****Hearing date rescheduled to June 3, 2004****

VSC is much worse

When it comes to orderly processing, VSC is much worse. The range of approvals on any given day is 18 months. I mean, on the same day, a person with a RD of Oct'01 and another withRD of Mar'03 are getting approved. It is complete chaos out there.
See the following thread. Some body with Mar'2003 RD got approved. It is not a joke. He is a senior member (registered here in Oct'2002). His approval has nothing to do with the new Memo because his I140 was approved last year.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125295
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fliers,Posters

Can we print simple fliers, posters (one of the volunteer, not the lawyer) and distribute in the ethnic grocery stores, temples etc.?
Did somebody call India Abroad, inviting a correspondent to attend the court hearing?
Wish I were in Washington right now :(
 
Keep in mind

As you all saw by now, the dates looks like TSC is making progress, where in reality, too many applicants still pending for dates prior to the published ones.

Especially for the I-140 applications, no approvals since March and the processing date jumped almost 2 months.

I wonder if they will use this in their defense.
 
Originally posted by dsatish
Come on guys,
Why don't a few more people join us for the hearing on 5/14 ? A team of 20 people will be good. So far around 10 people said that they are going. Those from North Carolina to Newjersey should seriously consider coming to the court on 5/14. Win or Lose, it will be an historic occasion. This is the first time the employment based GC applicants have filed a class action against CIS and i think that this might be the last (who else will do free service as Rajiv did to us ?). Let's witness the history. The ball is in the judge's court. Let's hope for the best, but let's keep our fingers crossed on the outcome.
Click to expand...

Also to be clear here, it is not necessary that only plaintiffs need to be in the court. It can be anybody who is affected by the delay.

Comeon guys this is the least we can do here.
 
immigrationportal.org Fund Update

The total collection has reached $14,000 now.
Online collection was $10,200 and Check collection was around $3800.
Yesterday's contributions = $750.

We are seeing an average inflow of $500 per day. Today, we got very little collection as of now. I request some people to contribute today.
 
Re: some points

You have brought good points, but I just thought abot possible CIS responses that could make these points much weaker.

1. Why are adjudications out of order i.e., random, particularly at TSC?
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that the approvals are not following FIFO. The real reason behind it is probably how the workload is distributed among officers and that some just work more efficiently.
However CIS may just say that since each case is individual, some cases requires much more work than others. And they will easily demonstarte 10-20 cases where they issued 7 RFEs and ran security checks 5 times because the name has hit the watch list. And it will be very difficult to counter this argument.

May be more effective question would be about their reporting. As many have noticed, the processing dates published on the web site are not quite relevant. A lot of cases are pending that were filed much earler and some cases are ajudicated that were filed later.
Essentially the processing dates published by CIS are very misleading if not deceptive. So it may be better to ask CIS to publish more detailed statistics (like www.immigrationwatch.com, but I have no idea where their data is coming from).
If we will have more true numbers, we can decide if CIS is making process or not.
3. You should also contend that the "stringent background checking" excuse CIS has been giving as a cause of delay is faliciuos. It is in the best interest of this nation to do the checks quickly.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point, but we probably already know the answer. CIS does the security check at the front end and at the back end (and probably another one in the middle).
I think what we should stress is the fact that in most cases the security check takes minutes, not months.

It would be great if CIS will admit that the security check is automated to a degree and although it takes resources to do the checks, in most of the cases it cannot justify the delay in ajudication.
Otherwise if they say that majority of the cases take longer for a security check, we are back to the argument that they are ineffective and it poses a threat to the national security.
4. How can CIS rationalize implementing pilot projects to adjudicate applications within 90 days when others are waiting for over 900 days? .......... The can implement such projects only after they have cleared the backlog.
Click to expand...
There is a flaw in your logic. While I agree that it is unfair to give priority to later appicants, if they will wait until the backlog is cleared, there will be no need for such a pilot. Now, at least they are doing something that (if implemented across the board) will help eliminate the backlogs in the future.
Our goal in this lawsuit is similar - we may not get an immediate solution, but at least we will make CIS move in a right direction.
 
Re: Re: some points

Originally posted by duremar
You have brought good points, but I just thought abot possible CIS responses that could make these points much weaker.

There is no doubt that the approvals are not following FIFO. The real reason behind it is probably how the workload is distributed among officers and that some just work more efficiently.
However CIS may just say that since each case is individual, some cases requires much more work than others. And they will easily demonstarte 10-20 cases where they issued 7 RFEs and ran security checks 5 times because the name has hit the watch list. And it will be very difficult to counter this argument.

May be more effective question would be about their reporting. As many have noticed, the processing dates published on the web site are not quite relevant. A lot of cases are pending that were filed much earler and some cases are ajudicated that were filed later.
Essentially the processing dates published by CIS are very misleading if not deceptive. So it may be better to ask CIS to publish more detailed statistics (like www.immigrationwatch.com, but I have no idea where their data is coming from).
If we will have more true numbers, we can decide if CIS is making process or not.

sure each individual is different, but it is obvious that many cases are UNTOUCHED at all, before some others are approved. For example, someone can show, from the recent uscis web site, one'case is touched right after they filed, nothering changed since. However some cased filed later are approved. Individuality do not explain a variation of years.


