My conversation with USCIS Lawyer

Re: Re: Petition question

Originally posted by av35
oops !! I forgot to mention the petition link I am referring to

http://boards.immigration.com/anthesys/TrackerPetition/signatoryForm.php?petId=4
Click to expand...


No problem. See:

7. We are familiar with Attorney Khanna’s ongoing efforts prior to the litigation in this regard (available online here ), including sending repeated petitions to various government agencies. We believe that Attorney Khanna will fairly and vigorously represent the class. Accordingly, we trust and support Attorney Khanna’s representation of the class for this litigation. We understand that this representation in no way interferes with our pending I-485 representation by other attorneys.
 
re:

Mr. Khanna.
what is the solution for us guys whose companies will not file i485 till the i140 is approved .our i140 is taking a lot more time in general than the concurrently filed cases.
 
Re: re:

Originally posted by I140helppls
Mr. Khanna.
what is the solution for us guys whose companies will not file i485 till the i140 is approved .our i140 is taking a lot more time in general than the concurrently filed cases.
Click to expand...

No easy solution. I HATE policies like these. If they want to keep you on their payroll, they should do it by contract, not through these mean practices.
 
Re: Light at end of tunnel or ???

Originally posted by rsundarr
Hello Rajiv,

Thanks for the initative to get USCIS on their foot again. I have already lost hope of getting my GC any time soon. I applied in June 2002 and my other TWO friends in Oct and Dec 2001. The guy who applied 485 in Oct 2001 GOT his card in March 2002 and me and other guy are still waiting. I wonder if they will ever process our cases. Also, is it possible to adda clause that if 485 is pending for more than 180 days. 181st day onwards our Naturilization clock starts rather then from the day my case is approved. this would greatly help. Is my request a reasonable one?

Thanks
Click to expand...

In my opinon - yes. Absolutely.
 
please look into backlogs at local offices

Mr. Khanna,

Hope you have noted this, had posted earlier on the issue of huge backlogs at local offices, where it takes years to get interview....all this after waiting nearly 2 years for the Service Centers to transfer these cases.

sgi
 
Re: Re: Light at end of tunnel or ???

Originally posted by operations
In my opinon - yes. Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Now I am totally confused. How can an out of court settlement with USCIS 'add a clause that if 485 is pending for more than 180 days. 181st day onwards our Naturilization clock starts rather then from the day my case is approved' (to quote the original poster).

Did I miss something in civics class? Isn't the timeframe for naturalization of permanent residents covered by INA Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part II, Sec. 1427?

How can a clause in a settlement change the law? Only Congress could do that.
 
Re: Re: Re: Light at end of tunnel or ???

Originally posted by morpheus12
Now I am totally confused. How can an out of court settlement with USCIS 'add a clause that if 485 is pending for more than 180 days. 181st day onwards our Naturilization clock starts rather then from the day my case is approved' (to quote the original poster).

Did I miss something in civics class? Isn't the timeframe for naturalization of permanent residents covered by INA Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part II, Sec. 1427?

How can a clause in a settlement change the law? Only Congress could do that.
Click to expand...

True. But what if a conditional approval of the GC could be given on the 181st day? That would solve EVERY problem that I can think of.
 
Suggestion :


Scenario:
Green Card holder married to someone with an employment based i485. Due to the non-judgement on the 485, if the person loses the job , s/he must leave US and GC holder must leave too for family unity. Then the GC holder loses GC because they left US. Had BCIS acted reasonably the 485 would have been approved long ago when the economic conditions justiyfying the 485 in the first place still existed. Otherewise it is no more than a glorified temporary worker scheme.

So suggestion- spouse of GC holders who lose job before the 485 is adjudicated, once some reasonable amount of time ( eg 180 days) has been allowed for BCIS to handle the case, should legally be allowed to stay in US while GC holder files a family based application.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Light at end of tunnel or ???

Originally posted by operations
True. But what if a conditional approval of the GC could be given on the 181st day? That would solve EVERY problem that I can think of.
Click to expand...

