DHS / US CIS Issues

Ombudsman, USCIS Director / Report to Congress

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schedule.htm

Wednesday, June 23, 2004


~Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims
4:00 p.m. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Oversight hearing on “Families & Businesses in Limbo:
The Detrimental Impact of the Immigration Backlog”.
Live Webcast - available during date and time of
meeting

Courtesy of "unitednations" and "www.shusterman.com"

http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/ombud62104.pdf

Courtesy of "www.ilw.com"

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2004,0622-backlogfsht.pdf

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2004,0622-backlog.pdf

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2004,0623-yearone.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First Data / Lobby / Events

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~33~2236033,00.html

..............................................
In March, Fote spoke at the National Press Club and
unveiled a new $10 million First Data Empowerment Fund
to help immigrant communities and foster an "enlightened"
discussion of immigration.

Fote argued at the time for more humane treatment of
immigrants and for eliminating the backlog in families
wanting to move to the U.S. legally.

Fote is personally hosting a series of immigration reform
forums across the country, including sessions in Chicago
on July 21 and in Denver on July 22.

.............................................................................
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Backlog reduction

Courtesy of "www.immigration-law.com"

07/03/2004: USCIS Actions for Backlog Reduction

The USCIS released the backlog reduction plan a few days back. However, the announcement lacked the details when it came to the actions to be taken at the stage of "backend" adjudication process. The backend reduction measures have been sporadically disclosed here and there through conference materials and meeting records. The following two are the additional information for the ongoing backlog reduction plan which we discovered: Life of IBIS Clearance: In the immigration adjudication process, one of the most obnoxious culprit that causes backlog is IBIS name check for criminals and security risk aliens. For the three years, the immigration agency worked on a rule that the adjudicators conduct the name check before
adjudication and the check remained valid "only for 35 days!" Accordingly, should the adjudication fail to complete within 35 days, the adjudicators had to redo the IBIS check over and over again. Not only the IBIS check takes time but also such work demanded a tremendous man/hour workloads leading to the eventual accumulation of backlogs. Recently, USCIS study revealed that the life of IBIS check can last longer than 35 days for the purpose of its intended detection of criminals and secruity risk aliens and has decided to change it from 35 days to "90 days." This is indeed a welcome move. This move will certainly help processing times of I-485 adjudications. Pre-Certification of I-129/I-140 Employers: USCIS one time adopted a so-called "sole jurisdiction" concept allowing the U.S. employers to file all their I-129 petitions and I-140 petitions for their alien employees with one fixed Service Center upon the pre-certification by the Service Center involved. Accordingly, large firms hiring alien employees working all different states started filing all the I-129 H and L and I-140 cases with one Service Center no matter where the actual job sites were located. This also affected the location of I-485 filing for the aliens involved. Since the agency had a policy of requiring the aliens to file I-485 at the Service Center which adjudicated I-140 petition, people were able to file I-485 applications not at the jurisdiction of their residence but at the jurisdiction of the employer's sole jurisdiction. The I-485 filers had an option to request transfer of the filer to the Service Center of the jurisdiction of their residence, but considering the fact that the transfer would cause delays, it rarely happened. The immigration agency suspended the sole jurisdiction filing and ceased to grant new sole jurisdiction privilege to the employers for sometime by now. The Service Center which continued to the last moment was Vermont Service Center. The sole jurisdiction filing traffic was one time extremely heavy because, one time, processing times was the shortest and the adjudication standards and practices were most liberal and lenient at the Vermont Service Center. For instance, when there was a gap between the two jobs for the H-1B aliens, while CSC and NSC allowed a very short period of time of 30 days, the VSC recognized even 90-day period. One undesirable consequences of the concept of sole jurisdiction was the forum shopping by the large employers, shopping for the Service Center that gives the fastest and best services for their employment-based petitions and sought sole jurisdiction privilege at the Service Center. Now it is goine. However, the Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda of the USCIS reflects that it was planning to intoduce a new concept named recertification" of certain employers filing I-129 and I-140 to streamline adjudication process towards reduction of adjudication backlogs. The Agenda indicates that the precertification rule would be published in October 2004 with the two-month comment period. No details are available about at this time as to the meaning of precertification. One thing which is obvious is that the I-129 and I-140 nonimmigrant and immigrant petitions filed by the precertified employers will be processed and adjudicated differently and in a speedy mode. Please stay tuned.
Gradual expansion of online filing of various petitions and applications will certainly help in reduction of front-end processing of cases but not the back-end processing. However, the currently tested "concurrent adjudication" including the 90-day adjudication pilot programs at the Dallas District Office and California Service Center and its anticipated expansion into other jurisdictions in the future, issuance of EAD for the life of pending applications rather than for a fixed one-year which will soon be implemented, and the above-described other actions would certainly help in reduction of backend adjudications and we wholeheartedly welcome the bold move of the USCIS leaders. We understand that the USCIS is also working on a plan to remove I-131 Advance Parole for I-485 applicants down the road, most probably incorporating the travel permit into the EAD card which would serve as work permit as well as travel permit. The agency can achieve all these changes because of technology development that allows biometric identifier features in the system and in the documents which will be carried by the aliens. The immigrant community should support the USCIS moves wholeheartedly. Lastly, the House action and USCIS decision to change the inquiry system back to the Service Centers from the private contractors of 800 number are another move that will truly serve the immigration consumers well which they deserve.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ap

