Can We settle on These Bases?

conference call

I have sent the numbers to active members (almost 10 people excluding the core team). We may not be able to accommodate more due to the difficulty in managing so many voices. Those who have expressed their interest, please check your Private messages. Others, please excuse me (and understand me);)
 
conference call rules

Moderator : myself (dsatish) -- I will go over the agenda, one by one and start discussion. Then every one can express their opinions

Rajiv : Chair person -- He will listen to all of us and then he will make the final call on each item on the agenda. He will be the last speaker on each of the items we discuss

Can any one try to argue with Rajiv after Rajiv gives his ruling ? I feel that some one can request Rajiv to rethink about his decision, but he has to come out with some really good points which he has not explained before. In general not much discussion will be allowed after Rajiv's call.

Agenda items (discussion pieces) :
-------------------------------------------
1) conditional GC (or) unconditional GC
2) Immediate adjudication after 6 months (or) 1 yr ?
3)Should we make a separate proposal for bcis not issuing any employment or salary related RFE after 6 months of filing I485 ?
4) What is our proposal for I140 processing timelines ?
5)Whether to have a short list of proposals (just 3 or 4) or long list (7 or 8) ?

If any of you feel that, we should discuss other topics also, please let me know (if not here, in the conf call).

PS : All the above stuff is my thoughts and i will be receptive to any changes in rules.
 
Re: OK.

Originally posted by operations
Tell me where to dial in. also, one of you folks should take notes so we can post our discussion summary for all.
Click to expand...

Since i will be busy modering and i have to goto work immediately after the meeting, can some one from CA do this ? They will have all the time in the world after this meeting :p
 
Hi all,

I am taking a deviant view, but only to make sure we tie out
any loose ends, I do support all the argument - and am not against it in any way.

If you would allow me to put on the devil's advocacy hat, I would like
to present some arguments which will make the "conditional GC" conditions
more favorable than a direct GC. Currently USCIS still makes use of the third
stage to weed out fraudulent applications, and it will be unacceptable as a
solution to give out GC's with only "security being the condition to knock
down the GC" mantra. My understanding is that USCIS is not necessarily sleeping
on the applications - I dont want to go into staffing issues etc - so the 180
days rule or 1 year rule does not give them any review process (this is assuming
the current backlog conditions where the applications are wasting away in the
pipleline for review pending previous applications), if they can review the
applications in the timeframe specified, then of course, dropping conditional
clause is indeed the right idea. But I think the real world scenario is quite
different, and the main problem is that USCIS is unable to even read applications
till they actually reach the processing dates. So as a enforcement agency I will
not like to give out GC which can be struck down only by security concerns.

Now obviously, I am deviant in my views, so let me try to patch some of the
expectations on the conditional GC. Like many said that for all purposes, this
should be treated as real GC, I agree except, that USCIS can revoke the GC if
fraud is detected when the process reviews the application. However since a GC
allows for a job change after reasonable period of time, and AC21 just mucks up
the equation, the "intent" based enquiries should be dependent on the day of
filing and not on the day of review. USCIS should also draft a concise guidance on
how to use AC21 and the timeline to maintain "permanence" of the job. For the current
backlogged applicants, the "timeline" should start the day the application was filed,
and not the day tempGC was approved. For the new cases or cases not backlogged enough
the timeline can start in a prorated manner. After the timeline expires and the applicant
has maintained the petitioned job, then it will not be considered as fraud, and only
security should be the consideration. I believe this time should be enough to review
the application (1 year + timeline (6-9 months), which should be about the time they may
need to process the applications), if they are unable to weed out the fraudulent ones by
now, it is their problem.

We may also have to concede that USCIS can have a database of this information but only
to share with Federal and Local law enforcement agencies -but outside the preview of FOIA
(or atleast make those information confidential for 15 years or till actual GC is granted -
whichever is later) - again the reason being, since the 3 stage filtration had not happened
because of delays, they may still want to keep some tabs, and I feel should be acceptable.


001
 
Re: conference call rules

Originally posted by dsatish
Agenda items (discussion pieces) :
-------------------------------------------
1) conditional GC (or) unconditional GC
2) Immediate adjudication after 6 months (or) 1 yr ?
3)Should we make a separate proposal for bcis not issuing any employment or salary related RFE after 6 months of filing I485 ?
4) What is our proposal for I140 processing timelines ?
5)Whether to have a short list of proposals (just 3 or 4) or long list (7 or 8) ?
Click to expand...
dsatish,

Not issuing to RFE's for employment/salary is not something which we can probably dictate to INS. EB based AOS have to take certain things in their stride and this is one of them.

