Minutes of the conference call
Minutes of the conference call
Date : 2/25/2004
Time : 7.30 AM to 8.30 AM EST
Participants:
1) Rajiv Khanna, Counsel for the plaintiffs in the law suit
2) dsatish, Moderator, Member*
3) Edison , Member
4) Feb6361, Member
5) Rk4gc, member
6) Jharkhandi, member
7) 140_takes_4ever
8) rajum
9) hidden_dragon
10) lca_001
and other members
Note: Member means Member of immigrationportal.com community.
I apologize if I miss any names of the members that have participated.
Agenda:
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)
Discussions:
i) Discussion started with wishing each other and with exchange of pleasantries
ii) Items were discussed in the order of the items on the agenda
Item no.1 Conditional GC or unconditional GC
i) Members expressed their apprehensions about the new form of terminology. One member felt that this might have create another source of bottleneck.
ii) Rajiv Khanna, clarified that this “Conditional” GC is not like other conditional GC(Marriage based). His argument was that even under the current regulations, CIS could revoke the duly approved green card within 5 years. However, understanding the apprehensions of the members, Rajiv Khanna agreed to look into the language and also said he already changed the word “Conditional” to “interim”. However, he indicated that the “condition on pending security check” would remain in the language.
iii) One member raised the point that CIS do the security check even while issuing interim EAD. Rajiv Khanna explained that that security check does not cover all the 4-point security check. Rajiv however said that he does not know the complete details of 4-point security check but if members want it he can find some information on it.
iv) Decision: Rajiv Khanna will look into the language and try to make a reasonable and balanced approach while presenting to the INS.
Item 2-Not Discussed.
Item no 3. Should we make a separate proposal for BCIS not issuing any employment or salary related RFE after 6 months of filing I485?
i) One member explained the rationale behind this proposal that had the CIS adjudicated ones case within 180 days, then CIS would not have asked that person about his employment status after 180 days.
ii) Rajiv Khanna though understood the logic beyond the proposal opined that CIS cannot go against the statutes of the congress and the law is permanent job. However, he said that he will look into but however he is of opinion that this should not be our proposal among the proposals i.e. interim GC is taking care of this situation.
iii) At this time, a good amount of discussion took place between that member and Rajiv Khanna whether to include this item in the proposal. Discussion revolved around how to negotiate. Most of the members felt that proposal 1 takes care of this one and so in our set of proposals, this need not go but however we should keep this in our agenda.
iv) Member and Rajiv however respectfully differed.
v) Decision: This proposal will not be in our set of proposals but this proposal will remain active and not closed.
Item no 4. What is our proposal for I140 processing timelines?
i) Rajiv Khanna and some members thought this proposal is a good idea as that helps concurrent filers to get their interim GC within six months
ii) Some members expressed that the premium processing has to opt by the employers, employees has no control on it. Employees are totally dependent on the sponsoring companies corporate policies.
iii) Some members expressed the opinion that, seeing the experience of H1 where the regular processing time has increased drastically and so this idea may not be a good idea.
iv) Rajiv Khanna said that he would look into the language and modify it so that even if the regular petition after 180 days, will become premium processed.
v) Decision: This proposal will stay on our set of proposal but the language will be modified to take care of regular cases which has been pending for more than 180 days.
Item no 5. I-485 premium processing and local transfers.
i) Though this item is not present in our original agenda as mentioned above agenda some members raised it.
ii) Consensus among the members is that this is not necessary at this stage as we are proposing premium processing of I-140 and interim GC.
iii) One member raised the issue that if the file has transferred to local CIS then what is the date of count for 180 days for interim GC proposal. Rajiv clarified that it is always the filing date to the service center and not much discussion happened after that on local transfer.
iv) Decision: I-485 premium processing is not part of the proposals.
Item no.6 whether to have a short list of proposals (just 3 or 4) or long list (7 or 8)
i) Some members believed that having a list with some insignificant and with some redundant demands may dilute the core issues. They are of the opinion that we can reduce the proposals by combine some of the proposals and make a short list of 3 or 4 rather than 7 or 8.
ii) Rajiv Khanna thought otherwise that if we write in different paragraphs, we can put our message more effectively
iii) Some members supported Rajiv’s view point
iv) Decision: We are going with the 7- to 8- set rather than the concise version of 3-4
Miscelleneous :
i) One member suggested that we should contact Fund raisers of Indian origin in the present election and convince them to put our point across the political spectrum
ii) Some members suggested that we should go the congressman with our set of proposals to which Rajiv Khanna agreed
iii) One member proposed to meet his Senator’s secretary this Thursday and also proposed to meet Senator sometime. He invited other members and Rajiv Khanna to join him in meeting the Senator. Rajiv Khanna said that he can meet the Senator if he plans to meet the Senator in Washington DC
iv) This member also proposed to introduce some community members to the NJ team when he visits NJ next time which is some time next time. For this proposal, NJ members agreed immediately.
Discussion ended with appreciating the time of all participants and on an extremely good note.