Courtesy of 'www.usvisanews.com"

Procedures for Travel While Advance Parole is Pending


By Jennifer Hopkins
July 1, 2004


During a teleconference with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Service Center Operations, the American Immigration
Lawyers Association (AILA) addressed a common concern regarding travel, advance parole, and abandonment of pending applications for
advance parole:

"If a foreign national:

1.Already possesses a valid, unexpired advance parole,
2.Applies for a new advance parole while he/she is present in the U.S., AND
3.Then departs the U.S.,

[then] the foreign national must return to the U.S. during the validity period of the current advance parole already in his
or her possession.. If the foreign national returns timely, abandonment of the pending advance parole application would not
occur. However, the foreign national may not remain abroad after the initial advance parole expires and then seek to
re-enter at a later time using the subsequent advance parole that was pending adjudication at the time the person
departed the U.S.

...abandonment of a pending advance parole application does not occur if the foreign national is otherwise authorized to depart and
return because the foreign national has an I-485 pending and is re-admitted as an H-1, H-4, L-1, L-2, K-3, K-4, V-1, V-2, or
V-3." [Emphasis supplied]
 
Ability to Pay

Courtesy of "www.gurfinkel.com"

CIS HEADQUARTERS ISSUES GUIDANCE
ON AN EMPLOYER'S "ABILITY TO PAY"
by Michael J. Gurfinkel, Esq.


On May 4, 2004, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)
headquarters in Washington DC issued a memo to all Service Centers,
District Directors, and Regional Directors, instructing adjudicators (those
officers who make decisions on approving or denying petitions) how to
evaluate an employer’s “ability to pay” in connection with employment
based petitions (labor certification) .

By law, whenever an alien is petitioned (or sponsored) by an employer
through labor certification, the employer is required to file an
employment-based petition (Form I-140). The employer must also
include evidence demonstrating that the employer has the "ability to pay"
the proffered (or offered) wage. In other words, can the employer afford to
pay the alien the specified wage? If the employer is unable to show the
ability to pay the wage from the date the case was filed, the case could be
denied. The required evidence to demonstrate “ability to pay” includes
copies of at least one of the following three items:

1.Federal tax returns, from the date the labor certification was filed
to the present.
2.Annual reports.
3.Audited financial statements. (Unaudited financial statements
are not acceptable.)

If the employer does not include at least one of the above items with the
filing of the petition, the adjudicator should issue a request for evidence
(RFE), asking that the employer supply such documentation.

(In addition, the employer must also provide information concerning the
date the company was established, the current number of employees,
and the employer's gross and net annual income.)

If the initial evidence and information are properly submitted, a "positive"
(or favorable) determination on an employer's ability to pay can be made
in any one of the following circumstances:

1.The initial evidence (as reflected in annual reports, federal tax
returns, or audited financial statements) establishes that the
employer’s net income is equal to or greater than the proffered
wage.
2.The initial evidence reflects that the employer's net current
assets are equal to or greater than the proffered wage.
3.The employer is currently employing the alien, and has been
paying the alien the proffered wage.

However, if the initial submission of evidence does not establish the
employer's ability to pay, the adjudicator may deny the case outright,
without having to bother issuing an RFE.

(In the past, if an employer submitted a petition, and the adjudicator felt
that the financial information was insufficient, the adjudicator would issue
an RFE, asking for additional information and documentation.
Unfortunately, this new memo instructs that if the employer does not
initially submit sufficient evidence to establish the ability to pay, "CIS
adjudicators may deny the petition.”)

The memo notes that although an employer may submit evidence other
than the three required types of documentation (annual reports, federal
tax returns, or audited financial statements), such as profit\loss
statements, bank account records, or other personnel records,
“adjudicators are not required to accept, request, or RFE for additional
financial evidence. Acceptance of these documents by CIS is
discretionary. Therefore, if the required initial evidence is submitted and
does not establish the petitioner’s ability to pay, CIS adjudicators may
deny the petition." In that case, the employer may make or file an appeal,
motion to reopen, or motion to reconsider, if available.

I know that many people are being sponsored by their employers, and in
some instances, the employer is reluctant to provide tax returns or other
financial information. With this memo, it seems clear that if the employer
cannot, from the outset, demonstrate that the employer is earning
enough money to afford to pay the alien the proffered wage, the case can
be denied outright.

That is why it is all the more important that a case be properly prepared
and presented, and that the initial submission to the CIS fully document
the employer's ability to pay, otherwise, the case could be denied, without
a second chance to prove your case.
 
