Can We settle on These Bases?

Good point, but unfortunately 140 belongs to the employer, so (s)he can at some point be mad @ you and withdraw an application which means the basis for 485 is lost, and you get into no mans land. The only way is to make sure 140 is approved and consumed (I guess 485 will consume both 140 and LC, so the employer can no longer derail the GC process). Of course, you suggestion will also make sense if USCIS will agree to attach 140 to 485 at the end of 180 days and employer can no longer withdraw the application.

001
Originally posted by shsa
Thanks for the understanding, instead of making the 140 approval a point , we can include it in the interim GC point (like 140 cannot be revoked after the interim GC).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by shsa
He called me first !!!

We can file one more lawsuit if they remove the concurent filing.
Click to expand...

There is no basis of lawsuit(it was guideline not a law) unless it is attached with immigration visa delays - see we come back to same point. This is precissely the reason why it is included in the lawsuit(so that you are not disturbed by a mid night call on lawsuit.). :eek:
 
Your post was also referring on SECURITY CHECK!! and I was trying to say in my post that AC-21 rule was introduced related to security checks! got it??

P.S. Please come down on the ground from the top of 'any ped' you are sitting on and talk about real world!!


Originally posted by Jharkhandi
AC 21 came much before concurrent filing.

For RFEs - I am aware how long does it takes to respond. But isn't it due to the fact that companies are doing fraudulent practices (and innocents have suffered too.) and also the ecomony is a problem. See precisely for this reason - this lawsuit has to include 140, cause then INS is forced to take action on application in 180 days or else approve it - that is a better approach rather then innocent people waiting for infinite time. Also RFEs, if you feel is a tool of blackmailing(I do not think so.), has to be uprooted and this is right course.

I read you comment in entirety but do you understand your post? If you do please let us know how AC21 is related to anything in my post or concurrent filing?

I can also call you smartest guy around - but I don't feel like telling a lie and I have a folding 'chane ka ped'(Real Life High Tech). I climb when I feel like and get down when I am happy. No need to get me on any other 'chane ka ped'.

:D

lca_001 - no need to be so pessimistic - it will be done soon. And who knows you will be one who enjoys the fruits of this lawsuit to fullest! :)
Click to expand...
 
Re: Just Acad sake.

Well I guess I was being selfish thinking of just 140 and 485, If there are multiple basis for 485 then we should make sure all bases are covered against "backlash" backlogs in the preceeding application stages.

That may be too wide a settlement, and now I can see why some are afraid to expand the scope. But it does not mean I agree with them :rolleyes:

001
Originally posted by Jharkhandi
Sorry shsa - there are 10 different basis for non 245, 7 sections of law and 4 basis under 245 thru which you can apply 485 -140 is one of them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know AC-21 came before concurrent filing..but the RFE issue rate was also very low before...do you know why they issued memo on AC-21 on August 4,2003?..because after concurrent filing, USCIS falks were issuing more RFEs since they were confused with AC-21 rule for I-140 validity and I-485 processing and they are still confused!!


Originally posted by Jharkhandi
AC 21 came much before concurrent filing.

For RFEs - I am aware how long does it takes to respond. But isn't it due to the fact that companies are doing fraudulent practices (and innocents have suffered too.) and also the ecomony is a problem. See precisely for this reason - this lawsuit has to include 140, cause then INS is forced to take action on application in 180 days or else approve it - that is a better approach rather then innocent people waiting for infinite time. Also RFEs, if you feel is a tool of blackmailing(I do not think so.), has to be uprooted and this is right course.

I read you comment in entirety but do you understand your post? If you do please let us know how AC21 is related to anything in my post or concurrent filing?

I can also call you smartest guy around - but I don't feel like telling a lie and I have a folding 'chane ka ped'(Real Life High Tech). I climb when I feel like and get down when I am happy. No need to get me on any other 'chane ka ped'.

:D

lca_001 - no need to be so pessimistic - it will be done soon. And who knows you will be one who enjoys the fruits of this lawsuit to fullest! :)
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Just Acad sake.

Originally posted by lca_001
Well I guess I was being selfish thinking of just 140 and 485, If there are multiple basis for 485 then we should make sure all bases are covered against "backlash" backlogs in the preceeding application stages.

That may be too wide a settlement, and now I can see why some are afraid to expand the scope. But it does not mean I agree with them :rolleyes:

001
Click to expand...

My point is just let this lawsuit go as it is (only for AOS, which obviously will include 140) and try to settle it with one or max two points instead of 8 points or approval for all the members who have signed the petition or will sign it in future.

Because once we settle/win it, we will build the confidence and then we can always file the lawsuit if the backlog grows again. We are here, Rajeev is here and Immigration Portal is here too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is getting more and more off-topic, but this is the first time I heard that AC-21 was introduced because of security checks. Can you point to some link which says so (in all fairness, I can't point to a link which says AC-21 is not related to security checks). AC-21 may have been introduced with backlogs in mind - and also I believe (I could be wrong on this) that AC-21 predates current excessive security checks.

