Ganesh Ranganathan
Member
Here is the info. from immigration-law.
Looks like BCIS is thinking correctly on the first point (Finger printing one). On the second one from the way how things are looking they should probably have an EAD valid for 3 years
.
They are totally off in centralizing the phone inquiry system though.
05/10/2003: Some Thoughts on BCIS Management Improvements for Reduction of Workloads and Backlogs
· The defunct INS and the current BCIS have been working hard to improve efficiency and effectiveness of its management of petitions/applications processing, including electronization and centralization of processing or adjudications. As we noted earlier, these reengineerings would without doubt contribute to achievement of reduction of processing times as well as fairness in the proceedings by eliminating discrepancy in local practices and potential room for the arbitrary handling of cases as influenced by the influence peddlers rather than strictly adhering to the "legal standards and procedures" in every case. The benefits of electronization and centralization are exactly twofolds, particularly the latter one that eliminates any room for arbitrary decision as affected by personal relationship of the adjudicators with the filers. The same sets of facts will be decided with the same outcome, no matter who and where the cases were filed.
· There are, however, some additional improvements the BCIS may want to consider in connection with the recent experience of delays in the processing times. Of course, these suggestions will become moot, if the President Bush's commitment to reduction of processing times to 6 months in the near future. Otherwise, the following options may further improve the BCIS caseloads:
o Fingerprint Scheduling: Recent decision of the California Service Center not to schedule fingerprinting for the first 9 months of filing of EB-485 is one good example of improvement. Since fingerprint is valid only for 15 months and large number of cases take longer than 15 months as affected by the agency restructuring and security checks, the agency will have to go through refingerprinting scheduling and resecurity-clearance processes, adding tremendous additional workloads, if the fingerpring is scheduled early on.
o EAD and Advance Parole Valid Dates: INS was initially scheduled to adopt 2-year EAD for EB-485 filers within this fiscal year which has not materialized for whatever reasons. However, again considering the current processing times delays, the BCIS may want to think about another options. Currently, the BCIS issues EAD and Advance Parole valid from the date of approval. The same is true with the extension/renewal of these documents. Since I-485 takes longer than 12 months and people initially file EAD/AP at the time of initial I-485 filing, most of these applicants are forced to apply for extension/renewal of these ancillary applications. Unfortunately, the processing times of EAD and Advance Parole are extremely unpredictable and people are forced to file such extension/renewal applications several months in advance of expiration of the current EAD and Advance Parole. Fortunately or unfortunately, some of these applications are approved sooner than the expected processing times and the newly issued EAD and AP are issued a way before the date of expiration of the current EAD/AP. What this means is that the extended/renewed EAD/AP will again expire sooner than 2 years from the date of filing, forcing some people to apply for another EAD/AP second time before I-485 is finally adjudicated. If the EAD/AP extension/renewal is issued with the valid date of expiration of the current EAD/AP, the BCIS will be able to eliminate the unnecessary workloads that flow from the current practice.
o Response to Telephone Inquiries: Centralization of telephone inquiry system beginning from June 1, 2003 apparently entails a bifurcated concept in that NCSC may not be able provide answers in most individual cases and eventually each Service Center will have to send a written response to the inquiries. It is submitted that it will add tremendous workloads rather than reduce workloads. Preparating responses in writing will require a tremendous amount of man/hour including processing of mails and preparing and recording the answers. Let's assume that the BCIS NCSC will get the same number of phone inquiries as the number the four Service Centers receive. The new system will add the man/hour required for "written" responses by each Service Center "completely unnessarily." From the point of view of efficiency and effectiveness, it does not make any sense at all. Unless the NCSC is prepared to get a full access to the four Service Center records and fully informed of the processing situation in each Service Center, probably the launch of centralization of telephone inquiry system is "premature" at least at this point of time. It will serve no "public interest" in that it would rather bring inconvenience to its customers and at the same time aggravate its efficiency and effectiveness in the management. We strongly suggest that this change be pushed off at least until the electronic system is improved to allow NCSC access to the Service Centers and their records in full.