I think it would be very nice, but I don't think USCIS can make radical changes like that. Apart from the political heat, they would immediately get a countersuit from people like FAIR, AFL-CIO etc, since it would be a stretch to say the INA permits conditional GC approvals now.

I have settled, won and lost multiple lawsuits. I have lost lawsuits after rejecting an offered settlement which makes me very cautious. I think getting AC21 implemented in a way favourable to all, and getting premium processing for green cards would be the path of least resistance. Both of those can easily be done by the USCIS without intervention by Congress.

Put yourself in the shoes of a career bureacrat at the USCIS. Nobody could complain if USCIS implemented AC21 and GC premium processing because they have clearly talked about doing that before. There is a clear precedent, and the implementation is done by USCIS regulations which are within their authority.

But there is no way USCIS can allow the perception that they offered a settlement to immigrants which exceeded their authority granted in INA by Congress. By granting some of the wish list requests I've read here, they would be doing that.

From a bureacrats point of view, it would be much safer for USCIS to let the case drag through the courts for years. Even if the end result was the same i.e. an immigrants wish list (which is not a guarantee), the USCIS could cover themselves by saying a federal judge forced them to do it.

Look at how the INS treated the Catholic Social Services lawsuit. It tooks 17 years for that to get resolved, yet any reasonable observer could have foreseen the INS would lose. This case is probably not as strong as CSS in some respects, as it goes into uncharted territory. If the USCIS offers a reasonable settlement that will help, I think we should take it.

Worst case, if the settlement turns out to be worthless in a year or two, some other group of green card holders could file another suit.

Progress in any cause like this is going to be slow. I know people are frustrated and want a magic solution to all their woes, but it isn't going to happen.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Light at end of tunnel or ???

Originally posted by morpheus12
I think it would be very nice, but I don't think USCIS can make radical changes like that. Apart from the political heat, they would immediately get a countersuit from people like FAIR, AFL-CIO etc, since it would be a stretch to say the INA permits conditional GC approvals now.

I have settled, won and lost multiple lawsuits. I have lost lawsuits after rejecting an offered settlement which makes me very cautious. I think getting AC21 implemented in a way favourable to all, and getting premium processing for green cards would be the path of least resistance. Both of those can easily be done by the USCIS without intervention by Congress.

Put yourself in the shoes of a career bureacrat at the USCIS. Nobody could complain if USCIS implemented AC21 and GC premium processing because they have clearly talked about doing that before. There is a clear precedent, and the implementation is done by USCIS regulations which are within their authority.

But there is no way USCIS can allow the perception that they offered a settlement to immigrants which exceeded their authority granted in INA by Congress. By granting some of the wish list requests I've read here, they would be doing that.

From a bureacrats point of view, it would be much safer for USCIS to let the case drag through the courts for years. Even if the end result was the same i.e. an immigrants wish list (which is not a guarantee), the USCIS could cover themselves by saying a federal judge forced them to do it.

Look at how the INS treated the Catholic Social Services lawsuit. It tooks 17 years for that to get resolved, yet any reasonable observer could have foreseen the INS would lose. This case is probably not as strong as CSS in some respects, as it goes into uncharted territory. If the USCIS offers a reasonable settlement that will help, I think we should take it.

Worst case, if the settlement turns out to be worthless in a year or two, some other group of green card holders could file another suit.

Progress in any cause like this is going to be slow. I know people are frustrated and want a magic solution to all their woes, but it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Thank you. You make some good and sane points. I completely agree. But we have to meet with CIS to see where they are.

I have settled every major litigation I have been involved in- many of them leading to multi-million dollar settlements. Settlement works the best in getting us quick results. So you are right, if we get a resaonable offer, we should take it.

I am going to try and meet with them. Let CIS tell me what they can or cannot do. I will bring it back to all of you. If they are unwilling or unable to assist, we will take our chances in court. At the trial level, we should not have to drag this case. Our motion for summary judgment should be ready to be filed the last week of March or thereabouts. I think this case is eminently disposable by SJ. I just worry about Judge Robertson's "sepration of powers" approach. I have read his rulings. He has had some strong comments against INS, but still ruled in their favor. But we could spend time in appeals.

