Can We settle on These Bases?

Don't settle for anything "temporary" or less

am afraid the law suit is running off couse by emphasizing other issues like I-140, EAD, Ap, I485 portaibility. Doing so is weaking the case, not strengthening it, since some of the proposed change can only enacted by the law makers, not USCIS.

To stay on couse, we should go stright to the essense of the lawsuit, i.e., ourclaims that "USCIS discriminate against EB-485 applicants when it comes to immigration benefits application by
repeativelly allocating resource out of EB-485 processing,
and deliberately putting EB-485 on back burner. In short, INS denies EB- 485 applicant "due of process "granted by the statues the law.

Therefore, the immediate remedial measures should be, can only be some sort of "affirmative action" , i.e.,recovering the lost processing time on EB-485 by assigning signicant additional resource to EB-485 processing immidiately, and make sure that never happen again.

The settlement proposals did not mention anyting on EB-485 backlog reduction.

Also, the proposal 4 essentially is a "temporary green card" concept. I believe we should flight for the outright green card, not anything less. My concern on any sort of "temporary green card' is that it simply gives USCIS another excuse not to put an error on final Adjurisdication. Just think about current situation, isn't that USCIS used to justified that there is no urgency for I-485 processing because we can repeatively apply for EAD and AP?
 
Going back to number 4 where we will get a stamp on the passport after 6 months. We should also mention:

Since GC is for future employment, most people have to work for the petitioning employer for 6 months to a year after GC is approved. If we get the temp stamp on the passport after 6 months, then the minimum required time that the benefitiary has to work at the current employer has to start as soon as we get the stamp on the passport.
 
Originally posted by guju
Going back to number 4 where we will get a stamp on the passport after 6 months. We should also mention:

Since GC is for future employment, most people have to work for the petitioning employer for 6 months to a year after GC is approved. If we get the temp stamp on the passport after 6 months, then the minimum required time that the benefitiary has to work at the current employer has to start as soon as we get the stamp on the passport.
Click to expand...


Hey man, we have a good thing going. Don't screw it up.

Many people have been very genrously shown the door (a.k.a laid off) by their "future employer" and in many cases the "future employer" doesn't exist.
 
Hello Rajiv,

Once again thank you for taking up this cause. As with any negotiation, USCIS may think we are asking for too much but I think almost all of these clauses provide effective relief to us, even after allowing for some negotiation cutbacks. Here is my thinking on each of clauses.

1. Start premium processing of I-140’s;

YES!!. Time frame of implementation this should be reasonable. (USCIS should not walk away by agreeing to implement the Premium Processing Program in the next few years.)

2. All I-140’s pending over 180 days should be adjudicated immediately without premium processing fees;
YES.

3. Continue concurrent filing of I-140 and I-485;
Yes.

4. Once the I-485 has been pending for 180 days, the applicants should receive a conditional approval of the green card evidenced by a stamp on the passport valid for 5 years, subject to revocation only on security grounds;

Yes. But is this conditional approval contingent upon I 140 approvals or this clause has validly only if clauses 2 (and 3) are agreed upon?

5. USCIS should provide public reports on agency workloads and priorities;

Yes. I feel there should be quantitative guidelines (not just qualitative) for these reports.
USCIS can still publish some statistics that makes no sense to most of us. For example, the current processing times reported by TSC is Feb 2003 but there are approvals for cases even from Dec 2003 or later.

6. The phone system should be improved so meaningful information can be received;
Yes. But can we define this meaningful information?

7. We must be provided a method of getting binding, written opinions on AC21 and other regulatory issues on which no regulations are issued by USCIS within six months after enactment of a statute; and
Yes.

8. We should be assured a community contact point for addressing recurring grievances.
Maybe. Also the grievances need to be addressed by a transparent resolution process.
 
Rajeev,

When Edison(who is now approved), kashmir and other suggested the idea of lawsuit for the backlog in 485 processing -- their/our concept was the lawsuit for the backlog and not for interim GC and other points you have mentioned.

The idea was, as USCIS is moving the resources to other tasks we need a lawsuit to get their attention and push them hard to put the resources back in the 485 pool. Till now even the AC21 is not finalised by the USCIS after 2 years, what do you think how long will they take to finalize the interim GC (if accepted) may be 2 or 3 years, by that time we won't even need it because they are promising 6 month by the end of October 2006. What we need is an immediate relief for all of us......


My suggestion is one point for the USCIS.

