Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act

S

srohit

Registered Users (C)
Has Anybody looked up this bill (introduced in 106th congress)?

- Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act

Library of Congress (Under 106th Session) -
- Lookup S. 2586 @ http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c106query.html
- Look up H. R. 4798 @ http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c106query.html

Other references
Senator Feinstein Endorsed it

This bill talks about the (2000) exisiting backlog and a report by Attorney General every year and the fund allocation request.

- Was this bill ever enacted?
- I tried searching for the reports, no luck. Does anybody know if any report has been submitted to Congress pursuant to this act/bill?

Kashmir, Edision, others- any thoughts?

thanks,
 
Any update?

Kashmir, I did not find any answer in any of your messages to the following questions-

1. did you find any reports?
2. Did it ever pass?

I've written a letter to Senator Feinstein requesting for an update on this one. 'll update, if I get a response.

thanks,
 
Re: Any update?

> 1. did you find any reports?

Dianne Feinstein mentioned in her letter:
The report did not address all of my concerns, however, and BCIS has not issued an update to its efforts to reduce processing delays.

> 2. Did it ever pass?

Yes.

On 5/18/2000, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S.2586.
On 9/28/2000, S.2586 was incorporated into S.2045.
On 10/17/2000, S.2045 became the Public Law No. 106-313.
 
As Kashmir mentioned this is law.

But I still don't understand why no one filed law suit against CIS based on this law since CIS never adhered to 180 rule nor they submitted any backlog reduction plan to Congress.
 
If there is such a bill that has been passed by the congress and signed by the President stating that all immigration applications should be processed within 180 days, then the service centers shouldn't be sending out receipts stating that "this type of application may take up to 999 days". This may be grounds for a lawsuit. I wasn't aware of that bill passed and signed into law by the President but i will take kashmir's word for it.
 
Re: Re: Any update?

Originally posted by kashmir
> 1. did you find any reports?

Dianne Feinstein mentioned in her letter:
The report did not address all of my concerns, however, and BCIS has not issued an update to its efforts to reduce processing delays.

> 2. Did it ever pass?

Yes.

On 5/18/2000, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S.2586.
On 9/28/2000, S.2586 was incorporated into S.2045.
On 10/17/2000, S.2045 became the Public Law No. 106-313.
Click to expand...

Kashmir, did you happen to mention this law in your meeting with Congressman Honda?

After talking to one of the officer in his campbell office, I found out that they are not even aware of this law. And she was convinced that there has been a good improvement on the processes in general.

Any thought of mentioning this law into the petitions we've prepared?

thanks,
 
WOW!!! This is a great thread and very interesting topic. Keep it up guys. Its is critical to us.
 
Re: Re: Re: Any update?

Originally posted by srohit
Kashmir, did you happen to mention this law in your meeting with Congressman Honda?

After talking to one of the officer in his campbell office, I found out that they are not even aware of this law. And she was convinced that there has been a good improvement on the processes in general.

Any thought of mentioning this law into the petitions we've prepared?

thanks,
Click to expand...
No, I have not discussed about Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 with any Congresspersons nor their staffs.
I had once mentioned it in my letter to Dianne Feinstein.

I think our request to Congressional office must be very simple and specific so that even Congressperson and his/her staff can understand.
This act seems too difficult but it had been already mentioned in our petition.
-kashmir
 
Feedback letter

To:
USCIS
425 I ("Eye") Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

CC:
ATTN: FOR THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF THE DIRECTOR.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
California Service Center
24000 Avila Road, 2nd Floor
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677

SUB: processing times on I485 applications reaching illegal limits.

Dear Sir,
we'd like to draw your attention to "Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000", which was signed into law (no. 106-313), (introduced in senate on 5/18/2000 bill no. S.2586, and incorporated into S.2045.). And I quote Section (2)(c)-

"POLICY- It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application, except that a petition for a nonimmigrant visa under section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act should be processed not later than 30 days after the filing of the petition."

Reference: Lookup S. 2586 @ http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c106query.html

Given the CSC-JIT report (https://egov.immigration.gov/graphics/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=California published bi-weekly by CSC), I notice that processing times on Employment Based I485 applications are in violation of this law. I, therefore, would request you to advice California Service Center's Director Donald Neufeld to reduce the Employment based applications backlog to 180 days and honour the law.

sincerely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Feedback letter > srohit

Excellent !!
We can start new campaign against LEGAL VIOLATION and DISCRIMINATION to strengthen our activities.
-kashmir
 
Re: Re: Feedback letter > srohit

Originally posted by kashmir
We can start new campaign against LEGAL VIOLATION and DISCRIMINATION to strengthen our activities.
Click to expand...