This is a very good point, but we probably already know the answer. CIS does the security check at the front end and at the back end (and probably another one in the middle).
I think what we should stress is the fact that in most cases the security check takes minutes, not months.

It would be great if CIS will admit that the security check is automated to a degree and although it takes resources to do the checks, in most of the cases it cannot justify the delay in ajudication.
Otherwise if they say that majority of the cases take longer for a security check, we are back to the argument that they are ineffective and it poses a threat to the national security.


agree. If national security is of concern a faster check is madatory. But what's the meaning of repeated check? including FP? does one's FP change after a couple of years. Would it be more useful to spend the resource to check more people?


There is a flaw in your logic. While I agree that it is unfair to give priority to later appicants, if they will wait until the backlog is cleared, there will be no need for such a pilot. Now, at least they are doing something that (if implemented across the board) will help eliminate the backlogs in the future.
Our goal in this lawsuit is similar - we may not get an immediate solution, but at least we will make CIS move in a right direction.
No, it is no flaw. Why can't they invent a pilot dealing with previous cases? A pilot simply adj 485 cases (especailly with 140 approved) in 90 days? which seems to make more sense. The future plan is necessary, but it doesn't mean at the cost of old filers suffering from their previous policy. Their sole purpose is to cover their ass so that they can claim that there is no future backlog, therefore there is no ground for class action. As for the point that if the lawsuit is for whole class, it should include the "new" filers under this pilot, so we shouldnot complain, I think it is wrong too. Because, we are asking for the benefit of the whole class, not just a fraction. New pilots are welcome, but we are asking faster adj for the whole class! not just the new filers, but everyone in the class. The priority (FIFO) should not be broken!
Click to expand...
 
VSC Current Processing date Fiasco

Rajiv,
My biggest complaint against CIS is this : VSC is posting a wrong date as the current processing date. In the past 8 months, the current processing date has moved only by 1 month (From Jan'15 to Feb'15-2002). They are in reality processing applications received upto March'2003. They are simply MANIPULATING the current processing date (shame on them for such behaviour) so that we, the applicants can not ask them about our case status. Recently when my congress man's office made an enquiry about my case status, CIS replied that since they are currently processing Feb'02 cases, they can't touch my case .
You have to tell the judge that CIS is manipulating and providing wrong information to even the congress men . Because of this we are left with no other option but to seek judicial intervention (class action lawsuit).
 
new and old filers

There are several posts that talk about new filers vs. old filers. Mostly old filers (I am one) are worried about their cases being delayed while new ones getting cleared fast. They are morally correct in wanting to see their adjudication in FIFO manner. However, I would strongly request to stay clear of the trap of CIS’s argument of “a subclass antagonistic to another subclass” as outlined in CIS’s opposition to the class certification. This is their strategy and don’t play to this ‘divide and rule’ strategy.

Just remember that this lawsuit would remain live as long as there is a single backlogged case. Old filers are genuinely worried about shifting of CIS resources to the new cases. But I would say CIS would be more worried about the outcome of this lawsuit and would not dare to take the resources away in mass manner from old filers despite so many pilots coming. I see they have two objectives in these pilots:

1. Create subclasses antagonistic to another subclass and
2. Show to the court that they are processing latest cases.

I do not see them winning on either: 1) if we refuse to argue among ourselves about new filers vs. old filers and feel happy that at least cases are getting approved. And 2) despite cover-ups, the lawsuit would not be thrown out till there is single backlogged case.

Additionally, I personally feel that CIS has another objective (from these pilots) too, which is genuinely reducing the backlog. If they approve new/concurrent filers w/o AP, EAD and now w/o RFE, w/o fingerprint retake, in the long run (4-6 months) the old filers would definitely gain from the greater resource availability. And the various mechanisms like this lawsuit, media, and congress would keep the pressure on CIS to keep working on backlogged cases.

So let us maintain our unity and feel happy about those who are getting approvals.

On another note, “DUREMAR” has asked on where ImmigrationWatch.com is getting it’s data. Sometimes back, I asked this question to the Webmaster of that site. You would be pleased to know this: their response is that their data is the entire set of applications at each service center. You could well imagine, if that is the case, how reliable their reports would be. So I rely on their statistics, which are typically updated at the end of the month.

Jat
 
definitely agree that we want to fight as a whole class. I guess most of us will happy for those "new" filers got approved, but we are just very unhappy our cases are not seeing improvement.
If immigrationwatch data is truthful, I hope so, then NSC is moving fast as someone claimed: they are touching cases from Jan to Oct in 2002. But at a pace of <500 a month, it doesn't guarantee your cases are processed even you are within this range, becuase they are only handling a fraction of piled up cases.


jat said:
There are several posts that talk about new filers vs. old filers. Mostly old filers (I am one) are worried about their cases being delayed while new ones getting cleared fast. They are morally correct in wanting to see their adjudication in FIFO manner. However, I would strongly request to stay clear of the trap of CIS?s argument of ?a subclass antagonistic to another subclass? as outlined in CIS?s opposition to the class certification. This is their strategy and don?t play to this ?divide and rule? strategy.
On another note, ?DUREMAR? has asked on where ImmigrationWatch.com is getting it?s data. Sometimes back, I asked this question to the Webmaster of that site. You would be pleased to know this: their response is that their data is the entire set of applications at each service center. You could well imagine, if that is the case, how reliable their reports would be. So I rely on their statistics, which are typically updated at the end of the month.

