Asylees

B

Bobbie

Registered Users (C)
Dear Alanpero,

You mentioned recently that you have read "minutes of a meeting between AIL (American Immigration Lawyers Association) and INS held on March 31 that was posted in the Interned".

Can you direct me to the location on the web? I would to read it too.

Thanks.
 
No Title

"Asylee Adjustment Cut-Off Date and Litigation

The INS Asylum Office has advised AILA that the current cut-off date for adjustment of status processing for asylees is January 16, 1998. Under the current quota for asylum adjustments, applications to adjust from asylum status filed before that date should have been adjudicated by now, or should be in the process of being adjudicated. "

  Look at how INS spokesperson carefully used the words. "....should have been adjudicated by now, or should be in the process of being adjudicated."
Should = a word of uncertainty
in the process of being adjudicated = they will finger print you and give you an interview, but after that you have to wait (not knowing how much longer it will take to be called for passport stamping) until you are being called again.
 
No Title

Hi Jack, Should has four reported meanings:
1.- Used to express duty or obligation
2.- Used to express probability or expectation
3.- Used to express conditionality or contingency
4.- Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement
I believe the meaning of the officer\'s statement is closer to (1) and (2), there is not "if" in his statement. Also, to call it "cut-off date", would be meaningless if there is an uncertainty involved.
As for the procedure, we have to differentiate between applications filed before July 98 (at local INS offices) and after that month (at NSC). From asylees I know, that filed at local INS offices, they got their passports stamped in the interview after the FP. So, it was a surprise for me to know about your case.
For applications after July 98, not all applicants will be interviewed (I believe only 2% of them will be interviewed) and everything will be centralized in NSC, and each pending application will have a LIN number. Once NSC starts processing those applications, they will certainly know what applications will be adjudicated in a particular FY, and will not rely on info from adjudicating district offices. Everything is expected to work smoothly.
 
No Title

Hi Alanpero,

  Most asylees who filed their I-485s at local INS offices before 1998 will notice the difference in processing time due to regional variations. I was able to get in touch with 2 other friends from LA and NYC and they are also facing the same situation as I am. However, like I have mentioned before a friend who lives in Delaware got his GC in 4 years.
  To my understanding that is the basis on which AILF is suing the INS. AILF says the INS is "required to process asylee I-485s on first-come first serve basis under their own regulations. "
 
No Title

That\'s true Jack. As posted before I also know of asylees that filed after you at local offices, and already got their GC\'s. I filed at NSC, but from what I have seen, not all the local offices worked with the same efficiency. A typical case is that if for any reason the local office failed to allocate a visa number for a case that is "approvable", then that case had to wait until the following FY (at least one year lost for that mistake). I also understand that AILF is standing on this for that lawsuit, because the I-485\'s should be processed on first-come first serve basis as you said.
 
No Title

I am curious as to which INS regulation states that asylee I-485 cases should be processed on first-come first-server basis. This regulation is not posted at their web site.

 It sometimes tempts me to get invloved as a plaintiff in the AILF lawsuit (considering how badly my case was treated from day 1 of the application) , but I am concerned about the part that states "the INS may closely look at your case." As my jeweler friend would say " you will find flaws on even the finest diamonds if you put it under the microscope."
 
No Title

Alanpero,

 I am aslo tending to think that our city Houston must be the one of the worst in asylee I-485 processing times. Hence that is why Congresswoman from our congressional district is sponsoring this Bill.
 
No Title

I haven\'t seen or searched on that policy either, but must be somewhere. It also makes sense that, existing a huge backlog and being the number of applicants greater than the quota, applications should be processed on a first come-first serve basis, I mean to be fair to everybody.
After knowing from you, how the service was before, I started to understand those people intending to sue the INS; but on the other hand, totally understand your concern and agree with your firend. So, why not maybe suing after getting the GC?
 
No Title

Yeah, I\'m really interested in seeing that regulation. If indeed they promised first-come first-server processing for asylee I-485 applicants before 1998 then they are in violation of their own policies. But I\'m sure the INS lawyers will come up with smooth rhetorical excuses such as "in the process of being adjudicated.."

 By law the INS will not harass the plaintiffs for participating in the lawsuit. But "will look into your case more closely than the others" can be interpreted in many ways. And I\'m not entirely sure how far the AILF will go to protect the plaintiffs who are willing to get involved. Besides I don\'t think my employers will give me time off to participate in this lawsuit for full time.
 
