Can We settle on These Bases?

[Jharkhandi]

feb6361,

Your analytical ability almost impressed me. Please refer to:

INS’ interim rule, 67 FR 49561 - here is the link:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/concurrent.pdf.

It clearly says that ONLY IF IMMIGRANT VISA IS AVAILABLE THEN ONE CAN FILE CONCURRENTLY NOT OTHERWISE. So if TODAY people are applying concurrent - it means Immigrant visas (485) are available and that INS is not working on them - clear? It is not a question of workload dude. Do you know reason of delay? Refer to so many posts by Kashmir and others. It is on pretext of false security check that delay is being caused with full intent of doing so.

Another angle: No Concurrent filing. People get to 485 after 1.5 to 3 years of filing 140. INS is continuing with 'security checks'. Backlog is now same and you are still waiting.

Couple of years back - people used to wait for date to become current and then apply 485 - so it seemed 'fast'.

Also concurrent filing was started on July 31, 2002. Why are people in 485 queue waiting with dates as far as 2001?

Just off the topic but why is CT SESA still processing LC of last century in non RIR? See you cannot blame everything on concurrent filing.

I hope you got the point now. Please refrain from dragging it away from topic at this stage, otherwise your logic will sound as good as this one: "485 is delayed due to rain in Timbaktu. It caused atmospheric pressure change and gave rise to Hurricane Isabel(what a name!!!) . It was raining in NC, where INS officer's wife went for visit and could not contact in time. She is in NY now, but officer being upset - did not work on my case. Timbaktu is root cause of delay in 485 processing."

Let us move ahead as Rajiv has mentioned times and again and not fall in such traps.

P.S. How do you plan to get 485 in situation of cocurrrent filing without addressing 140 issues?

 

[cinta]

Security Checks

Kashmir,

You are right. Thre is no Congressional approval of the whole mess called Security Checks, besides the Patriot Act which does not justify the proceedings, the repetition in re-adjudicating cases and the rest. It is US CIS policy to execute them in any way they fit, within unlimited time and no accountability to the public's right to know. Even worse, these are done by the adjudicators with no additional resources and people..only after the GAO report they realised that they need more money!! and then they propose to increase fees after more than two years.
Wrt the "interim", when somebody asks for something less, he/she automatically brings the presumption of some kind of guilt.
Is it our fault if the databases are not integrated yet?? Why should we wait? We are being discriminated against any prior GC holder or Citizen with respect to these security checks.

 

[kashmir]

Re: Security Checks

Thanks, cinta.

So, Security Checks is just a plicy of USCIS.
If somebody at DOJ or INS decided to strengthen Security Checks without Congress,
DHS or USCIS should be able to eliminate unnecessary Security Checks or to set reasonable level of Security Checks without Congress.
The Court may be able to order it to DHS/USCIS.
I believe we have a chance.

Regarding #4,
1) we should settle with USCIS as soon as possible considering majority of suffering people, then negotiate with USCIS about Security Checks later,
or
2) we should discuss with (or fight against) USCIS including Security Checks from the beginning.
Which should we choose ?

 

[shsa]

Originally posted by Jharkhandi
feb6361,

P.S. How do you plan to get 485 in situation of cocurrrent filing without addressing 140 issues?

I think the reverse is also true with respect to concurent filing, if 485 is taken care of - it mean 140 is taken care of too.

As most of the new application are filed cocurent (where 140 is pending), so we don't need to address 140 as it will be taken care of automatically, if we address the 485 issue.

 

[jose loaiza]

Hi
I have been following this thread several times per day.
I love the idea of an Interim/conditional GC. Actually, it would take care most part of our suffering.
I think we need to be realistic, and realize that we are dealing with USCIS, that for years have done things on their way. They may continue burockracy if they don't see a common point of view from our part. We want to settle ASAP and that's why we need to stay focused.
Please ask your selvels the main reason of our suffering is the fact of not being able to move on, for not being able to grow proffesionally. It is true that the delays in I 140, LC, etc are a pain in the B, but if we just were able to continue growing professionally, studying, working, being promoted. That would relieve us. The most important things IMHO are:

1- implement I140 premium process. (3 months)
2- I485 approved after 180 of filing, if I140 approved... (and the rest of point #4)
If you think about this, that means that AC21 will become useless because every one would be able to move on after 9 months (maximum).
If we sent a short and strong proposal, would be easier for them to think about it, and hopefully, more motivated to approve it.

let's keep praying for this!!!
Leo

 

[lca_001]

Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

This is where the problem lies, people become selfish and tend to think of just themselves. Rajiv and gang have worked so hard not to benefit a few, but the whole community. I am still a silent observer in these threads because I am still in my LC stage, but I see some great people like Edison et el., who even after getting approved are ralying around for a resolution, while others want the lawsuit's just to help just their particular class (I am sure, given a chance, people would say lets give USCIS just "my" information and ask them to approve, then I dont care what happens to the rest).

I am no lawyer or anything, but I believe any successful negotiation begins with big demands, there is always give and take - if we demand just one point as you suggest, there is nothing the otherside can bargain upon - so asking a lot of things and then paring down the demands makes the otherside think that they did not "sell" themselves to settle the lawsuit, and thus I believe this long list will help get the ball rolling.

If you think (of course we are all hoping for that) that USCIS will agree to all the points then I think you are in some la-la land. Having all these 140 issues (which many claim is not a issue, but if you look at CSC, it will soon become a big issue) in the list can be the bargain element.

Just my thoughts,
001

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.

 

[lca_001]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Your statement is nothing short of a Bushism -- If, as many claim that 140 is not an issue becasue it will just take 6-8 months to get resolved, then the pileup is just time shifted by 6 months, because after 6 months all these application would still pile up in USCIS queue. So I dont think concurrent filing makes a mess because the workload is no different than a non concurrent filing regime.


001

Originally posted by feb6361
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..

 

[shsa]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Originally posted by lca_001
This is where the problem lies, people become selfish and tend to think of just themselves. Rajiv and gang have worked so hard not to benefit a few, but the whole community. I am still a silent observer in these threads because I am still in my LC stage, but I see some great people like Edison et el., who even after getting approved are ralying around for a resolution, while others want the lawsuit's just to help just their particular class (I am sure, given a chance, people would say lets give USCIS just "my" information and ask them to approve, then I dont care what happens to the rest).

I am no lawyer or anything, but I believe any successful negotiation begins with big demands, there is always give and take - if we demand just one point as you suggest, there is nothing the otherside can bargain upon - so asking a lot of things and then paring down the demands makes the otherside think that they did not "sell" themselves to settle the lawsuit, and thus I believe this long list will help get the ball rolling.

If you think (of course we are all hoping for that) that USCIS will agree to all the points then I think you are in some la-la land. Having all these 140 issues (which many claim is not a issue, but if you look at CSC, it will soon become a big issue) in the list can be the bargain element.

Just my thoughts,
001

First of all you are showing selfishness on your part because you are in the LC stage and are worried about the 140 delays and want to include this in the lawsuit which is clearly filed for the AOS and might delay the settlement of the complaint.

Please read the rajeev comment and the complaint extract below

Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shsa
_______________________________________________
_____

Rajeev,

Are we modifiying the complaint because in the complaint there is no mention of 140 delays

"This action challenges the unreasonable delays in processing of Emplyment Based Adjustment of Status(AOS) Application Pending before all Service Centers of UnitedStates Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS)"


I don't know how you will justify including the I140 delays as it is clearly mentioned the complaint is for AOS.

Please comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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.


__________________
Rajiv S. Khanna; Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC - Your Host
rskhanna@immigration.com; http://www.immigration.com
703-908-4800 Extension 110

 

[feb6361]

Jharkhandi,

Please read my note properly before commenting any thing...I said that concurrent filling is one of the main factor for the backlog not the only factor...FYI...I-485 backlogs/EAD backlogs/AP backlog also started to accumulate also after July 2002 onwards..Why AC-21 has been intorduce? not due to Security checks! What is the main reason behind USCIS started to issue more RFEs? Do you know they are mostly Employment related? have you seen any RFE issued related to SECURITY CHECK? do you know, how much time gets vested between RFE issued and response. I know, you are one of the smartest guy among all and thank you for your best complements but please try to respect others opinion also....

P.S. Also, I said I am not agaist of concurrent filing or any other issue..my whole point was to just address I-485 backlog issue first and resolve it with in a 2 to 4 months and then address rest of other issues.

