Can We settle on These Bases?

Point # 4

Rajiv,

Thanks again for your efforts.

Point # 4 : Interim GC concept is critical for the success of our case. Please do not agree to any settlement unless this is taken care of..

To give an example of my case.. My case was filed at TSC 2 years 8 months ago and I received 3 EADs and 3 APs from them in the past years.

Now suddenly, my case was transferred to VSC local office on Feb 29, 2004 (yet to receive written notice). I am not sure how long I need to wait from now on. The only reason I see is that my comany when applied for 485 was in Virgina. Now after taken over twice, the current company HQ are in Chicago. And all along, my state of residence has been Texas.

Now I do not know who and how anyone can help me. This journey has been very tiring.

So your proposal # 4 will give assurance that I do not need to be tied to the sponsoring company or their location after 2 years 8 months of wait time at 485 stage.

Thanks.
 
Re: about I-140

Originally posted by PhillyJulyLC
Because of point#4, many people who are concerned about I-140 delay assume that once I-485 has been filed for 180 days, you automatically get the 'interim gc' whether your I-140 is approved or not, which is, however, not specified in point#4. My suggestion is that this should be included in pint#4. Otherwise #4 has to go bundled together with #1 - I-140 premium processing. Also #1 should specify I-140 must be adjudicated within 90 days under premium processing. The current point#4 only doesn't garantee people with I-140 still pending after 180 days of I-485 filing get the interim gc.

I completely agree with PhillyJulyLC.
 
Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Just a thought:

Why are we ommiting 1st step of whole EB GC process (LC) since we are addressing I-140 issue also to this case of I-485 backlog??? LC process in so many states are taking over 2 to 3 years. The main dely in whole EB GC process are in LC and AOS. Usually, I-140 process take less time then LC and AOS processes.

I think, either we should ommit I-140 issue from our proposal just to address I-485 backlog issue or we should add LC process issue also in the proposal in order to reduce time for whole GC process for whole community (by doing this we are addressing every one issue).

FYI..My LC process took 3 years..I-140 process took 8 months and I-485 is pending over 2 years.



Originally posted by operations
...proposal.

Small changes were made based upon your input.
 
so close yet so far...

Yes, I agree that 140 takes relatively less time when compared to Lc & 485. However, without 140 approval people are not able to make use of AC21.

In my case, I finished 180 days on both 140 & 485. However 140 is not approved yet, so I cannot move on. There are good chances that our company might close our california branch in the next 2 weeks or so. I am so close to using Ac21, yet so far. I am sure there are tons of ppl like me out there. For me & for all those folks, 140 needs to be there in the proposal.

Just my 2 cents....

Cheers,
masti
 
some support from Texas

http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html#3



Weekly Immigration eNewsletter
THE LAW OFFICE OF SHEELA MURTHY, PC
Phone : 410-356-5440
eMail : law@murthy.com
WebSite : http://www.murthy.com

VOL. X, no. 08; February 2004, week 3
Posted : February 20, 2004



1994-2004 : Celebrating its 10th anniversary, the MurthyBulletin is the immigration bulletin from The Law Office of Sheela Murthy, P.C. One of the oldest, most established dealing with immigration law matters, our weekly eNewsletter contains the latest developments and recent changes in U.S. immigration law. If you would like to receive MurthyBulletin via eMail, follow this link to subscribe.



TOPICS in this Edition of the MurthyBulletin :

1. From the Desk of Sheela Murthy :
The Crime of Migrating Populations

2. USCIS Announces H1B Cap Has Been Reached

3. Murthy Takes Action : There is Hope for Texas Service Center

4. Poverty Guidelines for 2004

5. Legacy INS Actions against Asylees are National Embarrassment

6. Backlog Reduction is Budget Priority

7. MurthyChat and MurthyForum

8. Visa Dates, Labor Certification, and CIS Processing Times



1. From the Desk of Attorney Sheela Murthy :
The Crime of Migrating Populations

Many of you may have read about the recent tragedy of 19 illegal Chinese immigrants who drowned on February 5, 2004, off the coast of the United Kingdom in Morecambe Bay. The misfortune befell them as they picked cockles, a type of shellfish. While the sale of cockles, apparently, is extremely lucrative, these workers and others like them are exploited at rates below poverty guidelines. This event underscores a fact that has been true since time immemorial. For most migrating populations the world over, their "crime" is their desire to improve their lot and provide a better life for themselves and their loved ones. In their quest of this basic goal that is so universal, they are referred to as illegal immigrants, unwelcome visitors, trespassers, and worse, suspected terrorists who have come to do harm.

