DHS / US CIS Issues

USCIS

From "usis.gov"

Looking ahead. (certainly not at us)

Looking Ahead
During the next year,USCIS will:
• Expand E-filing opportunities to our corporate customers by making E-filing available for
both nonimmigrant and immigrant employment-based petitions in addition to four other
form types.
• Initiate four additional pilot projects to streamline processing of four different application
processes,which will improve customer service,reduce the backlog,and make the process
more fraud-resistant.
Launch a new immigrant orientation initiative.
Expand our line reduction initiative.
• Create a new identity check system that will allow USCIS to check the information stored
in IBIS,FBI and CIA systems simultaneously.
 
Pilot programs

Curtesy of "www.visalaw.com"

Is it really 90 days? Processing at MSC and Fingerprints Backlogs?

This means that ALL THESE PEOPLE CAN HAVE ALL THEIR SECURITY CHECKS AND NAME CHECKS FINISHED IN LESS THAN 90 DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exclusion of EB I-485. WHY NOT US??? DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.visalaw.com/04mar5/2mar504.html

What happens after the interview?

Once the interview is complete, the case will be sent to the National Benefits Center (NBC) in Missouri for processing. The NBC will assign a case number (or “A” number) to the applicant. The NBC will send instructions to schedule a fingerprinting appointment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Demo

Demonstrators Swarm Around Rove's Home

By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 29, 2004; Page B01

Several hundred people stormed the small yard of President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, yesterday afternoon, pounding on his windows, shoving signs at others and challenging Rove to talk to them about a bill that deals with educational opportunities for immigrants.

Protesters poured out of one school bus after another, piercing an otherwise quiet, peaceful
Sunday in Rove's Palisades neighborhood in
Northwest, chanting, "Karl,Karl, come on out! See
what the DREAM Act is all about!" Rove obliged their first request and opened his door long enough to say, "Get off my property."

"Seems like he doesn't want to invite us in for tea," Emira Palacios quipped to the crowd.

Others chanted, "Karl Rove ain't got no soul."

The crowd then grew more aggressive, fanning around the three accessible sides of Rove's house, tracking him through the many windows, waving signs that read "Say Yes to DREAM" and pounding on the glass. At one point, Rove rushed to a window,
pointed a finger and yelled something inaudible.

Shortly thereafter, sirens shot through the neighborhood and Secret Service agents and D.C. police joined the crowd on the lawn. Rove opened his door long enough to talk to an officer, and the crowd serenaded them with a stanza of "America the Beautiful."

The protest was organized by National People's Action, a coalition of neighborhood advocacy groups based in Chicago.

Leaders said they want Bush to advocate for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, a bill that would permit immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years to apply for legal resident status once they graduate from high school. The measure would eliminate provisions of current federal law that
discourage states from providing in-state tuition to undocumented student immigrants.

Immigrant activists say that 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented students graduate from U.S. high school each year and that many students can afford college only at the reduced, in-state rates given to legal residents.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in the fall but has not been brought before the full Senate for a vote.

Asked for Bush's position on the bill, spokesman Jim Morrell said, "The president has laid out the principles he believes should guide immigration discussion, and he is willing to work with Congress."

When pressed to state Bush's specific position on the DREAM legislation, Morrell repeated his statement.

The coalition's leaders, who converge on Washington each year to advocate for various issues, said they targeted Rove because they could not get as close to the White House as they could to his house. Rove also is one of Bush's main advisers, and he did not reply to their requests for a meeting, leaders said.

"We want the DREAM Act, and Karl Rove is sitting on it," said Brenda LaBlanc, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.

Coalition leaders said the demonstrators were to protest other policies at the houses of two Cabinet secretaries, Elaine L. Chao of Labor and Ann M. Veneman of Agriculture.

But what the group really wanted was a conversation with Rove, who declined to comment to a reporter through a Secret Service agent.

And after about 30 minutes of goading by protesters in English and Spanish, Rove agreed to meet with two members of the coalition on the condition that the rest of the protesters board their buses and leave his street. The group obliged.

Rove opened his garage door and allowed Palacios and Inez Killingsworth to enter. The meeting lasted two minutes and ended with Rove closing the garage door on Palacios while she was still talking.

Palacios said that Rove was "very upset" and was "yelling in our faces" and that Rove told them "he hoped we were proud to make his 14-year-old and 10-year-old cry."

