Follow Up On The Lawsuit

cinta

Registered Users (C)
The public_info file (text) was sent to the following: Note that some do not like attachments.

http://www.ap.org/pages/aptoday/aptoday_contact.html Associated Press

http://www.reuters.com/-helpSectionContactUs.jhtml Reuters

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form11.html?1 CNN

LouDobbs@cnn.com E-mail sent





23 December 2003
Subject: Law Suit Filed Against the US Immigration Service challenging Delays Contrary to Congressional Mandate

On 22 December 2003, ImmigrationPortal.Com, an online community and others have filed a law suit against United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (earlier known as INS) challenging the delays in processing of some applications for employment based immigrants.

The complaint is available at:
http://boards.immigration.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=651497

Related discussions in the community can be found here:
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107834

This Complaint stemmed from the extraordinary delays in completing green card processing leading to much distress and harm in the community. The overall process can take 6 years or more. The Complaint notes:

2. The process of obtaining employment based US Lawful Permanent Residence ("green card"), especially for Labor Certification based cases has become egregiously dilatory over the past few years. The delays in the process have now come to the point where in States like New York and California it can take six years or more to obtain a green card. In the interim, an employee is left with continuous dread and insecurity. Loss or diminishment of employment almost invariably means abrupt uprooting of years of life and career built in this country. In most cases, USCIS practice permits not even one day of grace period to arrange for passage out of USA - a state of affairs long way from the constitutional ideal of "...pursuit of happiness."
3. Additionally, for labor certification based cases, which form a large majority of employment-based applications, any substantial career advancement is unwise. A promotion leads to nullification of the entire green card process, thereby necessitating starting the process all over again - resetting the six-year countdown back to zero. Thus, an employee is required to continue at the same job level year after year.

4. The Defendants have administered immigration laws by ad-hoc memoranda and unwritten policy rather than by regulation. Several laws remain inexactly implemented without regulations by the agencies for years. The will of Congress, articulated in various ameliorative statutes, has been thwarted by the lack of regulations and the atmosphere of uncertainty for employees."

Employment-Based Categories
45. Under INA, the employment-based category is divided into five preferences or groupings. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b).
46. The highest priority goes to first employment-based "priority workers" who consist of:
a) Aliens with extraordinary ability;
b) Outstanding professors and researchers; and
c) Certain multinational executives and managers subject to international transfer to the United States.
47. The second employment-based preferences include professionals holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States.
48. The third employment-based preference include certain professional, skilled and unskilled workers, where qualified workers are not available in the United States.
49. The fourth employment-based preference includes certain special immigrants, including ministers of religion.
50. The fifth employment-based category includes alien investors who create or maintain at least ten jobs in USA, none of which can be for their own family members.

All of the above categories of workers are severely affected by the inordinate delays in processing and have accordingly filed the instant law suit.

The community had made several concerted efforts to redress this problem through the government and the legislature. Thousands of people signed several petitions, but no action was taken by the government. For a copy of one of these petitions, please see:
http://www.immigration.com/common/rsk/petition_I485.html

Having failed in their efforts, filing a law suit was the only option left to the community.

For further information, please contact Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Rajiv S. Khanna at rskhanna@immigration.com, Phone 703-908-4800. Or join the online discussions at

http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107834
 
Update

Update of contacts:

News Wires

http://www.ap.org/pages/aptoday/aptoday_contact.html Associated Press

http://www.reuters.com/-helpSectionContactUs.jhtml Reuters

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form11.html?1 CNN

LouDobbs@cnn.com E-mail sent


Immigration lawyers

weeklyeditor@ilw.com E-mail sent (www.ilw.com)

gsiskind@visalaw.com E-mail sent

Non-profit immigration think tanks

'Demetri Papademetriou' Migration Policy Institute Co-director E-mail sent

AILA

'Palma Yanni' President-elect of AILA E-mail sent

Societies/Think tanks
George Soros

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/contact/contact_initiative_thank_you E-mail sent

AILF e-mails sent


Nadine Wettstein
Director, Legal Action Center
American Immigration Law Foundation
918 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: (202) 742-5611
Fax: (202) 783-7857
nwettstein@ailf.org

'aprazuch@ailf.org'

Ben Johnson [bjohnson@ailf.org]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow up on the lawsuit results

So far the news about the lawsuit appeared in the following:

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2003/12/emw95740.htm

http://www.isn.org/news/index.html

http://www.indiapost.com/new_ip/members/story.php?story_id=2049

http://www.visalaw.com/04jan1/7jan104.html

ImmigrationPortal.com and other plaintiffs have joined to file a lawsuit against the USCIS challenging processing delays of some applications for employment based immigrants. The complaint alleges that in many cases, the process for obtaining employment based on Lawful Permanent Residence status may often take up to six years. These delays have occurred for applicants in all five preference groupings of the employment-based category. Prior to filing the complaint, the plaintiffs did seek other avenues of relief. Thousands of petitions, for example, were signed and delivered to the government and legislature.