For over 200 years, the United States generally has viewed immigrants and migrating populations as good, hard-working people who are here to help this country, while improving their own circumstances. By our actions most of us, either as employers, employees, or just as ordinary citizens, have encouraged their presence amongst us. We have welcomed their hard work and their entrepreneurial spirit by enjoying and partaking in the fruits of their labors. We have appreciated the fact that, partially due to immigrants, prices have remained more competitive and affordable. We have become a nation of consumers and, by spending more on products that we may not necessarily need, we have helped to make the U.S. economy more robust.

In January 2004, President George W. Bush’s proposals recognized the contributions of "illegal immigrants" to the U.S. economy. Although the proposals have been criticized for not having any teeth, they set a good starting place that acknowledges the work and the benefits that we enjoy as a country with immigrant labor. Other developed countries of the Western world and other technologically advanced nations will have to deal with similar issues and come up with an immigration policy that is workable for their respective countries and their economies. The fact is that, in the United States, we are not just dealing with "illegal immigrants," but often with their U.S. citizen children, who are born here and who we hope will become productive and equal citizens of this country. We can only achieve this if their parents are able to provide better lives with opportunities for them and for their descendants.

[Back to Topics]

© The Law Office of Sheela Murthy, P.C.



2. USCIS Announces H1B Cap Has Been Reached

As we indicated in our February 18, 2004 NewsFlash, the USCIS announced on February 17, 2004 that the H1B cap has been reached for fiscal year (FY) 2004. As many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers know, the cap has not been a concern for H1B applicants since FY2000. The reason for this is that the law provided for an increase in the H1B numbers available for the three fiscal years from 2000 to 2004. As we reported in our September 12, 2003 MurthyBulletin article, H1B Cap for Fiscal Year 2004, those favorable provisions have now ended. This 2004 fiscal year, the cap returned to 65,000 total H1Bs available. In that article, available on MurthyDotCom, we accurately predicted that the cap could be reached before the end of the second quarter. While we must wait for the USCIS to give some final answers on particular issues, we encourage our readers to be aware of the following.

USCIS Procedure for the Remainder of FY2004

In its press release, the USCIS indicated that it would process all petitions filed for first-time employment received by the end of the February 17, 2004 business day. All petitions that are subject to the cap and are received after February 17, 2003 will be rejected and returned without processing. The fee payments associated with these cases will not be cashed, and will be returned with the rejected packet. Petitions may be resubmitted no earlier than April 1, 2004 for persons who will begin work on or after October 1, 2004. The attempted filing of a petition after February 17, 2004 does not protect the beneficiary in any way or provide any immigration benefit. Unless authorized to do so in some other capacity, it is not permissible to simply remain in the U.S. awaiting the opportunity to file an H1B case in April.

Continued Processing for Non-Cap Cases

The USCIS will continue to process H1B petitions for persons who are filing for H1B extensions, amending the terms of their H1B employment, changing H1B employers, or requesting H1Bs for second employers. Further, not all H1B petitions for first-time H1B seekers are subject to the cap. H1B employees of institutions of higher education, or of related or affiliated nonprofit entities, nonprofit research organizations, or governmental research organizations, as well as J-1 physicians granted Conrad waivers, are not subject to the cap. We do note that if an individual is changing from an H1B with an exempt employer to employment with a cap-subject employer, s/he is subject to the cap and will have to wait until the next fiscal year. It also appears that the 6800 H1Bs that were reserved for workers from Chile and Singapore have not been exhausted.

Previous Special J and F Rules

As we indicated in our September 12, 2003 article referenced above, the Legacy INS extended special benefits to J and F students in the past when the H1B petition was already pending at the time that the cap cutoff was announced. We are awaiting word from the USCIS as to whether they will continue this policy.

