Any given applicant under this system could, therefore, experience one of the fastest or slowest processing times of any USCIS application.
• Discrepancies in Interpretation of the “Extreme Hardship” Standard. Many applicants must demonstrate that refusal of admission to the United States would result in extreme hardship to qualifying family members. Both USCIS and stakeholders agree that these determinations often lack uniformity due to the discretionary nature of the cases and lack of guidance criteria to standardize decisions.
Additionally, the Ombudsman identifies the following factors related to waiver processing that must be considered when seeking solutions to the challenges noted above:
• High numbers of pro se (unrepresented by counsel) applicants who, for various reasons, experience procedural challenges in the waiver process.
• Ongoing absence of a modern case management system, as the agency continues developing its Transformation Initiative.
• Constraints on USCIS’ ability to sufficiently staff overseas offices without raising filing fees to cover the comparatively high cost of overseas staff versus domestic staff, and ensure their approval and placement, which is determined by the Department of State (DOS).9
• Uncertain future applicant flows due to legislative amendments and changing economic trends
 
Background
Methodology
For this review, the Ombudsman visited government facilities that manage and oversee various aspects of inadmissibility waiver processing at the USCIS Ciudad Juarez Field Office (CDJ), primarily CDJ itself and the International Adjudications Support Branch in Anaheim, California.
Additionally, the Ombudsman met with national and community-based organizations that file a high volume of waivers of inadmissibility. In August 2009, the Ombudsman held a public teleconference, entitled “I-601 Inadmissibility Waivers – How Are They Working For You?” in conjunction with the Community Call-In Teleconference Series.11 The Ombudsman also reviewed case problems and inquiries submitted by individuals.
11 _1171038701035.shtm (accessed June 3, 2010).
12 Individuals who are approved VAWA self-petitioners or T nonimmigrants seeking adjustment of status must file at the Vermont Service Center; individuals in the United States concurrently submitting Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) must file at the location specified on the Form I-485 instructions; individuals with a pending Form I-485 must file with the appropriate USCIS Lockbox facility; individuals in removal proceedings must file with the appropriate Executive Office for Immigration Review office; and, Temporary Protected Status applicants must file at the location specified in the published Federal Register notice for the appropriate country’s Temporary Protected Status designation. See generally USCIS, “Instructions for I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of (accessed June 3, 2010).
Legal and Procedural Framework
Section 212 of the INA identifies the various grounds of inadmissibility, including those that may not be waived (See Table A).
Table A - General Categories of Grounds of Inadmissibility
*Not all listed here may be waived


• Health (communicable disease, drug abuse, failure to obtain required vaccinations, physical / mental disorder, etc.)

• Criminal (convicted of, or admitting to, crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled substance, prostitution, trafficking, etc.)

• Immigration (misrepresentation of material facts in order to obtain an immigration benefit, reentry after deportation, student visa abuse, unlawful presence, etc.)

• Security (terrorist activity, membership in a totalitarian party, participation in persecution or torture, etc.)

• Miscellaneous (polygamy, likelihood of becoming a public charge, draft evasion, etc
 
refugee80, can you please send me the link via private messages.
 
refugee80 said:
It's alot I will try to post more.
Click to expand...
refugee80, all these information for Form I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility adjudication. which is not applied to us (212a3b holder, there is no waiver for terrorist related inadmissibility)... is your case is pending because of the 212..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top