No Title

Jack and Alanpero,

8 CR 209.2(a)(1)(I) states in part that "I the application for adjustment filed under this part exceeds the refugee numbers available under section 207(a) of the Act for the fiscal year, a waiting list will be established on a priority basis by the date the application was properly filed".

So this the ground for the possible legal action.
 
No Title

Good Gilbert, now I remember I had read that before, but I paid no attention nor related it to the lawsuit, since I am staying totally away of it. Thanks
 
No Title

Mr. Jackarchernew,

An asylee needs an available refugee number to adjust to LPR status. Go to the actual text of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Specifically section 209(b). It says that "Not more than 10,000 of the refugee admissions authorized under section 207(a) in any fiscal year may be made available by the Attorney General, in the Attorney General\'s discretion and under such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence the status of any alien granted asylum who*********".

The text I quoted yesterday comes from 8 CFR 209.2. The title for that sub part is "Adjustment of status of alien granted asylum".

Get it now?
 
No Title

Jackarchernew,

Can you read and follow some simple logic?

Refugees are selected by the INS outside the United States and are assisted by humanitarian organizations. Their initial admission
is subject to an annual quota. That quota is turn, is decided at the beginning of each fiscal year by the President of the United States
in consulation with Congress, the Department of Justice and the INS.

Once admitted, refugees must live in the US for one year before they apply for adjustment of status. Their adjustment is not subject to any quota. Indeed, their green card will be dated back to the date of original admission.

Asylum is granted to people who come to the United States on their own and who meet the refugee definition. There is no quota on asylum grant (with one limited exception that I am not getting into here).

At no point did I say that asylee status and refugee status are the same. All I am saying is that in determining the refugee quota, the President will also decide how many asylees can adjust status. By law, he can allocate no more than 10000. Whatever he allocates is counted toward the total number of refugees admitted to the US. If George W. Bush so desires, he can direct that no asylee will adjust in FY 2002 or that only 2000, 500 or whatever will adjust.

Asylees do NOT have refugee status in the United States. But in order to become permanent residents, they need a REFUGEE NUMBER AVAILABLE TO THEM. The number of refugee numbers available for this purpose is determined d by the President, as long as it does not exceeed 10000.

President Bush will release next year refugee quota in the coming weeks. In the decision, he will say that how many, if any, of the refugee numbers will be used for asylee adjustment. r
 
No Title

This is normaly done through Presidential Determinations. Last one was P. D. No 2000-32 "Presidential Determination on FY 2001 Refugee" released on September 29, 2000 and signed by President Clinton. It authorized the admission of up to 80000 refugees to the US during FY 2001. And the following paragraph is in the last page of the P.D.: "An additional 10000 refugee admissions numbers shall be made available during FY 2001 for the adjustment to permanent resident status under section 209(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1159 (b)) of aliens who have been granted asylum in the United States under section 208 of the Act (8 USC 1158), as this is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest"
So, hopefully by the end of September President Bush will authorize 10000 more admissions for FY 2002.
 
No Title

I also discovered that you answered to a question in another section of the discussion board without doing your homework first.
Here is a copy of your original message:
"boss,
When reviewing your application for green card, the immigration officer must determine that you are still a refugee. If you renewed your passport, she can make a case that you no longer meet the refugee definition and thus not eligible for adjustment. Moreover, the law permits REVOCATION OF ASYLEES STATUS when you no longer fear persecution. The officer can then send your file to the asylum office for revocation proceedings or if you case was approved by a judge, she will ask the INS trial attorney to file a reopen motion with the judge to cancel the asylum grant.

Believe me, it happen from time to time. I have been working in an immigration law office, I know what I am talking about.

Some people renewed their passports and got away with it, perhaps because the officer is human and she just does not want to make people\'s life more difficult than it already is.

But why take the chance? Why can you just use the darn RED? "
--------------------------------------------------

Mr."Gilbert",
Perhaps you did not do your homework properly before answering the question.

http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/lawbooks.nfo/query=[jump!3A!27oi209!27]/doc/{@47873}

INS Operations Instructions found at the above link clearly states that ...

"Factors which, taken together with improved country conditions, may indicate that the applicant no longer continues to be a refugee, include, but are not limited to:

(A) voluntary return to the country of alleged persecution;

(B) application for and/or receipt of a national passport, passport renewal, or entry permit issued by the country of alleged persecution, or other voluntarily re-acquisition of the nationality of that country;"

You say you work for an immigration law office? Yet you misspell RTD as RED and can\'t even get the basic facts right. Darn! you must have a very forgiving and understanding lawyer boss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment: Don\'t be a hypocrite unless you are a flawless person( which most of us are not).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top