Project "Ocean" : Become a U.S. Citizen by 2008 Election !!

E-Mail Campaign #2

Originally posted by kashmir
...
I am planning an e-mail campaign at first rather than fax
so that a lot of people can participate.

The first target is CSC Director Don Neufeld
to make sure that he will significantly increase resource allocations to I-485 adjudications
after 3/9/2004 deadline for TPS El Salvador.

"Ocean" E-MAIL Campaign #1 to CSC Director Don Neufeld
Click to expand...
Almost 30 members have sent e-mail to CSC Director Neufeld so far,
however no one has received a reply from him as usual.

I'd like to start the second e-mail campaign to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (or your representative)
so that we can get a response from Don Neufeld with more specific and achievable plan for I-485 backlog reduction.

"Ocean" E-MAIL Campaign #2 to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo or your representative
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the CSC would fail to allocate resource to I-485 adjudication in March 2004,
I believe we will have no chance for next several months by the end of this fiscal year.
Also, it takes a month or more that E-MAIL campaigns will be bearing.
I think a next few weeks are very important for us to take actions.

Of course, I am not the only person to propose such a campaign,
so please be creative to introduce new campaign for the forum.
I am pleased to join them.
 
Pete Stark (D CA 13) is not a man !!

(Originally posted by pathapati)

Couple of months ago, after we met Pete stark staff in Newark town hall meeting about green card process delays.

Next time when I visited Pete's office in Fremont, I was told that Pete doesn't want take up Issue with INS on behalf of Immigration.com forum.
She asked me, am I living in Fremont then we can enquire with INS only on your case.

Then I tried to explain them about our meeting with staff in Newark town hall. She got little frustrated and told me that they can enquire about people living in Fremont not other district people.

...

(Originally posted by kash777)

I just visited yesterday Pete's office and somewhat understood that they are reluctant to talk on immigrationportal issues .( May be court matter . I am not sure at all). Lady was totaly calm on this general petition. However I also noted that her earlier enthisiasam was also reduced to follw up on my case. ... If I hear anything in next week I will let you know.
 
Amendment of INA: ACT 245 (b) or 316 (a)

Almost four months ago, I posted the following message as the first one of this thread to start Project Ocean.
Originally posted by kashmir 4th October 2003 07:35 AM

A Guide to Naturalization (M-476)

Let's become a U.S. Citizen by 2008 and vote at 2008 Election !!

But, we have to solve the following problem.

General Naturalization Requirements
...
Residence and Physical Presence
An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:
  • has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (see preceding section);
  • has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with no single absence from the United States of more than one year;
  • has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year shall disrupt the applicant's continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period)
  • has resided within a state or district for at least three months

We have to wait for another five years after we get AOS approved.
However, we have(had) been already waiting only AOS approval for a long time due to EB I485 processing delay at the USCIS service centers.
It is extremely unfair to us.

So, INA(Immigration and Nationality Act) Sec. 316 must be amended.

Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427]

(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
Click to expand...
It is still the final goal of Project Ocean to get U.S. Citizenship by 2008,
though we have been shifting our focus to the EB I-485 backlog reduction especially at the CSC.

Recently, I become interested in amendment of INA: ACT 245 (b) rather than 316 (a)
because it is simpler and stronger.
Here is INA: ACT 245.
INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE

Sec. 245. [8 U.S.C. 1255]

(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if

(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,

(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and

(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.

(b) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 202 and 203 within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.
Click to expand...
The bold part at (b) should be amended to:
the application for the adjustment of status is filed.

If one's permanent residence starts on the day one filed AOS application,
Naturalization Requirement doesn't need to be changed at all.

But it may cause some legal trouble
because it affects the past on AOS approval.

Any comment or suggestion ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
USCIS top page - 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004

USCIS Prioritizes Backlog Reduction in FY2005 Budget

Washington, D.C.- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today requested $1.711 billion in the FY2005 budget, including a 60% increase in funding dedicated to the reduction of the immigration benefits backlog. The FY2005 budget requests $140 million in discretionary funding and $1.57 billon in mandatory funding, or fee revenues for legal immigration benefits. Read more, including fact sheet.


USCIS Proposes Fee Adjustment to Enhance Service

Washington, D.C, February 3, 2004 -- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced in the Federal Register a proposed adjustment to the fee structure for immigration benefits. The revised fees would add an average of $55 to the current cost of immigration applications, and increase the biometrics fee by $20 for certain applications. Read more, including fee history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Amendment of INA: ACT 245 (b) or 316 (a)

Originally posted by kashmir
Almost four months ago, I posted the following message as the first one of this thread to start Project Ocean. It is still the final goal of Project Ocean to get U.S. Citizenship by 2008,
though we have been shifting our focus to the EB I-485 backlog reduction especially at the CSC.

Recently, I become interested in amendment of INA: ACT 245 (b) rather than 316 (a)
because it is simpler and stronger.
Here is INA: ACT 245. The bold part at (b) should be amended to:
the application for the adjustment of status is filed.

If one's permanent residence starts on the day one filed AOS application,
Naturalization Requirement doesn't need to be changed at all.

But it may cause some legal trouble
because it affects the past on AOS approval.

Any comment or suggestion ?
Click to expand...


kashmir,

It should be the date the LC is filed. In this way all the LC, the I-140 and I-485 backlogs/delays are all taken into account.
On a similar note, recent immigration proposals wrt the legalisation of the illegals propose a 3 year tax generating years of which at least one is after the enactment of any future act.
 