Jat
Click to expand...
 
"jat" agree with you partially, but...

for a new application,

-they have to approve I-140, send and recieve FP, do name check and they say they can complete all that in 90 days.

if they can do all that why can't they approve a old case, where I-140 is already approved, FP cleared etc in the same 90 days.

only advantage is there is no need to process EAD/AP for these new cases, *assuming* these new cases don't file for EAD/AP. but then the old filers will be filing for EAD/AP all the while.

so, i don't buy this new scheme at all and most importantly it is unfair. old filers need a break!!! GOD BLESS!!!
 
“hidden_dragon” I do not believe that the number of 421 (# of I-485 approvals in April 04 @ NSC) is correct. But I did not ask this question either to Webmaster.

Let me give you another number and you would say NSC is really cranking up approvals. I happened to keep Mar 04 data as well (please down load the file. I could not load XLS as that was not acceptable format so you may need to do some tab work to align the data with column headers). In fact, in April NSC approved 4621 I-485’s in April 04. And those 4621 are only those 485’s that have RD of Mar-Dec 2002 (there are be quite a few for period earlier than that).

“tmc”, I agree how everyone is frustrated with non-FIFO processing techniques, which was first applied by erstwhile INS in 1998. As Winston Churchill has “When going through hell, keep going”

Jat

hidden_dragon said:
If immigrationwatch data is truthful, ....... But at a pace of <500 a month, it doesn't guarantee your cases are processed even you are within this range, becuase they are only handling a fraction of piled up cases.
Click to expand...
 
Is Immigrationwatch.com Reliable?

Talking about the immigrationwatch.com, I thought I would share this...
my I-140 was approved in Vermont on Apr 12, 2004 but my EAC# (EAC0407051***) was not listed in the immigrationwatch recent approvals list. Any explanations??

YESKAYEM.
 
immigrationportal.org Fund Update

Those who have not contributed yet, please join us today. Let's not lose the momentum.
The total collection = $14,000 (approx)
Yesterday's contributions = $170
 
dsatish said:
The total collection has reached $14,000 now.
Online collection was $10,200 and Check collection was around $3800.
Yesterday's contributions = $750.

We are seeing an average inflow of $500 per day. Today, we got very little collection as of now. I request some people to contribute today.
Click to expand...

dsatish,
How much is the initial target? What are the short and long term plans? Please clarify.
 
Good point. Could you email your question to the Webmaster of ImmigrationWatch.com and share the answer with rest of us. Thanks

yeskayem said:
Talking about the immigrationwatch.com, I thought I would share this...
my I-140 was approved in Vermont on Apr 12, 2004 but my EAC# (EAC0407051***) was not listed in the immigrationwatch recent approvals list. Any explanations??

YESKAYEM.
Click to expand...
 
dear brij,
going through your above posting and also from speaking to people in similar situatuations, I have come to a conclusion that a Non Comtete is a Non Compete..period.

the basic idea why companies want to sign a non compete is to make sure that their employees do not join hands and work for their competitors or potential competitors sometime down the road. you can make as many interpretations of the agreement you have signed but remember one thing, most of these companies have very strong and solid legal advisors sitting in their backyards, and they know exactly where to pin you down. The legal stuff can get so muddy that they can also rope in your employer for hiring you. Practically every employer who is hiring a new employee need to get a disclosure signed from you clearly stating that you have never worked with their competitors and even if you have worked for their competitors, you will get the necessary NOC (No Objection Cert) form your previous employer.

Therefore if your co b has not asked you to provide them withteh above declaration, co A could potentailly sue Co B. I know that many companies do not even want to get into this situation.

my best possible advice to you would be to take things very diplomatically withyour present company. take your manager into confidence and explain t him that you want a break etc etc or give hima good reason and see if he can release you. if you on goood terms you shoudl not have a prob.if thsi doesnt work , then the only way out will be to wor for a noncompeting company. but beleive me, you do not want to get on teh wrong foot with your co A as far as non compete agreement is concerned. you could land yourself and your future employer into lot of trouble.

hope it helps,
cheers,
 
immigrationportal.org Fund collection update

The total collection = $14,300 (approx)
Yesterday's contributions = $300

I request more people to join. Together we can make a difference.Please don't watch from the sidelines :confused:
 
immigrationportal.org Fund Update : 5/10/04

The total collection = $14,700 (approx)
week-end contributions = $350 (approx)* including one check payment

I request more people to join. Together we can make a difference.Please don't watch from the sidelines :confused:
 
dawnn said:
dsatish,
How much is the initial target? What are the short and long term plans? Please clarify.
Click to expand...

Good question. I have prepared a FAQ document on fund collection. It is currently under review by core team. I will post it by Wednesday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top