DHS / US CIS Issues

C

cinta

Registered Users (C)
Ombudsman: He believes a lot of I-485 are not legitimate! Let us help him out and find the fraud. E-mail posted earlier:
Prakash.Khatri@dhs.gov

DHS OMBUDSMAN SPELLS OUT PLANS FOR KINDER, MORE
EFFICIENT IMMIGRATION SERVICE

At a recent American Immigration Lawyers Association meeting, the
guest speaker was Prakash Khatri, the newly appointed Ombudsman
(problem solver) of the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS). He is a
very high ranking official in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
and is just two levels below Tom Ridge (who is the head of DHS). What
he had to say, and his plans and visions for reorganizing CIS should be
of vital interest to all immigrants. This is because “he has the power and
authority to make things happen”.

Mr. Khatri is the child of immigrants, so he knows the sacrifices that
immigrants go through to achieve the “American Dream”. He is grateful
for the opportunities that America gave his family, and knows that other
immigrant families simply want a chance for those same opportunities.

Before joining DHS, he was an immigration attorney, and proud member
of AILA. He had a very successful immigration practice and most recently,
managing Disney’s Immigration Department in Orlando, Florida. But he
gave all that up, in order to accept the job of Ombudsman. That shows
how much dedication and commitment he has to this job. Being an
Immigration Attorney himself, he also had direct, hands-on experience in
dealing with clients and is well aware of aliens’ hopes, dreams and
aspirations, as well as their frustrations and suffering in trying to get
legal.

As part of his functions as Ombudsman under the Homeland Security
Act, he is to make an annual report to Congress, that spells out the
problems or issues that were not solved, the name of the specific officer
at CIS who did not solve it, and why that officer did not solve it. This is a
very important function, as CIS officers, whether inside or outside the
U.S., will be more responsive, since they would not want to have their
name in his report to Congress, showing that they did not, or could not,
solve a particular problem (or they were, in fact, the cause of the
problem).

Mr. Khatri is committed to reducing backlogs, and making CIS more
efficient and responsive to immigrants, whom he views as “customers”
who are entitled to good service. Right now, there are millions of petitions
and applications that are backlogged. According to his study, almost 75%
of the backlog is for family and employment based petitions and
adjustment of status. On closer examination, he noted that some cases
were filed just so the alien could get a work permit, even though they
weren’t really eligible for the immigration benefit. Then when the interview
came about years later, they kept trying to postpone it, just so they could
keep renewing the work authorization. In other words, bogus or fraudulent
cases were being filed, and the aliens were trying to buy time, just to have
a work permit.

In order to avoid backlogs, and reduce fraudulent filings of adjustment
applications, Mr. Khatri is proposing a revolutionary approach to
processing cases: interview the aliens on the same day they file their
case, rather than years later, as is done at the present time. With a same
day interview, CIS could quickly screen the cases to see if they are bona
fide, and could issue the green card in about 60 days from filing, which is
the time it takes to complete the security checks. Can you imagine getting
a green card two months after you file for adjustment?! Let’s hope that
will soon become a reality, instead of only a proposal.

In other words, he proposes to turn the process on its head, with the
interview up front. This would dramatically reduce fraud (because there
would be no fraudulent filings to buy time for work permits, no fake ADIT
(green card) stamps in people’s passports, etc.) In addition, it would
greatly reduce the number of hours CIS officers would have to spend on a
file, from about 6-7 hours per file, to only one hour. Right now, officers
spend upwards of 6-7 hours on each file, taking into account pulling the
file and reviewing it each time a person renews his work permit, or
makes an inquiry, etc. With the adjustment interview up front, this would
reduce or eliminate the need for pulling and reviewing the file so many
times.

Mr. Khatri is not afraid to “think outside the box”, meaning he is willing to
approach problems with new and innovative solutions, and does not feel
the need to do things the way they have always been done, if there is a
better way.

When I spoke with him after his speech, I wished him luck on his
proposals, but noted that he may get a lot of resistance from CIS,
because people within CIS might argue, “But this is the way we’ve always
done it”. Mr. Khatri replied, “Whenever I hear that excuse as a justification
for keeping things as they are, I believe we need change all the more. To
keep doing something just because it had been done that way in the past
is not a good enough reason”.