A White House spokesman said one of the children was a neighbor.

Palacios, trembling and in tears herself, said, "He is very offended because we dared to come here. We dared to come here because he dared to ignore us. I'm sorry we disturbed his children, but our children are disturbed every day.

"He also said, 'Don't ever dare to come back,' " Palacios said. "We will, if he continues to ignore us."
 
Re: Pilot programs

Originally posted by cinta
Curtesy of "www.visalaw.com"

Is it really 90 days? Processing at MSC and Fingerprints Backlogs?

This means that ALL THESE PEOPLE CAN HAVE ALL THEIR SECURITY CHECKS AND NAME CHECKS FINISHED IN LESS THAN 90 DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exclusion of EB I-485. WHY NOT US??? DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a discrimination. This is a pilot program. In a pilot program, you want to have full access or control to the entire process and documents. Employment-based I-485s have to be filed in a Service Center; if an interview is required it will eventually be transferred to a local office.

Family-based I-485s (and some other I-485 cases) are filed in a local office, hence the have full access to the documents right from the beginning. This way, they can measure the process without having to wait for anything from the Service Centers. Probably the only unkown factor here is how fast the FP scheduling is done by the other facility, in this case NBC.
That is way they also have contingency; i.e. what will happen if a case cannot be approved in 90 days.

I think a few important points can be learned at the end of this Pilot program:
1. Whether it is realistic to process I-485 (up till approval) in 90 days.
2. If not, what are the causes of the delay, especially after the interview is complete. One possible cause is background/security check, which at this time nobody knows how long it is going to take. FP check is usually performed/completed in less than 4-6 hours.

Here is the original document about this Pilot program from CIS:
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/dallasdisti485launchprog.pdf

The page you quoted has an error in the last section.
 
Re: Re: Pilot programs

Originally posted by GC012002
I don't think this is a discrimination. This is a pilot program. In a pilot program, you want to have full access or control to the entire process and documents. Employment-based I-485s have to be filed in a Service Center; if an interview is required it will eventually be transferred to a local office.

Family-based I-485s (and some other I-485 cases) are filed in a local office, hence the have full access to the documents right from the beginning. This way, they can measure the process without having to wait for anything from the Service Centers. Probably the only unkown factor here is how fast the FP scheduling is done by the other facility, in this case NBC.
That is way they also have contingency; i.e. what will happen if a case cannot be approved in 90 days.

I think a few important points can be learned at the end of this Pilot program:
1. Whether it is realistic to process I-485 (up till approval) in 90 days.
2. If not, what are the causes of the delay, especially after the interview is complete. One possible cause is background/security check, which at this time nobody knows how long it is going to take. FP check is usually performed/completed in less than 4-6 hours.

Here is the original document about this Pilot program from CIS:
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/dallasdisti485launchprog.pdf

The page you quoted has an error in the last section.
Click to expand...

What I simply wanted to say is discrimination in the underlining assumption that a PILOT program, whoever participates can have their FP and Security checks done within 90 days, in spite of all existing backlogs in the ASC centers for FP and USCIS for Security checks (FBI, CIA, DOS).
Any PILOT program with valid expectation results besides PROGANANDA should take into effect the current reality. This one does not and even if does, is discriminatory in its assumptions: i.e. Why a certain random group of people can be processed in a fixed time interval while the majority cannot?

A parallel is the survey done by USCIS on the customer service phone line. They found that 80% of the customers are satisfied! I assure you they will find out that the pilot program was 100% success and everybody will benefit by the end of this decade.................................

Note: The causes and problems have been well researced and published in a lot of places, including this one. Need no pilots to find them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More PILOTS!

This much for FIFO and LIFO: More pilot programs!
Curtesy of "www.immigration-law.com"

04/01/2004: Hey, Step Aside "Concurrent Filing," 90-day I-140/I-485 "Concurrent Adjudication" is Looming Up!

