Pork, Ghee...its Time To Roll....


Folks....!

We shall do something practical right now. Some thoughts are digressing to the levels that are surely unreachable by our group's interests atleast now. Our goal is to expedite I-485 processing for the employment based categories due to swinging job market and rules that are inflexible for the job changes. So let's try to move the small rocks that are hindering our way rather than moving mountains for the good of all. So our best bet will be to incite a push at the NSC Center using some congressmen. Pragmatic approach is to do the above first then try for a new legislation later...

Nebraskan..
 
Congress can, within the powers vested in it under a tripartite system of government, can do one of the following:

1. It can legislate and thus impose a certain structure and policy on the administration

2. It can provide (or explicitly deny) funding to various departments / programs / actions of the administration

3. In exercise of their oversight capacity, it can embarass / humiliate the admistration by holding hearings and serving summons on the cabinet members / other civil servants

In addition to the above, by dangling the threat implicit in 3 above (let us call this 3.a), congress can (and often does) intervene in individual cases (or groups) where the various departments/agencies have failed to perform their duties in accordance with the stated law / policy in effect at any time.

What I guess I do not follow is - Which of the above three is being sought presently?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem as if we are talking about 3 a. here. If this is true, and it is the prioritization of employment-based immigration category at NSC that we are proposing to carry out this advocacy on behalf of, it will likely be seen as a request for a change in policy direction, and not as one seeking to correct lapses by INS in implementing existing policy.

If on the other hand, we intend to point out lacunae in the implementation of the current policy and hence want congress to pressure NSC to correct these, we should, to begin with, clearly crystallize what these lacunae are with as much specificity as possible. To my mind the higher RFE rate of NSC is the most important of such lacunae which results in a greater likelihood of an approval at VSC relative to NSC. Maybe others can list more such specific recurring issues that can then become the basis of the complaint.

It is all very well to make unspecified calls for action from behind the anonymity of a fictitious name and implore others to wear the mantle (as many of us seem to be doing here - a tad cheekily it seems), and it is an entirely different thing to actually think the issues through and spend time to research them out so as to increase the value of our suggestions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Sankrityayan
Congress can, within the powers vested in it under a tripartite system of government, can do one of the following:

1. It can legislate and thus impose a certain structure and policy on the administration

2. It can provide (or explicitly deny) funding to various departments / programs / actions of the administration

3. In exercise of their oversight capacity, it can embarass / humiliate the admistration by holding hearings and serving summons on the cabinet members / other civil servants

In addition to the above, by dangling the threat implicit in 3 above (let us call this 3.a), congress can (and often does) intervene in individual cases (or groups) where the various departments/agencies have failed to perform their duties in accordance with the stated law / policy in effect at any time.

What I guess I do not follow is - Which of the above three is being sought presently?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem as if we are talking about 3 a. here. If this is true, and it is the prioritization of employment-based immigration category at NSC that we are proposing to carry out this advocacy on behalf of, it will likely be seen as a request for a change in policy direction, and not as one seeking to correct lapses by INS in implementing existing policy.

If on the other hand, we intend to point out lacunae in the implementation of the current policy and hence want congress to pressure NSC to correct these, we should, to begin with, clearly crystallize what these lacunae are with as much specificity as possible. To my mind the higher RFE rate of NSC is the most important of such lacunae which results in a greater likelihood of an approval at VSC relative to NSC. Maybe others can list more such specific recurring issues that can then become the basis of the complaint.

It is all very well to make unspecified calls for action from behind the anonymity of a fictitious name and implore others to wear the mantle (as many of us seem to be doing here - a tad cheekily it seems), and it is an entirely different thing to actually think the issues through and spend time to research them out so as to increase the value of our suggestions.
Click to expand...


