Disparity in RFE rates between NSC and VSC

[Sankrityayan]

It is intriguing, to say the least, that NSC seems to be adjudicating its applications using a demonstrably (atleast going by rupnet statistics) higher threshold as evidenced from the number of RFEs being generated.

If one assumes that the age of the case and the status of the employment situation in the country are factors in the number of RFEs generated for employment verification, it would imply that all the centers should be averaging a similar number of RFEs for applications received in any given period. Yet, rupnet data shows that NSC consistently has a higher rate of requests for additional evidence relative to VSC.

I have read somewhere that NSC has a larger number of new recruits who tend to be more cautious and thus send out more RFEs. Irrespective of whether this is true, it would imply the application of a dissimilar standard to similar applications, especially given that the service is responsible for most of the delays. How can this be consistent with a constitution that guarantees equal treatment? For example, can the social security administration take one month to mail checks to residents of New England and six months to folks that live on the west coast? The lawyers would be all over that in no time!!

Given the RFE rate disparity, it would be easy to prove that, at the margin, more applications are likely to be denied at NSC relative to VSC in an environment where labor market churn is natural and ever-present. When congress legislated that approvals should be based on the prospective availability of a permanent position, for which even a minimally qualified applicant is not available in the local labor market, they certainly did not take the unreasonable stand that the position, while it is required to be permanent, should be available for ever (or till whatever time the service deems it appropriate for the adjudication of a case) !! One would imagine that the statute is based on a reasonable length of time, which is not controlled arbitrarily by the INS. Congress has reiterated this stand by proactively enacting the portability provisions of AC-21, which is something of a slap on the wrist to the INS.

I am surprised that the process has not been challenged and tested by the legal community in a manner that would clarify at least the most basic rights of immigrants. If an application is denied by the INS because a proferred position is no longer available because of the inordinate amount of time it took the service to adjudicate it (and not due to the applicant's tardiness), it would appear that there are excellent grounds on which the denial can be challenged.

 

[gheewalabhai888]

Sankrityayan, I completely agree

with you. There should be grounds for appealing if proferred and future job is no longer available.
Rupnet I have found may not represent everything if you run that query script and look into the output. It is way different that what we see on the rupnet.

 

[rpkei]

I find it quite amusing to follow up on your's and Pork's comments.

Now about your note on disparity, everything balances out in a long run; come Jan 2004, look back and compare 2003 RFEs in NSC vs VSC. I doubt if we will notice this disparity (maybe but not substantial).

I feel due to the re-org in INS/BCIS, the process-driven operations are yet to be perfected. However VSC seems to be a step ahead; It is just a matter of time before NSC hails from slump. means to say, we are all stuck in the moment;

 

[Sankrityayan]

rpkei,

You are being rather kind to the service. Perhaps you are justified in having such a disposition, or maybe you want to give them the benefit of doubt. However, my assertions are rooted in present day realities. Here is how -

There are disparities in procedures and standards INS uses to adjudicate various applications; If this is temporary and a reasonable, good faith attempt is being made to address them, it is not an issue. While your observation - in the long run, it equals out - may prove to be prescient with respect to NSC and VSC, the reality is (and has been for some time) that these differences have consistently existed between the various service centers and do not seem to bother neither the INS brass nor the legal watchdog community. There is a reasonable argument to be made that this is discrimination by the state based on place of residence, which is outlawed by the US constitution.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the service centers these days take on average 1.5 to 2 years to adjudicate a properly submitted I-485 petition. If you add in the fact that there is a lapse of at-least another couple of years for the LC and I-140 processes to pan out, the proferred position needs to be available for atleast 3.5 to 4 years for an immigrant to gain permanent residency. Given that the economy is cyclical (and has always been that way) and that US has a relatively flexible labor market, the likelihood that a proferred permanent position will continue to be available for this length of time is minimal. To an impartial observer, this threshold, employed currently by the INS, would seem unreasonable (and arbitrary as the INS can fall further behind and thus keep raising the bar higher). More pertinently, it is not intended to be so by congress when enacting the statute. It is one thing to be required to show the availability of a proferred position when an application is being filed, and a completely different standard to be asked to show that such a position continues to be available until such time the service deigns to adjudicate, and keep sending RFEs for employment verification. If two years after having met the criterion at the time of the application, such a proferred position is no longer available due to changing economic conditions, the situation is one where an applicant is being severly penalized for the tardiness of the service. How is that logical?

And of-course, the above does not even touch upon the issues of exploitation that the system has fostered, unwittingly or otherwise, and other questions like career progression and remuneration changes while the petition is pending with the INS.