According to the AILA, the USCIS is launching two interesting pilot programs to complete adjudication of I-485 applications within 90 days of filing. This is not a April 1 joke.
In family-based I-485 cases, Dallas Local District of USCIS will launch such program beginning from May 3, 2004. The I-485 applicant will be "interviewed at the time of filing" and adjudicated within 90days. FB-485, DV-485, Special Immigrants-485 will be covered, but Asylee/Refugee-485, EB-485, and LIFE Act-485 will not be covered. Wow, the families and DV lottery winners should move to Dallas! It is hoped that people in Dallas USCIS jurisdiction are not exploded with flock of married couples, the relatives of U.S. citizen, etc.
In Employment-based I-140/I-485 cases, California Service Center is reportedly about to launch such 90-day concurrent I-140/I-485 adjudication program for EB-2 concurrent-filing cases.
NIW-based EB-2 will not be covered by the pilot progam. Remember that the eligible cases are non-NIW EB-2 cases of concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 only. In EB-2, if you file NIW case, you are out. If you file I-140 for non-NIW EB-2 but not concurrently with I-485, you are out too. Only currently filed cases will be covered by this 90-day I-485 adjudication pilot program. Since the
concurrent-filing rule requires that the I-140/I-485 be filed at the jurisdiction of I-140 petition, meaning the job site or place of employment, the people who obtained a labor certification approval for the job sites outside of the California Service Center jurisdiction should not attempt to flock into the California Service Center by selling their homes in other jurisdictions and moving into the CSC jurisdiction. It ain't going to work! Interesting question which has yet to be answered by the California Service Center is "undetermined location" labor certification cases. These cases
are filed not at the location of job or place of employment but the location of the main business office of the employer. Accordingly, should employer's main office be located in the California Service Center jurisdiction, no matter where the roving job will be located, such EB-2 filers are allowed to file at the California Service Center regardless of their job sites and location of residence, and theoretically, they should be eligible for such pilot program privilege. It Ain't Interesting?
What do they mean by "pilot program?" Common sense tells that it means a testing of certain program to test the water. Overall, pilot program will give a hope to all the I-485 filers, including family-based and employment-based, in that eventually, it will reduce the I-485 processing times tremendously throughout the country. Apparently, it is targetting at achieving reduction of processing times at one year across the board in the near future. Since it will include the time for I-140 and I-485 together, it ain't bad at all! Hold your breath!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frankly, regardless of our plight here and issues that we all might have, let's not adopt the me first and only attitude, since that attitude is at the root of some of the problems we face. The family based immigration has long been the worst backlog and believe me that there are stories just as, if not more, compelling as any that EB folks might have. As far as the lottery, once again, the lottery winners have won a lottery and have been included in this program. Maybe the goal is to get them on the fast track through the process and not make them as jaded as some of the folks get when going through a 3 year wait period. Also, who knows, maybe AILA has done more lobbying on the family green card behalf than EB behalf.
 
Originally posted by Milko_Djurovski
Frankly, regardless of our plight here and issues that we all might have, let's not adopt the me first and only attitude, since that attitude is at the root of some of the problems we face. The family based immigration has long been the worst backlog and believe me that there are stories just as, if not more, compelling as any that EB folks might have. As far as the lottery, once again, the lottery winners have won a lottery and have been included in this program. Maybe the goal is to get them on the fast track through the process and not make them as jaded as some of the folks get when going through a 3 year wait period. Also, who knows, maybe AILA has done more lobbying on the family green card behalf than EB behalf.
Click to expand...

The argument is for ALL. Family based and EB based. Both experience administrative BAcklogs/Delays. There is no question about it. In fact Family Based also experience BACKLOGS in waiting to get a visa number, ten years to twenty.
AILA and others (democrats)justifiably protest this and include it in any immigration reform proposal.
The problem I have is with these pilot programs. I do not think they are of any value at this present time especially for thousands of people, again both family and EB. What is the experiment here? A few people get their GCs fast and what about the rest? What about us, waiting for years?
 
The experiment could be described as the following: appease a few people that are yelling the hardest (therefore the AILA lobbying for family based GC remark) and shut them up. In other words, the approach here, because of both bureocracy and lack of financial backing from the administration, is not to remedy or redesign the process at this time. It is patchwork in order to stop the gaps that are the worst in the process. Again, I bet if you asked an official, the answer would be the following: between speeding up a process for non-constituents and letting potentially dangerous people in the country, they always choose to be safe rather than sorry. Not that this is an excuse for the lack of communication and organization at the CIS, but if CIA and FBI cannot share documentation and stuff of vital interest to the country, why would CIS be an exception (getting on a tanget, but this is the heart of the matter)? Delays are also useful for big employers of GC candidates on L1s or H1Bs or EADs as they allow them to pay below the market value and enforce work restrictions that maximize the value of the person to the company. In summation, no skin of anyone's back other than ours. The attempts to get the American public on the side of EB applicants are ridiculous and useless.
 