I think we should all offer our support and best wishes to the
Ombudsman. Being in charge of reforms and problem solving at CIS is a
very challenging task. But immigrants should now have a lot to hope for,
because they have an Ombudsman who has remarkable plans and
visions for a kinder, more responsive, and efficient CIS, and most
important, he has a kind and warm heart for immigrants.
 
Good to note that atleast the ombudsman is serious about reducing the backlogs. I think that we all have to send him Emails requesting him to take action against th backlogs.
 
On this point I would have to agree with him. The only question is what percentage of the pending applications is fraudulent? His approach to have interviews at front end to filter out illegitimate cases would be a good idea ONLY IF there were a large number of fraudulent applications (say at leat 15%). Furthermore, his proposal will not benefit the current backlogged applicants.

He has not come up with any immediate measures to relief the current jams in I-485 apps. His own name should appear in his report.
 
Good Ideas

His ideas are good, however he is not in any ACTION ROLE. His first report to Congress is due this summer.
E-mails to him is a good idea: Example from an immigration lawyer:

Combatting The 'Culture Of No' In Immigration
by Angelo A. Paparelli
The following article is a modified version of an open letter written to Mr. Prakash Khatri, Ombudsman, USCIS.

I am writing to you as USCIS Ombudsman to begin the first of a number of open letters on how the administration of our immigration laws can be improved. As the nation's first USCIS Ombudsman, you have the legal authority and the "in-the-trenches" prior expertise to transform the government's delivery of immigration services to the public. It presents a truly unparalleled opportunity for positive change.

To begin this dialogue with you, I am offering a bit of immigration institutional history. Attached is a copy of an April 21, 1980 memorandum issued by then Southern Regional Commissioner, Durward E. Powell, Jr., and it is included in the hope that it may serve as an antidote to the current "culture of no" that prevails within much of DHS's immigration bureaus, and to counteract the lingering effects of the former Commissioner Ziglar's now-revoked "zero tolerance policy". (By the way, I note my indebtedness to my colleagues in AILA's Texas Chapter, and particularly to Eugene Flynn, for having brought this memorandum to recent public attention.)

The Legacy INS memo, addressed to district directors and officers in charge of the Southern Region on dispensing of information and adjudications decision making, urged INS employees to approach clients in a friendly, professional manner with the attitude of looking to approve petitions. The memorandum makes certain points that today seem forgotten or never fully learned by many among the current cadre of both veteran and newly-minted adjudicators:

Most petitioners, applicants and beneficiaries who seek legal benefits under the immigration laws are "honest, hard-working people, not interested in fraud or obtaining any benefit for which they cannot qualify";

"[O]bjectivity and professionalism on the job" are essential requirements for immigration adjudicators;

"The [government] decision maker in adjudicating applications and petitions should not attitudinally approach the process, either consciously or unconsciously, in an adversary process or looking for a reason to deny"; and

"[Adjudicators] with [their] broad knowledge of law and policy, [should all] approach [applications and petitions] attitudinally, in a friendly professional manner, looking for a way to approve them."
Sadly, these four precepts are only occasionally observed in the USCIS of today. Instead, practitioners hear reports that USCIS is taking steps to develop and implement its own fraud-investigation capabilities, notwithstanding that Congress, in enacting the Homeland Security Act, put investigative and enforcement powers in other units within DHS. In my view, a focus on the ferreting out of suspected fraud will only distract from the USCIS's overriding mission, the provision of immigration benefits, and add to the growing backlogs of undecided cases.

This is not to suggest, however, that fraud should go unpunished. Rather, I believe that petitions and applications should be promptly decided on the basis of the evidence in the record, and that suspected fraud should be promptly reported to immigration enforcement agencies for investigation, trial on the merits, and punishment in deserving cases.

USCIS adjudicators should therefore focus on embodying the four precepts of former Regional Commissioner Powell as the best means of tackling the enormous backlogs in petitions and applications. They should not unilaterally anoint themselves as immigration G-men and G-women and thereby defy the Congressional will.