001
Originally posted by feb6361
Your post was also referring on SECURITY CHECK!! and I was trying to say in my post that AC-21 rule was introduced related to security checks! got it??

P.S. Please come down on the ground from the top of 'any ped' you are sitting on and talk about real world!!
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by feb6361
Your post was also referring on SECURITY CHECK!! and I was trying to say in my post that AC-21 rule was introduced related to security checks! got it??

P.S. Please come down on the ground from the top of 'any ped' you are sitting on and talk about real world!!
Click to expand...

AC-21 rule was introduced related to security checks - really that is a news. I thought AC 21 is something else. For 140 it is due to Section 106(c) of the (AC21) (08/04/03 by William Yates). And here are many more things to AC21.

Search on: Public Law 106-313 (this is AC21 or American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 on 10-17-2000 signed by President William Clinton). It talks about H1b issues to large extent. Now I will wait for your post on security issues mentioned in AC21.

P.S. Don't get me wrong I am not sitting on any 'ped', but to talk to person in real world - other one has to come down from 'ped' and present facts. :eek: Let us continue our nice discussion based on facts and not around 'ped'. Relax - I will call you smartest one too. :D
 
lca_001,

it was just a typo...forgot to add 'not' in between 'was' and 'introduced'..sorry!

Originally posted by lca_001
This is getting more and more off-topic, but this is the first time I heard that AC-21 was introduced because of security checks. Can you point to some link which says so (in all fairness, I can't point to a link which says AC-21 is not related to security checks). AC-21 may have been introduced with backlogs in mind - and also I believe (I could be wrong on this) that AC-21 predates current excessive security checks.

001
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by feb6361
lca_001,

it was just a typo...forgot to add 'not' in between 'was' and 'introduced'..sorry!
Click to expand...
:D :D :D

So how is AC21 related to RFE and concurrent filing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jharkandi,

That was just a typo! Please don't get me also wrong here as I said in my previous post that I am not against of concurrent filing or any other issues you or any one talking about and I do respect them. The main point I am trying to make here only is that 'please don't loose our main focus (to clear I-485 backlog) of the lawsuite with so many other intent every one have'.

FYI..Mostly, I won't get any benifit out of this lawsuite since my I-485 pending over 2 years and I am sure will get approve with in a month or two. I am expressing my opinion here based on my own experience of real world.

Originally posted by Jharkhandi
AC-21 rule was introduced related to security checks - really that is a news. I thought AC 21 is something else. For 140 it is due to Section 106(c) of the (AC21) (08/04/03 by William Yates). And here are many more things to AC21.

Search on: Public Law 106-313 (this is AC21 or American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 on 10-17-2000 signed by President William Clinton). It talks about H1b issues to large extent. Now I will wait for your post on security issues mentioned in AC21.

P.S. Don't get me wrong I am not sitting on any 'ped', but to talk to person in real world - other one has to come down from 'ped' and present facts. :eek: Let us continue our nice discussion based on facts and not around 'ped'. Relax - I will call you smartest one too. :D
Click to expand...
 
May be you haven't read my previous post:

"I know AC-21 came before concurrent filing..but the RFE issue rate was also very low before...do you know why they issued AC-21 memo on August 4,2003?..because after concurrent filing, USCIS falks were issuing more RFEs since they were confused with AC-21 rule for I-140 validity and I-485 processing and they are still confused!!"

Do you how they are confused? I received my RFE after 2 months which was send to wrong company address by USCIS and luckly that company forwarded to my company..also, they have issued RFE to my company also before issuing RFE to me to verify employment intent from both the side.

Originally posted by Jharkhandi
:D :D :D

So how is AC21 related to RFE and concurrent filing?
Click to expand...
 
My My .............

Having read the last rounds of chat - where has it got us.

By the time we finish arguing and pointing out minor faults, the Law Suit will be no good - as we will have our GCs - at this rate I can't see us agreeing on anything in less than 12 months!!!

At this rate, the USCIS will look more efficient than our ability to negotiate with them.

Let's settle on a way forward. Let's agree on Rajiv's plan - he is probably the MOST qualified of us - and get him to agree that additional items will be taken to the USCIS as and when....
 
Originally posted by feb6361
May be you haven't read my previous post:

"I know AC-21 came before concurrent filing..but the RFE issue rate was also very low before...do you know why they issued AC-21 memo on August 4,2003?..because after concurrent filing, USCIS falks were issuing more RFEs since they were confused with AC-21 rule for I-140 validity and I-485 processing and they are still confused!!"

Do you how they are confused? I received my RFE after 2 months which was send to wrong company address by USCIS and luckly that company forwarded to my company..also, they have issued RFE to my company also before issuing RFE to me to verify employment intent from both the side.
Click to expand...

Looks at point 7 on Rajiv's proposal. It talks about AC-21 clarifications.

I agree Dream On. I am off now.
 
Re: My My .............

