backlog delay sued BCIS and got approved case thru marriage, good example

Let's do it

Agreed - besides immigration is not quite a civil right (except in south florida).

I doubt that any other lawyer except Shustermann will even bother to talk to us, since (they will think) this might bring BCIS's wrath on the lawfirm.

How about spreading the info about "Writ of Mandamus" to other immigration sites to garner support first (and later raise money) ? I think a law firm is more likely to take this seriously if we already have a list of signatures.
 
Shustermann will be charging $350 for an initial consultation(30 min), that can be used as a retainer if we decide to go with him.
We need some money initially to even start looking at these options.
We definitely need more support(in terms of numbers) from folks and we should seriously consider other forums like isn.org etc. who have undertaken similar efforts in the past.
 
It can be a class action, can't it ?

It isn't clear for me whether not only an individual but also a group can file "Writ of Mandamus" or not.
 
The group of applicants can ask for "writ of mandamus" that would require the USCIS to assess the applications in accordance with the time period specified initially (365 to 540 days).
 
Where is Shustermann located?

$350 is worth spending if he is willing to take our case. Edison asked for Rajiv's opinion on class action this morning. Let's see what Rajiv says.

Meanwhile we should aggressively pursue further activities.

Originally posted by sai_2367
Shustermann will be charging $350 for an initial consultation(30 min), that can be used as a retainer if we decide to go with him.
We need some money initially to even start looking at these options.
We definitely need more support(in terms of numbers) from folks and we should seriously consider other forums like isn.org etc. who have undertaken similar efforts in the past.
Click to expand...
 
He is located in CA, but he is authorized to practice before the Federal District Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States. Our jurisdiction would lie in a federal court since we have applicants from several states.

http://www.shusterman.com/
 
The backlog situation is not going to improve next year either.

The AILA update from Washington that is in immigration-law.com second page (DHS budget signed into law) says that the funding situation remains the same for USCIS and so they don’t expect the backlogs to go away. So looks like we have to defend ourselves. The lawsuit is the way to go.
 
As our RD for I485 says 999 says to process this type cases, I think there is no basis to sue BCIS using Writ of Ma..... till our case takes beyond this period. ( i.e. 999 days).

If anyone's case is pending for over 999 days then they qualify. This is what I interpret.











Note : I am not lawyer
 
gcworthy

There must be a reasonable interpretation of "normal" process time. President promised 6 months. AC21 uses 6 months as a cutoff.

According to your logic, we'll never have a basis to sue. We should not even complain. BCIS can change the "projected" time to 1500 days. If they cannot reduce the backlogs, they can change to 2000, 2500, 3000 ... days. Do you think that' acceptable?

Wake up! Yes, it says 999 days on your RD notice. It does NOT mean 999 days is "normal"!

For example, you put you car in a garage for service. When asking the time to pick up the car you are told it's "not a Monday, not a Tuesdays, not a Wednesdays, not a Thursday, not a Friday, not a Saturday, not even a Sunday." Should you wait until the day you can go?

Originally posted by gcworthy
As our RD for I485 says 999 says to process this type cases, I think there is no basis to sue BCIS using Writ of Ma..... till our case takes beyond this period. ( i.e. 999 days).

If anyone's case is pending for over 999 days then they qualify. This is what I interpret.

Note : I am not lawyer
Click to expand...
 
YJay, change your service station.
If my service station says it will take 2-3 hours, then it does. If they discover something that could cause a delay, they call me to explain the situation.

I guess, the 'normal time' should be the one stated on the RD. It's like a contract where they agree to process your I-485 in the number of days stated. If down the road, there are changes in policy or priority, they should send us a letter notifying the delay.
The least they can do is post a public announcement on their web site.
 
Originally posted by GC012002
YJay, change your service station.
If my service station says it will take 2-3 hours, then it does. If they discover something that could cause a delay, they call me to explain the situation.

I guess, the 'normal time' should be the one stated on the RD. It's like a contract where they agree to process your I-485 in the number of days stated. If down the road, there are changes in policy or priority, they should send us a letter notifying the delay.
The least they can do is post a public announcement on their web site.
Click to expand...


