Employment based immigration backlog petition

current list of candidates for plaintiffs

CSC
  • bhavoo WAC-02-049
  • ruxrux WAC-02-103
  • kashmir WAC-02-124
  • 140_takes_4ever WAC-03-001
NSC
  • DaoMingTze RD 9/2001
  • wandergirlus RD 1/28/2002
TSC
  • sg_rg2
  • Aloshy ND 12/2001
VSC
  • Edison
  • mraju
 
Re: OK

Originally posted by operations
We have enough. Any family based I-485 cases?
Click to expand...
I have just asked each candidate to send a profile at dsatish's thread of each service center forum.
-kashmir

P.S.
I have sent mine.
 
Rajiv,

I have sent you an email with my case details. If you think it appropriate for your requirements, please include me in your list of initial plaintiffs.

Thanks!
 
I am responding to all e-mails as they come through

We will probably use at least 8 of you and may be 3-4 of our clients. I will keep you folks informed.

I am inclined to file the first complaint without too much ado.
 
Emotional distress

Emotional distress can easily be claimed as hardship. That in reality is the most important hardship that is suffered by these delays. All the unceratinity - people can't plan marriages, home trips, buying a home, kids......
People may lose jobs- for no fault of theirs - further complicating the GC process and compounding the emotional distress.

Thanks
 
Sorry to say, but people keep refering to losing jobs as an emotional distress and hardship faced during the AOS process, I wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue.

Losing your job IMHO CANNOT be refered to as a hardship or emotional distress for EB 485 cases. The whole concept behind your AOS is the fact that there are jobs for people with your qualification in the US. In fact it can also be said that the US does not have people with your skillset for the jobs that are lying vacant, hence your need as an EB applicant.

Hence, please don't refer to job uncertainty in your hardship. Lack of growth due to strict implementation of 485 might be a valid case for hardship but definitely not job insecurity.
 
Yup

Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
Sorry to say, but people keep refering to losing jobs as an emotional distress and hardship faced during the AOS process, I wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue.

Losing your job IMHO CANNOT be refered to as a hardship or emotional distress for EB 485 cases. The whole concept behind your AOS is the fact that there are jobs for people with your qualification in the US. In fact it can also be said that the US does not have people with your skillset for the jobs that are lying vacant, hence your need as an EB applicant.

Hence, please don't refer to job uncertainty in your hardship. Lack of growth due to strict implementation of 485 might be a valid case for hardship but definitely not job insecurity.
Click to expand...

There are lots of double edged swords in our case. So be cool. I will figure out the arguments. We can always amend, if the community wants to.
 
Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
Sorry to say, but people keep refering to losing jobs as an emotional distress and hardship faced during the AOS process, I wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue.

Losing your job IMHO CANNOT be refered to as a hardship or emotional distress for EB 485 cases. The whole concept behind your AOS is the fact that there are jobs for people with your qualification in the US. In fact it can also be said that the US does not have people with your skillset for the jobs that are lying vacant, hence your need as an EB applicant.

Hence, please don't refer to job uncertainty in your hardship. Lack of growth due to strict implementation of 485 might be a valid case for hardship but definitely not job insecurity.
Click to expand...

140_XXX

He has a strong point actually. EB immigration is based on some finite times from LC to GC, for the employee and the employer. If these times are not met, due to 5 years to get a EB GC, the process is falling apart. EB GC is then a sham..today's situation. What company would sponsor somebody to get a GC after 4-5 years?? For a permanent , indefinite position?? How can you make that wish for 4-5 years in the future??

Employment in America is "at will", and thre is a big difference in the immigration meaning. The reality of the world is so much apart from what immigration thinks.
 
cinta,

Don't get me wrong, it is not that I disagree completely with the argument on job insecurity, but you are going to be hard pressed to explain that to the INS or in a court of law, that you want fast GC's because you are not sure how long you can hold on to your job. Specially when the premise of the EB GC is prospective employment.

As far as your point about duration of processing, I would like to draw your attention to historic trends, until 2000, when they abolished the concept of dates becoming current, it was an extremely well accepted fact that GC would take 3 years after filing for AOS. It was just that 2000 changed everything, whereby people saw others applying a month or so before them, and getting approved 2 years before they did. (Case in point is a friend of mine who applied for Labor in June 2000, I applied in May 2000, and he is still waiting for LC approval). A similar analogy could be made to the economy, with everyone who joined the workforce after '94 having never seen a downturn, and everyone expecting returns of 30 % from their stocks and 401K, when historically the best return has been more in the 8-10 % range.