What to Do

Many persons are understandably confused about the cap and what it may mean for them. We recommend that you consult a qualified immigration attorney who can assess your individual facts to determine your options at this time. We encourage both individuals and employers to let Congress know how reaching the cap is harmful to U.S. commerce and negatively impacting the U.S. economy.

[Back to Topics]

© The Law Office of Sheela Murthy, P.C.



3. Murthy Takes Action : There is Hope for Texas Service Center

Everyone involved with any aspect of the immigration process knows that processing times for most cases at the various Service Centers range from slow to motionless. While cases will usually work their way through the process eventually, for many folks things have gone beyond all reason at the Texas Service Center (TSC). In particular, I-485 processing has seemingly ground to a halt. For that reason, in mid-2003 we wrote all 150 legislators with districts within the jurisdiction of the Texas Service Center. See our April 11, 2003 MurthyBulletin article, Murthy Takes Action: Seeking Funding for TSC, available on MurthyDotCom. We have now received a response, so perhaps there is hope.

...........................................
 
Re: some support from Texas

Originally posted by patience_03
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html#3



Weekly Immigration eNewsletter
THE LAW OFFICE OF SHEELA MURTHY, PC
Phone : 410-356-5440
eMail : law@murthy.com
WebSite : http://www.murthy.com

VOL. X, no. 08; February 2004, week 3
Posted : February 20, 2004



1994-2004 : Celebrating its 10th anniversary, the MurthyBulletin is the immigration bulletin from The Law Office of Sheela Murthy, P.C. One of the oldest, most established dealing with immigration law matters, our weekly eNewsletter contains the latest developments and recent changes in U.S. immigration law. If you would like to receive MurthyBulletin via eMail, follow this link to subscribe.



TOPICS in this Edition of the MurthyBulletin :

1. From the Desk of Sheela Murthy :
The Crime of Migrating Populations

2. USCIS Announces H1B Cap Has Been Reached

3. Murthy Takes Action : There is Hope for Texas Service Center

4. Poverty Guidelines for 2004

5. Legacy INS Actions against Asylees are National Embarrassment

6. Backlog Reduction is Budget Priority

7. MurthyChat and MurthyForum

8. Visa Dates, Labor Certification, and CIS Processing Times
...
What is this? Please use this forum responsibly. Why are you listing so much irrelavent news and information? This is an abuse of this thread. Please stop doing so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Originally posted by feb6361
Just a thought:

Why are we ommiting 1st step of whole EB GC process (LC) since we are addressing I-140 issue also to this case of I-485 backlog??? LC process in so many states are taking over 2 to 3 years. The main dely in whole EB GC process are in LC and AOS. Usually, I-140 process take less time then LC and AOS processes.

I think, either we should ommit I-140 issue from our proposal just to address I-485 backlog issue or we should add LC process issue also in the proposal in order to reduce time for whole GC process for whole community (by doing this we are addressing every one issue).

FYI..My LC process took 3 years..I-140 process took 8 months and I-485 is pending over 2 years.
_____________________________________


You are right we should try this to limit to 485 cases, for 140 -- community can file one more lawsuit for the delay

The 8 points of Rajeev are very much liked by the new member but are alienating the old members -- who paved the way for the lawsuit.

I, my self is very much confused, when the lawsuit was filed I was hoping that it will help reduce the backlog, but am lossing hope because this lawsuit is going in the wrong direction, we are asking them every thing -- reduce 140 backlog, interim Green Card and rest everything. It looks as if we don't have any intention to settle and want to fight for many years .................

we should hand over USCIS some realistic demands, which they can do without any intervention from congress.

In this election year when most of these politicians are concerned about American Job, we should not expect any sympathy for the employment based GC from them.
 
Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Originally posted by feb6361
Just a thought:

Why are we ommiting 1st step of whole EB GC process (LC) since we are addressing I-140 issue also to this case of I-485 backlog??? LC process in so many states are taking over 2 to 3 years. The main dely in whole EB GC process are in LC and AOS. Usually, I-140 process take less time then LC and AOS processes.

