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

I realized just now that some people who apply for 140 directly (without labor) might benefit more with kashmir’s proposal. I have a feeling a greater majority (who go through labor) would benefit more from my proposal.

May be we should find a way to include both. Comments, anyone?
 
I have no idea how to describle about "Laber Certification" in the amendment.
In my understanding, LC is basically not related to the specific person, so it looks difficult to include LC term.


By the way, cosmos' proposal is to add:
"or has resided continuously within the United States for six and half years, and has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence",
but 6.5 years may not be related to LPR nor even LPR petition/application such I-485 and I-140, so I cannot find any strong reason.
 
(Originally posted by dsatish at the Fund Collection discussion thread at the VSC forum 11th July 2004, 06:11 AM)
dsatish said:
Action Plan decided
Yester day, the board members of ip.org had a pretty good discussion about how we should spend the money collected so far. Fortunately, this time every one was on the same wave length and we all agreed on our final decision which is to spend the money for the purpose for which we have collected it, namely, to hire a person or lobbying firm to work for our cause. This way we would have kept our word. It is very important for us to do what we promise.

The discussion then weered around how to get a person or lobbying firm to work for our cause. The problem with hiring a lobbying firm, if at all if we can find one that works for 20K, is that they might work only for 2 months for this amount and we may not be able to achieve any thing in 2 months if we have to successfully get a bill introduced and passed in US congress to address our issues. The alternative solution is to hire some individual to work for us either full time for 2 months or part time (4 hrs / day) for 4 months. It is decided to talk to Rajiv if he knows some one who can be put on this job. We will pay to that person for the time he spends on ip.org. I will be talking to Rajiv about it. But our first preference is to hire a lobbying firm, if we can find one, that is capable of influencing congress to introduce and pass a bill incorporating our key demands.

So here is our action plan for the next week or two :
1) All the board members will do some research on internet about lobbying irms in DC area and talk to those firms and get an idea of how much they are expecting to make the congress pass a bill with our demands. So i request all of you to do some research on internet on lobbying firms and talk to them if possible and post the results here.
2) All the members(or some) will do research on current bills which are under review in congress and which have highest support. We should do research to find out if the congress men supporting these bills, will include our demands in those bills. Kashmir, edison etc are pretty good in this type of research. But let as many people as possible work on this research.

So that's our action plan, agreed unanimously.
Click to expand...
 
I-485 process status at the CSC

This thread is only for participants in Project Ocean.
If you are not interested in Project Ocean, you don't need to read the following messages at this thread.
Also, if you don't want to participate in any Project Ocean campaigns, you should not post a negative message against Project Ocean nor me (kashmir).
Even if such a message being posted, I have no time to respond.

In order to make a right decision for Project Ocean campaigns,
we need to understand the current processing status at the CSC correctly.
It had really depended upon Project Kashmir for a long time.
Now, Project Kashmir had been cancelled, and pinnacle_man's Open Scanning Project would take over what Project Kashmir had been doing.
However, it takes a long time and it requires a lot of efforts to start up such a project.
Until his project becomes stable, I will continue getting the latest status as much as possible.
The latest information will be included in the newsletter that is sent to the campaign participants for the above purpose.
For the detail, please visit Project Ocean #16 thread.

If you want just a scan result, you may not participate in Project Ocean.
Instead, you had better contribute to pinnacle_man's project.

kashmir said:
Newsletter for Campaign Participants
I will send a newsletter to Project Ocean campaign participants.
If you want to participate in future campaigns, visit Project Ocean #16 Poll Thread for the detail.
Click to expand...
 