Taking that into account 2-3 year waits, though morally wrong, are not out of the blue. I am sure Rajiv is going to take everything into account when he makes his decision as to what points of law he plans to fight the lawsuit on. I am also sure that he knows what he is doing, atleast more so than what we know of the law, so I trust him to fight the fight that has the best chance of winning. The only reason I made my point earlier was because I felt people are looking at this in the wrong prespective.

The correct prespective is a case like Kashmir, who can't get a good car loan because his EAD keeps expiring, and no lender wants to trust his stability and give him a good deal. Another good case is like Kash777 who has to pay a very high interest rate on his house because of the same problem. These are the kind of hardships that I feel Rajiv is looking for and not the fact that the job market is uncertain and hence I want INS to cover my butt ASAP!

Sorry to be so long winded.
 
Correct

Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
cinta,

Don't get me wrong, it is not that I disagree completely with the argument on job insecurity, but you are going to be hard pressed to explain that to the INS or in a court of law, that you want fast GC's because you are not sure how long you can hold on to your job. Specially when the premise of the EB GC is prospective employment.

As far as your point about duration of processing, I would like to draw your attention to historic trends, until 2000, when they abolished the concept of dates becoming current, it was an extremely well accepted fact that GC would take 3 years after filing for AOS. It was just that 2000 changed everything, whereby people saw others applying a month or so before them, and getting approved 2 years before they did. (Case in point is a friend of mine who applied for Labor in June 2000, I applied in May 2000, and he is still waiting for LC approval). A similar analogy could be made to the economy, with everyone who joined the workforce after '94 having never seen a downturn, and everyone expecting returns of 30 % from their stocks and 401K, when historically the best return has been more in the 8-10 % range.

Taking that into account 2-3 year waits, though morally wrong, are not out of the blue. I am sure Rajiv is going to take everything into account when he makes his decision as to what points of law he plans to fight the lawsuit on. I am also sure that he knows what he is doing, atleast more so than what we know of the law, so I trust him to fight the fight that has the best chance of winning. The only reason I made my point earlier was because I felt people are looking at this in the wrong prespective.

The correct prespective is a case like Kashmir, who can't get a good car loan because his EAD keeps expiring, and no lender wants to trust his stability and give him a good deal. Another good case is like Kash777 who has to pay a very high interest rate on his house because of the same problem. These are the kind of hardships that I feel Rajiv is looking for and not the fact that the job market is uncertain and hence I want INS to cover my butt ASAP!

Sorry to be so long winded.
Click to expand...

Those are the kind of hardships I am looking for.
 
Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
cinta,

Don't get me wrong, it is not that I disagree completely with the argument on job insecurity, but you are going to be hard pressed to explain that to the INS or in a court of law, that you want fast GC's because you are not sure how long you can hold on to your job. Specially when the premise of the EB GC is prospective employment.

As far as your point about duration of processing, I would like to draw your attention to historic trends, until 2000, when they abolished the concept of dates becoming current, it was an extremely well accepted fact that GC would take 3 years after filing for AOS. It was just that 2000 changed everything, whereby people saw others applying a month or so before them, and getting approved 2 years before they did. (Case in point is a friend of mine who applied for Labor in June 2000, I applied in May 2000, and he is still waiting for LC approval). A similar analogy could be made to the economy, with everyone who joined the workforce after '94 having never seen a downturn, and everyone expecting returns of 30 % from their stocks and 401K, when historically the best return has been more in the 8-10 % range.

Taking that into account 2-3 year waits, though morally wrong, are not out of the blue. I am sure Rajiv is going to take everything into account when he makes his decision as to what points of law he plans to fight the lawsuit on. I am also sure that he knows what he is doing, atleast more so than what we know of the law, so I trust him to fight the fight that has the best chance of winning. The only reason I made my point earlier was because I felt people are looking at this in the wrong prespective.

The correct prespective is a case like Kashmir, who can't get a good car loan because his EAD keeps expiring, and no lender wants to trust his stability and give him a good deal. Another good case is like Kash777 who has to pay a very high interest rate on his house because of the same problem. These are the kind of hardships that I feel Rajiv is looking for and not the fact that the job market is uncertain and hence I want INS to cover my butt ASAP!

Sorry to be so long winded.
Click to expand...