So next step, let us find out what the government is willing to do for us.
 
Re: Re: Re: Petition question

Originally posted by operations
No problem. See:

7. We are familiar with Attorney Khanna’s ongoing efforts prior to the litigation in this regard (available online here ), including sending repeated petitions to various government agencies. We believe that Attorney Khanna will fairly and vigorously represent the class. Accordingly, we trust and support Attorney Khanna’s representation of the class for this litigation. We understand that this representation in no way interferes with our pending I-485 representation by other attorneys.
Click to expand...

One more question.
You have asked for Alien No in the petition.
What is it? Is it the EAC receipt no or the Applicant No in our 485 receipt notice?
Is it the I-94 no which we provided as the substitute for Alien no in our 485 application.

I suppose "Date I-485 Was Filed" is the receipt date ? Or is it the Notice date

Thanks
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Petition question

Originally posted by av35
One more question.
You have asked for Alien No in the petition.
What is it? Is it the EAC receipt no or the Applicant No in our 485 receipt notice?
Is it the I-94 no which we provided as the substitute for Alien no in our 485 application.

I suppose "Date I-485 Was Filed" is the receipt date ? Or is it the Notice date

Thanks
Click to expand...

Alien No. is not the receipt number. But it should be on your receipt. It begins with the letter A.

Date filed is the receipt date.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Light at end of tunnel or ???

Originally posted by operations
Thank you. You make some good and sane points. I completely agree. But we have to meet with CIS to see where they are.

I have settled every major litigation I have been involved in- many of them leading to multi-million dollar settlements. Settlement works the best in getting us quick results. So you are right, if we get a resaonable offer, we should take it.

I am going to try and meet with them. Let CIS tell me what they can or cannot do. I will bring it back to all of you. If they are unwilling or unable to assist, we will take our chances in court. At the trial level, we should not have to drag this case. Our motion for summary judgment should be ready to be filed the last week of March or thereabouts. I think this case is eminently disposable by SJ. I just worry about Judge Robertson's "sepration of powers" approach. I have read his rulings. He has had some strong comments against INS, but still ruled in their favor. But we could spend time in appeals.

So next step, let us find out what the government is willing to do for us.
Click to expand...
Would CIS be more likely to offer a good offer in an election year like this than other times? If several other similar lawsuits are filed against them, would they be serious about the issue? I am ignorant with the INS history, did they ever do better in election years before?
 
morpheus12 sounds to me like a Goverment Lawyer

morpheus12 are you the INS lawyer? :) It does help us prepare, when someone acts like a Devils advocate.

OK, Here is what I want.

With the current INS policies, I have to live in fear and feel like a slave in a country of free. I think this threatens my basic Liberty that this great country promises.

Reasons

1. With the current economy, I have no idea when I will be laid off. If it happens I will have to sell my car home and start my career all over again back in India. I have spent almost 5 years working hard for my company and this country and I don't think this is fair.

2. Practically, I can't change my job or profession with my 485 pending, This make me a slave to my current employer. If I have to find a job with the same job function(INS allows this), I will have to most probably join a competitor of my company which will be against my current employement confidentially agreement. Moreover, No body will like to risk their GC processing my changing employer.

What INS can do to make me feel safe and secure

1. Remove the employment condition after 180 days. Even if I am laid off from my work, I should be able to find any other job and live like an Green card holder.

2. I should be given Advance Parole and EAD for a duration of the current processing time (valid for 2 1/2 years).



Morpheus, Do you think my requests are something that INS can do without going through congress? When basic liberty of a person is threatened, no court can dismiss the case, arguing the court has no jurisdicton. The court can force the congress to change a law.


Siva
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Light at end of tunnel or ???