What legal violation? The statute quoted makes use of the magic words "It is the sense of Congress". That means that Congress is merely stating an opinion, nothing more. There's no requirement that this opinion be followed, nor sanctions if it is not.

Opinions are nice, but unenforceable.
 
What Kashmir says is true:
"On 5/18/2000, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S.2586.
On 9/28/2000, S.2586 was incorporated into S.2045.
On 10/17/2000, S.2045 became the Public Law No. 106-313."

maybe we should consider a law suit based on this text from the bill?

"(a) AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.--The Attorney General shall take such measures as may be necessary to--

(1) reduce the backlog in the processing of immigration benefit applications, with the objective of the total elimination of the backlog not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act;

(2) make such other improvements in the processing of immigration benefit applications as may be necessary to ensure that a backlog does not develop after such date; and

(3) make such improvements in infrastructure as may be necessary to effectively provide immigration services.


Besides, as ECGC pointed out, how is the BCIS getting away with officially stating that processing times are greater than the 180 days mentioned in the law?

Are we sure there's nothing out there passed in the wake of 09/11 that supercedes these sections of the Bill in the law?

K
 
letter sent.

letter sent to
1. Congressman Mike Honda.
2. Senator Dianne Fienstein
3. Senator Boxer.
4. CSC Director Donald Neufeld
5. Department of Homeland Security
6. President
 
cool

excellent work
can you please give more info on the content of the letter
I will do this too
Did anyone talk to rajiv about this
 
sent to Sanchez office

I mentioned the act and the policy comment today in my letter to ms. sanchez' office today and it has been forwarded to her legislative staff in washington. lets see if it brings any useful response. also planning to mention it in my followup letter to ms. eshoo's office tomorrow.


-wac-ed
 
Re: cool

Originally posted by desi_mazdur
excellent work
can you please give more info on the content of the letter
I will do this too
Did anyone talk to rajiv about this
Click to expand...

Hi desi_mazdur, I had posted my letter on the same thread, 5 posts up.

Click here for the letter

thanks for your interest.
 
talked to attorney

I talked to my attorneys about their opinion. Here is the summary-

1. They are aware of this law. (Of-course).
2. AC21 is result of this law.
3. It's not a good idea to file an individual law suit citing this law, because the time a law-suit takes defeats the whole purpose of getting the approval sooner.
4. It's difficult to find an attorney for this purpose. Reason, they all work with CSC and thus have a good will with them and they would not like their names to be a red flag in CSC.
5. Class-action may be a good idea, but they were convinced they it'll be tough to find that kind of money coming from the crowd. (Average attorney fee: $300-$500/hour, estimated time it'll take: 50-200, hence estimated fee: $35K-$150K)

thanks,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Re: Re: Feedback letter > srohit

Originally posted by TheRealCanadian
What legal violation? The statute quoted makes use of the magic words "It is the sense of Congress". That means that Congress is merely stating an opinion, nothing more. There's no requirement that this opinion be followed, nor sanctions if it is not.

Opinions are nice, but unenforceable.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Nothing is required or mandated. This is a law without any requirements.
 
Re: Feedback letter > srohit

Originally posted by operations
Exactly. Nothing is required or mandated. This is a law without any requirements.
Click to expand...
Here is section (4)(a)

=====
SEC. 4. IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT.

(a) AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Attorney General shall take such measures as may be necessary to--

(1) reduce the backlog in the processing of immigration benefit applications, with the objective of the total elimination of the backlog not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act;

(2) make such other improvements in the processing of immigration benefit applications as may be necessary to ensure that a backlog does not develop after such date; and

(3) make such improvements in infrastructure as may be necessary to effectively provide immigration services.
======

Am I reading it correctly? May be not.

Since this is my first attempt to read any U.S. law, may be I'm not interpreting it correctly. Don't they look like enforceable actions?

And here is an excerpt from a letter received from Senator Feinstein office-
======
....
....
In 2000, I introduced and Congress enacted the "Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000." The Act required the Department of Justice to issue a report to Congress on the extent of the immigration and naturalization backlogs and the adequacy of the agency's automated systems to manage and reduce its pending workload. The report did not address all of my concerns, however, and BCIS has not issued an update to its efforts to reduce processing delays. Please know that I will continue to raise your concerns with Eduardo Aguirre, Director of BCIS.
....
....
======

Doesn’t she appear to think on the same lines?

Isn't it easy to show that "pending workload" has only increased since Nov. 2000 and this is a flat out violation of this law?

Again, all this is my biased interpretation of this law. But I still believe, that we've a point citing law this in our conversation/letters/emails to everybody we complain of this backlog.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top