I write to ask that you confer with appropriate national officers within USCIS so that USCIS and your office may formally reaffirm, in a new jointly-issued national policy memorandum, the principles espoused by Regional Commissioner Powell.
For the letter sent to USCIS Ombudsman, see here. For the April 21, 1980 Legacy INS memorandum on quality customer service, see here.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I like actions more than promises. "You can't live on promises winter to spring". If he can have the proposals immediately implemented (in next couple months), he is really a hero!

Interview at front end and green card in 60 days (even 160 days) will definitely eliminate the needs for EAD, AP and multiple FPs. Surely it'll work.

Let's push him to take action ASAP. Send him e-mails, reminding him of the promises.
 
His intentions/ideas are good, but is there any timeline to implement them? It should not come down to all planning but no action. As YJay said, it will not help the current backlog applications.
 
DOS / SECURITY ISSUES / VISA MANDIS

He does not have Executive power. However he will convey his ideas to the Congress...in the meantime we are helpless and doomed due to Security reasons.

DOS policy towards Security Issues and Visa Mandis: I-485 applicants going through the same BS. Stay away from any Chemical, Biological and Nuclear technologies!

House of Representatives
Science Committee
The Conflict Between Science and Security in Visa Policy: Status and Next Steps
Testimony of Janice L. Jacobs
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services
February 25, 2004


Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the visa process and its affect on the security of the United States, our economic, scientific and technological health, and our openness to other societies. Secretary Powell has succinctly articulated our policy as "Secure Borders, Open Doors", and we at the Department of State are acutely aware of the need to satisfy both of these objectives. The US economy counts on the billions of dollars spent each year by nternational tourists, our universities reap
the economic benefits of pre-eminence among destination countries for international students, our scientific establishment flourishes in a climate of open exchange across borders, and our entire society is accustomed to living in a free and open manner that counts upon an ease of movement across international borders. We are determined to preserve these crucial benefits to the United States even as we work to strengthen the security and integrity of the visa process.

While we are committed to facilitating the travel of legitimate visitors to the United States, we consider the protection of national security the highest priority in visa matters.
The Department of State has long used specialized clearance procedures for the review of visa applications of individuals whose proposed activities in the U.S. may have security-related or other concerns. These procedures are carried out by the State Department at the request of and in coordination with other Federal agencies. This is known as the security advisory opinion process. The purpose of the additional review is to focus on serious issues such as hostile intelligence activity, potential terrorist threats, and diversion of sensitive U.S. technology. A relatively small number of non-immigrant visa applications, less than 3% of our workload, are submitted by consular officers overseas to the Department of State for Washington-level screening by federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies

One of the highest foreign policy and national security priorities of the United States is preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, their delivery systems and advanced conventional weapons. The Visas Mantis program, designed to address technology transfer and nonproliferation concerns, is an effective tool for U.S. government agencies to prevent entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals to gain controlled goods, technology and sensitive information in violation of US export laws. Federal agencies review applications and provide the information needed by State to determine an applicant's visa eligibility under section 212(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. That section provides in relevant part that: Any alien who a consular officer or the [Secretary of Homeland Security] knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely,
principally, or incidentally in -
(i) any activity . . . (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information….is ineligible to receive a visa.
As part of their consular training at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center, all Foreign Service Officers assigned to consular positions receive 12-15 hours of training devoted to the processing of SAOs, including Mantis. During this training, the Non-Proliferation (NP) Bureau, which reviews Mantis cases in the Department, briefs on the proliferation threat and the importance of the Mantis screening process in helping to protect our national security.

The basic document that provides instructions to consular officers in the field on how to process Visas Mantis cases is the Technology Alert List (TAL). This is an annual cable that is disseminated to all posts at the beginning of every Fiscal Year. The cable contains two parts: the list of sensitive technologies and guidance to consular officers on how to process Mantis cases. The list contains some 200 technologies arranged in alphabetical order that nonproliferation and export control agencies have designated as sensitive for national security purposes. The TAL guidance cable describes the specific purpose of the Mantis program, instructs consular officers what to look for when reviewing an application that may result in a Mantis cable and provides details on what information to include in a cable. The guidance encourages consular officers to check
with resources at post who might be able to help them decide whether or not a case should be submitted as a Mantis SAO. The cable further provides consular officers with a number of websites where they can access more in-depth information about the TAL technologies. Finally, the cable urges consular officers to use their judgment but to err on the side of caution when deciding whether or not Mantis considerations apply.