Instead we can 'request' them to drop silly rules like CSC's where each and every applicant will be RFE'ed regardless of the merits/demerits of the case. We can probably ask for input on more such policies followed by INS from forum members. And have INS address those issues.

You could also add:
6. Clarification on security checks and more robust reporting structure, eg. where the checks are stuck, approximate time lines. I guess they can get away with anything by saying security check, which is fine as long as there are clear guidelines on feedback.
7. Fund raising, since it is time we got our act together on that front - It is not directly related to the lawsuit, but wouldn't hurt to get some management business out of the way.
 
Originally posted by lca_001
Hi all,

.... My understanding is that USCIS is not necessarily sleeping
on the applications - I dont want to go into staffing issues etc - so the 180
days rule or 1 year rule does not give them any review process (this is assuming
the current backlog conditions where the applications are wasting away in the
pipleline for review pending previous applications), if they can review the
applications in the timeframe specified, then of course, dropping conditional
clause is indeed the right idea. But I think the real world scenario is quite
different, and the main problem is that USCIS is unable to even read applications
till they actually reach the processing dates.
001
Click to expand...
How will they implement is their business. I could imagine one way is to have staff working on "regular" prcoessing (antything but security check) which should done as fast as before 9/11. And separate task force can be put on security checking until such check is done.
 
Re: conference call rules

Originally posted by dsatish

Agenda items (discussion pieces) :
-------------------------------------------
1) conditional GC (or) unconditional GC
2) Immediate adjudication after 6 months (or) 1 yr ?
3)Should we make a separate proposal for bcis not issuing any employment or salary related RFE after 6 months of filing I485 ?

[/b]
Click to expand...
This probably not necessary. It make more sense to say no RFE after "conditional" GC issused except for security issue, in case most vote for conditional GC in item#1. This shouldn't be a problem if GC is adjudicated in 6 months also.
 
We will not accept

Originally posted by getit
Rajiv,

No matter how many requests, we have to ask CIS to focus on out POINT. E.g. if CIS accepts item #3 "coutinue concurrent filing of I140 and I485", maybe they would say "we have accepted some of your requests". However it doesn't have any solution on our 485 backlog problem.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks,
Click to expand...

We do not have to accept it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lca_001,
You have perfectly presented BCIS argument. I appreciate your efforts to bring in an alternate view. But bcis should not ignore the importance of timely adjudication. Why should only we understand their problems and they don't understand our's ? Who are the sufferers of the current situation. Certainly not them. So if one of the parties (they versus us) have to make compromise and adjustment, it is they. We are not asking them to drop any of the procedures they are doing for GC applicants. We are only asking them not to hold our GC's while they take 3 years to do all the checks. If your I140 is approved, we deserve a decision on GC within 6 months. If they can't do it, it is their problem and it is not just(right) to expect us to suffer for their problem. They can continue to do all the 300 checks that they want to do for 5 years and if they find (and prove) any wrong doing on our part, they can always revoke our GC and deport us. Exisitng laws definitely allow that. First of all by not issuing GC till all the checks are done, they are not preventing us from living and working legally in this country. They are only preventing our freedom to choose our careers and our ability to lead a normal life. If we are to accept (sympathetically or logically)their point of view, then there would not have been this lawsuit. So now we can't goback to our pre lawsuit state of mind . Now there is only solution. It is "immediate adjudication".
 
Re: Re: conference call rules

Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever

You could also add:
6. Clarification on security checks and more robust reporting structure, eg. where the checks are stuck, approximate time lines. I guess they can get away with anything by saying security check, which is fine as long as there are clear guidelines on feedback.
7. Fund raising, since it is time we got our act together on that front - It is not directly related to the lawsuit, but wouldn't hurt to get some management business out of the way.
Click to expand...

My preference is not to worry or mention about security checks. We want a decision on GC if the case is pending for more than 6 months. PERIOD. We should tell them to do what ever checks and procedures they want to do, but adjudicate the cases in a timely manner. Please see my response to lca_001.
Regarding robust reporting by CIS, i do not believe in making trivial proposals because they will gladly accept them and reject the genuine ones and announce to the press that they have accepted 5 out of our 8 demands. I am in favour of sending just 3 proposals. Let us discuss tomorrow.
Regarding fund raising, let us see if time permits. I do not want this meeting to go over 1 hour. We got to run for office.
 
If State Department can complete Consular Processing in shorter period, what's the problem with CIS, why do they take more time, Does CIS do better security check than State department?????
 