I think, either we should ommit I-140 issue from our proposal just to address I-485 backlog issue or we should add LC process issue also in the proposal in order to reduce time for whole GC process for whole community (by doing this we are addressing every one issue).

FYI..My LC process took 3 years..I-140 process took 8 months and I-485 is pending over 2 years.
First, we are dealing with USCIS, but LC delay is more of the responsibility of DOL, which makes it harder to integrate it in this lawsuit (Personally I waited 17 months for LC approval); Secondly, I-485 is more tightly tied with I-140. Suppose we get a commitment of I-485 adjudication within 180 days, if I-140 takes 1 year or longer, the commitment doesn't mean what it is supposed to mean does it? That's why I think we should always address I-140 issue with any I-485 settlement. Does it make sense?
 
Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Originally posted by shsa
_____________________________________


You are right we should try this to limit to 485 cases, for 140 -- community can file one more lawsuit for the delay

The 8 points of Rajeev are very much liked by the new member but are alienating the old members -- who paved the way for the lawsuit.

I, my self is very much confused, when the lawsuit was filed I was hoping that it will help reduce the backlog, but am lossing hope because this lawsuit is going in the wrong direction, we are asking them every thing -- reduce 140 backlog, interim Green Card and rest everything. It looks as if we don't have any intention to settle and want to fight for many years .................

we should hand over USCIS some realistic demands, which they can do without any intervention from congress.

In this election year when most of these politicians are concerned about American Job, we should not expect any sympathy for the employment based GC from them.
Mr. Khanna, please make some comments on this message if you could. Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

PhillyJulyLC,

It doesn't make sense at all and it's not true that I-485 is more tightly tied with I-140. Infact the real truth is that I-485 backlog started to become worst and worst after USCIS tied I-140 and I-485 process together by allowing I-140 and I-485 concurrent filing. There are lot of complications/load started after that like lot more EAD to process, lot more AP to process, AC21, lot more RFEs, lot more FP (infact USCIS kept so many I-485 applications in the backlog (from OCT-2001 to FEB-2002 filers) to take care of second FP for AUG-2002 onwards filers whose 1st FP about to expires due to 15 months validity. USCIS load/overhead got increase after that. I-485 applications were taking avg 6 months timeframe and never took more than a year to adjudicate before concurrent filing.

I hope this will make more sense to you..FYI..I am not against of I-140 or concurrent filing but at the same time we should see the the root cause of the backlog and need to be addressed first if we wants to address only I-485 backlog. If we are talking about whole GC process then we should add LC process also since that was the 1st step.


Originally posted by PhillyJulyLC
First, we are dealing with USCIS, but LC delay is more of the responsibility of DOL, which makes it harder to integrate it in this lawsuit (Personally I waited 17 months for LC approval); Secondly, I-485 is more tightly tied with I-140. Suppose we get a commitment of I-485 adjudication within 180 days, if I-140 takes 1 year or longer, the commitment doesn't mean what it is supposed to mean does it? That's why I think we should always address I-140 issue with any I-485 settlement. Does it make sense?
 
Comments

Comments on "settlement.doc".