Under the current system, posts transmit Mantis SAOs by cable simultaneously to the Department, the FBI and interested agencies. We receive twice-weekly CDs from the FBI with updated clearance information on SAO cases. After the FBI namecheck unit runs the names of the subjects of SAOs through their namecheck system, they upload
their responses onto a CD which the Visa Office picks up twice a week. The CD is an historical record of more than 500,000 responses the FBI has provided to us. The Visa Office uploads the information from the CD onto its own FBI Response database that it maintains as well as into the automated system known as VISTA, which is the Visa
Office’s tracking system for SAOs. Unfortunately, for various technological reasons, VISTA does not always capture all of the clearance information. If analysts do not find an updated response to a case in VISTA that they know is coming due, they must look at the FBI Response database to see if, in fact, FBI has cleared the case. In some
cases it can take up to a week or longer between the time FBI responds to a clearance request and when the Visa Office analyst is able to send out the clearance response to post.

The other clearing agencies generally take 15 working days to respond to SAOs but, occasionally, they notify the Visa Office when they need additional time to clear a specific case. Consequently, the Visa Office may have a clearance from the FBI but may be waiting for another clearing agency to complete a review of a specific case. The NP Bureau may ask post to obtain more information from an applicant which can take time and delay a final response to post. At other times, the Visa Office must wait to receive a report from another clearing agency that may contain derogatory information pertaining to the applicant. Waiting for highly classified reports through appropriate channels can be another reason for delay in responding to post.

The business, academic, and scientific communities have expressed concern that delays in Mantis process result in disruptions to on-going research and commercial activities. A backlog did occur in the summer of 2002 when the Department mandated a positive response to all SAO requests. That requirement, combined with the sudden spike in additional clearance requests following the attacks of September 11, overburdened the system. Since then we have worked through many of these problems, nvested in people and technology, and pioneered new processes with our law enforcement colleagues that have solved many of the problems of this start-up period.

To increase efficiency, we have made a number of changes to staffing and procedures. We created a stand-alone Mantis team that now has five full-time employees who are dedicated to processing only Mantis cases. We have procedures for expediting individual cases when appropriate. When an expedited clearance is needed, we fax such
requests to the FBI, which routinely responds in a timely manner. We also periodically send the FBI spreadsheets of unresolved cases on “hold” which they work through to provide us with a response. The Visa Office, with NP input, will soon begin sending to the field a quarterly Mantis report to provide additional feedback. The Bureau of
Consular Affairs recently funded the travel of an officer from the NP Bureau to attend a consular conference in China, the largest source country for Mantis cables. The officer met with consular officers from all China posts and discussed in detail the purpose of the Mantis program, what consular officers should look for, how to decide whether a case should be a Mantis or not, and what information to provide in the cable.

........................Full report in
http://www.immigration-law.com/

For the GAO report (people of the Sciences) see:

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2004,0226-mantis.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the bottom line here?

As we all fully appreciate the need for immigration reform, security concerns, customer service improvements, administration of benefits, fairnness etc, etc...

The most important topic should be "When are you going to process and approve perfectly legitimate cases filed as long ago as 2001"

The answer we are expecting should be "All 2001 cases would get immediate and unconditional attention NOW"

Next 2002 and 2003, 2004 cases in that order.

Let USCIS figure out what they need to do and we hope they can make good judgements.
 
question about security checks

Cinta,
I remember you published a lot of info on security checks.

I was told by the interview officer that USCIS would not wait for FBI name check forever. They'll make a decision if FBI name check does not come back in 120 days. This appears to be a restoration of a pre-911 policy.

What else comprises security check and takes longer than 120 days?