Normal processing time is 180 days as per law. Congress passed the bill and President signed that bill. So USCIS has to abide that law. Also USCIS has to submit backlog reduction reports to congress in timely manner. But I don't think they are submitting any report to congress and also they didn't reduce the backlog. Since USCIS didn't abide by that law, it is time to approach the judicial branch to take proper action against USCIS.


According to the Immigration Service and Infrastruture Improvement Act of 2000, SEC. 203,
(1) Backlog.--The term ``backlog'' means, with respect to an immigration benefit application, the period of time in excess of 180 days that such application has been pending before the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Also, according to SEC.202. PURPOSES (b) POLICY,
It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application.
 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 18, 2000
Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. REID, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. DEWINE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary




As we see this bill was introduced and read twice. It was referred to the Judiciary committe. Where does it state that it is passed?

Edison can u point to statement that this bill is passed. based upon the above link this is debatable
 
I'm sure this bill was passed. It was included part of AC21 bill. If I find any GAO source, I'll post it.
 
Summary: Immigration Service and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000

I had originally posted at:
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=559263#post559263
Also, I had posted related information at that thread.


On 5/18/2000, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S.2586.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN02586:@@@L&summ2=m&

On 9/28/2000, S.2586 was incorporated into S.2045.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN02045:@@@L&summ2=m&

On 10/17/2000, S.2045 became the Public Law No. 106-313.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106d9qxKo

It consists of two titles.
* Title I: American Competitiveness in the Twenty- First Century
* Title II: Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements

Title I is known as AC21, and the BCIS released the memorundum on 8/4/2003.
http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't quite understand the question. Isn't this a law. Did this bill not become a law.

Originally posted by Dadagiri
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 18, 2000
Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. REID, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. DEWINE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary




As we see this bill was introduced and read twice. It was referred to the Judiciary committe. Where does it state that it is passed?

Edison can u point to statement that this bill is passed. based upon the above link this is debatable
Click to expand...
 
Link that proves that this was a law

http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases01/ins_backlog_report.html

It says the following:-

Congress was clear when it enacted this law: the agency’s report should be issued in a manner sufficient for legislators to make informed decisions during the appropriations process. The Department’s failure to provide the information could well jeopardize both appropriations and the services our constituents deserve.
 
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN02586:@@@L&summ2=m&

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.2586
Title: A bill to reduce the backlog in the processing of immigration benefit applications and to make improvements to infrastructure necessary for the effective provision of immigration services, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 5/18/2000) Cosponsors: 12
Latest Major Action: 5/18/2000 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Note: On September 28, 2000, the Senate incorporated the text of S. 2586 into S.Amdt. 4275 to S. 2045. S. 2045 became Public Law 106-313.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:S.2045:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN02045:@@@L&summ2=m&

Title II: Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements - Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 - Authorizes the Attorney General to take necessary steps to: (1) reduce the immigration backlog; and (2) make infrastructure improvements to effectively provide immigration services. Authorizes appropriations. Sets forth related reporting requirements.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN02045:@@@X
10/3/2000 7:13pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
10/3/2000:
Cleared for White House.
10/5/2000:
Presented to President.
10/17/2000:
Signed by President.
10/17/2000:
Became Public Law No: 106-313.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow the below mentioned link and click on "TEXT" next to S.2045 to view the below mentioned GPO page

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:S.2045:




SEC. 202. <<NOTE: 8 USC 1571.>> PURPOSES.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to--
(1) provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service with
the mechanisms it needs to eliminate the current backlog in the
processing of immigration benefit applications within 1 year
after enactment of this Act and to maintain the elimination of
the backlog in future years; and
(2) provide for regular congressional oversight of the
performance of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
eliminating the backlog and processing delays in immigration
benefits adjudications.

(b) Policy.--It <<NOTE: Applicability. Deadline.>> is the sense of
Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application
should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of
the application, except that a petition for a nonimmigrant visa under
section 214(c) of
[[Page 114 STAT. 1263]]

the Immigration and Nationality Act should be processed not later than
30 days after the filing of the petition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top