1: Premium processing of I-140. Is it really necessary if the UC CIS has some plan for adjudication? My first I-140 in 2001-02 took only three months, my second I-140 (amended) took almost a year! What happened? Things got worse for some reason. The premium processing of an application in a couple of weeks makes some sense, like in H1-B. So the premium processing should be seen in the context of the expected time-frame of the application. Congress has declared (not so clearly) this to be a maximum of six months.
Wouldn't it be difficult to make these extra premium funds available for I-140 processing only? What happened to the H1-B premium fees? Does the recent proposed fee increase come into play?
2: All I-140 pending for more than 180 days. This is violation of the law......Immediate adjudication and if concurrent processing was used, the same applies to the I-485 application.
3: Concurrent filing of I-140 and I-485> This should be changed as US CIS WILL ONLY ACCEPT CONCURRENT FILING from now on. Why? This policy will take away any employers' procrastination towards the GC for the employee, it will facilitate US CIS and eventually the applicant. US CIS can take it a step further and either merge the two forms into one on cancel one of them!!
The goal is "we are not your modern day slaves" at least after a while..This while should be declared as 180 days from filing of I-485. No more AC-21 and/or job related dependencies. Only in this way we can experience freedom and pursue happiness (Constitution).
4: The applicant should receive a GC after 180 days of pending, NOT A CONDITIONAL GC. We want a GC as defined in the United States Code (USC) and other places. No more, no less! Six months is more than ample time to do any Security Checks. The stamp on the passport should be valid for THREE MONTHS in which the US CIS better FEDEX the actual card. This will eliminate the backlogs in Card issuance also.
Subject to revocation on national security grounds, is not necessary, since the DOJ and Partiot acts can take care of any national security threads.
So we are asking for approval not any interim solution which believe me it will complicate our lives along the EAD and AP philosophies.
Service will not do a damn thing to promote the acceptance of this "interim GC". At least this is my opinion. The service is only interested in Finger Printing.
5: So far is always lies from US CIS Director and Ombudsman. Along with public reports a sincere APOLOGY with a Press Release is required. No more "the right applicant will receive the right benefit in the right amount of time" which I documented at least three times so far..in Canada, Nixon Institute, Senate, Congress, etc. The security checks should also get triviliased, explained and given the legal basis. Is there a maximum of times the FP should be taken? Why checks at the front and the back of any application? Who is doing all these? The adjudicators? Why the ASC are only doing FPs along with coffee? Where does this madness stop?
6: Phone system should be explained and exposed as a fraud. The same holds for the Processing times and a whole lot of little tricks used by US CIS to justify their inefficiency. The irony is that all these are being used by the status quo of immigration made up of most of immigration lawyers and Companies. The processing times should tell the whole duration of active applications not only the back-end which is not even right. How can you explain January 31 when October/November applications are being processed? More things wrt the RFE, Transfers to local offices, etc.
7: AC-21 and other regulations..After 180 days of I-485 pending the Employer no more has any right wrt the I-140. The employee should be free to get promotion, open business work on anything else within the company or another company, get a leave of absence, go on unpaid vacation or go back to school if so desired.
8: How is the Ombudsnman and his activities? Where are the State/local offices? A report to Congress by June?

Point 3 of Item 4: Security checks for Defense and/or Export Control related jobs. This is an excellent point not because it covers myself but is really needed. Without the LPR and the "alien " status along with Export Control regulations life is hell..They should provide some meaningful ways to address this from the employee's prospective as the company may not be readily available to provide information.

This is my opinion guys. Thanks Rajiv for all and everything you are doing. Please take my comments as a real life experience with over 20 years in the US and still waiting..something should be wrong and we are very secure as far as I know.
 
Decision Time

Watching the comments go back and forth, why don't we take a consensus poll.

I think it reasonable to ask the following questions / give readers the following choices and then we will be able to ascertain from the forum what we should be doing.

Option 1
Vote to move forward with the latest proposal by Rajiv.

Option 2
Vote to change the scope and increase it to include things like I-140 and Citizenship.

Option 3
Vote to change the scope and limit it to just I-485.

Option 4
Vote to continue discussions on the forum without moving forward just yet.

We could set this up with a predefined cutoff date and see where we stand.

We need to stay focussed on what is reasonable and achievable - especially on things that will require a change in the law - which is something we can address longer term, NOT through this settlement. We should take Rajiv's guidance on this.

Any other ideas...??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The case's primary focus should be 485

I agree with feb6361, PhillyJulyLC.

We should not lose focus of our case by making it appear to overhaul the whole GC process.

Like others mentioned, if we include LC stage, that involves state and other DOL offices, it would complicate our case.

Though speedy 140 processing is required in the whole GC process, we should again stress the 485 issue more than anything else.
 
Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Shsa,

I agree with you...I think, it will take more than 6 months to reach the settlement (if USCIS agree) and more than that if they won't agree..in any case we are not addressing any issue for those who are waiting and suffering over 540 days to 2 years after filing I-485...before there were no 90 days rule for EAD and now USCIS is asking 6 months timeframe to apply for EAD since lot more EAD to process due to concurrent filing of I-140 and I-485. Currently, I traped in to discriminatory rule (30 days for an asylum application) of intrim EAD issued only after 90 days and out for work for 2 weeks till intrim EAD. I know, it was my fault that I didn't applied my EAD renewal 90 days before and now I am out of work for 2 weeks (suffering more since I-485 pending over 2 years)..but I don't want any one else also should suffer like this since USCIS keeps chaning the rule for EAD renewal..See the link below and USCIS for Renewal EAD: You should apply for a renewal EAD six months before your original EAD expires. so in near future USCIS won't issue interim EAD before 6 months.