I feel this "security" excuse doubtful.
Originally posted by cinta
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/030104sz1.htm

March 1, 2004
Immigrant rights groups blast citizenship processing backlog By Shawn Zeller
szeller@govexec.com
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Security Checks

Let us send e-mails to him about:

1: Fraudelent cases, known to Immigration for a long time (GAO-02-972, GAO-04-371, etc)
2: Security Checks.
3: Immediate relief for 01,02 cases.

Maybe he should be referenced in current litigation also as, the DHS Act (November 19, 2002)devotes a whole section to him: Section 452 and Section 459 on "Report on Improving Immigration Services".

This excuse is being used for a long time. The so called integration of databases and thus the checking is far from finished. There are about thirty different Federal agencies with databases, some integrated, some NOT yet. So the "name check" theoretically has to pass all of them....some are common to the DOS checking also for Visas (see above).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GC in (2) months. I hope they do not increase the time to process I140.

BTW, I like the idea and support it. I do not keep negative approach but we have heard promises to process GC in 6 months from President of the Country.

Thanks.
:confused:
 
Re: blah blah blah..

Originally posted by gctakingtoolong
Forget about new applications..I have my I485 pending since November2001. What are they doing about it..??
Click to expand...

I do not know what they are doing but I can tell you what you could do besides current litigation efforts.

1: Contact Congress and Senate, by e-mail phone, fax and personal meetings.
2: Use VSC Expedite FAx number, posted elsewhere.
3: Send an e-mail to Prakash.khatri@dhs.gov and blast them all!
4: Still feel you have power to go? Write an Op-Ed in a newspaper or magazine.
 
Security Checks

The two sides: Advocacy and USCIS spokesman Chris Bentley.
.........................
For many immigrants, dreams of becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen have been
shattered because of government red tape and monumental backlog in immigration
matters, said Miami-based Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida
Immigrant Advocacy Center, which has a branch office in Immokalee.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there's been "immigrant bashing and
Florida's become the country's testing ground for anti-immigrant ideas," Little
said.

"The focus of this organization is deportation and detention of immigrants," Little
said. "The (Bush) administration has fallen shorter with respect to the issues that
affect the lives of our immigrant communities."

The immigration service is undoubtedly backlogged in its processing of
applications from people seeking to become naturalized citizens or permanent
residents — and immigration officials aren't asking for forgiveness.

"There is a backlog. That's absolutely, positively true," said Chris Bentley, an
immigration service spokesman in Washington, D.C. "We make no apologies for
that. After 9-11, we made it mandatory that every applicant for immigration have a
background check before they're granted a benefit."

It boils down to a simple premise, he said.

"The security of the United States is more important than granting a benefit
without proper knowledge. Security is paramount," Bentley said. "We have a
responsibility to the United States citizens, to lawful permanent residents and to
temporary visitors who come to the U.S. from around the world to securing the
homeland and making it as safe as possible."
.....................................
 
AILA

Whether AILA has been poor in supporting our problems and EB immigration in general, it is worthy to embrace all for any success.

See selected portions on RFEs and Security Checks.

https://www.aila.org/newsViewer.aspx?bc=273&docID=12455

RFEs Cloud the Legitimacy of a Fee Increase

A major contributor to the slowness of processing is the tremendous spike in recent years in the number of filings that have been subjected to needless Requests for Evidence (RFEs). The RFE is a mechanism by which an examiner may request additional evidence from an applicant or petitioner in order to adjudicate an application or petition. However, requests for extension of nonimmigrant status, or immigrant petitions that carry the same standards as the ones applicable to the nonimmigrant status that the beneficiary currently holds, are subjected to extensive RFE requests, even though there have been no changes in fact or law since the last decision. Typical cases that receive requests for significant additional documentation beyond what is required in the regulations include: a priest from a major religious denomination being asked for 43 pieces of additional documentation that his is a religious occupation; a major, household-name company being asked for evidence that the company is a legitimate operation; an employer of an engineer being asked for evidence that engineering is a professional field; a petitioner for extension of H-1B, L-1 or other nonimmigrant status being asked for further evidence to demonstrate eligibility for the visa already held.1 The list goes on almost indefinitely.
Apart from the burden placed on the public by these RFEs and the degree to which they raise questions regarding the arbitrariness of the process, the RFEs drain considerable resources that could be better used for adjudications. Our members estimate, based on their own experience, that the rate of RFEs ranges from about 25% for some employment-based petitions, to nearly 100% for adjustments of status in some offices. While undoubtedly some of these RFEs are legitimate, the large number that are excessive or pursue irrelevant lines of questioning crowd out the legitimate ones in the eyes of the public. These RFEs easily double or triple the time spent adjudicating a case, yet most could be eliminated with a concerted effort by USCIS leadership to publish long-overdue regulations, issue clear guidance, and impose managerial control over the unfettered ability of adjudicators to pursue any line of inquiry they please and to reopen resolved issues.
These wasteful practices call into question the legitimacy of any fee request, much less a request for such significantly increased fees.