Looks like BCIS is thinking correctly on the first point (Finger printing one). On the second one from the way how things are looking they should probably have an EAD valid for 3 years
. They are totally off in centralizing the phone inquiry system though.
05/10/2003: Some Thoughts on BCIS Management Improvements for Reduction of Workloads and Backlogs
· The defunct INS and the current BCIS have been working hard to improve efficiency and effectiveness of its management of petitions/applications processing, including electronization and centralization of processing or adjudications. As we noted earlier, these reengineerings would without doubt contribute to achievement of reduction of processing times as well as fairness in the proceedings by eliminating discrepancy in local practices and potential room for the arbitrary handling of cases as influenced by the influence peddlers rather than strictly adhering to the "legal standards and procedures" in every case. The benefits of electronization and centralization are exactly twofolds, particularly the latter one that eliminates any room for arbitrary decision as affected by personal relationship of the adjudicators with the filers. The same sets of facts will be decided with the same outcome, no matter who and where the cases were filed.
· There are, however, some additional improvements the BCIS may want to consider in connection with the recent experience of delays in the processing times. Of course, these suggestions will become moot, if the President Bush's commitment to reduction of processing times to 6 months in the near future. Otherwise, the following options may further improve the BCIS caseloads:
o Fingerprint Scheduling: Recent decision of the California Service Center not to schedule fingerprinting for the first 9 months of filing of EB-485 is one good example of improvement. Since fingerprint is valid only for 15 months and large number of cases take longer than 15 months as affected by the agency restructuring and security checks, the agency will have to go through refingerprinting scheduling and resecurity-clearance processes, adding tremendous additional workloads, if the fingerpring is scheduled early on.
o EAD and Advance Parole Valid Dates: INS was initially scheduled to adopt 2-year EAD for EB-485 filers within this fiscal year which has not materialized for whatever reasons. However, again considering the current processing times delays, the BCIS may want to think about another options. Currently, the BCIS issues EAD and Advance Parole valid from the date of approval. The same is true with the extension/renewal of these documents. Since I-485 takes longer than 12 months and people initially file EAD/AP at the time of initial I-485 filing, most of these applicants are forced to apply for extension/renewal of these ancillary applications. Unfortunately, the processing times of EAD and Advance Parole are extremely unpredictable and people are forced to file such extension/renewal applications several months in advance of expiration of the current EAD and Advance Parole. Fortunately or unfortunately, some of these applications are approved sooner than the expected processing times and the newly issued EAD and AP are issued a way before the date of expiration of the current EAD/AP. What this means is that the extended/renewed EAD/AP will again expire sooner than 2 years from the date of filing, forcing some people to apply for another EAD/AP second time before I-485 is finally adjudicated. If the EAD/AP extension/renewal is issued with the valid date of expiration of the current EAD/AP, the BCIS will be able to eliminate the unnecessary workloads that flow from the current practice.
o Response to Telephone Inquiries: Centralization of telephone inquiry system beginning from June 1, 2003 apparently entails a bifurcated concept in that NCSC may not be able provide answers in most individual cases and eventually each Service Center will have to send a written response to the inquiries. It is submitted that it will add tremendous workloads rather than reduce workloads. Preparating responses in writing will require a tremendous amount of man/hour including processing of mails and preparing and recording the answers. Let's assume that the BCIS NCSC will get the same number of phone inquiries as the number the four Service Centers receive. The new system will add the man/hour required for "written" responses by each Service Center "completely unnessarily." From the point of view of efficiency and effectiveness, it does not make any sense at all. Unless the NCSC is prepared to get a full access to the four Service Center records and fully informed of the processing situation in each Service Center, probably the launch of centralization of telephone inquiry system is "premature" at least at this point of time. It will serve no "public interest" in that it would rather bring inconvenience to its customers and at the same time aggravate its efficiency and effectiveness in the management. We strongly suggest that this change be pushed off at least until the electronic system is improved to allow NCSC access to the Service Centers and their records in full.