Pilots / fairness

Curtesy of "www.immigration-law.com"

04/04/2004: USCIS Pilot Immigration Adjudication Programs Needs Backlog Reduction Initiatives in Parallel

As we reported recently, the USCIS will soon launch pilot short-cut immigration adjudication programs, starting with the Dallas District Office for the non-employment based I-485 applications
and the California Service Center for the employment-based EB-485 applications. Both of these pilot programs are targeting at adjudication of I-485 applications within 90 days of filing.
These programs are at least initially limited to the "new filing" cases at the time of their launch of the pilot programs. The concept appears to have been derived from the notion that once new
filing cases are quickly adjudicated, then the huge backlog cases which have been clogged in the pipeline may also be benefited because of additional adjudication resources which are made
available by the shortened adjudication of new cases.
However, there is a question of "fairness" for those who have been suffering for years because of the backlog. The old timers may rememer that in 1998, there was a huge I-485 backlogs because of the CIA clearance problem for about a year. In an attempt to deal with the clogged immigration system, the Legacy INS adopted a similar policy at the time to adjudicate later-filed cases ahead of the old cases to avoid repeated refingerprinting process which would add the caseloads to the agency. When the agency resumed the pace of the backlogged I-485 cases,late-filing cases started seeing reduction of adjudication time, but old-filers had to experience years of delays because of the refingerprinting and additional securiy process. It is submitted that the agency should not repeat the practice of unfairness.
It does not mean that this web site does not support the pilot programs. We do. We strongly support the bold move. We just want to encourage the USCIS to initiate a similar move for existing
backlog reduction in order to maintain some level of "fairness"in management of adjudication function. One way to reduce the existing backlog could be to launch a "proactive" submission of
evidence instead of responses to the RFE. Without doubt, the current practice of issuing RFEs at least one or even two or three times in almost every EB-485 case must be creating huge workloads which lead to the tremendous backlog. The backlog then creates additional workloads for refingerpring" after 15 months, which again leads to further backlog. A vicious circle. In fact, this web site proposed quite earlier to the INS to reinstate the "Proactive Filing of Evidence" which was adopted by the Nebraska Service Center for a year or two a few years back.
Proactive filing means that the EB-485 filers voluntarily collect the additional evidence to update the eligibility of I-485 application such that the agency does not have to issue RFE. No one
knows why such practice has been suspended in the Nebraska Service Center. We strongly urge the USCIS to consider such practice as one of the devices which the USCIS may develop to reduce the existing backlogs. The idea of issuance of EAD for more than a year which may become a reality in the future along with the idea of using EAD or Advance Parole as authorization for both work and travel instead of issuing two separate publications /documents is another terrific idea which the USCIS has been pushing. We compliment the agency for the creative ideas.
Here, we are just addding one additional idea which we hope the agency will take a look at more seriously. "Fairness" should be a paramount goal in the admnistrative proceedings, in the
humble opinion of this reporter.
 
Hey guys and hello Cinta,
I have been reading your posts since august 2003 u seem like a immi guru man. In your august03 post u mentioned about cases should be transfered to Missouri center to reduce the backlog do u have any other information on that my friend, please share about how they are going to expedite these cases and how longit is going to take. my case is EB3 case and was transferred to MSc from Vsc on oct 2003 I am from NYc and Rd is april 02 and online message says case transferred for them to schedule and conduct your interview and till now have not heard from them niether a 2nd fp.
thanks man
 
Originally posted by Anil151
Hey guys and hello Cinta,
I have been reading your posts since august 2003 u seem like a immi guru man. In your august03 post u mentioned about cases should be transfered to Missouri center to reduce the backlog do u have any other information on that my friend, please share about how they are going to expedite these cases and how longit is going to take. my case is EB3 case and was transferred to MSc from Vsc on oct 2003 I am from NYc and Rd is april 02 and online message says case transferred for them to schedule and conduct your interview and till now have not heard from them niether a 2nd fp.
thanks man
Click to expand...