Security Checks

There can be no question that security checks are in the national interest. In addition to serious reforms in how the checks are conducted, the Administration must look to how they are funded. This is a matter of taxpayer interest and to the benefit of the entire public. It should be funded through appropriations, rather than relying on the unpredictable stream of revenue that results from user fees. A full and responsible infrastructure is needed and needed yesterday, and it is well past time that the funds are provided to build and sustain that structure.
We do not for a moment quarrel with the necessity of thorough and appropriate security checks with respect to applicants. If anything in the immigration process can stop the entry of persons who might do us harm, this is it. But those checks must be meaningful and appropriate, and attention must be given to making them efficient. Two and one-half years after September 11, there still is significant question as to whether entities like USCIS have the data they need to make an informed decision on an application.
If database information cannot be shared, police and security agencies need to make it a primary mission to respond to inquiries about IBIS "hits". Not only is it absurd and hurtful to businesses and families to slow the process of immigration while waiting for an answer, it is horrifying to see months and sometimes years pass before an inquiry is resolved if the object of the inquiry is indeed someone who means harm.
We also continue to be concerned about the clumsy system for conducting the checks. Nearly two years after the checks were instituted, they still are not an integral part of the adjudication system, and instead must be conducted as a separate process, resulting in a needless slowing of the adjudications function. Once a matter is cleared, there is no process for entering the information into the database to inform the next decision-maker of what was found. As a result, the entire process must be constantly repeated, unless the immediate decision-maker made a hand notation in the paper file and the paper file happens to fall into the hands of the next decision-maker. This rarely occurs, and in any event is at best a makeshift workaround to the inertia of the system, and not an efficient solution.
We also are concerned about the many needless checks that are being conducted. Petitions and applications that would not be legally impacted even if there were a positive "hit" are nevertheless subjected not only to the check process, but must await the clearance process as well. For example, I-130 and I-140 petitions filed alone are subjected to checks, even though no ground of inadmissibility would attach at that stage. This seems wasteful in the extreme.
The current mantra of the USCIS Public Affairs office is "we make no apologies for having slowed the process down"2 to conduct security checks. It is nearly two years since the check processes were instituted, and they have not improved to any noticeable extent in that time. Comments like this are disingenuous at best, and in fact are insulting to the people being asked to pay the tab. It is well past time not only to apologize for the fact that the process has not been made efficient and reliable, but to fix the process. Waiting a year or more to see if an applicant is a terrorist is no better than waiting a year or more for a security check to clear. Neither is a responsible way to fulfill this agency's missions.
.................
[1] As far back as 1989, policy was enunciated that examiners should not re-adjudicate
established facts, such as categorical eligibility. This directive is now ignored with
impunity, leading to adjudication processes that waste valuable resources and cost the
agency needless sums of money in defending litigation to challenge these decisions.

[2] See, e.g., "Spelling Mistake Sidelines Soprano," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2/26/04.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by cinta


In order to avoid backlogs, and reduce fraudulent filings of adjustment applications, Mr. Khatri is proposing a revolutionary approach to processing cases: interview the aliens on the same day they file their case, rather than years later, as is done at the present time. With a same day interview, CIS could quickly screen the cases to see if they are bona fide, and could issue the green card in about 60 days from filing, which is the time it takes to complete the security checks. . [/B]
Click to expand...

Great suggestions !!!

We can knock out one reason for delay by this testimony. That the security checks can be completed within sixty days...and that is not the real bottle neck...

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