Please read the following note in the link:

Renewal EAD: You should apply for a renewal EAD six months before your original EAD expires.

Interim EAD: If USCIS does not approve or deny your EAD application within 90 days (within 30 days for an asylum applicant; note: asylum applicants are eligible to file for EADs only after waiting 150 days from the date they filed their properly completed original asylum applications), you may request an interim EAD document.

http://www.immigration.com/frame/usciscasestatusservonlinefr.html



Originally posted by shsa
_____________________________________


You are right we should try this to limit to 485 cases, for 140 -- community can file one more lawsuit for the delay

The 8 points of Rajeev are very much liked by the new member but are alienating the old members -- who paved the way for the lawsuit.

I, my self is very much confused, when the lawsuit was filed I was hoping that it will help reduce the backlog, but am lossing hope because this lawsuit is going in the wrong direction, we are asking them every thing -- reduce 140 backlog, interim Green Card and rest everything. It looks as if we don't have any intention to settle and want to fight for many years .................

we should hand over USCIS some realistic demands, which they can do without any intervention from congress.

In this election year when most of these politicians are concerned about American Job, we should not expect any sympathy for the employment based GC from them.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Originally posted by feb6361
PhillyJulyLC,

It doesn't make sense at all and it's not true that I-485 is more tightly tied with I-140. Infact the real truth is that I-485 backlog started to become worst and worst after USCIS tied I-140 and I-485 process together by allowing I-140 and I-485 concurrent filing. There are lot of complications/load started after that like lot more EAD to process, lot more AP to process, AC21, lot more RFEs, lot more FP (infact USCIS kept so many I-485 applications in the backlog (from OCT-2001 to FEB-2002 filers) to take care of second FP for AUG-2002 onwards filers whose 1st FP about to expires due to 15 months validity. USCIS load/overhead got increase after that. I-485 applications were taking avg 6 months timeframe and never took more than a year to adjudicate before concurrent filing.

I hope this will make more sense to you..FYI..I am not against of I-140 or concurrent filing but at the same time we should see the the root cause of the backlog and need to be addressed first if we wants to address only I-485 backlog. If we are talking about whole GC process then we should add LC process also since that was the 1st step.
What are you saying? Concurrent filing made a mess? And we are here to identify the root of the problem and give the process an overhaul? If we start questioning concurrent filing and some other matters of facts, then it is a whole other story. One point I made was that interim GC after 180 days couldn't become a reality unless I-140 issue is addressed (either regardless of its status or adjudicat it within 180 days); another point is LC process is hard to integrate in this litigation. I still don't see what is wrong with that.

To my understanding, it is Mr Khanna's intent to represent all people with an I-485 pending in USCIS, including those with an approved I-140 and otherwise. People in LC stage is obviously not in this list, but people with unapproved I-140s are because they do have a I-485 pending in USCIS.
 
Re: Decision Time

I agree with you but I think we need to add one more choice (option 5) since so many people would like to address all the scope priority wise.

Option 5: Scope of current case should be limited to I-485 only. Other scope such as I-140 and Citizenship should be address by filing separte case.

Originally posted by Dream On
Watching the comments go back and forth, why don't we take a consensus poll.

I think it reasonable to ask the following questions / give readers the following choices and then we will be able to ascertain from the forum what we should be doing.

Option 1
Vote to move forward with the latest proposal by Rajiv.

Option 2
Vote to change the scope and increase it to include things like I-140 and Citizenship.

Option 3
Vote to change the scope and limit it to just I-485.

Option 4
Vote to continue discussions on the forum without moving forward just yet.

We could set this up with a predefined cutoff date and see where we stand.

We need to stay focussed on what is reasonable and achievable - especially on things that will require a change in the law - which is something we can address longer term, NOT through this settlement. We should take Rajiv's guidance on this.