CIS / Denials

Courtesy of "www.maggio-kattar.com"

Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Denials Increase

Employment-based immigrant visa petitions are more likely to be denied now than ever
before. Although adjudication trends vary significantly from one CIS Regional Service
Center to the next, a most revealing statistic came from the CIS’s California Service Center
(CSC), which has jurisdiction over all employment-based green card applications for the
states of California and Arizona. Presently, less than 50% of all employment-based
immigrant visa petition are approved by the CSC. Just four years ago, the CSC approved
90% of all employment-based immigrant visa petitions.

An employment-based immigrant visa petition is filed by an employer on behalf of the
foreign national under most circumstances. In most cases, the DOL must first certify that
the foreign national has an offer of employment for a job for which there is a demonstrated
labor market shortage of qualified U.S. workers. For multinational executives and
managers and for outstanding researchers and university professors, an application can be
filed by the employer directly with CIS without the employer having to go through the
DOL’s labor certification process. Foreign nationals of extraordinary ability who have risen
to the top of their field as evidenced by sustained acclaim, and foreign nationals of
exceptional ability or with an advanced degree who are engaged in work that serves the
national interest, may file an employment-based immigrant visa petition by and on behalf of
themselves, and do not need a sponsoring employer to file on their behalf. Foreign nationals
and employers petitioning for such immigrant visas should seek advice on how to avoid
denials of their applications.
 
GCN.com / All by 2006!

DHS eyes outsourcing, data mining for immigration overhaul

By Wilson P. Dizard III
GCN Staff

The Homeland Security Department has asked vendors for advice on a revamped immigration processing system using outsourced services and data mining.

Citizenship and Immigration Services, the arm of DHS’ Border and Transportation Security directorate that handles immigration status changes, is in line for a complete systems overhaul under the request for information issued to vendors last month.

The RFI said the immigration agency plans one or more solicitations to focus the IT structure around the needs of customers.

CIS seeks to buy design, integration, system implementation, training and change management services associated with the IT makeover, according to procurement documents.

The DHS agency said it is particularly interested in a share-in-savings approach to the project, known as the CIS Transformation Initiative. The RFI called for information about case management, electronic filing, call centers, Web applications, knowledge management, human resources planning, document scanning, biometrics, data mining for fraud detection and point-of-sale applications.

The procurement document added that the department “seeks information about a fully outsourced solution” as well as other approaches sharing personnel, equipment and connectivity.

CIS has a global workforce of about 15,000 employees and 5,000 contractors. They now process and adjudicate more than 6 million applications annually, track about 50 million case files and serve more than 17 million customers each year.

The IT infrastructure is costly, inefficient and nearly obsolete, the RFI said. It “consists of nonstandard, outdated infrastructure supporting more than 60 minimally integrated applications, is batch-processing-oriented, and makes limited use of Web tools and applicant self-service. Programs still rely on handling significant volumes of paper, and current systems do not support improved business processes,” it said.

The antiquated IT resources do not permit department officials to forecast the demand for immigration services, lead to inconsistent decisions, hamper efforts to curb fraud and slow down processing, making it hard to reduce a backlog, the department said.

Supporting materials describe the agency’s collection of IT resources, which rely on such obsolete technologies as Cobol, Job Control Language and Time Sharing Option.

The systems overhaul is intended to help CIS become a self-funded organization by 2006, as mandated by Congress.
 
GAO-04-82 : Overstay tracking

Comment by :"www.ilw.com" The GAO report is GAO-04-82 : Overstay tracking.

Misguided Security Derails Immigration

A recent illustration provided by the GAO provides a birds-eye view of our domestic security's layered defense strategy. The illustration is a powerful visual tool that captures the multiple levels of defense measures the US has implemented post-9/11 to secure our nation against Al Qaeda. Much of the post-9/11 deterioriation in immigration benefits delivery is due to initiatives implementing the layered defense strategy which is graphically captured by this GAO document.

The critical weakness of the remarkably comprehensive strategy that this graphic visually represents is that it may lull us into a false sense of security. It is highly unlikely that all the initiatives encompassed in this multi-tiered defense strategy can prevent a really determined group of suicidal truck bombers. For little and dubious reward, the price we pay as a nation in our civil liberties is disproportionately high. Nazi Germany tried an even more comprehensive domestic security system, the failures of which are well-documented. If our misguided response to 9/11 draws us closer to a Gestapo State, Al Qaeda may have already won.
 
Lawsuits / LATimes.com

REGION & STATE
Immigrants' Status Focus of Lawsuit
In the wake of Sept. 11, delays in obtaining federal documents are creating hardships for thousands of legal
residents, attorneys say.

By Greg Krikorian, Times Staff Writer

Thousands of legal permanent residents in the U.S. have lost their jobs, ability
to work or freedom to travel because the Department of Homeland Security
and Justice Department have wrongly denied them written proof of their
immigration status, according to a lawsuit filed in San Francisco.

The class-action suit, filed late Tuesday, contends the federal government's
practices have needlessly left legal immigrants from throughout the world —
some of them in the U.S. for as long as 20 years — without green cards or
other temporary documentation for 18 months or more. That temporary
documentation, immigrants' lawyers say, was once routinely granted within a
month and was sometimes available in as little as a day.

"It's a terrible problem," said Palo Alto attorney
Michelle S. Rhyu. "Despite the fact that
immigration judges have granted lawful permanent
resident status to these people, the government is
taking months and, in many cases, over a year to
issue the documents that distinguish these lawful
residents from undocumented aliens."

Federal officials had no comment Wednesday on
the lawsuit, which names 10 plaintiffs from a
half-dozen cities in California, New York, Illinois,
Wisconsin and Florida.

Under immigration laws, foreigners who are
suspected of being in the country illegally are
entitled to a deportation proceeding where they can make their case to
remain in the U.S.

During that process, applicants undergo a background check, their
fingerprints are analyzed by the FBI and their case is assigned to a
representative of the Department of Homeland Security. Ultimately, the
foreigner is sent to an immigration judge who either approves the
deportation or grants the individual status as a lawful permanent resident.

Unless a ruling is appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the
judge's decision is usually final within 30 days. If Homeland Security waives
its right to appeal, the judge's ruling is effective immediately.

The lawsuit, however, says that process has been upended by the "failure"
of federal officials to issue temporary documentation that would serve as
proof that an immigrant has been granted lawful permanent residence status
by a judge.

Though the lawsuit does not indicate how long the problem has existed,
attorneys involved in the case say the delays began after the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security in 2002.

A similar lawsuit is making its way through federal court in Texas. In that case, the government has
cited the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a reason for delaying the immigration documentation, according to
David R. Armendariz of the Texas Lawyers' Committee, which is co-counsel in the new lawsuit.

"The government has said it needs to do more security checks," he said.

The result, immigration attorneys say, has been devastating to thousands of legal immigrants in the U.S.

In Merced, plaintiff Flora Rodriguez Santillan, a 20-year resident of the U.S., is hoping she will not lose
her second job in a year because she still has not received proof from the government that she is a
lawful permanent resident, according to the lawsuit.

In May, almost five years after the government moved to deport her to Mexico, Rodriguez was granted
legal permanent resident status by an immigration judge after proving that she had for years been
abused by her father. But months later, she was fired from a job she had held for five years because
she could not prove she was authorized to work.
 
AgJOBS Bill / Senate / Class action?

Modbee.com

Illegal workers remain in limbo

By EMILY BAZAR
THE SACRAMENTO BEE
and MICHAEL DOYLE
BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU


Last Updated: July 12, 2004, 06:04:04 AM PDT


LIVE OAK — Peaches are in season, and Leticia Lopez has just spent six hours doubled over a bin, picking out the misfits.
Lopez came to this small town north of Yuba City about a year ago, leaving five children — ages 3 to 17 — in Michoacán, Mexico, so she could earn money for them here. The 34-year-old widow finds it difficult and frightening without her family and without papers.

In Mexico, Lopez made about $15 a week cleaning houses and washing clothes. Here, she makes $6.75 an hour sorting peaches. So, like countless other armworkers, Lopez hopes Congress will approve a guest-worker program that will let immigrants live and work in the United States legally.

“I wish there would be an opportunity for me to bring my family with me,” Lopez said. “There needs to be some way for people to come into the country.” But Lopez’s hopes are colliding with Capitol Hill obstacles.

Despite high hopes by proponents and furious Senate maneuvering in recent days, the only immigration reform plan deemed to have a chance in Congress this year has stalled.

The measure, informally known as AgJOBS, would grant qualified agricultural workers and their families temporary legal status in the United States. Ultimately, participants could obtain permanent legal status upon completing additional farm work over the next three to six years.

The United Farm Workers estimates the legislation could affect roughly 500,000 workers and family members nationwide, the largest concentration in the Central Valley. But that’s only if it passes.

“My personal assessment is that it’s highly unlikely the legislation will move this year,” said Rep. Cal Dooley, a Fresno-area Democrat who supports it. “It’s too polarizing … and I think the Republican leadership views it as too divisive in their own conference.”

Technically, the bill isn’t dead. With 63 on-the-record supporters, it’s possible the Senate could pass it this year. But even if it does, no House committee or subcommittee has held a hearing on the legislation in the 10 months since it was introduced, and little time remains.

A symbol of the bill’s difficulties occurred Wednesday, when Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig sought to tack the bill onto an unrelated class-action lawsuit reform bill. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist fended off the effort.

“There are some who do not want immigration as an issue voted on this year,” Craig complained.

All of which marks a stunning comedown for immigration reform advocates who rolled out their hard-fought compromise proposal in September. Backed by dozens of groups, from the California Farm Bureau Federation to the UFW, AgJOBS was billed as the one immigration bill with enough support to pass a divided Congress.

“This is the first time in 40 years that I’ve ever seen the type of cohesiveness from groups,” said Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League, which represents about 1,000 growers from Kern County to Stockton. Farmers want stability and reliability, and they are tired of dealing with problems associated with a largely undocumented work force, Cunha said.