1. Adjucate the cases of all the 485 (Employment based) pending for more then one year --- in the next 2 months, because in this economy it is difficult for us to maintain the same or similar job and it will also reduce the backlog for the new filers


(Even if they accepted the 8 points -- it will take them more than 2 years(as per our observation with AC21 regulation) to implement them -- by that time we won't even need it)

Thank you Rajeev for letting us speak on your 8 suggestions......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
quote:

___________________________________________________
Originally posted by Fighting

Don't settle for anything "temporary" or less
am afraid the law suit is running off couse by emphasizing other issues like I-140, EAD, Ap, I485 portaibility. Doing so is weaking the case, not strengthening it, since some of the proposed change can only enacted by the law makers, not USCIS.

To stay on couse, we should go stright to the essense of the lawsuit, i.e., ourclaims that "USCIS discriminate against EB-485 applicants when it comes to immigration benefits application by
repeativelly allocating resource out of EB-485 processing,
and deliberately putting EB-485 on back burner. In short, INS denies EB- 485 applicant "due of process "granted by the statues the law.

Therefore, the immediate remedial measures should be, can only be some sort of "affirmative action" , i.e.,recovering the lost processing time on EB-485 by assigning signicant additional resource to EB-485 processing immidiately, and make sure that never happen again.

The settlement proposals did not mention anyting on EB-485 backlog reduction.

Also, the proposal 4 essentially is a "temporary green card" concept. I believe we should flight for the outright green card, not anything less. My concern on any sort of "temporary green card' is that it simply gives USCIS another excuse not to put an error on final Adjurisdication. Just think about current situation, isn't that USCIS used to justified that there is no urgency for I-485 processing because we can repeatively apply for EAD and AP?

______________________________________________


You are right !!!! we certainly are running off course and not emphasizing on our main reason of lawsuit ----BACKLOG---
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by operations
Do not worry. We will watch them. I feel fairly comfortable that the govt. will not negotiate in bad faith.
Click to expand...


Hi Rajiv,

Thank you for all your effort !!

I had only one doubt :--
If the INS accepts "some" / "all" of the demands and then down the road some concerned "citizens" file a law suit claiming that INS crossed it powers (hence everything is NULL and VOID ).

So will these sugestions be blessed by the court ? What will be the formal scope of the agreement?

Regards.
 
Temporary vs. Permanent Green Card:
As far as I can see, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between the temporary green card that we are discussing in this forum and the permanent one that INS currently provides after adjudicating I485s.

1. You are eligible for citizenship with both.
2. You are free to change jobs, start a business, or sit at home (if your rear end pleases to do so).
3. You can travel freely.

In the worst case, people will go from temporary green card status to citizenship bypassing the permanent green card.

Those who may want to keep their original citizenship can keep on renewing their temporary green card every 2 to 5 years (on a walk in basis).

So, I am sure that you would agree, that for all earthly reasons there is no difference between temporary and permanent greeen card.

I don't see how Item 4 is weakening our case. At best it is weakening the status of permanent green card. And rightly so, since INS is taking its own sweet time to adjudicate 485 cases.

My personal opinion is that its going to take INS longer to fix its processes, hire people and train them to adjudicate real green cards. Until then your permanent green card will remain un-adjudicated.

Event if we win the lawsuite, INS may take 1 year or more to train, hire, and start to speed up processing of 485s. There will be lot of beauracratic inertia to overcome.

On the otherhand, I don't see any beauracratic intertia involved in case of temporary green card (which is pretty much the same as the permanent green card for all earthly reasons).

About affirmative action on green cards: Just becuase INS settles on affirmative action for green card now, doesn't mean they will continue to do so in future also. However, it is quite reasonable to expect that temporary green card will continue to be available in future thereby benifiting all current and future applicants.

A temporary card is more concrete than an abstract "affirmative action"

Originally posted by shsa
Don't settle for anything "temporary" or less
am afraid the law suit is running off couse by emphasizing other issues like I-140, EAD, Ap, I485 portaibility. Doing so is weaking the case, not strengthening it, since some of the proposed change can only enacted by the law makers, not USCIS.

To stay on couse, we should go stright to the essense of the lawsuit, i.e., ourclaims that "USCIS discriminate against EB-485 applicants when it comes to immigration benefits application by
repeativelly allocating resource out of EB-485 processing,
and deliberately putting EB-485 on back burner. In short, INS denies EB- 485 applicant "due of process "granted by the statues the law.

Therefore, the immediate remedial measures should be, can only be some sort of "affirmative action" , i.e.,recovering the lost processing time on EB-485 by assigning signicant additional resource to EB-485 processing immidiately, and make sure that never happen again.

The settlement proposals did not mention anyting on EB-485 backlog reduction.