Good one :D :D. I am supportive of Rajiv's current plan .. I did no ask to make any additions to them - I am just guilty of forceful support to current plan of action ;)

001
Originally posted by Dream On
Having read the last rounds of chat - where has it got us.

By the time we finish arguing and pointing out minor faults, the Law Suit will be no good - as we will have our GCs - at this rate I can't see us agreeing on anything in less than 12 months!!!

At this rate, the USCIS will look more efficient than our ability to negotiate with them.

Let's settle on a way forward. Let's agree on Rajiv's plan - he is probably the MOST qualified of us - and get him to agree that additional items will be taken to the USCIS as and when....
Click to expand...
 
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=699763#post699747
Today, HowMuchLonger, one of CSC forum mebers, received a letter from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D CA 14th) as follows:
Dear Mx. XXX

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the back-log at CSC as it relates to the Employment Based I-485 AOS Applications.

As you know, I wrote to Director Don Neufeld regarding this issue last year and received a response. I believe you've already read this response at www.immigrationportal.com. Unfortunately, I have been notified that due to pending litigation, he cannot comment on any more inquiries regarding this issue.

I hope you find this information helpful to you and thank you again for the opportunity to be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Anna G. Eshoo
Click to expand...
Our Litigation seems to have been informed to Service Center Directors who are Defendants.

CSC forum members had sent about 100 e-mails to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and CSC Director Don Neufeld in January 2004
to follow up Don Neufeld's promise to Anna Eshoo so that Don Neufeld will significantly increase adjudication resource to I-485 by April 2004.

The Court is not only the place to fight.
Please be prepared to contact your Congressional members or Media in your area.
It is each one's responsibility not only for Plaintiffs and Core Team members but also for everyone to be involved in this litigation.
 
Need to stay on track

I went back and read the original complaint that was filed (and have attached it here for easy reference).

As far as I can see this complaint is based on slow AOS adjudication. We should therefore stick to this and if necessary or so desired, approach Rajiv to file similar complaints on I-140 and Citizenship issues.

I believe the time has come to move forward on the AOS / I-485 issue at hand.

We are just wasting time now!!

If we don't decide to move forward, Mr Khanna may decide it is a better use of his time and effort (as a result of the forum not being able to come to an agreement) to settle for the plaintiffs in the complaint and then others of us will lose out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by operations

For now, I am not amending the Complaint. But if CIS is
unreasonable, we might broaden the scope of the litigation to include ALL delays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Rajiv,

I am really confused. Since the complaint didn't mention I140 at all, and you are not going to modify the compliant at this point - why do we have items for I140 in the settlement?

Please comment. Thanks!
 
Some thoughts and impressions

Folks, I think we have about exhausted useful discussion. My general sense is that this is a good point to submit our settlement to CIS.

I want you to refrain from attacking each other's view points to the point of getting personal. No need. We invite ALL viewpoints, no matter how different they are from ours.


Every item on the 8-points is a result of my experience with your problem, thought and consideration and reflects your input. There is no way I will come up with a "perefct" solution. But I am trying to get as close to the root of the problems as possible.

The most important time is this coming week. I had asked the government to cooperate on our class action motion, so we can get a quick resolution. If they intend to oppose it, I know, chances of settlement are small. Becuase they, as an institution, do not understand unconventional, yet commen sense, approach to litigation and problem solving. My suggestion to them was simple, let us join together to get the class certified in a hurry, so we can move on to either the real litigation or to a settlement. I invited them to not delay matters and waste the court's time. Their first reaction was of surprise. No one had ever asked them to join in such a manner. But to their credit, they had agreed to think it over.

Now if they come back to me and say let us join together to narrow the scope of the litigation (instead of fighting over nonsense), we know we have a receptive (potential) partner, rtaher than an unthinking opponent. Once cooperation begins, I will present our settlement. If not, I will present it, but I will know that unless we get Congress involved, there will be no settlement.

I am also hoping that they will see the potential for goodwill here. They have been in the press as villains so long and so often, they need a face lift. If they agree to cooperate with us (the best possible class of people whom the govt can support - leglally here, professional/skilled, smart and responsible), I would want us to reciprocate by issuing positive statements that reflect the truth of their cooperation and consideration.

If they decide to fight, then I will make it my mission over the next few months/years to find every way I can to hasten the conclusion of this litigation. Rest assured.

Not much else to add. Be cool all. I will start a new thread, once I hear from the government.
 
If they don't settle

If the goverment is not willing to settle... Our next step should be to get as much attention as possible to this litigation in the media. Such an attention during an election year will force the goverment to do something about this. I think we started the litigation in the best time. Thanks to Mr. Rajiv. All we need is to plan, ways to get media attention. Letters to congressmen won't be enough.

Here is a crazy idea.

How about a paid advertisement in TV. The advertisement shouldn't give much information to public. It should make people ask what the heck that advertisement is all about. The curiosity should make the media investigate and present the clear picture in news.

The adverstisment should show hard working people all over the world living in misery coming to US and then a goverment putting a lease on them and making them work like slave.


Siva
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top