*******Here is What Happened at the 3 June Hearing*****

rsk1972 said:
Thanks Mr.Khanna and we really appreciate your efforts!

It would be great if we could resolve and achieve our original objectives pertaining to I-485.

And I am also sure that a lot of us are interested in "13. CIS rule-making procedures and policies with particular reference to American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21);"
- Considering the fact that the 140 process is taking more time nowadays, it would be nice if we could get the INS to rule AC-21 in our favor.
Atleast in my book, it's the second best thing to a GC and will grant us immediate relief in the short term (atleast in terms of blood pressure)... and not to mention financial independence to a lot of confined folks!

Good Luck and I wish you all the best!
Click to expand...

I totally agree with rsk1972., an amendment in AC21 would definetely be a great relief. There are a bunch......literally "bunch" of folks in teh same boat. It would be really great if Mr. Khanna can help us get this much needed relief.

Once again, a great job and thank you Rajiv for doing this for the immigration community. We owe you big!

Cheers,
 
well said...

yes, they are completely arbitrary. in my geographical area itself, people from nov-2002 are waiting for FP, whereas one person from feb-2003 is approved already!!! GOD only can save us!!!

vi00 said:
The deposition document looks solid.

It reminds me of the audits that happen in any company, where we show all our procedures to the Auditors (internal, external, federal auditors).
But the only way, an Auditor finds missing procedures, incorrect procedures and unfollowed procedures is by correlating the procedures with facts(log records of activities done).

IMHO, we should ask the deponent to specify the procedure, and for each procedure, correlate how they applied to the 6 plaintiffs in our case, and 6 more that we should select for Dec 2002, who have been approved, and 6 more in Feb 2002, who have been not yet been approved.
To make this googly more effective, we should ensure that the cases we select are all EB-3, in the same job category ( Say DBA), for a mid-size company.
Preferably select all candidates from same country, say China/India, and preferably in the same age group, same married status.

Skeletons will come out tumbling from BCIS closets.
Click to expand...
 
USCIS reply in response to phone inquiry and my questions

I filed I-765/I-131 based on a pending concurrent I-140/I-485 in late December 2003. Six months later, I still did not recieve any information from them. Attorney filed a phone inquiry about I-765 in late May and then I received a letter from USCIS Vermont yesterday. It says:

"The processing of your petition/application has been dealyed. All petitions/applications received by this Service are required to have routine security checks that are resulting in delays of the adjudication of petitions/applications. As a result of the lack of manpower to complete the checks in a timely manner, we have no control over how long these checks will take. We can give no definite indication of when they will be completed. We apologize for the delay."

Honestly this does not help at all. Rather I am even more confused now. As I have nowhere to ask questions (the live help from the NSC phone system does not really help as you all know), I wonder if Mr. Khanna could help me find the answers to some of the questions I have. First, if they don't have enough "manpower" to complete security checks for cases filed in Dec 2003, why did they publish the current processing time as March/April 2004; Secondly, if the processing time only means they started touching cases filed on that date, then tyically how long does a security check take? According to an important document from USCIS, a standard security check only takes minutes. Do they unbelievably have a backlong of security checks for more than six months? Thirdly, what's special about my case that is potentially "delayable"? For an I-765 or an I-131 that already has taken 6 months, shouldn't they have a better explanation than just "no definite indication"?

Thank you for 'listening', and good luck to everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top