New Regulation - Important

same news from my laywer (FDBL)

not sure if you guys know FDBL (fragomen)

but my lawyer said the exact same thing that their current interpretation was that concurrent mean literally concurrent.

ofcourse i told him he was full of shit, so he told me not to believe what i read in the forums.

who to believe.

long_wait
 
I like to think Lawyer's provide more staid and conventional conservative thinking. And that is their job! You don't want a mavrick to run amock with something so important to you.

The forum here should be used more for unconventional (at times) practical experience that comes from seeing, hearing and actually experiencing INS's follies.

The bottom line: Advise on the forum is NOT from people who have studied all aspects of the law, though some people are pretty well read. But I still wouldn't take a step without my lawyer's okay.

Don't worry too much about the pilot program, as you can see from another thread posted I think by ngadia, CSC has clarified that this is only a pilot program, and only about 5% of the cases will be touched, most likely the lucky 5% gets chosen more by luck than any merit of faxes/comments by the applicants. Hence if your cases do happen to fall in the pool for the pilot program, you could get lucky and get adjudicated before any of us.

My 2 cents on this issue goes with the theory that as long as 140 is not approved, and 485 is filed it qulifies as concurrent processing.

Good luck to all of you.
 
MEANING OF THE WORD " CONCURRENT "

JUST GOT THIS FROM THE DICTIONARY

quote "WordNet Dictionary ......concurrent

Definition: [adj] occurring or operating at the same time; "a series of coincident events"

Synonyms: at the same time(p), coincident, coincidental, coinciding, cooccurring, simultaneous, synchronal, synchronic, synchronous

In my humble opinion, concurrent filing means I 140 and I 485 filed at the same time.......not 140 first and a week later 485:)
 
If you want to argue symantics, going by the definition occurring or operating at the same time; the operating at the same time makes no claim to the fact that the events have to be triggered off together.

But leaving the play of words apart, go by the historical prepective. Before this law came into being, you COULD NOT apply for 485 while your 140 was pending. Once it came into being, please like me who had 140 pending, suddenly din't have to wait for the 140 approvals, instead we could file our 485's under the concurrent processing rule.

Going strictly by your definition of concurrent, that should not have been possible, but it was and hence the conclusion that triggering off the second event before the first one has expired indicates for all practical purposes, that the two events (processes) are running concurrently!
 
Hey guys,

I don't need to go to the dictionary, I know what "concurrent" means in the classic intepretation (or "conservative").

Just wanted to point out that this last post by 140_takes_forever summarizes what was about to say: before "concurrent" rule you couldn't file I-485 unless I-140 was approved. After "concurrent" rule was presented, you could do that, and not necessarily "at the same time", not literally. To me this logically means that even if you file your I-485 a week after filing I-140, but BEFORE its approval, that falls under the same rule ("concurrent" filing rule).

So, you are free to make your own judgement and listen what your lawyers tell you. I certainly do not intend to diminish your attorney's judgement.
This is just my opinion. Exercise your grey matter to make your own interpretation.

Thanks,
L.
 
One more thing:

140_takes_4ever - I wasn't referring to a "pilot program" for concurrent filers at CSC. I was actually referring to the new regulation issued on 3/31/04 to ALL INS service centers in regard to processing changes for concurrently filed I-485s/I-140s.

So, it does not cover 5% randomly selected cases, but ALL cases with approved I-140s (concurrently filed). And, most importantly, a fax inquiry can in fact affect the processing based on this, as your case could be pulled out because of that and given appropriate attention.

Thanks,
L.
 
about fax inquiry

Suppose that everyone who has concurrently filed 485 send a fax to CSC, will they pull out all the complaining case because your fax has reminded them of your case and approve it, or will they get annoyed, or will they just toss your fax into a trash can, who can tell?
 
Originally posted by lusiks
140_takes_4ever - I wasn't referring to a "pilot program" for concurrent filers at CSC. I was actually referring to the new regulation issued on 3/31/04 to ALL INS service centers in regard to processing changes for concurrently filed I-485s/I-140s.
Click to expand...

Lusiks,

This is actually where we differ. The reason for that is because I don't agree with your interpretation of the new regulation. The difference between the pilot program and new regulation is that they are using the pilot program to see how effective it will be in the long run, but actually implementing the regulation will mean that they will get their asses kicked for punishing all the 2002 applicants who have already been waiting for 2 years.