Any other ideas...??
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Yes..concurrent filing made a total mess and one of the main contibuting factor in creating huge backlog of I-485 application..because of this simple math..I485 backlog = (Increased in various applications input flow such as EAD, AP, FP, REFs, etc) - (Decrease the output flow).

I do understand your point and intent of Mr. Rajiv very well..

Originally posted by PhillyJulyLC
What are you saying? Concurrent filing made a mess? And we are here to identify the root of the problem and give the process an overhaul? If we start questioning concurrent filing and some other matters of facts, then it is a whole other story. One point I made was that interim GC after 180 days couldn't become a reality unless I-140 issue is addressed (either regardless of its status or adjudicat it within 180 days); another point is LC process is hard to integrate in this litigation. I still don't see what is wrong with that.

To my understanding, it is Mr Khanna's intent to represent all people with an I-485 pending in USCIS, including those with an approved I-140 and otherwise. People in LC stage is obviously not in this list, but people with unapproved I-140s are because they do have a I-485 pending in USCIS.
 
Re: Decision Time

Originally posted by Dream On
Watching the comments go back and forth, why don't we take a consensus poll.

I think it reasonable to ask the following questions / give readers the following choices and then we will be able to ascertain from the forum what we should be doing.

Option 1
Vote to move forward with the latest proposal by Rajiv.

Option 2
Vote to change the scope and increase it to include things like I-140 and Citizenship.

Option 3
Vote to change the scope and limit it to just I-485.

Option 4
Vote to continue discussions on the forum without moving forward just yet.

We could set this up with a predefined cutoff date and see where we stand.

We need to stay focussed on what is reasonable and achievable - especially on things that will require a change in the law - which is something we can address longer term, NOT through this settlement. We should take Rajiv's guidance on this.

Any other ideas...??


Add one more point,

Give them a list of people who have signed the petition or interested in signing the petition and ask them to approve their cases within 2 months, if they agree we will settle, if they don't then go ahead with the demands of interim GC.
 
Re: Re: No Settlement Without 4th Item

Originally posted by operations
Correct. I will listen to alternatives they have and bring them back to you, but I will not settle for you on lesser terms.

> 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 - evidenced by
> a stamp on the passport valid for 5 years2, subject to revocation only
>on national security grounds3. This "interim" approval should be given
>on a walk-in basis in an orderly manner and would carry with it all rights
> and privileges of Lawful Permanent Residence (green card), including
>commencement of the time required for naturalization.

This is definetely the cornerstone thing which will give immediate relief
to hundreds of thousands of suffering adjustees. The USCIS has a strong
point justifying the enormous delays - national security. We may also make a
strong point : national security is in no way compromised by granting the
interim GC to the persons WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE USA (and can also travel
internationally with AP). A bad person has no advantage with the interim GC
over being in indefenetely long wait for the GC.

Everyone perfectly understands the reason behind the inconvenience of
long lines in airports. Security screening before the boarding cannot be
postponed. But in the AOS case - our sufferings is absolutely in vain.
One must be stupid paranoid not to see this. Or have a hidden agenda ...

I think the same logic should be applied here as for the driver license
issuance : once the eligibility is determined, the interim document is issued.
In the case of driver license in California, the interim license is valid
for three month. During this time the DMV does the checks with INS regarding
the immigration status. If everithing is ok , the permanent DL is issued.
This scheme follows common sense : everyone understands that without
interim DL one will suffer. However in the case of AOS the current general
feeling in the USCIS is that it is ok to be in adjustee status forever. We have
already pointed out our sufferings and need to continue to stress it.

We will probably need to amend the #4 point : the basic eligibility
for the EBGC is determined at the moment of I140 adjudication. So the condition
for interim GC granting should be : 180 days of AOS + I140 approved .
 
SECURITY CHECK !?

In my understanding, INS implemented or strengthen SECURITY CHECK in November or December, 2002.
I cannot remember that Congress had passed a bill to order INS to strengthen SECURITY CHECK for all applications including I-485.
Does somebody know what SECURITY CHECK is based on
or what justifies SECURITY CHECK ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top