Town Hall Meetings

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Sunday, August 8, 2004

Northside Community Center
Community Hall
488 North 6th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
1:00 PM

Evergreen Valley High
Cougar Hall
3300 Quimby Road
San Jose, CA 95148
2:30 PM


Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
Town Hall Meetings are currently being planned for September 11 and 18.
http://eshoo.house.gov/townhall.aspx
 
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren

(Originally posted at Ocean Campaign #15 thread 24th July 2004, 11:52 AM)

The current my strategy is:
1) Fax to all of 44 Congressinal members by 7/27/2004 (fax campaign #15)
2) Fax the specific request refering 1) to Zoe Lofgren (fax campaign #17) 7/26-7/29
3) Call to Zoe Lofgren Office to arrange the meeting around 8/8/2004 by CA 16 Resident 7/29-7/30
4) Town Hall Meeting in San Jose 8/8/2004
5) Another Meeting (if possible, depending on 3)

If you have any suggestion, please let me know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I live in CA-15 so I faxed one to Mike Honda as well. Of course, I changed Zoe to Mike.
Interesting... most of the 44 Congresspeople are D. Guess who I'll vote for one day ....
 
Newsletter #1 - Project Ocean - for campaign participants

Newsletter #1 - Project Ocean - for campaign participants
July 22, 2004

Thanks for your having signed up at Project Ocean #16 poll thread.
This is the first newsletter for Project Ocean campaign participants.

In order to make a right decision to take an action,
we have to understand the current situation correctly.
Attached is the latest report for WAC-02 I-485 case status.

I may provide this kind of information until pinnacle_man's
Open Scanning Project becomes stable.
His team has been doing a good job and it shows some progress
though it requires a lot of time and efforts to start up
this kind of project.

If you want to drop from this mailing list, let me know.

Thanks,

-kashmir
kashmir@kashmir2.us

Attachments:
wac02-i485-20040721.zip
Click to expand...
 
Newsletter #2 - Project Ocean

Newsletter #2 - Project Ocean
July 26, 2004

This is the second newsletter for Project Ocean campaign participants.
This is being sent only to those who have participated in Campaign #17.

As I wrote at the first newsletter,
in order to make a right decision to take an action,
we have to understand the current situation correctly.
Attached is the latest report for WAC-03 I-485 case status.

Currently, we are targetting Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
to introduce a bill to amend the INA about five-year
residential requirement for Naturalization.

If you want to drop from this mailing list, let me know.

Thanks,

-kashmir
kashmir@kashmir2.us

Attachments:
wac03-i485-20040725.zip
Click to expand...
 
Newsletter #3 - Project Ocean - for campaign participants

Newsletter #3 - Project Ocean - for campaign participants
July 27, 2004

This is the third newsletter for Project Ocean campaign participants.
The second one has been sent only to those who have participated in Campaign #17.
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=136076

Currently, we are targetting Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
to introduce a bill to amend the INA about five-year
residential requirement for Naturalization.

The current our strategy is:
1) Fax to all of 44 Congressinal members by 7/27/2004 (Campaign #15)
2) Fax the specific request refering 1) to Zoe Lofgre 7/26-7/29 (Campaign #17)
3) Call to Zoe Lofgren Office to arrange the meeting around 8/8/2004 by CA 16 Resident 7/29-7/30
4) Town Hall Meeting in San Jose 8/8/2004
5) Another Meeting (if possible, depending on 3)
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=855331#post855331

If you want to drop from this mailing list, let me know.

Thanks,

-kashmir
kashmir@kashmir2.us
Click to expand...
 
The CSC has processed more than 6,000 I-485 cases only in July, even though I have not confirmed the number yet.
If this trend would continue, the CSC might be able to eliminate the I-485 backlog within a year.

However, there are a couple of concerns about I-485 process at the CSC in August, September, and FY2005.
I hope that the CSC would keep the current trend and that everyone would get approved accordingly.
Good luck.
 