Originally posted by Jharkhandi
feb6361,

Your analytical ability almost impressed me. Please refer to:

INS’ interim rule, 67 FR 49561 - here is the link:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/concurrent.pdf.

It clearly says that ONLY IF IMMIGRANT VISA IS AVAILABLE THEN ONE CAN FILE CONCURRENTLY NOT OTHERWISE. So if TODAY people are applying concurrent - it means Immigrant visas (485) are available and that INS is not working on them - clear? It is not a question of workload dude. Do you know reason of delay? Refer to so many posts by Kashmir and others. It is on pretext of false security check that delay is being caused with full intent of doing so.

Another angle: No Concurrent filing. People get to 485 after 1.5 to 3 years of filing 140. INS is continuing with 'security checks'. Backlog is now same and you are still waiting.

Couple of years back - people used to wait for date to become current and then apply 485 - so it seemed 'fast'.

Also concurrent filing was started on July 31, 2002. Why are people in 485 queue waiting with dates as far as 2001?

Just off the topic but why is CT SESA still processing LC of last century in non RIR? See you cannot blame everything on concurrent filing.

I hope you got the point now. Please refrain from dragging it away from topic at this stage, otherwise your logic will sound as good as this one: "485 is delayed due to rain in Timbaktu. It caused atmospheric pressure change and gave rise to Hurricane Isabel(what a name!!!) . It was raining in NC, where INS officer's wife went for visit and could not contact in time. She is in NY now, but officer being upset - did not work on my case. Timbaktu is root cause of delay in 485 processing."

Let us move ahead as Rajiv has mentioned times and again and not fall in such traps.

P.S. How do you plan to get 485 in situation of cocurrrent filing without addressing 140 issues?

 

[Jharkhandi]

Originally posted by shsa
I think the reverse is also true with respect to concurent filing, if 485 is taken care of - it mean 140 is taken care of too.

As most of the new application are filed cocurent (where 140 is pending), so we don't need to address 140 as it will be taken care of automatically, if we address the 485 issue.

From your post, I belv you understand the importance of 140 in lawsuit. If that is the case - why do you want to leave loophole by thinking that 140 will be taken care automatically? How does it hurts to put things on agenda - rather then understanding that it is obvious for both sides? Logic goes: Person sitting in car is pointing his hand straight out of window. Inference - car window is open. NEVER IMPLIED: He/she intends to make a turn. Hundereds of way in which this maybe true - one possible way: car engine itself is not running. (Derived thru Nyaya philosophy - Vaisesika can point even more clearer - not enough space to put in here.)

Moral of the post: Nothing is obvious.

 

[lca_001]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Originally posted by shsa
First of all you are showing selfishness on your part because you are in the LC stage and are worried about the 140 delays and want to include this in the lawsuit which is clearly filed for the AOS and might delay the settlement of the complaint.

Ha Ha Ha, my LC is nowhere near getting approved, I am planning to spend my next 2-3 years waiting for my LC to move, so I have no short term interests, but that does not mean I want you people to wait and spend an eternity waiting for your GC just because I have to wait.

I apologize if my remarks stung you personally, but I just stated what I am seeing in the threads.

001

 

[shsa]

Originally posted by Jharkhandi
From your post, I belv you understand the importance of 140 in lawsuit. If that is the case - why do you want to leave loophole by thinking that 140 will be taken care automatically? How does it hurts to put things on agenda - rather then understanding that it is obvious for both sides? Logic goes: Person sitting in car is pointing his hand straight out of window. Inference - car window is open. NEVER IMPLIED: He/she intends to make a turn. Hundereds of way in which this maybe true - one possible way: car engine itself is not running. (Derived thru Nyaya philosophy - Vaisesika can point even more clearer - not enough space to put in here.)

Moral of the post: Nothing is obvious.

Because there is no mention of 140 in the complaint which Rajeev has filed -- and will weaken our case if he mention it in the settlement. (It is also increasing the # of points)

But If we don't mention it in the settlement then it will be automatically taken care of with the concurent filling. If 485 is adjucated it mean 140 is adjucated.

 

[lca_001]

Originally posted by shsa

But If we don't mention it in the settlement then it will be automatically taken care of with the concurent filling. If 485 is adjucated it mean 140 is adjucated.