Very well stated. But we have people of considerable resolve amongst us. I do not underestimate the community of immigrants. The problem is of direction, not of motivation. That is what we hope to supply. But keep going. I am listening to this thread.
 
great to hear from you, mr. khanna!

you are absolutely correct, we do not lack for motivation. it is how to best direct our efforts to maximize their benefits that we have been threshing out here. it seems that the emerging consensus is to attempt to draw the attention of the lawmakers with oversight of such matters to the status quo of EB immigration in general, in the hope that they will bring their influence to bear for the benefit of the greatest number of people affected, be it through further legislation or oversight.

you had posted in a different thread that the petition you had assembled for the NSC has already been dispatched to the director of that center. we were wondering if a similar effort should not be directed for the audience of congressmen and, possibly, senior functionaries in the relevant organs of the adminsitration (Ridge, Hutchinson?).

should it be determined that we could not possibly do any more harm :) , then the first order of business ought to be to find a focal point, if you will, for such efforts. i cannot think of a better person to lead this effort than yourself, and, forgive me if i am being presumptuous, your office could be the epicenter of these endeavours, inasmuch as you already have committed your resourses to similar undertakings.

any guidance or recommendations from you will be highly appreciated by all.
 
deputydawg

Did you get any positive response? I wrote to a senator in my area too. She gave me some info which I might not hear. But she cannot push them a lot to expedite my case. My case has been there for two years.
 
Originally posted by Pork Chop
great to hear from you, mr. khanna!

you are absolutely correct, we do not lack for motivation. it is how to best direct our efforts to maximize their benefits that we have been threshing out here. it seems that the emerging consensus is to attempt to draw the attention of the lawmakers with oversight of such matters to the status quo of EB immigration in general, in the hope that they will bring their influence to bear for the benefit of the greatest number of people affected, be it through further legislation or oversight.

you had posted in a different thread that the petition you had assembled for the NSC has already been dispatched to the director of that center. we were wondering if a similar effort should not be directed for the audience of congressmen and, possibly, senior functionaries in the relevant organs of the adminsitration (Ridge, Hutchinson?).

should it be determined that we could not possibly do any more harm :) , then the first order of business ought to be to find a focal point, if you will, for such efforts. i cannot think of a better person to lead this effort than yourself, and, forgive me if i am being presumptuous, your office could be the epicenter of these endeavours, inasmuch as you already have committed your resourses to similar undertakings.

any guidance or recommendations from you will be highly appreciated by all.
Click to expand...


It does not hurt to place these matters in the Legislators' hands. While they may not have direct intervention, they can certainly (if they so choose) make things pretty uncomfortable for the BCIS. We are currently focusing our entire energy into helping the spouses of green card holders. But this should not be that time intensive. So go ahead, speak amongst yourselves. Tell us what you would like us to do. Let me know if I can put in my two cents. Good luck. PLEASE CALL ME RAJIV. Mr. Khanna sounds like my dad.

PS It may also be a good idea to create sort of a working group. Select a volunteer modeartor. We can give you the space to work with and guide your effort. It would be (at the very least) fun to do something instead of just waiting.
 
What's happenning guys ??

Now that Rajiv has given us direction , I was expecting a lot more postings on this thread ?

Are we still going ahead with the idea of having a collective effort directed to a few congressmen and other senior fucntionaries ?

Any ideas / feedback / suggestions ??
 
Yep !

We need someone to lead the way.. Who's taking the role? We ought to do it fast. We are fortunate enough to be guided by Mr. Rajiv. We should not miss this boat. Come on Guys.

what happened Sankrit..,Pork..,Ghee....and all?

Let's roll it!
 
ok, let's set the ball rolling...

first things first: let's first decide upon a group of volunteer moderators. it is reasonable to assume that any one person would be hard-pressed to find adequate time out of their normal work schedules, so we'd be better served with a group of moderators. i hereby volunteer, any other hats in the ring?

p.s. keep in mind, all of us who go forward with this, will conceivably have to share our real identities with each other at some point in time.
 
well, i think i missed a large chunk of the meat here... just discovered the interesting exchanges now. and of course, wished to convey that i don't mind either.
 
First of all, the so called 'POWERS' do not interfere in the process INS adjudications unless they there is some injustice committed by INS to perticular applicant. There is no way they can pressure any government agency to any special groups or individulas.

Rep. Tom Tacredo of Colorado mentioned it very clearly in his reply to my letter. He said there are procedures and guidlines in place.

I will scan his letter and publish it as soon as I get hold of a scanner.

I would suggest all of us put combined effort to fix the problems of NSC, so that all I-485 cases adjudicated in timely and efficient manner.

I'm going to CO next week and probably ask for an appiontment with the Congressman to figure our the best way to apply more pressure on NSC.
 
We can have an informal committee to share the groundwork and have a couple people work with Rajiv and his team to steer this in the right direction.