Originally posted by PhillyJulyLC
Would CIS be more likely to offer a good offer in an election year like this than other times? If several other similar lawsuits are filed against them, would they be serious about the issue? I am ignorant with the INS history, did they ever do better in election years before?
Click to expand...


No idea.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Petition question

Originally posted by operations
Alien No. is not the receipt number. But it should be on your receipt. It begins with the letter A.

Date filed is the receipt date.
Click to expand...

one last question:

I have applied 485 along with my wife. So, both of us should enter the petition separately. right?
thanks
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Petition question

Originally posted by av35
one last question:

I have applied 485 along with my wife. So, both of us should enter the petition separately. right?
thanks
Click to expand...


Yes.
 
morpheus12 sounds to me like a Goverment Lawyer

morpheus12 are you the INS lawyer? :) It does help us prepare, when someone acts like a Devils advocate.

OK, Here is what I want.

With the current INS policies, I have to live in fear and feel like a slave in a country of free. I think this threatens my basic Liberty that this great country promises.

Reasons

1. With the current economy, I have no idea when I will be laid off. If it happens I will have to sell my car home and start my career all over again back in India. I have spent almost 5 years working hard for my company and this country and I don't think this is fair.

2. Practically, I can't change my job or profession with my 485 pending, This make me a slave to my current employer. If I have to find a job with the same job function(INS allows this), I will have to most probably join a competitor of my company which will be against my current employement confidentially agreement. Moreover, No body will like to risk their GC processing my changing employer.

What INS can do to make me feel safe and secure

1. Remove the employment condition after 180 days. Even if I am laid off from my work, I should be able to find any other job and live like an Green card holder.

2. I should be given Advance Parole and EAD for a duration of the current processing time (valid for 2 1/2 years).



Morpheus, Do you think my requests are something that INS can do without going through congress? When basic liberty of a person is threatened, no court can dismiss the case, arguing the court has no jurisdicton. The court can force the congress to change a law.
 
Thanks

Hi! Rajiv,

I would like to reiterate the fact that we greatly appreciate all your efforts in helping us in dealing with the "immigration" process!

Herez my take::

  • EAD/AP/FP ---> Once isssued should be valid till the adjudication of 485.

    Some sort of guaranteed time-frame for "processing" should be set up and adhered to; charge a premium if need be for expedited processing.

I look forward to going thru your "proposal" to USCIS!

Thanks
 
Re: morpheus12 sounds to me like a Goverment Lawyer

Originally posted by ClevelandGuru
morpheus12 are you the INS lawyer? :) It does help us prepare, when someone acts like a Devils advocate.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer. I do feel your pain as I am in line with everyone else (H1 since '98, with my GC filed in 2002).

I think people are starting to think like Americans and demand their 'constitutional rights', which is a consequence of living in this country and being influenced by American ideals.

Unfortunately to go from the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to some of the suggestions put forward is quite a stretch. Some lawyers would even argue as non-citizens that we don't have the right to demand such changes. This article from MSN sums it up pretty well:

...immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

from http://slate.msn.com/id/1008367/

So, devils advocate that I am, I could argue that our grounds to even file a suit may be limited, and the potential remedies available to a Court are also limited.

On the other hand, the INS has lost court cases before, and I'm sure Rajiv has precedents to back up his arguments in this case.

The problem as I see it is:

(a) Immigrants have few rights, and no votes. Politicians generally don't care much about immigrants, they care about votes and lobbyists.

(b) The INA and USCIS regulations never anticipated backlogs like we have now on top of 9/11 security checks, so the entire process is breaking down. I don't think the INS/USCIS is malicious, just overworked, underfunded and incompetent as a result.

(c) A lot of the reforms needed are structural changes that require rewriting large parts of the INA by Congress. Unfortunately I have yet to see anything proposed that would help legal immigrants like us as most of the recent proposals in Congress are to help illegal immigrants. A cynic would see that as an exercise to get votes - see point (a).

That is why I think that getting a reasonable settlement out of USCIS would be good incremental progress. Of course, that doesn't mean we should stop lobbying Congress for changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top