A large-scale Border Patrol raid could “cause total devastation in (the) industry” by spurring migrants to “start to hide and flee,” he warned.

What of future illegal workers?

Groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform believe there should be more raids and better enforcement of immigration laws, and they are pleased that AgJOBS has been stopped.

These skeptics consider the bill a first step toward a broad-based amnesty that would give permanent legal status to the millions of illegal immigrants.

“There’s nothing to say that if we legalize all these illegal workers, they won’t simply be replaced by the next wave of illegal immigrants,” said Ira Mehlman, FAIR’s Los Angeles-based spokesman.

Immigration reform seemed to receive a big boost in January, when President Bush unveiled a proposal to offer temporary legal status to millions of immigrants, not limited to farmworkers.

To qualify, they would have to prove they have legitimate jobs or job offers in the United States. Since then, though, the White House has done little to assist the legislation. The administration never submitted formal legislative language. The White House Web site’s last update on the topic is a March 6 appearance by Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox.

And Bush has all but dropped the topic in his public talks.

Bush’s opponent in the fall, Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, told a Latino group in New Mexico on Saturday that he would send Congress an immigration reform overhaul plan making it easier for immigrants to become citizens.

“Today, our immigration system is broken,” Kerry said.

Two proposals in conflict

The Bush proposal itself might have complicated passage for AgJOBS by rallying opponents against immigration reform and splitting coalitions among different approaches.

For instance, Bush insisted that a temporary guest-worker program not be linked to achieving permanent legal status, while a path toward legalization is the centerpiece of AgJOBS.

“I think it’s a mistake to once again give (illegal immigrants) a shorter route to citizenship,” said Tracy Republican Richard Pombo.

“I do believe we need a guest worker program. I do not believe that the right way to do that is to take the people who came here illegally and give them a quick pass to legalization.”

It’s not as if all farmworkers are waiting breathlessly for the measure to pass.

On Wednesday night, 14 migrants gathered in a classroom in Yuba City for their English-language class.

Not one had heard of AgJOBS.

But Luis Elias has. The 29-year-old Fresno County man, who picks peaches, nectarines and grapes, says he just wants to see his wife and three children in Guerrero. He says he hasn’t seen them in three years, because it has become so difficult — and dangerous — to cross the border from Mexico back into the United States.

Elias felt a glimmer of hope when he learned about AgJOBS last year, and he remains optimistic it will pass so he can safely reunite with his loved ones.

“Three years is a long time not to see your family,” he said.

“At least if I had legalization through AgJOBS, I would see them once a year.”
 
Deposition

From "www.ilw.com" Letters to the Editor

We filed a lawsuit against CIS decrying delays in processing of employment-based I-485s. The Court has granted us permission to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to address the issue whether a class can be certified because there are common issues of law/policy involved in all EB I-485 cases or whether a class is not certifiable because each case is unique and different (as the govt. claims). For the list of matters to be explored, see here.

Following is a list of matters we intend to explore. Please give me your suggestions on anything we need to ask the govt. on this topic. Any questions that tend to show their procedures are unreasonable, etc.

Under the provisions of Rule 30(b)(6), United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (.CIS.) within the United States Department of Homeland Security is required to identity and produce for deposition one or more officers, agents, or employees to testify in its behalf on the following matters:

1. Claim and defense iterated by CIS that adjudication times, law, policy and procedure for Employment-Based I-485 applications are not unreasonable or illegal;
2. Employment-Based I-485 related law and policy including procedures and practice related to processing and tracking at the present time, the time prior to July 2002 going back to and including the year 1989, and future plans for improvements or modifications in the policy, procedure and practice;
3. Adjudication criteria and methods for Employment-Based I-485 AOS used by CIS adjudicators and related training and guidance given by CIS to adjudicators;
4. Current backlog reduction plans for Employment-Based I-485 applications, including, related documents, internal memoranda, data, and reports, and including problems, issues and proposed solutions;
5. Policies, procedures and practice regarding allocation of funds and resources for adjudication of Employment-Based I-485 applications;
6. Policies and discussions leading to the issuance of an Interoffice Memorandum dated March 31, 2004, regarding .Procedural Instructions for Concurrent Adjudication of Concurrently Filed Form I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker & Form I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status,. issued by Fujie Ohata, Director of Service Center Operations, and application and implementation of directives contained in this Memorandum;
7. Policies and discussions leading to the issuance of an Interoffice Memorandum dated May 4, 2004, regarding .Requests for Evidence,. issued by William R. Yates, Associate Director, Operations, and application and implementation of directives contained in this Memorandum;
8. Policies and issues reflected in an Interoffice Memorandum dated May 16, 2000, regarding .AFM Update: Revision of March 14, 2000 Dual Intent Memorandum,. issued by Michael D. Cronin, Acting Associate Commissioner, Office of Programs, and application and implementation of directives contained in this Memorandum;
9. Procedures and practices relating to Security Clearance and Name Checks of Employment-Based I-485 applicants;
10. Procedures and practices relating to Fingerprinting of I-485 applicants;
11. Procedures and practices relating to the issuance of Employment Authorization Documents to I-485 applicants;
12. Procedures and practice relating to the issuance of Advance Parole to Employment-Based I-485 applicants;
13. CIS rule-making procedures and policies with particular reference to American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21);
14. Defenses, claims and settlement in the instant litigation (ImmigrationPortal.Com, et al. v. Tom Ridge et al.); and
15. Information possessed by Defendant CIS about existence, identity and custody of documents and records related to the matters stated in the preceding numbered items.