Also, the proposal 4 essentially is a "temporary green card" concept. I believe we should flight for the outright green card, not anything less. My concern on any sort of "temporary green card' is that it simply gives USCIS another excuse not to put an error on final Adjurisdication. Just think about current situation, isn't that USCIS used to justified that there is no urgency for I-485 processing because we can repeatively apply for EAD and AP?

______________________________________________


You are right !!!! we certainly are running off course and not emphasizing on our main reason of lawsuit ----BACKLOG---
Click to expand...
 
Original quest

Originally posted by shsa


Also, the proposal 4 essentially is a "temporary green card" concept. I believe we should flight for the outright green card, not anything less. My concern on any sort of "temporary green card' is that it simply gives USCIS another excuse not to put an error on final Adjurisdication. Just think about current situation, isn't that USCIS used to justified that there is no urgency for I-485 processing because we can repeatively apply for EAD and AP?
Click to expand...

The problem I see with sticking to the "real" GC or asking for a temporary card instead of the stamp is that it cannot happen in the next 6 months, and most of us need relief IMMEDIATELY, not next year.
With the emphasis from the gov on the security, there is no way they will speed up the "real" GC, always saying they will not compromise the background checks.
So to me the stamp would be a solution that could be implemented more easily and immediately, since they already provide one today, and it can be done the same day the person goes to the local office, without additional forms or paperwork. Of course if that gets approved, the local offices will get several thousands persons a day for the first few months !
As someone pointed out, we could present it as a temporary relief solution until the I-485 is processed in 6 months or less.
 
The question for the transit visa in Switzerland is a good one, but I'd rather have the temporary stamp and ask for a visa if I ever need it, than keep waiting for the GC forever. Anyhow, if you get approved tomorrow and get the existing stamp, you have the same problem, so I think we shouldn't change our #4 proposal based on this.

As for the question of the current obligation to stay with the same employer for 6 months after the GC approval, we need to address it. IMHO, the idea of the law was to prevent abuses from people getting their GC without real intent to stay with that employer. In our case, since we have already suffered many years stuck with the same employers, it doesn't make much sense anymore (maybe it will make sense again if they ever get to process an I-485 in 6 months). Not sure it would be legal to ask for the removal of that condition though. If USCIS insists on that, we could say 6 months to have interim stamp + 6 months after = 1 year with the same employer since filing I-485. For most of us, this is already in the past !
 
Re: Original quest

Originally posted by lbonneau
The problem I see with sticking to the "real" GC or asking for a temporary card instead of the stamp is that it cannot happen in the next 6 months, and most of us need relief IMMEDIATELY, not next year.
With the emphasis from the gov on the security, there is no way they will speed up the "real" GC, always saying they will not compromise the background checks.
So to me the stamp would be a solution that could be implemented more easily and immediately, since they already provide one today, and it can be done the same day the person goes to the local office, without additional forms or paperwork. Of course if that gets approved, the local offices will get several thousands persons a day for the first few months !
As someone pointed out, we could present it as a temporary relief solution until the I-485 is processed in 6 months or less.
Click to expand...

I think we are overestimating the power of USCIS!!!

Can USCIS settle on 8 points without congress ? No
Can court direct them to accept those point -- May be after a year of proceedings and ruling in our favour..
Will they implement it -- as soon as the judment is over? No
How long will it take them to finally give interimn GC? May be after 3 to 6 months.

we'ill finally at the door step of October 2006 --- six month processing time.

Now tell me what do you want interim GC or the permanent GC
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am saying the same thing

This issue, portability after temporal GC, is perfectly tied to the lawsuit. I am sure some of us has plan to change jobs. If you filed 485 in a year or so, you can do it now without a problem (assuming you fit in with AC21), since you have at least a year to go. If we do get the temporal GC in 6 months, this immediately become a problem! At least we need to know for sure to plan our career.

Originally posted by PhillyJulyLC
That is exactly what I was talking about. This issue doesn't seem to fit in this litigation, which is about I-485 processing delay. Who else got confused? LOL...
Click to expand...
 
Suggestion....

Dear Rajiv-

Thank you first of all for an outstanding job!! This service that u are doing will not be easily forgotten..... u are the antithesis to the "hanging on quiet desperation is the Indian way.." attitude.

Here are some inputs frm my side, and I hope this doesnt come out as selfish or anything.....

I think the main thrust of the settlement shud be the I-485 processing because that is the REAL bottleneck. Once u fix the bottlenect, other issues will start to clear.
So, we shud be concentrating on point 4, which is the temporary stamping of the green card. I think we shud even be flexible to say that 180 days after the I-485 is filed, u are "portable", and then 180+90days=270 days after the filing, u can get ur passport stamped.
I am only saying this becoz they might be hesitant to stamp GC for a lot of folks without a "realistic" timeframe (in their mind at least) having been covered by the applicant.
Then we may want to seek clear guidelines on AC21 and other issues......