Re: Re: Amendment of INA: ACT 245 (b) or 316 (a)

Originally posted by cinta
kashmir,
It should be the date the LC is filed. In this way all the LC, the I-140 and I-485 backlogs/delays are all taken into account.
On a similar note, recent immigration proposals wrt the legalisation of the illegals propose a 3 year tax generating years of which at least one is after the enactment of any future act.
Click to expand...
Ideally, I agree with cinta, but I'd like to pursur amendment of INA ACT 245(b) or 316(a) because:
1) LC is handled by not USCIS but DOL.
2) We can file I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
3) Using I-485 filing date makes amendment of INA simple.
(Considering LC and I-140 complicates amendment.)

Also, for my personal reasons:
4) My category is EB-1, so I am not familier with LC and LC doesn't matter to me.
5) I-485 filing date is enough for me.

I'd like to keep amendment of INA as simple as possible
to let a Congressperson introduce a bill.
I have no time to handle complex amendment or to draft a long bill.
However, if somebody takes the initiative, that's fine,
but most of people seem to be busy to think about one's own I-485 approval.
-kashmir
 
Bill (draft)


SEC. 101. DATE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) Section 245(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(b)) is amended by striking "the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made" and inserting "the application for the adjustment of status is filed".

SEC. 102. FIVE-YEAR RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR NATURALIZATION
(a) Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the application for the adjustment of status is filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
 
Here's an article of interest printed on 2/4/2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/04/MNG984OI9I1.DTL

Basically, the USCIS proposes to hike up the fees to improve customer service and security measures. This proposal is open to public comments:

Comments can be sent by e-mail to rfs.regs@dhs.gov, or mailed to: Regulations and Forms Services Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dept. of Homeland Security, 425 I St. NW, Room 4034, Washington, DC 20536.

Please read through the article, and give the USCIS a piece of your mind. We can be heard!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tr22 - success at TSC forum

(Originally posted at TSC forum)

Originally posted by tr22
Got an update from TX-21 district, congressman Lamar Smith’s office (Shiela Brown from his Austin office called). Lamar is a member of the immigration subcommittee which is a group of politicians overlooking what the CIS does. She mentioned that after the start of sessions on Jan 20th Smith has been talking to his immigration subcommittee colleagues and other congressional folks about the “unacceptable” backlogs. He has also spoken to the TSC officials specifically and the CIS folks to reduce the backlogs.
Shiela from Lamar’s office was enquiring to see if TSC actually had started working on the backlogs. I mentioned to her that in the past few weeks TSC has started working on these cases aggressively and wished that it continues to do so.
...
Click to expand...
Hi, tr22.
Congratulations !!
You and your team seem to have succeeded to move TSC through Congressman Lamar Smith's office.
Also, a lot of approvals have been reported at the TSC forum.
It's really great !!
-kashmir (in California)

(Posted by tr22)

Thank you Kashmir. Hope and wishing for TSC to continue this approval trend.

8 folks from the TSC group are actively pursuing and constantly nagging the politicians to make something happen on the backlogs.
...
Click to expand...
Introduced at CSC forum
 
Last edited by a moderator:
U.S.Citizenship 5 Years After AOS is Filed - Re: Bill (draft)

I created new thread at Rajiv's Complaint forum.
U.S.Citizenship 5 Years After AOS is Filed.
Originally posted by kashmir

SEC. 101. DATE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) Section 245(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(b)) is amended by striking "the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made" and inserting "the application for the adjustment of status is filed".

SEC. 102. FIVE-YEAR RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR NATURALIZATION
(a) Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the application for the adjustment of status is filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by kartal
kashmir and other core team members
how do we start this campaign?
Click to expand...
Hi, kartal,
Thanks for your having an interest in "Citizenship" issue.

Although I let it be incorporated into our original petition in August 2003,
almost all members whose I-485 is pending have been busy thinking about I-485 backlog or one's own I-485 approval.

However, we see a lot of people posting this issue at Rajiv's Lawsuit thread recently.
Rajiv promised to do his best also on this issue at the lawsuit, but it may be very diffuclt, as he also mentioned, because neither USCIS nor the court can change the law itself.

So, we have to let Congress amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
We have to make a member of Congress introduce a bill or amend an existing strong bill, I am not sure it is S.2010 or another one.
We're going to start contacting members of Subcommittee on Immigration again.

On the other hand, I and some core team members are still busy for the lawsuit and a couple of things for a while.
You or anyone are welcome to take the initiative to start the campaign.
If you have a good idea, please propose it.
Thank you.
 
I went through the Senate & House' website and found all members on the Subcommittee for Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship.

House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/submembers.htm

Chairman: John N. Hostettler (IN)

Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship

http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcommittees/immigration.cfm

Chairman: Sexby Chambliss (GA)


Perhaps we should send letters and petitions to these Senators and Representatives. Any thoughts?
 
Originally posted by solarise
I went through the Senate & House' website and found all members on the Subcommittee for Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship.
House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/submembers.htm
Chairman: John N. Hostettler (IN)
Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship
http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcommittees/immigration.cfm
Chairman: Sexby Chambliss (GA)
Perhaps we should send letters and petitions to these Senators and Representatives. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Let's send again until they listen to our voices !!
Also, thanks for your research, solarise.
 
thanks for your research solarise. Kasmir,Solaris Let's send letters until they fed up with us and want to trow up. Then they will do something to get rid of the pressure.
 
I'm with both of you. Nothing would please more than to see the USCIS reprimanded. I'm also writing a letter comment on the USCIS fee hikes.
 
solarise, kartal, and others;
Once you send a letter,
can you post your letter
so that other poeple can follow ?
Thanks,
-kashmir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top