Here is an interesting thread http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123744 that talks about both the pilot program and new regulation as attested by Don Neufield the director of CSC to a Senator. I would take his words more seriously since he cannot outright lie to a powerful senator as compared to us.

In my opinion, the new regulation will stiffle the 140 process till the backlogs are proccessed, after which it will speed up both the 140 and 485 program. I would imagine, you and others in 03/04 who received their approvals were lucky that is all. For the rest of the 03/04 filers, the wait has just begun. Unless INS reduces backlogs speedily, they will be waiting even longer and without the safety net of AC21 to boot.

But then again, those are my 2 cents, feel free to discard, or agree based upon your interpretation.
 
I tend to agree with 140_takes_4ever. He coudnt lie to an Senator outright.

Also if there is a mass approval of 03/04 filer, then those filed earlier would come down on them like a ton of bricks.
 
Update

Hi 140_takes_4ever,

From yr discussions i want to point out something.

I filed in March 24 2004,concurrently I-140/485.Most of the people filed in march 2004 got their FP notice and most of them done it.But from kashmir's report only one case WAC-04-102 is approved.So in pilot pgm they are testing only 5%.I don't see much approvals in march 2004 filed cases.May be we have to wait and see!!!


Regards
Kabish
 
kabish,

Take the 5% value euphemistically! It probably just denotes a sample of cases till they are satisfied with their processes.

I wouldn't read too much in the fact you have been sent a FP notice or not, as compared to your peers. As you mentioned, it is a wait and watch policy that all of us have to adopt.

To clarify my thought process, in my opinion, the INS is going to pick a few random cases from here and there and adjudicate them. The rest of the cases will be pushed back in queue. INS has to adjudicate the old timers like most 2002 applicants, a few 2001 applicants, majority of the 2003 applicants before getting to the meat of the 2004 applicants. Now that is a long long wait, UNLESS INS speeds up the approval process. The main disadvantage to the concurrent filers is that they will not be covered under AC21 UNTIL their cases are due for approval, in which case, AC21 is moot for them either ways.

Therefore, in my opinion the new regulation, though logical is really bad news for the concurrent filers. Specially those in tech due to the shaky job market. I don't want to be an alarmist here or cause any sort of panic, but reduction of the backlogs is an absolute must for ALL of us, regardless of the fact that you are under the concurrent or non-concurrent filing process. It is in our best interest that INS reduce the backlog to less than 6 months so that AC21 becomes irrelevant, as does the actual concurrent processing of 140 and 485.

Good luck to all of us.
 
140_takes_4ever

Yes, I will disagree with you. I checked the thread you are referencing, and so what? It is simply a response from a cenator's office to a private inquiry letter, not an official announcement of the office in press or anything, right? This "powerful cenator" doesn't even mention new memo specifically, it just talks about early approvals in general.

I do believe that an official memo to all INS directors issued by US Department of Homeland Security is a more validated source of truth. Cenator's office is not directly involved in INS operations, is it? So whatever their response is, it's going to have one goal - to calm down "frustrated immigrants". At the same time the above mentioned interoffice memorandum clearly states a change in the adjudication process of concurrent filers, across all service centers. It doesn't say that this is temporary, or part of any pilot program or restrictive in any other manner.

I agree with you on one point: the adjudication process should be fair for everybody, not making a difference for concurrent or other applicants. Hovewer, I do think it's fair that people with approved I-140s should be adjudicated before those with pending I-140s.

I agree that CSC has to put additional effort in cleaning up their old backlog. As this memo is effective nationwide, and all service centers have different levels of backlog, I do think every center has to spend some time in analyzing their particular situation and find the best way of applying new regulation so that it doesn't hurt the effectiveness.

My 2 cents.

L.






http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/servcenterinstoni140i485.pdf
 
I looked at the memo
http://www.immigration.com/newslett...toni140i485.pdf
and it says -
"Concurrently filed I-140/I-1485 will be processed based upon the I-140 receipt date"

So here, it is assumed that I-485 filing date may not be on the same date as I-140.

I look at the discussion for meaning of "concurrent" in this thread.
So wanted to put my thoughts.
Any comments ?
 
Hi

Yes Microdev thats right.Thats what i said in this same thread.

1.For new filers,first they are processing I-485.
If the finger printing and name check cleared
then only they are processing I-140.
So for no portabilty chance for new filers!!!
In my case,i filed on march 2004.In online status only for EAD and I-485 dates are moved not I-140.But for new filed cases really pbm.Bcos from my filed date march 2004.The FP and name check clearence will take 2 years then after that only I-140 will be adjudicated together.Then in this economy how to change Jobs?Really a question????


2.For old filed cases like first I-140 and after 485.For them not this procedure.But portability chance are more for Separate filed cases!!!

Regards
Kabish:mad: :mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coming back to definition of "concurrent filing" from a recent CSC operations update:

With respect to the March 31, 2004 memo if an I-140 is filed on April 27, 2004 and the I-485 is filed on May 20, 2004, under the concurrent filing regulations is this filing series ?

For the purpose of implementing this memo - concurrent filing means any I-140/I-485 filed at the same time or a subsequent I-485 filing pursuant to a pending I-140 if no adjudicative action has been taken on the I-140.

http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/soc042804.html
 
Originally posted by lusiks
I do believe that an official memo to all INS directors issued by US Department of Homeland Security is a more validated source of truth. Cenator's office is not directly involved in INS operations, is it? So whatever their response is, it's going to have one goal - to calm down "frustrated immigrants". At the same time the above mentioned interoffice memorandum clearly states a change in the adjudication process of concurrent filers, across all service centers. It doesn't say that this is temporary, or part of any pilot program or restrictive in any other manner.
Click to expand...
Again Lusiks,

All the new memo states is that 485 cases will be processed based upon 140 RD in concurrent cases. It does not talk about actually PROCESSING them without any delay.

To me your argument is extremely flawed just on the grounds that no matter how bad INS has been, is and will be, it hasn't as a rule, jumped over FIFO a few cases here and there sure, but not the whole year's worth of cases. The CSC director's comment to the Senator makes sense because it is logical. Not because it is a sop to "frustrated immigrants", who by the way will be even more frustrated and agitated if INS implements the ruling in the way you mentioned. Doing so is walking right into a massive lawsuit.

But obviously this argument is going no where, so let us agree to disagree and let time answer the questions raised. I don't see any problem in people requesting INS to process their applications under the new ruling, if your case gets approved, more power to you.

Good luck!
 
Dear 140_Takes_Forever,

My case has been approved two weeks ago. I have seen many posts with approvals on this forum confirming my point. I am not under a "CSC pilot" because I'm a NIW case, and I believe I am not just "lucky", because there are others getting approved.

You can find a flaw in any statement (especially of it doesn't go the way you want it to:). And quoting the memo "...only those concurrently filed application/petition packages in which I-485 is adjudication-ready (fingerprints and name checks have cleared) will be pulled and sent to adjudications..." Yes, it does not say "sent to adjudications ASAP" or "whithin nex week", but it pretty much says a "no-delay" processing for these cases.
The truth is that INS has approved over 100 WAC03 cases during the month of April without any RFEs, just like mine.
If this is not a "no-delay" processing, then I don't know what is.

May be this ruling will be reversed tomorrow, but today it is still valid and it does change the processing picture, whether you like it or not.

So, yes, let's stop this argument. I don't have time for a pointless demagogical debate. I prefer to spend it on actually helping some people by answering their questions.

Thanks,
L.
 
Originally posted by lusiks
You can find a flaw in any statement (especially of it doesn't go the way you want it to:).
Click to expand...
Lusiks,

Had thought this thread was dead amicably with just a difference of opinion between people on the same side of the fence. Noticed the above quoted sentence and was shocked to read your insinuation. This is the first anyone has ever accused me of manipulating interpretations based on something that will benefit me. And I find that distasteful, if that was what you meant.

Regardless of what you might think, I don't think my argument was colored by my person situation, which FYI is WAC 03! If you go by Project Kashmir reports for 03, you will notice that the trend indicates about 3% approval rate for 03, which still hasn't topped the 5-15% leeway in the pilot program norm.
 
140_takes_4ever

No need to be shocked ahead of time. If I decide to accuse you in anything, it will be straightforward, don't worry. Didn't expect you to get offended by my posts, really.

As for interpretations being driven by personal situations: I don't see anything distasteful in this. First of all, any given interpretation by any person is a subjective assessment, one way or another affected by personal situation. You can call it "manipulation" if you like - I wouldn't, and I didn't btw.
And the fact that you are a WAC03 doesn't make your opinion a perfectly objective one. I didn't even mention or meant to mention which series is your petition from, if that's what you are referring to.

I should probably be offended by your
"insinuation" and
"distatetful", but I will not. This is an open forum for opinions on immigrant issues; not for childish games.

I hope in the future you will do a better job of handling an opposite opinion.

Now this thread is officially dead.

Peace to you.

L.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top