They still have a point. See the failed mechanisms like AC-21 trying to cure the problem. It is conceivable that somebody may have no job at the time of I-485 adjudication. The variables are the Backlogs, the economy and a myriad other explanations. The whole Immigration Law is flawed, and especially EB based one. When a company decides to sponsor somebody, it expects the process to take place 6-12 months from LC. If they want to eliminate the process they can do it at the LC level. look at Canada's immigration process for a comparison..even though they have backlogs also, but not because of SECURITY CHECKS.
You have to remember that these people and all of us have HUMAN and CIVIL rights also..violated multiple times. Why for example somebody who worked, let us say SIX years on H-1B, seventh year on extension and another 2-3 years on EAD, would not qualify for a GC just because he lost his job??? He should be eligible for CITINZENSHIP, as the illegals were and became in 86, 96 and coming up also soon, according to whom?? DHS Director RIDGE!! So the people they do not ask anybody to cover their ass. In some way (and we are not discussing the way, anyway), they came here, worked from 1-10 years legally and so they should be respected and dealt accordingly.
 
Cinta,

Like I said before, not that I agree or disagree with you completely. I think you have stated a number of ethical issues that must be addressed, but those issues are counter-productive to this lawsuit for reasons I stated above. And in cases like this it is the legal hardships that are important and not the more philosophical ones, as to why legal immigrants are getting a raw deal as compared to illegal immigrants.

I don't expect anything drastic to change due to this lawsuit (though I would welcome any positive outcomes), if INS gives us an action plan to reduce backlogs in the next 3 years with quarterly or semi-annual reports on progress towards the goal, I will be more than satisfied.
 
Even though AOS is employment based. Job loss is the reality- for reasons totally beyond the control of the applicant or even the employer. Most (I guess) job losses are temporary- people find another job. But to restart the process just for that- does not seem right.
That was the basis of AC21- the act was rightly named - to promote competitiveness in the American economy and not named as to benefit GC applicants. AC21 is helpful but has its limitations including it kicks in at the last stage and comes with a caveat- do 'similar' job. In 4-5 years people outgrow their old job- move up in the career.
The reason for all that is job loss/change/ employers going under etc are the reality on which the dynamic American economy is based. The GC applicants get caught into the process- the principal reason- delays.
If the process from start to finish took a reasonable time like 12-18 mo. then it would be a more controlled timeframe. Both the employers and applicants can predict and plan for a shorter time frame.
Even though one may eventually get the GC after 4-10 yrs- the emotional distress caused is meanwhile immense.

I personally don't have a GC after 10 yrs in US- I know I will eventually get it- but meanwhile I suffer from all the constraints- causing me all kinds of distress.

Thanks
 
Rajiv

Hi Rajiv,
A few of us (core team members) would like to have a conference call with you to discuss the funding and law suit issues. Will it be possible for you to talk to us after the office hours ( Anytime after 8pm on a week day or any time on week-ends) ? If that's not possible then we will think of talking to you during our work hours. Please let us know.
 
Re: Rajiv

Originally posted by dsatish
Hi Rajiv,
A few of us (core team members) would like to have a conference call with you to discuss the funding and law suit issues. Will it be possible for you to talk to us after the office hours ( Anytime after 8pm on a week day or any time on week-ends) ? If that's not possible then we will think of talking to you during our work hours. Please let us know.
Click to expand...

I can do it between 12 and 7 PM EST, any week day.
 
Re: current list of candidates for plaintiffs

Hi, Rajiv,
I confirmed three candidates had sent you a profile.
Have you received a profile from another ones ?
-kashmir

CSC
  • bhavoo WAC-02-049
  • ruxrux WAC-02-103
  • kashmir WAC-02-124
  • 140_takes_4ever WAC-03-001
NSC
  • DaoMingTze RD 9/2001
  • wandergirlus RD 1/28/2002
TSC
  • sg_rg2
  • Aloshy ND 12/2001
VSC
  • Edison
  • mraju
 
Re: Re: current list of candidates for plaintiffs

Originally posted by kashmir
Hi, Rajiv,
I confirmed three candidates had sent you a profile.
Have you received a profile from another ones ?
-kashmir

CSC
  • bhavoo WAC-02-049
  • ruxrux WAC-02-103
  • kashmir WAC-02-124
  • 140_takes_4ever WAC-03-001
NSC
  • DaoMingTze RD 9/2001
  • wandergirlus RD 1/28/2002
TSC
  • sg_rg2
  • Aloshy ND 12/2001
VSC
  • Edison
  • mraju
Click to expand...



Homa, please respond.
 
Profiles confirmed received...

As of this morning (12/12) the profiles have been received for the following:

1. Ruxrux
2. 140-takes-4ever
3. DaoMingTze
4. Kashmir
5. Khoula
6. Edison
7. Taj72

Regards,
Homa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top