My conversation with USCIS Lawyer

we are paying premium already!

Nearly half of the filling fee we paid for FP and 485 are not used nor needed for FP or 485. They are for INS to exempt fees for refugee/asylum cases, etc. With this mind, how can one be sure that premium you volunteer to pay will be used towards 485 or any EB processing (LC/140/675)?
In fact my 485 filing was returned Feburary 2002, due to "timely" expiration of congress's decision disallowing INS to charge that premium for 485 filing.
 
Re: Mr Khanna's analysis

Originally posted by PhillyJulyLC
Mr Khanna,
After so much input from so many people, I wonder if you could give us a brief review of all the suggestions - mainly your initial feeling about what are likely to be achieved immediately or long term, what are simply out of the question. These issues include but are not limited to: 1. Portability without approved I-140; 2. Indefinte EAD/AP/FP; 3. Interim GC; 4. Premim processing; 5. Immediate adjudication of long pending cases; 6. Substantial fee increase to ensure prompt processing; 7. Immediate adjudication of this class action lawsuit signing members(how do you put it anyway?), ect.

Thank you...
Click to expand...

I intend to. I will need a lot of help once I put it all down in writing. In the meantime, invite input from all your friends and acquaintances in similar situation.
 
countability is a big issue

the biggest hurdle to the current problem (backlog and others) are lack of countability, aka, INS as a service provider, to customer, immigrats-to-be.

If an application (485 or others) can be treated as a contract with specific service-level, penalty cause due to nonservice or delays, and with remedial cause, could be a good start . Should it be treated as a contract? or can it be implemented as a service contract?
 
Re: countability is a big issue

Originally posted by LongLongRoad2GR
the biggest hurdle to the current problem (backlog and others) are lack of countability, aka, INS as a service provider, to customer, immigrats-to-be.

If an application (485 or others) can be treated as a contract with specific service-level, penalty cause due to nonservice or delays, and with remedial cause, could be a good start . Should it be treated as a contract? or can it be implemented as a service contract?
Click to expand...

In my mind, that is impossible.
 
US immigration == false ad --> fraud

For INS charges us a fee for its service, it is 'false advertising' to advertise 2-y processing time with a promise of 6-month coming soon, and boom, delayed to 990-999 days as in the case TSC? In a regular consumer service/retail arena, this is definitely a bait & swap.

In a broader sense, the US immigration policy and/or its execution are liable for 'false advertising' , if not for fraud (luring talents to US to be exploited). If not misled by the 'false advertising' and 'false hope' of fast, fair, and reasonable immigration process, I (probably many others too) would have consider and take other viable alternatives such as a much straightforward Canadian GC.

Is there a case based on consumer-rights, instead of constitutional rights?
(disclaimer: I am no lawyer, if that's not obvious)
 
Re: US immigration == false ad --> fraud

Originally posted by LongLongRoad2GR
For INS charges us a fee for its service, it is 'false advertising' to advertise 2-y processing time with a promise of 6-month coming soon, and boom, delayed to 990-999 days as in the case TSC? In a regular consumer service/retail arena, this is definitely a bait & swap.

In a broader sense, the US immigration policy and/or its execution are liable for 'false advertising' , if not for fraud (luring talents to US to be exploited). If not misled by the 'false advertising' and 'false hope' of fast, fair, and reasonable immigration process, I (probably many others too) would have consider and take other viable alternatives such as a much straightforward Canadian GC.

Is there a case based on consumer-rights, instead of constitutional rights?
(disclaimer: I am no lawyer, if that's not obvious)
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it.
 
Rajiv,

These recent 485 approvals - can these be part of INS' effort to reduce backlog - as they had announced couple of days back(20000 GC in one working day). Are they serious about it? Can you throw some light on it?
 
Originally posted by Jharkhandi
Rajiv,

These recent 485 approvals - can these be part of INS' effort to reduce backlog - as they had announced couple of days back(20000 GC in one working day). Are they serious about it? Can you throw some light on it?
Click to expand...

I doubt that very much.
 
Q with H-1B in its 6th year, with 485 pending 2 years at TSC

1-y H-1 extension or 1-Y EAD makes more sense? what's the pro and cons in case of
1) need to changing employer,
2) change to dissimilar job
3) in god-forbid case of 485 disapproval?

Thanks, Guys.
 
First of all thanks to Khanna for his great help!

I have one thought...

At the time when they issue RFE If one's 1FP is expired or going to expire in couple of days why can't they issue 2nd FP at the same time. Otherwise it is backlogging almost 5-6 months for issuing RFE first waiting for 2-4 months then issuing 2nd FP again waiting 1-3 months.

It makes no sense et all while they are doing preliminary processing they can estimate easily what are the other information required in near future.

There are definitely few cases who got RFE after his 1st FP is expired and have been waiting for more than 3-4 months after submitting RFE with nothing progress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: countability is a big issue

Originally posted by LongLongRoad2GR
the biggest hurdle to the current problem (backlog and others) are lack of countability, aka, INS as a service provider, to customer, immigrats-to-be.