Rajiv S. Khanna



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ead

Courtesy of "www.immigration-law.com"

02/13/2004: Post Dating of EAD Renewal Available Per USCIS HQ Permission

According to the Nebraska Service Center, the Service Centers were given a green light by the USCIS HQ in September 2003 to issue the "post-date" EAD so that people can obtain a full 12-month renewed card. Since the EAD holders are permitted to file EAD renewal up to 6 months in advance of the expiration of the current EAD, inasmuch as it is within this time frame, people may be able to apply for EAD extension early on so that they do not face a crisis of EAD renewal application being still pending at the time of the expiration of the current EAD. Accordingly, people may be able to request the EAD renewal period from the date of expiration of the current EAD until one year from the starting date. In the renewal application, people may remind the Service Center of November 5, 2003 NSC Q&A so that they can check with the USCIS HQ internal permission back in September 2003. We commend the USCIS for the right move. It will help somewhat workload of EAD processing. EAD processing takes a large share of the USCIS immigration benefit workloads. Last year, this web site recommended the legacy INS to adopt this procedure.
 
Class Action

Washington Orchard Workers Win Class Certification in Suit Against Major Grower



First-of-Its-Kind Suit Claims Apple Growers Intentionally Hired Illegal
Immigrants to Depress Legal Workers' Pay

YAKIMA, Wash., July 14 /PRNewswire/ -- A group of legal immigrants
residing in Washington state's apple-producing Yakima Valley won a major legal
victory yesterday after a U.S. District Court judge certified a class action
lawsuit against executives of one of the state's largest orchard owners
charging that the executives conspired to depress farmworkers' wages by hiring
large numbers of illegal workers to set low wage standards for orchard and
packing house work.
The class action lawsuit was originally filed in United States District
Court in March of 2000 under the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) and is the first of its kind in the U.S. where legal workers have
sued agricultural employers about intentional wage depression through the use
of illegal labor.
Now certified as a class action, the suit represents an estimated
20,000 packing house and orchard workers of Zirkle Fruit Company, based in
Selah, Washington and those legal workers hired by Selective Employment Agency
to work in Zirkle's packing house operations.
Seattle attorney Steve Berman filed the lawsuit on behalf of three named
plaintiffs.
"We know from our investigation that a large percentage of workers hired
by Zirkle are illegal. These workers know that they are not in any position to
demand a fair wage, and as a result, illegally depress the wages of legal farm
workers," Berman said. "It is an insidious cycle that exploits the illegal
workers and victimizes the legal ones."
According to the lawsuit, Zirkle Fruit Co. conspired with Selective
Employment Agency to hire illegal immigrants who would work at below
prevailing wage standards at Zirkle's packing house. The company used
Selective Employment as a front, buffering it from liability with the
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the suit claims.
"We believe Zirkle's actions are horridly unfair to the immigrant workers
who have taken the legal channels to work here-making sacrifices at every step
of the way to create a better life for their families," Berman added.
The suit seeks an end to the practice by Zirkle, and compensation for the
class members.
The judge declined to certify similar claims against executives of Matson
Fruit Company, a smaller fruit company named in the original complaint.
The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates more than 600,000 farmworkers
across the country are employed illegally. About 52,000 workers work illegally
in Washington in all types of jobs, according to estimates by the INS.
The court also ordered that class members be notified of the class action
by mail and signs in the workplace, an action Berman believes will happen in
the coming weeks. As an opt-out lawsuit, those who do not wish to be
represented by the class action will receive instructions on removing
themselves from the case.
For more information, visit http://www.hagens-berman.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a law firm with offices in Seattle, Boston, Los Angeles,
and Phoenix. The firm has developed a nationally recognized practice in class
action litigation. The firm is co-lead counsel in litigation to recover losses
from Enron employees' retirement funds and represented Washington and 12 other
states in lawsuits against the tobacco industry that resulted in the largest
settlement in the history of litigation. The firm also served as counsel in
several other high-profile cases including the Washington Public Power Supply
litigation, which resulted in a settlement of more than $850 million, and the
$92.5 million settlement of The Boeing Company litigation. Other notable
cases include litigation involving the Exxon Valdez oil spill; Louisiana
Pacific Siding; Morrison Knudsen; Piper Jaffrey; Nordstrom; Boston Chicken;
and Noah's Bagels.