I hope this input at least sparks some other ideas in others reading this.....

Thanks,
GC_KNR
 
#4

I will be a happy camper if they even just accept #4.

However I dont think we should get to carried away and still focus on the law suit. I just find it hard to beleive that they will accept these terms or for that matter any meaningful terms that will provide us any real relief.

From my experience dealing with this bureaucracy I dont think these are very reasonable people.

Thanks Rajiv for all your effort though !!


> 4. Once the I-485 has been pending for 180 days, the > applicants should receive a conditional approval of the green card evidenced by a stamp on the passport valid for 5 years, subject to revocation only on security grounds;
 
Re: Suggestion....

Originally posted by GC_KNR
Dear Rajiv-

Thank you first of all for an outstanding job!! This service that u are doing will not be easily forgotten..... u are the antithesis to the "hanging on quiet desperation is the Indian way.." attitude.

Here are some inputs frm my side, and I hope this doesnt come out as selfish or anything.....

I think the main thrust of the settlement shud be the I-485 processing because that is the REAL bottleneck. Once u fix the bottlenect, other issues will start to clear.
So, we shud be concentrating on point 4, which is the temporary stamping of the green card. I think we shud even be flexible to say that 180 days after the I-485 is filed, u are "portable", and then 180+90days=270 days after the filing, u can get ur passport stamped.
I am only saying this becoz they might be hesitant to stamp GC for a lot of folks without a "realistic" timeframe (in their mind at least) having been covered by the applicant.
Then we may want to seek clear guidelines on AC21 and other issues......

I hope this input at least sparks some other ideas in others reading this.....

Thanks,
GC_KNR
Click to expand...


If they can give what we are asking, the bottlenecks are no longer a problem. They can address them in their own sweet time. I think, this is the best possible compromise. If we can get this, I would want all of us to get together in Arlington, VA for a big party. Your treat. :)
 
Re: Re: Original quest

Originally posted by shsa
I think we are overestimating the power of USCIS!!!

Can USCIS settle on 8 points without congress ? No
Can court direct them to accept those point -- May be after a year of proceedings and ruling in our favour..
Will they implement it -- as soon as the judment is over? No
How long will it take them to finally give interimn GC? May be after 3 to 6 months.

we'ill finally at the door step of October 2006 --- six month processing time.

Now tell me what do you want interim GC or the permanent GC
Click to expand...

Correct!

On top of that, there are appeals. They can take years.
 
Originally posted by lbonneau
The question for the transit visa in Switzerland is a good one, but I'd rather have the temporary stamp and ask for a visa if I ever need it, than keep waiting for the GC forever. Anyhow, if you get approved tomorrow and get the existing stamp, you have the same problem, so I think we shouldn't change our #4 proposal based on this.

As for the question of the current obligation to stay with the same employer for 6 months after the GC approval, we need to address it. IMHO, the idea of the law was to prevent abuses from people getting their GC without real intent to stay with that employer. In our case, since we have already suffered many years stuck with the same employers, it doesn't make much sense anymore (maybe it will make sense again if they ever get to process an I-485 in 6 months). Not sure it would be legal to ask for the removal of that condition though. If USCIS insists on that, we could say 6 months to have interim stamp + 6 months after = 1 year with the same employer since filing I-485. For most of us, this is already in the past !
Click to expand...


Hence the demand "4. With immediate effect , once the I-485 has been pending for 180 days , the applicants should receive a conditional approval of the green card - there being no further evidence of employment required "
 
I thought I had everthing clear!! but now I am getting confused with the posts of some members in regards point 4.

1) It is clear AC21 is "good" except for the restriction of same/similar job.
2) Under current procedures, once I485 is approved, the applicant must provide documentation proving offer for permantent posicion.
Now if we get point #4 approved, most of us should automatically get I485 approved without the need to prove the offer for permanent posicion, in other words, AC21's same/similar occupation shouldn't have to be an issue.


correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Originally posted by eb2_I485_RD0901
Hi Rajiv,

Thank you for all your effort !!

I had only one doubt :--
If the INS accepts "some" / "all" of the demands and then down the road some concerned "citizens" file a law suit claiming that INS crossed it powers (hence everything is NULL and VOID ).

So will these sugestions be blessed by the court ? What will be the formal scope of the agreement?

Regards.
Click to expand...

That is always a possibility. I will insist that the setllement be reviewed and blessed by court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top