If an application (485 or others) can be treated as a contract with specific service-level, penalty cause due to nonservice or delays, and with remedial cause, could be a good start . Should it be treated as a contract? or can it be implemented as a service contract?
Click to expand...
CIS (formerly known as INS) is called "Services", but immigration is also "benifits", so I am not sure - theoretically is our relationship partially or all or not at all one of 'customer and service provider'. I do hope Mr. Khanna could clear a few things up when he has the time. Otherwise where is this discussion going? I know none of us is intentional, but without some guidance, it is more and more like venting frustration and unsatisfaction instead of trying to come up with practical solutions to the problems we have.
 
Its quite plausible, that lack of funding, and not plain incompetence may be to blame for increased backlogs in the I-485 process. One way to speed up the process is to make the case that I-485 is more important than other issues that the CIS deals with - which might be untenable (just because there are probably thousands of others raising their voice in support of their own causes).

The other is to introduce a premium processing program for I-140/I-485 - with the caveat being any "profits" from this operation would go to funding additional case workers just for I-140/I-485 applications.

After all, if it works for H-1B why not for GCs as well. This would benefit both the privileged few who are willing and can afford to pay the premium, as well as the regular folk by having more resources looking at their cases resulting in faster processing.
 
Originally posted by jhonyrk
Hi Rajiv
Great job. I am new member. My points are here

1.Security checks are recent additions to I 485 adjustments and i don't know whether it was made as a law to enforce it for I485 adjustments. here are my thoughts

1.a person may loose his GC anytime if he is preceived as a security threat to the nation - he may loose his GC after quite few years of receiving it, if he is a threat.
2. Let the INS make decision within 180 or 365 days pending security checks and issuse temp stamp on passport
3. Issuse original plastic card after all security clearance was made.This will remove all our sufferings.

By doing so INS need not to voilate any law.If the person is a threat to the nation - he can't get temp stamp extension and can't get plastic card. I hope this will be more secure than pending the case forever.
Click to expand...

Rajiv,
Please make a note of this suggestion. This seems to be one of the best suggestions.
 
temporary I-551 stamping 180 days after AOS filing

Originally posted by jhonyrk
Hi Rajiv
Great job. I am new member. My points are here

1.Security checks are recent additions to I 485 adjustments and i don't know whether it was made as a law to enforce it for I485 adjustments. here are my thoughts

1.a person may loose his GC anytime if he is preceived as a security threat to the nation - he may loose his GC after quite few years of receiving it, if he is a threat.
2. Let the INS make decision within 180 or 365 days pending security checks and issuse temp stamp on passport
3. Issuse original plastic card after all security clearance was made.This will remove all our sufferings.

By doing so INS need not to voilate any law.If the person is a threat to the nation - he can't get temp stamp extension and can't get plastic card. I hope this will be more secure than pending the case forever.

Originally posted by dsatish
Rajiv,
Please make a note of this suggestion. This seems to be one of the best suggestions.

Originally posted by operations
Noted. But security checks have been around forever.
Click to expand...
> 2. Let the INS make decision within 180 or 365 days pending security checks and issuse temp stamp on passport (jhonyrk)
> This seems to be one of the best suggestions. (dsatish)

I also believe temporary I-551 stamping is the best idea.

> But security checks have been around forever. (operations)

I think jhonyrk's item #2 means:
2a) USCIS stamps temporary I-551 on passport within 180 (or 365) days without completing security checks.
2b+3) Once USCIS completes security check, USCIS issues a plastic card. (It doesn't mention how long security checks take.)

But I thnk USCIS cannot promise nor execute 2a) 180-day stamping.
Also there are a lot of people having been waiting for 180+ days.
So my suggestion is:
2a') USCIS district office accepts temporary I-551 stamping once 180 days has passed after I-485 application is filed.

USCIS can implement 2a') totally within the current infrastructure
although each one has to visit a district office.
 
Security Checks

Mr. Khanna, certainly a job well done so far and a great effort on your part to legalize the plight of people that love this country and want to be a part of it as much as any American.

I believe that someone had explained this. The security checks in the past used to work in the following manner: if the immigration officer would not hear anything from the FBI in a certain period of time, the check would have been considered passed. If they did hear something, it was inevitably bad news for the applicant. I do think that the security checks are one of the main stumbling blocks here, in the I-485 apps that are actually being processed. The disappearance of INS and its inclusion into the department of Homeland security did not bring any internal reorganization on the levels that we need it to. In fact, it would appear that cases have been processed more slowly.

I believe that this lawsuit is a good step towards immigration reform, but I would warn against being to eager to settle, as that might be another ploy to further delay processing times. At this time, it is simply not possible to believe in the honesty and forth right intentions on the part of CIS. Unlike other people, I think introducing the NSC 1-800 number was a good thing, because it gives the immigration officers more time to do what they are paid to do: process cases.

I agree with a previous poster who mentioned that there might be a political direction here as to the priority of cases, especially the AOS early stage cases. The bottom line is, the current situation suits too many people in terms of getting cheap labor and, with the outsourcing situation, there might be even clearer political direction to delay these cases. The big pciture for the administration is that, simply, GC holders do not get a vote and their opinion will therefore always be marginalized.

I applaud you effort and hopefully this will be one of the great battles won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top