Employment based immigration backlog petition

Re: Profiles confirmed received...

Hi, Rajiv and Homa,
Some people have not responded.
> 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.
Should we collect more several candidates for good list of plaintiffs, or is it enough ?
A couple of people seem to want to send a profile.
-kashmir

CSC
  • ruxrux WAC-02-103
  • kashmir WAC-02-124
  • 140_takes_4ever WAC-03-001
  • bhavoo WAC-02-049
NSC
  • DaoMingTze RD 9/2001
  • wandergirlus RD 1/28/2002
TSC
  • khoula
  • taj72 Apr,2002
  • sg_rg2
  • Aloshy ND 12/2001
VSC
  • Edison
  • mraju
 
May I suggest that we have more plaintiffs than Rajiv suggested?

During the legal process if some got approved we will still have enough cases for the action.
 
That's true. By the time we file our case, most of these people might get approved. It's a big possibility. Anyhow, let us wait till we talk to Rajiv on phone.
 
What happens if one of plaintiffs would get approved after filing a lawsuit ?
Can he/she still continue fighting against the USCIS through the end ?
or
Must he/she quit from the lawsuit ?
 
Originally posted by kashmir
What happens if one of plaintiffs would get approved after filing a lawsuit ?
Can he/she still continue fighting against the USCIS through the end ?
or
Must he/she quit from the lawsuit ?

kashmir,

It depends on the form of the suit; what kind of backlogs it covers, what is asking for, etc.
It can be acceptable for people who even got their GCs to be as plaintiffs, if the underlining requests are met. This is something that the core team should debate. How about if we suggest a modification of the INA for CITINZENSHIP requirements? It sure makes sense, given the fact that the GC process has been severely backlogged and that we have been working here for ages. Only this would remedy the defect.
shusterman filed a suit for doctors and is asking for a lot of modifications in the INA in a clever way! (www.shusterman.com). This will cover the years of the EAD towards CITINZENSHIP, if not more years before that.

See a paragraph.....mentioning the delays and the impact on NIW doctors and changing jobs.

"Moreover, a physician has no control over how long the CIS will take to grant an NIW petition. Adding the CIS processing times to the period of time that the physician is already serving in a medically underserved area is arbitrary and capricious, and cannot be justified under the statute. Dr. Nedelescu’s situation demonstrates the arbitrariness of the rule. The CIS can extend the period Dr. Nedelescu must serve by simply continuing to delay approval of hisNIW petition which has already been pending for well over one year. Lengthy delays in CIS adjudication times impose a significantly longer period of employment obligation on a physician than the three or five year aggregate required by law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kashmir, others-

I have not received clearance from my employer (also my GC sponsor) to join the lawsuit. Lot of feathers get ruffled when you talk about taking on the federal government. Although they are sympathetic to my situation but to them my "situation is not critical enough to warrant such measures". So please strike me out of the list of volunteers. Sorry about that. I will certainly make personal contributions to this case though.

sg_rg2
 
Originally posted by smita_goyle
That means..we should file the Law suit As soon As possible.
May be next week!!!
Smita_goyle,

A lawsuit is not like take-away chinese which is ready for you to pick up at the carry out window.

It takes time to prepare a good brief, and it is better to delay it slightly and do a good job of it rather than do it in a hurry and get chucked out of court.

I suggest we (the amateurs) leave it to the professionals (Rajiv Khanna), to decide what to do in this case.

Take it easy everyone, dsatish will be speaking to Rajiv today and will update everyone with the status after that. So don't jump the gun.
 
Originally posted by sg_rg2
Kashmir, others-

I have not received clearance from my employer (also my GC sponsor) to join the lawsuit. Lot of feathers get ruffled when you talk about taking on the federal government. Although they are sympathetic to my situation but to them my "situation is not critical enough to warrant such measures". So please strike me out of the list of volunteers. Sorry about that. I will certainly make personal contributions to this case though.

sg_rg2

sgt_rg2,

Could you please post some more details, like what kind of company you are working for and the reasons for it? Is it a Defense company? Do we really need to ask for permission under the circumstances and/or sign any other G-28 form?

Note: In my case, I would not be permitted to join as my company is a federal contractor. Besides, living here for an extended amount of time accumulates a lot of questions..would be very difficult to find all the answers..definition of a "clean" case!
 
Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
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.

I would not be. I am greedy. I want it all NOW, my human rights, my civil rights, my GC rights and my CITINZENSHIP rights. People power can change the laws. The problem is that this administration is either unable nor willing to face the music. All they know is the Patriot act. If you follow the money trail (posted earlier) you will get. 330 million for enforcement, 300 million for US-VISIT (max of 10 billion dollars program) AND 3 million for USCIS. That should tell you something..
and the Ombudsman gets the same salary as the USCIS director...I hope you see the BIG PICTURE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cinta,

I do not currently work for a defense contractor or any other federal contractors. I thought it would be the correct procedure to ask my employer (sponsor) before jumping into this because without them I would not even be at the AOS stage. So I asked them in writing and got a negative reply.

If you work for a federal contractor you should be careful how you go about this. You have to read your company's policy book to see what you should do. If you violate any policy, you run the risk of getting fired.

sg_rg2
 
Originally posted by sg_rg2
cinta,

I do not currently work for a defense contractor or any other federal contractors. I thought it would be the correct procedure to ask my employer (sponsor) before jumping into this because without them I would not even be at the AOS stage. So I asked them in writing and got a negative reply.

If you work for a federal contractor you should be careful how you go about this. You have to read your company's policy book to see what you should do. If you violate any policy, you run the risk of getting fired.

sg_rg2

Thanks for your reply. Do not worry as I know and lived all. They gave me a WARN notice twice so far and stopped my GC application for seven months for all different reasons...I know the jungle. We have legal, security, hr, export control, ethics departments bigger than an average company..

WARN: A notice for layoff in sixty days, when the number of people being layed off > 100, federal regulation.
 
Sounds illegal to me

Originally posted by sg_rg2
cinta,

I do not currently work for a defense contractor or any other federal contractors. I thought it would be the correct procedure to ask my employer (sponsor) before jumping into this because without them I would not even be at the AOS stage. So I asked them in writing and got a negative reply.

If you work for a federal contractor you should be careful how you go about this. You have to read your company's policy book to see what you should do. If you violate any policy, you run the risk of getting fired.

sg_rg2



A policy barring an individual from enforcing his/ her PERSONAL legal rights (I-48 is personal to the individual) - sounds illegal.

But please do whathever you feel comfortable with. We have plenty of pliantiffs.
 
Local office transfers

Local office transfers

Recently lot of cases have been transferred from VSC to local office and it looks like CSC is also following VSC strategy.
Transferring the case to local office is obviously cannot be considered I-485 backlog reduction plan, this is just moving the backlog from Service centers to Local office.
I feel this has to addressed in legal action.

LEGAL ACTION Opinions/suggestions

LEGAL ACTION Opinions/suggestions of VSC forum members

LEGAL ACTION Opinions/suggestions of CSC forum members

LEGAL ACTION Opinions/suggestions of NSC forum members

LEGAL ACTION Opinions/suggestions of NSC forum members
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Points

A few more points: lack of allocation of resources/money towards the backlog reduction, in spite of the 5-year Bush plan. Take a look. Money goes to hospitals treating illegals.............

A Medicare bill, which includes a clause that gives hospitals at least $1 billion to
hospitals for emergency care to uninsured and undocumented immigrants, has won
final congressional approval. Although the legislation calls for the funds to be
distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, funding formulas will give preferences
to states with significant numbers of undocumented immigrants, including Texas,
Arizona and California, where millions of dollars of unpaid medical bills are generated
by undocumented immigrants.
This provision in the bill comes after a study was done on the impact of the federal
Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act on border-state hospitals. The study
found that hospitals in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas spent $190 million
in 2000 on emergency medical treatment for undocumented patients.
Hospitals are required by federal law to care for all patients, regardless of insurance
status or citizenship. The $1 billion will help compensate doctors and ambulance
companies that provide immigrant care.

Illegal procedures: The second and third FP are basically illegal and unconstitutional as well as violation of basic human rights. This extends to other security checks, like name checks, CIA checks, etc. The repetition of these is a joke (35 days). How about instituting all these for the general population? They are more thread than we are!

Numbers not met: The annual 140,000 quota may not be met for several years.

Transfers: Little dirty trick. If they want to transfer, why not by the reception of the application?