CONTACT:

Steve Berman, Hagens Berman
206-443-9357
steve@hagens-berman.com

MEDIA:

Mark Firmani
206-443-9357
mark@firmani.com


SOURCE Hagens Berman
Web Site: http://www.hagens-berman.com
 
PRNewswire

Immigration Reform Legislation 2004: All Talk, No Action
Thursday July 15, 4:23 pm ET

WASHINGTON, July 15 /PRNewswire/ -- According to an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the
White House took an active role in opposing the passage of Senate legislation to reform the agricultural
sector's immigration policies. Legislation known as the AgJOBS bill ("The Agricultural Job Opportunity,
Benefits, and Security Act of 2003," S. 1645) was poised to move as an attachment to legal reform
legislation on the Senate floor last week until it was derailed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN).
With more than 60 Senate co-sponsors from both parties, and the backing of both agricultural business
and labor groups, AgJOBS is simply awaiting an opportunity from the Majority Leader for passage by the
full Senate. However, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the White House intervened, instructing Sen. Frist
to not let AgJOBS be taken up for a vote, despite the pleas of the chief sponsor, Republican Sen. Larry
Craig of Idaho.

On Friday, July 16 at 10:00 a.m., leaders from labor, ethnic, and immigrant communities will hold a
telephonic press briefing to discuss White House and Congressional inaction on immigration reform and
their failure to enact AgJOBS and another popular, bipartisan bill known as the DREAM Act (the
Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, S. 1545). This on-the-record briefing will assess
where immigration reform measures sit, what immigrant, Latino, Asian, and other voters think about
immigration reform, and the prospects for enacting reform this year.

EVENT SUMMARY

WHAT: Telephonic Press Briefing
WHEN: Friday, July 16, 2004 -- 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time
HOW: Dial 1-(801) 303-7410 and ask to be connected to the immigration
press conference
WHO: Cecilia Munoz, Vice President, National Council of La Raza
(Moderator)
Arturo Rodriguez, President, United Farm Workers of
America
Eliseo Medina, Vice President, Service Employees
International Union
Maria Elena Durazo, Vice President, UNITE HERE!
Karen Narasaki, Executive Director, National Asian Pacific
American Legal Consortium (invited)
Maria Echaveste, President, The Nueva Vista Group
Majan Jean, a student facing imminent deportation, Norwich, CT.


In addition the participants on the phone there will be a gathering of speakers available for interview in
person at the SEIU Western Regional Office. After the national press call the following will be available for
interviews:

WHO: Eliseo Medina, Vice President SEIU
Maria Elena Durazo, Vice President, UNITE HERE!
UFW Representative, Farm Workers, Students affected by the DREAM
Act
WHERE: SEIU Western Regional Office, 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1050


With 1.6 million members, the Service Employees International Union is the largest and fastest growing
union in the AFL-CIO. Representing over 200,000 janitors, SEIU is also the largest union of immigrant
members.
 
cinta said:
From "www.ilw.com" Letters to the Editor

We filed a lawsuit against CIS decrying delays in processing of employment-based I-485s. The Court has granted us permission to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to address the issue whether a class can be certified because there are common issues of law/policy involved in all EB I-485 cases or whether a class is not certifiable because each case is unique and different (as the govt. claims). For the list of matters to be explored, see here.

Following is a list of matters we intend to explore. Please give me your suggestions on anything we need to ask the govt. on this topic. Any questions that tend to show their procedures are unreasonable, etc.

Under the provisions of Rule 30(b)(6), United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (.CIS.) within the United States Department of Homeland Security is required to identity and produce for deposition one or more officers, agents, or employees to testify in its behalf on the following matters:

1. Claim and defense iterated by CIS that adjudication times, law, policy and procedure for Employment-Based I-485 applications are not unreasonable or illegal;
2. Employment-Based I-485 related law and policy including procedures and practice related to processing and tracking at the present time, the time prior to July 2002 going back to and including the year 1989, and future plans for improvements or modifications in the policy, procedure and practice;
3. Adjudication criteria and methods for Employment-Based I-485 AOS used by CIS adjudicators and related training and guidance given by CIS to adjudicators;
4. Current backlog reduction plans for Employment-Based I-485 applications, including, related documents, internal memoranda, data, and reports, and including problems, issues and proposed solutions;
5. Policies, procedures and practice regarding allocation of funds and resources for adjudication of Employment-Based I-485 applications;
6. Policies and discussions leading to the issuance of an Interoffice Memorandum dated March 31, 2004, regarding .Procedural Instructions for Concurrent Adjudication of Concurrently Filed Form I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker & Form I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status,. issued by Fujie Ohata, Director of Service Center Operations, and application and implementation of directives contained in this Memorandum;
7. Policies and discussions leading to the issuance of an Interoffice Memorandum dated May 4, 2004, regarding .Requests for Evidence,. issued by William R. Yates, Associate Director, Operations, and application and implementation of directives contained in this Memorandum;
8. Policies and issues reflected in an Interoffice Memorandum dated May 16, 2000, regarding .AFM Update: Revision of March 14, 2000 Dual Intent Memorandum,. issued by Michael D. Cronin, Acting Associate Commissioner, Office of Programs, and application and implementation of directives contained in this Memorandum;
9. Procedures and practices relating to Security Clearance and Name Checks of Employment-Based I-485 applicants;
10. Procedures and practices relating to Fingerprinting of I-485 applicants;
11. Procedures and practices relating to the issuance of Employment Authorization Documents to I-485 applicants;
12. Procedures and practice relating to the issuance of Advance Parole to Employment-Based I-485 applicants;
13. CIS rule-making procedures and policies with particular reference to American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21);
14. Defenses, claims and settlement in the instant litigation (ImmigrationPortal.Com, et al. v. Tom Ridge et al.); and
15. Information possessed by Defendant CIS about existence, identity and custody of documents and records related to the matters stated in the preceding numbered items.