Re: Re: OK.

Originally posted by dsatish
Since i will be busy modering and i have to goto work immediately after the meeting, can some one from CA do this ? They will have all the time in the world after this meeting :p
Click to expand...

dsatish,

I will be taking notes...but don't rely solely on me as the discussions can be lengthy and I might lose track of it...

-rajum
 
Another comment on 140's.


I like the idea of premium I-140's, though I understand this idea may be unacceptable for every one - I am not going to argue on that one. But I have my take on "all funds collected to be utilized only for 140 processing", first, as morpheus previously mentioned, if I am a goverment agency, I dont want any one dictating how I spend the monies I collect. Also this wording actually requires more book keeping on their side, and hence labor intensive - I believe we are asking courts to oversee the implementation, so accounting will be a big burden - that is one red tape we are better off without. If we dont put a time limit on approval, USCIS will say, ok fine we will collect the monies and assign one person full time to work on 140 -- that will just increase the case load as there are not enough case officiers. Instead of "utilizing the money only for", I think it should better reflect our actual expectations on 140 processing, that is, getting the approval within 2-3 months - so premium processing should impose a time limit within which DOL should review the application, if RFE's are issued, then DOL should adjudicate the case within 15 days of receiving the response (may be 1 month, but that may be too much of a slack) - the non-premium processing should be complete within 6 months. Bottomline, I dont care if USCIS uses the premium processing money to dole out pot to the officers to make processing faster (24x7), we want our 140 (and 485) in a set timeline (and allowing for any "acts of God") -- They dont have the case load of increased H1B these days, so this may not be a big problem to plug in premium processing for 140's. Downside, it may hurt processing of other applications.

For people opposed to the idea of premium I140s, the timeline is still within 6 months, and also if concurrent processing is available - GC and LC will be processed within 6 months, so there is nothing to lose by not going premium. People who choose premium, just get their peace of mind.

001
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks and good luck!

Rajiv and all others connected with this wonderful effort-

WISH U (and US) ALL THE BEST, AND THANKS FOR ALL UR HARD WORK!!!

(GOD HELP ALL OF US)

Regards,GC_KNR
 
Originally posted by lca_001
BTW: Did premium processing of H1 require any legislative action? Or was it solely done by INS?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, no leg. action might be needed. But CIS will let us know, if it were needed. I hesitate only when collection of fees are involved. If they need to charge extra fees, that might need Congressional approval.
 
I agree with dsatish 100%, we should not make our demand list very long. We should not give them any room to agree on some and disagree on the important ones. We initiated this law suit because of the AOS backlog and we should stick to it. Lets make 3 most important demands and present to them.

WIN
 
Originally posted by whats_in_name
I agree with dsatish 100%, we should not make our demand list very long. We should not give them any room to agree on some and disagree on the important ones. We initiated this law suit because of the AOS backlog and we should stick to it. Lets make 3 most important demands and present to them.

WIN
Click to expand...

May be we can classify our demands into two categories:
1) Core demands
2) "Nice to have features" or "supplemental" demands. I am not too sure on the name of the second category.

Obviously, our primary focus should be on core demands.

-rajum
 
All Rajiv's proposals were in-line with BCIS/Congress already existing themes.

Most of the Rajiv's proposals were in-line with BCIS/Congress's already existing themes.

Like, I-140 premium processing (already existing idea), I-485 approval in 6 months (Clinton Admin/Bush Admin/Congress strongly pushed BCIS for this, but with no avail) etc.

So, please do not change these as it would divert/confuse BCIS.

Secondly, I would go with the idea of presenting 3-4 concrete proposals, unless otherwise, they are used for bargaining purpose.
 
Originally posted by whats_in_name
I agree with dsatish 100%, we should not make our demand list very long. We should not give them any room to agree on some and disagree on the important ones. We initiated this law suit because of the AOS backlog and we should stick to it. Lets make 3 most important demands and present to them.

WIN
Click to expand...

Some of us want the list to be boiled down to a couple of points.

I beg to disagree with this approach.

The whole point of settlement/negotiation is discussion, and perhaps a little 'give and take'. Putting forth only a couple of points of critical importance leaves us with absulutely NO wiggle room. And this is important since having a little room allows both parties to be successful and save face at the same time.

Realistically speaking, CIS is never going to agree 100 % . Even though this case has not attracted much publicity, rest assured all the major newspapers and networks are going to report the outcome. CIS would certainly be aware of this and would not relish the prospect of looking like a chump in the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top