I don't have the expertise as some of the other members of this forum do, but I am willing to do some work towards it. From the previous posts , I know Pork and Sankrit are willing.
You guys can count me in too. Let me know who else is on the bandwagon .... and where do we go from here ?

On a different note ...none of us here are immigration lawyers...just immigrants who are concerned about this delay and want to take a pro-active stand and do something about it. This forum will be effective not only by its size but also by its direction. That's why we need to move in a collective , co-ordinated and a result oriented manner with professional inputs from Rajiv and his team.

Just my 2 cents !!
 
Folks,

Here is the letter from the Congressman. This clearly indicates that whatever we do we can't get ahead of others.
 
Originally posted by Sankrityayan
Congress can, within the powers vested in it under a tripartite system of government, can do one of the following:

1. It can legislate and thus impose a certain structure and policy on the administration

2. It can provide (or explicitly deny) funding to various departments / programs / actions of the administration

3. In exercise of their oversight capacity, it can embarass / humiliate the admistration by holding hearings and serving summons on the cabinet members / other civil servants

In addition to the above, by dangling the threat implicit in 3 above (let us call this 3.a), congress can (and often does) intervene in individual cases (or groups) where the various departments/agencies have failed to perform their duties in accordance with the stated law / policy in effect at any time.

What I guess I do not follow is - Which of the above three is being sought presently?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem as if we are talking about 3 a. here. If this is true, and it is the prioritization of employment-based immigration category at NSC that we are proposing to carry out this advocacy on behalf of, it will likely be seen as a request for a change in policy direction, and not as one seeking to correct lapses by INS in implementing existing policy.

If on the other hand, we intend to point out lacunae in the implementation of the current policy and hence want congress to pressure NSC to correct these, we should, to begin with, clearly crystallize what these lacunae are with as much specificity as possible. To my mind the higher RFE rate of NSC is the most important of such lacunae which results in a greater likelihood of an approval at VSC relative to NSC. Maybe others can list more such specific recurring issues that can then become the basis of the complaint.

It is all very well to make unspecified calls for action from behind the anonymity of a fictitious name and implore others to wear the mantle (as many of us seem to be doing here - a tad cheekily it seems), and it is an entirely different thing to actually think the issues through and spend time to research them out so as to increase the value of our suggestions.
Click to expand...

Reliance ,

The goal here is not to get ahead of others , but to raise a red flag that the slow down affects the lives of so many people and something needs to be done to fix it.

We are no way suggesting that a congressman take our pending cases at NSC and try to push them thru , although, thats a nice thought :D .. just kidding ;)
 
Reliance...

maverick's reasoning is valid. None of us is saying to get individual cases ahead.

Although, we definitely know that when indivduals have approached Senators / Congressmen , esp. for the cases that have been taking too long, those individuals have benefited.

We also know that there are Oct. / Nov. '01 cases approved when many Aug. / Sep. '01 cases still pending! What kind of seriallization is that?

The issue here is one of efficiency. It can be reasonablly established that the number of cases comming to BCIS has declined since July / Aug. '01! There could still be scope to improve the processing efficiency, when combined with the fact that there has been an increase in the NSC staff strength!

StillWaiting...
 
Hmm. Not all congremen are relaible.

See my views on Tancredo and his politics. Attached.

But it usually does not hurt to publicize issues. Keep thinking. I am following this thread and doing some thinking of my own people.

PS I wish we could just do a large conference call and talk. But it is hard to find a common time suitable for all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets talk to reliable Congressmen ...

If not Rep. Tom Tacredo of Colorado then let's knock on the doors of some other elected representative. How about talking to some one who is liberal on issues like Immigration.

Whether immigration is good for this country or whether the H1-B program is threatening local jobs are important issues, but not exactly the bone of contention here. We are here because we are frustrated by the time it takes for the BCIS to approve a case.

I guess if we were to define the goals and objectives of this undertaking, it would be


  • to advocate faster processing times by the BCIS.
    to have a higher body urge/coerce the BCIS to clear the backlog.

Just thinking aloud here !!
 
Mr. Rajiv,

We completely agree and support your views. Importing qualified immigrants to the US companies is really a capitalization and is a mutual benefit for the immigrants as well to the US economy. I strongly feel a conference call at some evening time will be great for all of us and can take us a step closer to taking some action.

We appreciate your great interest.


PS. Guys let's gather !

Nebraskan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top