Chain effect: One case of backlogs reverbates to other backlogs. People are waiting to get their "Export Licenses" from the Departements of Commerce and State for long times, because they have backlogs. No wonder!

Homeland Security Act: Section 458, to reduce backlogs within a year...FAILURE. Section 452: Ombudsman.....FAILURE. (hsa2002.pdf)

news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/hsa2002.pdf

http://www.twmlaw.com/new/immsecurity.html

Reports to Congress: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1574.html

I have not seen a report to Congress for YEARS. None from the Attorney general, the DHS, Ombudsman, ANYBODY. No report, no action.

Foreigners for EVER:? We are foreigners until we get the GC. Immigration law wrt to other areas of the law do not favor us. See especially PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT.
http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/publications.htm
Immigration Law and Its Relation to Other Areas of the Law
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Sounds illegal to me

Originally posted by operations
A policy barring an individual from enforcing his/ her PERSONAL legal rights (I-48 is personal to the individual) - sounds illegal.

But please do whathever you feel comfortable with. We have plenty of pliantiffs.

Rajiv,

Thanks for that extremely brief but succinct post on that issue. It was much needed and is much appreciated. That will clarify the issue for a lot of people under the mis-guided notion that being party to this lawsuit will cast adverse effects on their 485 or job prospects.

FYI, Bhavoo, who was supposed to be a part of the plaintiff group, just received his/her approval today on CSC, so that knocks them out of the loop. (looks like all the volunteers are getting approved, so hope to see something in the mail soon! :))
 
Re: Re: Sounds illegal to me

Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
Rajiv,

Thanks for that extremely brief but succinct post on that issue. It was much needed and is much appreciated. That will clarify the issue for a lot of people under the mis-guided notion that being party to this lawsuit will cast adverse effects on their 485 or job prospects.

FYI, Bhavoo, who was supposed to be a part of the plaintiff group, just received his/her approval today on CSC, so that knocks them out of the loop. (looks like all the volunteers are getting approved, so hope to see something in the mail soon! :))


:) I think just being a plaintiff brings good luck. May be we should get a few more plaintiffs from the community.
 
Resources

A non-exhausting short list of resources from 2000. Some of these, S.2586, S.2045 have been referenced elsewhere, also. Kashmir, Edison.

www.ilw.com/lawyers/colum_article/articles/2003,1126-dorsey.pdf Board of Immigration Appeals backlogs.

http://www.gao.gov/ d01488.pdf GAO report on timelineness of applications

http://www.twmlaw.com/general47cont.htm
http://www.shusterman.com/s2586.html
http://www.usvisanews.com/memo881.html
http://www.isn.org/news/20001003100108.html amendment (isn)

S.2586 (Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act.
S.2045 (AC-21) incorporates S.2586.

Homeland Security Act 2002, HR 5005
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/hsa2002.pdf
www.house.gov/rules/H5005_011.pdf
Sections 452, 458. MOST RECENT AND MOST IMPORTANT?

US Department of Justice, Audit Division
Immigration And Naturalization Service's Premium Processing Program, Report No. 03-14, February 2003
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/iginsar1.htm

GAO report on US-VISIT program and appropriations..Your User Fees at work!
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/doj_news/2003,0924-visit.pdf

Committee for Economic Development - Reforming Immigration - resource
http://www.ced.org/projects/immigration.shtml

www.ced.org/docs/report/report_immigration.pdf

Other immigration lawsuits:

http://www.usvisanews.com/memo222.html

http://www.usvisanews.com/memo407.html

http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/020129aclu.shtml

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/doj_news/2002,0909-notice.pdf

http://www.visalaw.com/00feb1/4feb100.html

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1202494.html

http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_lit_030402a.asp *********

http://www.usabal.com/news/2003/03Feb03.html H1B

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/newsadmin/printable.php?ID=1859 students

http://www.payvand.com/news/02/dec/1119.html

http://www.aila.org/contentViewer.aspx?bc=9,594,1003,1934

http://www.bakerlawcorp.com/news/08112003 Asylee Adjustment Class Action Update.htm ...Asylee lawsuit update.

http://www.shusterman.com/msj-niw1103.html

Another Federal lawsuit.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/ne...ion/7516859.htm ACLU, security databases

Related threads:

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?threadid=100865&perpage=15&pagenumber=1.. Writ of Mandamus discussion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top