A complete copy of the complaint may be found at http://boards.immigration.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=651497

*****
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lawsuit timing

First of all, congratulations to all of us on the bold decison of ours and help provided by Mr. Khanna.

May be I missed something, but I do not understand why we filed the lawsuit during this holiday season. We neeed to get media attention and everybody is in a holiday mood, on leave etc, let's try our best to get out the best from this effort.
 
Re: Lawsuit timing

Originally posted by 485ead
First of all, congratulations to all of us on the bold decison of ours and help provided by Mr. Khanna.

May be I missed something, but I do not understand why we filed the lawsuit during this holiday season. We neeed to get media attention and everybody is in a holiday mood, on leave etc, let's try our best to get out the best from this effort.


There is nothing wrong with timing. The country is still open during the holidays. I think this holiday thing is being used as an excuse for the hibernation, sleep , indifference and the like.
Do not tell me that the majority of us are devout Christians, Jews or whatever postponing all activities during religious holidays!!
Plus Congress (most of them) are home. Good chance to meet them.
 
ACK

From the Co-director of the Migration Policy Institute.


thank you for the information and best wishes for the holidays.
demetri

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 2:26 PM
To: Demetri Papademetriou
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: USCIS


Demetri, hello and merry Christmas, KALA XRISTOUGENNA.
A lot of people read the Directors comments in Canada. They are self-explanatory.
Please accept the following as a news release and use it and/or put your spin in any way you would deem appropriate. thanks a lot , XXXXXX
 
DOL/BACKLOGS/I-140/Example for USCIS

recent suggestions about the LC and I-140 backlogs: (www.immigration-law.com)

Labor Certification Backlogs and Pilot Centralized Processing System

We reported earlier that DOL/ETA had launched a pilot program in the East Coast to reduce the terrible backlogs in ten largest states by processing the pending labor certifiction applications at a Centralized Application Processing Center in Maryland. Accordingly, approximately 1,540 applications were reportedly transferred by the involved state labor certification offices (SWA) and processed and adjudicated by the Center. This Pilot program apparently focused on certain states in the East Coast (NY, NJ, MD, VA) and was planned to expanded to other areas. Currently, there are approximately 300,000 applications which remain unadjudicated at the SWAs and Regions. Caveat: The discussion herein is not related to the PERM program and the Pilot program is launched to reduce the existing backlogs. Accordingly, the procedure and the standards the Center applied were limited to the current labor certification regulation. The discussion will reflect that the centralized processing was performed on the basis of Zigler Memo rathan than the proposed PERM regulation. Reader should not confuse this discussion with the PERM program.
Obviously, the cases which were processed and adjudicated by the Centralized Processing Center under the uniform standard (Zigler Memo), ignoring the differences in procedures and standards in the involved SWAs. We will quickly summarize the RIR checklist which the Center followed in performing the centralized processing as follows:
RIR application should include evidence of pattern of recruitment efforts within the six-month period before the priority date and it should not be few than 30 days before the priority date. Accordingly, if recruitment record of less than 30 days prior to submission of the RIR application, such record could be ignored.
The recruitment evidence should include the followings:
One print ad in the local daily news paper or relevant journal; plus
At least 2 other activities out of the following:
Job Order; or
Internal Recruitment; or
Company and Commercial Recuitment Web Page Ads;or
Job Fairs; or
Head Hunters; or
Additional Print Ads (more than 2 additional print ads). Accordingly, if the company used only printed ads, obviously, it required minimum of 3 printed ads.
If the application failed, the cases were supposed to be remanded to the SWA for processing as a conventional (regular) supervised application case, unless the company withdraws it. The remanded cases were supposed to be processed in quieu of "not" original priority date but "date denial letter is issued," even though the applicant would keep the priority date.
It is unclear whether the Centralized System will be expanded to all the 10 big states and whether it will continue even after the launch of the PERM program. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of continuing process of DOL's labor certification reengineering activities.


See also: http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/dol_news/2003,1224-SIMfinal.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top