Rajiv S. Khanna



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=133638&page=2

First Deposition: Ms Ohata

The First Deposition is on July 22

We will be deposing Ms. Fujie Ohata, Director Service Center Operations.

The second deposition (regarding security clearance etc. will be on 6th August).

I am hard at work. Will update you after deposition.
__________________
Rajiv S. Khanna; Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC - Your Host
rskhanna@immigration.com; http://www.immigration.com
703-908-4800 Extension 110
 
Doj

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2004
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRT
(202) 514-2008
TDD (202) 514-1888


JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES GRANTS FOR TRAINING ON THE PREVENTION OF IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION


WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department today announced the award of $745,000 in grants to 13 nonprofit groups throughout the country for the purpose of
conducting public education programs for workers and employers on the topic of immigration-related job discrimination.

The grants, which range from $35,000 to $80,000, are being awarded by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) of the
Civil Rights Division. Recipients will assist discrimination victims; conduct seminars for workers, employers and immigration service providers; distribute educational materials in
various languages; and place advertisements in local communities through both mainstream and ethnic media.

The grant recipients are:

Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California in partnership with the Asian Law Caucus
Central American Resource Center (CARECEN)
James Madison University
Catholic Charities of St. Petersburg, Florida
Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, in partnership with the Chicago Interfaith Committee on Workers Issues
New York City Commission on Human Rights, in partnership with the New York Immigration Coalition
Legal Aid Society of Mid-New York
Legal Aid Services of Oregon, in partnership with the Oregon Legal Center
Catholic Charities of Dallas
Catholic Charities of Houston
Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS)
AFL-CIO Working for America Institute
National Immigration Legal Support Center

For more information about protections against employment discrimination based upon citizenship, immigration status, and national origin: call the Office of Special Counsel
toll-free at 1-800-255-8155 (employers), 1-800-362-2735 (TDD for hearing impaired); 1-800-255-7688 (workers), 1-800-237-2515 (TDD for hearing impaired); visit the
Office of Special Counsel’s web site at www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc; or write to:

Office of Special Counsel for Immigration
Related Unfair Employment Practices
Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20038-7728
 
GAO forum

Courtesy of "www.ilw.com"

21st Century Workforce

A GAO Forum discussing issues on the 21st Century Workforce (item below) invited a select group of national leaders and experts on the dynamics of the U.S. workforce, where participants offered the following suggestions to change immigrant worker policies:

U.S. policies should support more permanent immigrants and fewer illegal immigrants.
The federal government's visa programs should not have fixed yearly limits on the number of people who may enter the country. Instead, the number of allowable visas should be given in a range that adjusts to meet workforce demands.
The executive branch, not Congress, should be responsible for determining the number of temporary workers who can enter the United States. Another participant argued that Congress should be responsible because it represents the larger social interest.
U.S. immigration policy should not differentiate between permanent and temporary workers; instead, foreign workers should be considered transitional.
Non-native U.S. college graduates should be given green cards immediately after graduation instead of being sent back to their home countries.
The U.S. visa program for foreign students to attend college and graduate school in the United States should be revised. Recent declines in the admission of foreign graduate students, especially in math and science, have implications for future U.S. productivity and innovation.
The realization that immigrants play a pivotal role in creating a successful 21st century workforce leaves us hopeful that the US will pass immigration laws that reflect the importance of employment-based immigration to our country's economic strength and well-being.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2004,0719-workforce.pdf
 
www.voanews.com

US Homeland Security Announces New Immigration
Procedures
VOA News
21 Jul 2004, 14:26 UTC


A senior official with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
has announced new immigration
procedures designed to streamline the processing of legal
immigrants.

Speaking in Washington Tuesday, Homeland Security
immigration specialist Prakash Khatri said his office has
recommended steps, including using state of the art technology,
to speed-up the process in which parents, children or spouses of
U.S. citizens can get their permanent resident cards, or green
cards.

Mr. Khatri says under the present system, the wait for a green
card in New York City can take three years or more. He says a
pilot program for the new system in Dallas was able to process
green cards in 75 days or less.
 
www.aila.org, advocacy62904pdf

From "www.aila.com" advocacy62904.pdf

Although questioned about the relatively small budget earmarked for backlog reduction, in stark contrast to that for immigration enforcement, Mr. Aguirre repeatedly denied the need for additional funds to accomplish backlog reduction goals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top