I have no news about MSC and the transfers. Sorry!
I understand is totally unfair.
 
Chron / Houston Chronicle

April 2, 2004, 11:21AM

Suit to proceed as class action against Homeland Security

Delays alleged in immigration papers

By ZANTO PEABODY
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

A federal judge has allowed a Texas lawsuit to go forward as a class action against the Department of Homeland
Security, which is accused of taking too long to provide necessary paperwork to legal immigrants.

McAllen District Court Judge Ricardo Hinojosa on Wednesday granted the status to a lawsuit brought last May
by the Texas Lawyers' Committee and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which
represents permanent legal residents in Houston, San Antonio and Harlingen.

Javier Maldonado, executive director of the Texas Lawyers' Committee, said about 500 immigrants at any time
are awaiting the documents that prove their legal status. The papers are needed to get a job, a driver's license and
to travel abroad.

The groups sued the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, formerly known as the Immigration and
Naturalization Service before being folded into Homeland Security, in hopes that the government would reduce the
time it takes for workers to get the documents down to three days.

The Homeland Security press office directed calls to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, which
did not respond Thursday.

Some people who already have been awarded permanent legal status in immigration court have waited six months
or more to get paperwork that proves it.

"These people cannot pay Social Security taxes or get Social Security numbers or drivers' licenses," Maldonado
said. "They can't change jobs or get health benefits. One client had a brother who was dying abroad, but he could
not visit because he would not be able to prove he was in this country legally."

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs lawyers said the immigration bureau delays paperwork while claiming to run FBI
background checks. The checks, however, could be run during the application process or within three days of
awarding legal status because they generally are handled by computers, Maldonado said.
 
EAD / Courts

WORK AUTHORIZATION IN ASYLUM APPEALS
Posted on: 3/2/2004

QUESTION: MY ASYLUM CASE IS ON APPEAL, MAY I GET WORK AUTHORIZATION WHILE WAITING FOR THE APPEAL?

Many persons file appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals following denial of their asylum claim. It is vital that throughout their appeal they continue to have work authorization. If you qualified for work authorization during the time that you filed your asylum claim, you can extend that work authorization during the full time of your appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. (8 C.F.R. 208.7(b)) The asylum applicant is entitled to work authorization during the appeal and this authorization will be granted in one-year increments. (8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(10)).

Although it is clear that applicants are entitled to this benefit, the Immigration Service frequently withholds the employment authorization claiming that the applicant has not fulfilled a requirement that the asylum proceedings lasted more than 150 days. (8 C.F.R. 208.8(a)(1)).* Where cases have taken more than 150 days the USCIS then blames the delay on the asylum applicant and still refuses to issue work authorization.

Reeves & Associates recently took this issue to the Federal District court and obtained the work authorization from the Immigration Service for their client. The government issued the employment authorization only after it was clearly demonstrated from immigration court hearing transcripts that the government was responsible for 159 days of delay in presenting their case to the court. These delays may include failure to perform background checks based on fingerprints, failure to produce witnesses or a simple failure to obtain the file of the asylum applicant for the hearing.

It is this attention to detail, research of the record and willingness to take this issue to Federal District Court that allowed this office to reverse the Immigration Service’s Decision.

It is important to note that an asylum claim should never be filed unless the immigrant has a well-founded fear of persecution. Unfortunately many immigration services, paralegals and attorneys wrongly recommend asylum applications in an effort to obtain work authorization for their clients. This abuse of the system may lead to tragic results where individuals end up in deportation proceedings without any relief.

Even if you are subject to a final order of deportation persons may still obtain work authorization where the country will not accept that person, where it can be determined that there is an economic necessity to be employed, the presence of a dependent spouse or child, or a substantial length of time existing prior to that person being removed from the United States. (8 C.F.R. 274A.12(c)(18))

People wishing to file for asylum or appeal a decision of an Immigration Judge, should seek the advice of a well-informed immigration firm. Those attorneys who have overlooked changes in the law or fail to examine the record of proceedings may seriously compromise their client’s right to work while their asylum claims are on appeal.

*NOTE: Work authorization may be granted in spite of the 150 day restriction rule if an asylum application is coupled with an application for some other kind of relief from deportation.

BY: ATTY. ROBERT L. REEVES AND ATTY. ROBERT J. DUPONT:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top