Please ignore spell or grammar mistakes if you find any, sorry for the inconvenience. Its been prepared in a hurry
Minutes of the conference call
Date : 2/25/2004
Time : 7.30 AM to 8.30 AM EST
Participants:
1) Rajiv Khanna, Counsel for the plaintiffs in the law suit
2) dsatish, Moderator, Member*
3) Edison , Member
4) Feb6361, Member
5) Rk4gc, member
6) Jharkhandi, member
7) 140_takes_4ever
8) rajum
9) hidden_dragon
10) lca_001
and other members
Note: Member means Member of immigrationportal.com community.
I apologize if I miss any names of the members that have participated.
Agenda:
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)
Discussions:
i) Discussion started with wishing each other and with exchange of pleasantries
ii) Items were discussed in the order of the items on the agenda
Item no.1 Conditional GC or unconditional GC
i) Members expressed their apprehensions about the new form of terminology. One member felt that this might have create another source of bottleneck.
ii) Rajiv Khanna, clarified that this “Conditional” GC is not like other conditional GC(Marriage based). His argument was that even under the current regulations, CIS could revoke the duly approved green card within 5 years. However, understanding the apprehensions of the members, Rajiv Khanna agreed to look into the language and also said he already changed the word “Conditional” to “interim”. However, he indicated that the “condition on pending security check” would remain in the language.
iii) One member raised the point that CIS do the security check even while issuing interim EAD. Rajiv Khanna explained that that security check does not cover all the 4-point security check. Rajiv however said that he does not know the complete details of 4-point security check but if members want it he can find some information on it.
iv) Decision: Rajiv Khanna will look into the language and try to make a reasonable and balanced approach while presenting to the INS.
Item 2-Not Discussed.
Item no 3. Should we make a separate proposal for BCIS not issuing any employment or salary related RFE after 6 months of filing I485?
i) One member explained the rationale behind this proposal that had the CIS adjudicated ones case within 180 days, then CIS would not have asked that person about his employment status after 180 days.
ii) Rajiv Khanna though understood the logic beyond the proposal opined that CIS cannot go against the statutes of the congress and the law is permanent job. However, he said that he will look into but however he is of opinion that this should not be our proposal among the proposals i.e. interim GC is taking care of this situation.
iii) At this time, a good amount of discussion took place between that member and Rajiv Khanna whether to include this item in the proposal. Discussion revolved around how to negotiate. Most of the members felt that proposal 1 takes care of this one and so in our set of proposals, this need not go but however we should keep this in our agenda.
iv) Member and Rajiv however respectfully differed.
v) Decision: This proposal will not be in our set of proposals but this proposal will remain active and not closed.
Item no 4. What is our proposal for I140 processing timelines?
i) Rajiv Khanna and some members thought this proposal is a good idea as that helps concurrent filers to get their interim GC within six months
ii) Some members expressed that the premium processing has to opt by the employers, employees has no control on it. Employees are totally dependent on the sponsoring companies corporate policies.
iii) Some members expressed the opinion that, seeing the experience of H1 where the regular processing time has increased drastically and so this idea may not be a good idea.
iv) Rajiv Khanna said that he would look into the language and modify it so that even if the regular petition after 180 days, will become premium processed.
v) Decision: This proposal will stay on our set of proposal but the language will be modified to take care of regular cases which has been pending for more than 180 days.
Item no 5. I-485 premium processing and local transfers.
i) Though this item is not present in our original agenda as mentioned above agenda some members raised it.
ii) Consensus among the members is that this is not necessary at this stage as we are proposing premium processing of I-140 and interim GC.
iii) One member raised the issue that if the file has transferred to local CIS then what is the date of count for 180 days for interim GC proposal. Rajiv clarified that it is always the filing date to the service center and not much discussion happened after that on local transfer.
iv) Decision: I-485 premium processing is not part of the proposals.
Item no.6 whether to have a short list of proposals (just 3 or 4) or long list (7 or 8)
i) Some members believed that having a list with some insignificant and with some redundant demands may dilute the core issues. They are of the opinion that we can reduce the proposals by combine some of the proposals and make a short list of 3 or 4 rather than 7 or 8.
ii) Rajiv Khanna thought otherwise that if we write in different paragraphs, we can put our message more effectively
iii) Some members supported Rajiv’s view point
iv) Decision: We are going with the 7- to 8- set rather than the concise version of 3-4
Miscelleneous :
i) One member suggested that we should contact Fund raisers of Indian origin in the present election and convince them to put our point across the political spectrum
ii) Some members suggested that we should go the congressman with our set of proposals to which Rajiv Khanna agreed
iii) One member proposed to meet his Senator’s secretary this Thursday and also proposed to meet Senator sometime. He invited other members and Rajiv Khanna to join him in meeting the Senator. Rajiv Khanna said that he can meet the Senator if he plans to meet the Senator in Washington DC
iv) This member also proposed to introduce some community members to the NJ team when he visits NJ next time which is some time next time. For this proposal, NJ members agreed immediately.
Discussion ended with appreciating the time of all participants and on an extremely good note.
Please ignore spell or grammar mistakes if you find any, sorry for the inconvenience. Its been prepared in a hurry
Last edited by a moderator:
