Philadelphia Backlog Elimination Center Tracking

I think that what is most terrible about this mess is the complete lack of information and insight into what is going on at the PBEC. Even after 3-4 years (for many of us), there is no timeframe and because there is no clear pattern in the approvals, there is no way of deducing anything. This is largely because there is NO PBEC ACCOUNTABILITY - since PBEC does not make case data public, there is no way to prove that they are dragging their feet!

In my opinion, our first order of business ought to be to force the PBEC to spit out a dump of data once a week or so (whatever fields we deem necessary to monitor their progress without including any identifying information that will tie a case number to an individual - to avoid any privacy issues that they (PBEC) can use to block it). Fields could include most fields that we used to get in the 7 Yr email. This way, there will be concrete numbers which we can then focus on in subsequent law suits, if we can prove that they are dragging their feet at tax-payer expense.

I don't think there is any point in a lawsuit that requests that the individual cases of the litigants be processed quickly, as such an approach has already been proven to fail (and does not help the entire suffering community anyways).

I'm not a lawyer, btw - this is just a layman's opinion.

TechGuy said:
Count me in too...

What we should ask for from DOL if we file a lawsuit?

What is doable. What is acheivable.

Please share your ideas.
Click to expand...
 
Approve all cases without processing

How credible the process is if data entry people also do the adjudication!! US government would be intelligent to just approve all cases without any further processing (all the applicants are already employed, paying taxes, helping US economy) - it may save hell lot of money!!

cantstandit said:
the decline in approvals coincides with the end of partial data entry (October). After that, it seems they decided to use all resources to do the full data entry (more than 100,000 cases ?) ... and that will take a LONG time ... there's NO other explanation (I don't believe in conspiracy just to screw us over).

what bothers me is that they don't HAVE to enter data from 2003 to process 2001/2002, and they don't HAVE to enter 2004 to process 2003, because at this point, they ALREADY have all cases temporarily entered, so they KNOW which cases are from 2001/2002/2003, etc.

Why don't they split the teams, so that 75% would adjudicate, while 25% would work on the data entry ?!

their decision to stop everything to enter ALL cases is a total disaster and and insult to our intelligence.
Click to expand...
 
Here are my 2 cents :

PBEC may not make the data public,but they will have to produce the data in the court(if asked ...which the lawyers should be asking)......to show their progress...that data could be used to show that their process is inefficient and needs IMMEDIATE attention !

Getting a dump of data from PBEC would be another bureaucratic process which would take time and tie up their resources further ...slowing the LC approval process...Also subsequent lawsuits are time-consuming and would be costly...legal fees would be huge for couple of lawsuits.....We should have just ONE effective lawsuit !


Here are some points for litigation :

a) Slow approval processing by PBEC.
b) Data comparisions between DBEC/PBEC
c) Slow approvals by PBEC results makes process unfair ! People filing GC later and getting LC cleared earlier puts us in a disadvantageous position.
d) 2 Backlog centers created at the sametime should be progressing at the same rate.
e) Taxpayer's money waste.






vk2003 said:
I think that what is most terrible about this mess is the complete lack of information and insight into what is going on at the PBEC. Even after 3-4 years (for many of us), there is no timeframe and because there is no clear pattern in the approvals, there is no way of deducing anything. This is largely because there is NO PBEC ACCOUNTABILITY - since PBEC does not make case data public, there is no way to prove that they are dragging their feet!

In my opinion, our first order of business ought to be to force the PBEC to spit out a dump of data once a week or so (whatever fields we deem necessary to monitor their progress without including any identifying information that will tie a case number to an individual - to avoid any privacy issues that they (PBEC) can use to block it). Fields could include most fields that we used to get in the 7 Yr email. This way, there will be concrete numbers which we can then focus on in subsequent law suits, if we can prove that they are dragging their feet at tax-payer expense.

I don't think there is any point in a lawsuit that requests that the individual cases of the litigants be processed quickly, as such an approach has already been proven to fail (and does not help the entire suffering community anyways).

I'm not a lawyer, btw - this is just a layman's opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Escrow/Trust account for this case

Count me in too. Consider establishing an escrow (trust) account and put all the raised money in that fund until we win the case. I don't want lawyers (any lawyer!!) taking advantage of our situation and making money out of it. They can always lure us with possible favorable outcome (even if they realize that nothing is going to come out of it), so we should be careful. Guys, please don't take me wrong, but I just want to throw word of caution.


a_to_z_gc said:
Good suggestion! I was thinking in those lines. You may initiate some background work,but I would say, let me get Rajiv's response and strategy,before we start this effort. I am going to talk with his attorney this Friday again and shall post the findings.

But one thing is for sure- The more people/contributions we have, the better it would be for all of us.We may even need to contact people who are not part of this forum to get the word across.But again , please hold on till we know some more details...

Stay tuned for my next update...

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
That is the only feasible option we have I guess.. I'm no lawyer, of course, but there should be sufficient legal firepower available to us if we focus on information and accountability, rather than arguing for improved efficiency. There should be laws for making such information available.
Anyway, I'm doubtful if we can actually argue for our labor certificates since they belong to the employers .. but I'm not sure.. Rajiv would know better of course..
The information/statistics on pending/approved cases, if we get that, would be enough to expose the utter incompetence of PBEC managers and the fear of such exposure would be the best catalyst for improvement. (Movement, at least if not improvement :D )

vk2003 said:
I think that what is most terrible about this mess is the complete lack of information and insight into what is going on at the PBEC. Even after 3-4 years (for many of us), there is no timeframe and because there is no clear pattern in the approvals, there is no way of deducing anything. This is largely because there is NO PBEC ACCOUNTABILITY - since PBEC does not make case data public, there is no way to prove that they are dragging their feet!

In my opinion, our first order of business ought to be to force the PBEC to spit out a dump of data once a week or so (whatever fields we deem necessary to monitor their progress without including any identifying information that will tie a case number to an individual - to avoid any privacy issues that they (PBEC) can use to block it). Fields could include most fields that we used to get in the 7 Yr email. This way, there will be concrete numbers which we can then focus on in subsequent law suits, if we can prove that they are dragging their feet at tax-payer expense.

I don't think there is any point in a lawsuit that requests that the individual cases of the litigants be processed quickly, as such an approach has already been proven to fail (and does not help the entire suffering community anyways).

I'm not a lawyer, btw - this is just a layman's opinion.
Click to expand...
 
This is a valid point !

Lets be careful about the money part ......

How will escrow account work ?

GCkiTalash said:
Count me in too. Consider establishing an escrow (trust) account and put all the raised money in that fund until we win the case. I don't want lawyers (any lawyer!!) taking advantage of our situation and making money out of it. They can always lure us with possible favorable outcome (even if they realize that nothing is going to come out of it), so we should be careful. Guys, please don't take me wrong, but I just want to throw word of caution.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A couple of months back there was a case aginst DOL which the suckers won.
The case would have already set up a reference point for other cases so don't expect anything great from this.

What this planned law suit should do it to raise awareness, cause enough noise so the idiots who are playing with our careers at PBEC would sweat and do something.

_____________
RIR CA EB2
Nov 2002
 
Javaconsultant, the points you bring up are great ones, but with all due respect, it just seems to me that it would be extremely hard to prove any of them in a court of law based on available data. Just because we do not have enough people in the forums posting case approvals from PBEC (as opposed to DBEC) does not necessarily mean that they are processing cases slower. The PBEC can always say that they have approved or are in the process of approving "thousands of cases" and we will have no way of disputing it. Variations in processing speeds (later PD getting approved sooner) can also be attributed by them to the whole host of BS reasons that they have already provided to the AILA.

I say that we aim small - releasing case information requires very little work once the extract process is written. Extracting a data dump from a database is child's play for a DBA and I can't imagine that it would take more than 2-3 hours for a single IT person to extract a dump of data and put it on a website once a week. If once a week is too much, I'm willing to settle for once a fortnight or even a month. Anything that will provide some insight into this black hole! Their key weapon in the fight to kill accountability is our case information and that is what I think we should try to take away from them

Being a tax-payer funded organization, we may even be entitled to get that information - maybe it's covered under the Freedom Of Information Act? Don't know all the legalese myself - just guessing!

It would also be great if they could provide an automated case status enquiry system (preferably web-based). That is something else I would ask for.

In the previous court ruling, the judge declined to tell the PBEC how to work more efficiently (I think he said that it was up to the PBEC to prioritize it's work), so I don't think we can expect to make them work more efficiently as an outcome. But, we can put them on notice that we are watching, if they are forced to provide case status information for all cases in their system.

I think I've put in much more than 2 cents at this time, so I'll call it quits :)


javaconsultant said:
Here are my 2 cents :

PBEC may not make the data public,but they will have to produce the data in the court(if asked ...which the lawyers should be asking)......to show their progress...that data could be used to show that their process is inefficient and needs IMMEDIATE attention !

Getting a dump of data from PBEC would be another bureaucratic process which would take time and tie up their resources further ...slowing the LC approval process...Also subsequent lawsuits are time-consuming and would be costly...legal fees would be huge for couple of lawsuits.....We should have just ONE effective lawsuit !


Here are some points for litigation :

a) Slow approval processing by PBEC.
b) Data comparisions between DBEC/PBEC
c) Slow approvals by PBEC results makes process unfair ! People filing GC later and getting LC cleared earlier puts us in a disadvantageous position.
d) 2 Backlog centers created at the sametime should be progressing at the same rate.
e) Taxpayer's money waste.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking at earlier efforts to sue government agencies dealing with immigration one way or other, the lessons to be learnt are:

1) Litigation works, but only if you are smart. If not, you waste money, get hammered, and discourage others too.

2) If you are fighting for generating awareness and attracting attention, pick up a banner and march on the street. The court is not the place - you're wasting your time.

3) If you think you can win cases even on shaky legal grounds just because you have a strong moral argument, I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee.. it ain't gonna happen.

4) Don't bite off more than you can chew. We cannot afford to fight and lose a grand all-or-nothing case. Focus on something smaller, but winnable, and build on that.

Based on these four golden rules, I have my (grave) doubts we can mount a legal challenge on the basis of slow or inefficient working of PBEC.

The most promising avenue would be to force periodic disclosure of cases entered, letters sent, and cases certified.

Of course, I'm no lawyer, so all that is just my personal opinion. :D
 
How many people so far?

I am in too.

But I'd like to know the overall strength as well.

Can someone attach a sheet and people can then add on their id/names to that sheet?

cheers
 
Pineapple said:
Looking at earlier efforts to sue government agencies dealing with immigration one way or other, the lessons to be learnt are:

1) Litigation works, but only if you are smart. If not, you waste money, get hammered, and discourage others too.

2) If you are fighting for generating awareness and attracting attention, pick up a banner and march on the street. The court is not the place - you're wasting your time.

3) If you think you can win cases even on shaky legal grounds just because you have a strong moral argument, I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee.. it ain't gonna happen.

4) Don't bite off more than you can chew. We cannot afford to fight and lose a grand all-or-nothing case. Focus on something smaller, but winnable, and build on that.

Based on these four golden rules, I have my (grave) doubts we can mount a legal challenge on the basis of slow or inefficient working of PBEC.

The most promising avenue would be to force periodic disclosure of cases entered, letters sent, and cases certified.

Of course, I'm no lawyer, so all that is just my personal opinion. :D
Click to expand...

Exactly. As it happened in law suit last month, as posted by techGuy
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/cases/2005,1011-libertyfund.pdf

if we are not smart with our case, we are sure to get same outcome. I think whenever we talk with Rajiv about a suit, we should keep above case as reference.

we can create database in yahoo group, where we can register for eg. name, role each of us will play, money contributed etc. Infact, someone already has a db for sending letters.

Also we need more exposure, please encourage your colleagues to participate in these forums.
 
Just curious!

You guys really think that Aila cannot compare between DBEC and PBEC? They cannot ask for an explanation/demand status in one of their meetings with these PBEC slackers? Don't they have "internal" contacts within the BECs as some us did? Don't they know the right sources to raise awareness about PBEC? They are just happy as our employers to keep us on H1B and ask for extension every year promptly. Attorneys have better job security than PBEC contractors. Do we still trust them for this class-action suit?
Somebody sued the food joint that their hot coffee burnt her fingers and still won the case. Are we talking anything about that simple here? What am I missing?

Having to stand in line so long is a real bummer, I know that. Believe me I'm waiting since July 2002. Don't get me wrong, friends.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forming an awareness group

Great points Pineapple & USCIS!
I think the scope of this forum is limited to the victims as far as spreading awareness is concerned. If we need to see something tangible, lets aim to get 25 people to show up physically at a place to meet each other. I am not asking anyone to come directly to a rally ground cuz any such demonstration should be planned. We can start with forming small groups of 25 people in each region (DC Metro Area, Phili,NJ,NY could be one group), similarly something on the west coast and so on. Lets first meet and see each other in person over a weekend. Lets exchange some phone numbers and email addresses to keep in touch. These forums are great for mobilising people like us but to get visibility to the outside world we need to mobilise ourselves physically. Once we gather enough critical mass, the processions/demonstrations can be planned in strategic locations.


USCISisMockery said:
Exactly. As it happened in law suit last month, as posted by techGuy
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/cases/2005,1011-libertyfund.pdf

if we are not smart with our case, we are sure to get same outcome. I think whenever we talk with Rajiv about a suit, we should keep above case as reference.

we can create database in yahoo group, where we can register for eg. name, role each of us will play, money contributed etc. Infact, someone already has a db for sending letters.

Also we need more exposure, please encourage your colleagues to participate in these forums.
Click to expand...
 
Foreign Labor Certification Applications and FIFO (First-In First-Out) Principle

From http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html

For the Backlog Elimination Centers in Dallas, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Denver, ???, currently these offices reportedly do not follow the FIFO processing principles as related to a number of factors that affect the final decision process relative to other cases in the permanent labor certification process. DOL has recently explained that these included the type of application (RIR, regular application, special handling, limited review, etc), the stage of processing at which the application was received by the the Backlog Elimination Center, for instance, the applications received from the regions have already completed recruitment, and these cases could move along earlier than those received from the states. Another factors that affected the FIFO processing was the dates of applications pending at each center, which determined each application's place within the FIFO queue, the differeent quality of the applications, some raising questions that took longer, and the response time of the employer to center's 45-day letters.
The practical abandonment of FIFO again raises the impression of processing and management of applications irregularly and without a uniform national standard. It raises concerns with the "fairness" of treating the customers equally on a fixed uniform standard.
Another problem the current labor certification management presents is lack of accessibility of the customers and channel for communication with the customers. The function of the intermediary (AILA Labor Certification Liason) has noticeably been set back and the agency is operating the system secluded from the customer community. It is strongly urged that DFLC/BECs operates the labor certification processing openly and keep the customers informed of the status of the business. Whenever something is run behind the curtain, it creates a misunderstanding of irregularity and lawlessness. The agency should start reporting the processing times for each BEC as soon as possible. The customer community is not informed of what communications are being released to which intermediaries and no intermediaries report the state of the processing. We urge the DFLC to "open the door" wide directly to the customers by updating the customers on its website and reporting regularly the processing times.
 
This message is for Where_is_my_GC,

My case is from CT SWA. I have a case num of T-05153-***** and waiting for 45 day letter. My PD is JULY'2003

Can you please provide your temp case num??
Also let me know if you receive 45 day letter.

Thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top