No it does not imply that 140 will automatically be adujudicated if 485 is adjudicated. Currently one is not allowed to make use of AC21 unless 140 is approved, even though you may have an EAD, and have spent 180 days after filing for 485, the law probably never said anything about 140 not having been approved, so the implementation is subject to the discretion of the USCIS. As Jharkhandi said, it is never good to assume anything, for a very nice rendition of the fact watch Bedazzled. So I think it is a good thing to have the expectations explicitly stated and approved.


001

 

[shsa]

Originally posted by lca_001
No it does not imply that 140 will automatically be adujudicated if 485 is adjudicated. Currently one is not allowed to make use of AC21 unless 140 is approved, even though you may have an EAD, and have spent 180 days after filing for 485, the law probably never said anything about 140 not having been approved, so the implementation is subject to the discretion of the USCIS. As Jharkhandi said, it is never good to assume anything, for a very nice rendition of the fact watch Bedazzled. So I think it is a good thing to have the expectations explicitly stated and approved.


001

485 is adjucated on the basis of 140, there is no way 485 is approved and 140 not approved.

 

[lca_001]

Exactly having 485 approved means that you should have had your 140 approved. If you dont include some expectations on 140, at the end of 180 days people who will be expecting either a fast processing or a temporary GC, will be shown a letter stating that they will not get their temp GC unless 140 is approved, so if 140 drags on for ever, so does the tempGC. Refer back to my argument about using AC21 portability where even if you have EAD you cant use them to jump ships because 140 has not yet been approved. I think it is very naive to think that since we setteled on GC after 180 days, 140 will automatically be approved within 180 days.

I am aware of Rajiv's statement that if the USCIS is unreasonable, he will extend the scope of the lawsuit, but instead of spending huge amount of time again to file lawsuits, it is best if we put our expectations on how the relief should work so that there is no way for USCIS to wiggle out of the settlement.

001

Originally posted by shsa
485 is adjucated on the basis of 140, there is no way 485 is approved and 140 not approved.

 

[Jharkhandi]

Originally posted by feb6361
Jharkhandi,

Please read my note properly before commenting any thing...I said that concurrent filling is one of the main factor for the backlog not the only factor...FYI...I-485 backlogs/EAD backlogs/AP backlog also started to accumulate also after July 2002 onwards..Why AC-21 has been intorduce? not due to Security checks! What is the main reason behind USCIS started to issue more RFEs? Do you know they are mostly Employment related? have you seen any RFE issued related to SECURITY CHECK? do you know, how much time gets vested between RFE issued and response. I know, you are one of the smartest guy among all and thank you for your best complements but please try to respect others opinion also....

P.S. Also, I said I am not agaist of concurrent filing or any other issue..my whole point was to just address I-485 backlog issue first and resolve it with in a 2 to 4 months and then address rest of other issues.

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'.



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!

 

[shsa]

Originally posted by lca_001
Exactly having 485 approved means that you should have had your 140 approved. If you dont include some expectations on 140, at the end of 180 days people who will be expecting either a fast processing or a temporary GC, will be shown a letter stating that they will not get their temp GC unless 140 is approved, so if 140 drags on for ever, so does the tempGC. Refer back to my argument about using AC21 portability where even if you have EAD you cant use them because to jump ships because 140 has not yet been approved. I think it is very naive to think that since we setteled on GC after 180 days, 140 will automatically be approved within 180 days.

I am aware of Rajiv's statement that if the USCIS is unreasonable, he will extend the scope of the lawsuit, but instead of spending huge amount of time again to file lawsuits, it is best if we put our expectations on how the relief should work so that there is no way for USCIS to wiggle out of the settlement.

001

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).

 

[Jharkhandi]

shsa,

What if they remove concurrent filing? (It is one of the points by Rajiv - no?)

And if you call 001 selfish - HA HA HA.

 

[shsa]

Originally posted by Jharkhandi
shsa,

What if they remove concurrent filing? (It is one of the points by Rajiv - no?)

And if you call 001 selfish - HA HA HA.

He called me first !!!

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

 

[Jharkhandi]

Just Acad sake.

Originally posted by shsa
485 is adjucated on the basis of 140, there is no way 485 is approved and 140 not approved.

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.