Milko_Djurovski said:
Not quite sure that the fact you mentioned is evidence of being a poor manager. If it is true (I have no reason to doubt your information), it would be quite an unusual practice, especially uncommon within the governmental agencies, that not all the money is spent. The better question is, did it roll over into their budget again or was allocated elsewhere (I am showing my lack of knowledge on how government budgets work), the point being, since immigration enforcement really was not that high on the political radar before 9/11, perhaps there were more worthy causes to put the money to.
My point is that I refuse to adopt a negative attitude about this (CIS actions and plans) right away and I will give these guys a chance to improve, of course under constant scrutiny. The reasons of how the CIS will change for the better are not all that important, the important fact is that it changes permanently and enables a better, safer and faster immigration processing for future immigrants. This is coming from a guy waiting for 25 months now, so I think I can speak fairly objectively. Sorry for the long response...
I have been waiting for almost 24 months for the I-485 if this is the criterion that USCIS is not holding up to. If the I-140 is another basis as in I-140 and I-485 concurrent then my first I-140 from March 2001 should make the priority along with another I-140 in July 2001, or my LC from 2000 after seven years of H1-b.
This is my belief: All old cases from 2001 and early 2002 should be processed first, whether the applicant likes it or not, wants it or not. Within this class, all non-current cases should be processed first and then start the con-current cases. In the same spirit, when all these cases are done, then they can start the implementation of memos, i.e. Concurrent adjudication of 140 and 485. This is for FAIRNESS, because as a government agency they should follow ethical norms and american values.
Now to the money and the policies and politics: Some people want their GCs for a lot of reasons (same holds for companies) as soon as possible;i.e. follow the congressional belief of six months. You have the right to wait for years and give USCIS credit for a lot of innovative ideas and backlog reduction initiatives. Not me, not for a moment because even if tomorrow they provide a solution, it is alrady TOO LATE! They already failed me and one is enough (they did fail a lot more!). There may be a chance that they eliminate the Backlogs by 2006 plus minus a couple of years. Bet on the plus side. This is not what I am about. I am talking for myself and the people that they feel they are being cheated and failed. Based on these and the facts, I am in no mood to give them any credit, none whatsoever!
The ICE and enforcement get a hundred times more budget and they are failing again, but this is not my problem, even though I can express my opinion. Look at the illegals, the border, the people being deported, etc.
Good manager or not: We are trying to show that money is not the only problem. The fee increase may provide additional money for the 2006 milestone. I can tell you he was the Import/Export Bank chief, he is a Bush family friend from the last 15 years or so, he is good in manipulating numbers and algorithms and the Import/Export BAnk had a great deal of outsourcing business (China). Not an immigration guy. On one Indian meeting he would not tell what the I-485 application is!
Worthy causes: The money does not go over to another agency. That is not how the Government works or does not; it rolls over to the next fiscal year where it may or may not be used. The same holds for the Immigration numbers: The Backlogs nullified the INA mandate for both the Family and Employment based numbers for the last years. So you can think outside the box now, not just what the average immigration lawyer says. Not to mention the unsed numbers of Family that go into the Employment based category. You did not hear about that, did you?
Further more I do not think they are improving the Immigration for the future immigrants, not a bit: They are just using the 1996 harsh provisions to deport a lot of innocent people, they deny applications at the max, etc. where is the improvement? Ashcroft being the most popular name in Federal courts and almost never appearing in front of one?
There is a lot involved but this is already long.