CSC Pilot Program

Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks.
This means USCIS itself is proving that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks.
Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay,
the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants,
and such an injust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.
 
kashmir said:
Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks.
This means USCIS itself is proving that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks.
Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay,
the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants,
and such an injust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Good point Kashmir .... but what if USCIS responds with a stock answer along these lines ....
========
It took all of the security agencies(FBI, ???) a lot of time to get to the level of efficiency that they are in right now.
During late 2002 and all of 2003, they were trying to upgrade their systems and processes to gear up to this demand. Now they're partially there and hence the improvement in processing speed.
We still maintain that the delays were caused by security checks.
Also, they were more involved in issues of national security and terrrorism and blah blah during those times -- hence name checks were not their top priority.
As long as they can maintain this new found efficiency, we can do processing in 60/90/120 whatever days ....
(basically, we're not responsible if it slows down to 2/3 years sometime later) !!
========

What can we do if we get BS like that ?
 
kashmir said:
Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks.
This means USCIS itself is proving that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks.
Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay,
the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants,
and such an injust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The CSC is approving I-485 application concurrently with I-140 only in 2 months under the pilot program.
On the other hand, most of I-485 applicants who filed in early 2002 have/had been waiting for more than 2 years just for I-485 adjudication.
In addition to that, these I-485 applicants were not allowed to file I-485 until their I-140 got approved,
so it takes almost 3 years from I-140 filing date to I485 approval date.

To apply Naturalization, one must be resident for 5 years after I485 approval,
so most of I-485 applicants who filed in late 2001 through 2002 are victims of the government's illegal immigration policy during 2003
because they have to wait 3 years more to apply Naturalization.
Congress should provide a relief to those innocent victims to amend Section 316(a)(1) of INA about 5-year residential requirement for Naturalization.
Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a) being filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Here, the "petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a)" means I-140 (or I-130).
 
max2k1 said:
Good point Kashmir .... but what if USCIS responds with a stock answer along these lines ....
========
It took all of the security agencies(FBI, ???) a lot of time to get to the level of efficiency that they are in right now.
During late 2002 and all of 2003, they were trying to upgrade their systems and processes to gear up to this demand. Now they're partially there and hence the improvement in processing speed.
We still maintain that the delays were caused by security checks.
Also, they were more involved in issues of national security and terrrorism and blah blah during those times -- hence name checks were not their top priority.
As long as they can maintain this new found efficiency, we can do processing in 60/90/120 whatever days ....
(basically, we're not responsible if it slows down to 2/3 years sometime later) !!
========
What can we do if we get BS like that ?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter.
Our target is only Congress to amend the INA,
and it is the fact that the government had illegally delayed I-485 process during 2003, even though the process has been recently improved.
kashmir said:
kashmir said:
Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks.
This means USCIS itself is proving that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks.
Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay,
the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants,
and such an injust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.
The CSC is approving I-485 application concurrently with I-140 only in 2 months under the pilot program.
On the other hand, most of I-485 applicants who filed in early 2002 have/had been waiting for more than 2 years just for I-485 adjudication.
In addition to that, these I-485 applicants were not allowed to file I-485 until their I-140 got approved,
so it takes almost 3 years from I-140 filing date to I485 approval date.
Click to expand...
To apply Naturalization, one must be resident for 5 years after I485 approval,
so most of I-485 applicants who filed in late 2001 through 2002 are victims of the government's illegal immigration policy during 2003
because they have to wait 3 years more to apply Naturalization.
Congress should provide a relief to those innocent victims to amend Section 316(a)(1) of INA about 5-year residential requirement for Naturalization.
Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a) being filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Here, the "petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a)" means I-140 (or I-130).
Click to expand...
 
8/8/2004

kashmir said:
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Town Hall Meeting

Sunday, August 8, 2004
1:00 PM

Northside Community Center
Community Hall
488 North 6th Street
San Jose, CA 95112

  1. H.R. 3701 - V Visa
  2. Introduce a Bill to Amend
    Section 316(a)(1) of the INA
    about 5-Year Residential Requirement
    for Naturalization
  3. Petition for I-140 Backlog at the CSC
Click to expand...
About a dozen of people attended the meeting yesterday on 8/8/2004.
The half were members of (formerly) I-485 CSC forum to pursue the above 2nd agenda.
Another half were members of I-140 CSC forum for I-140 backlog petition that askgc's leading.
After I talked to Congresswoman Loe Zofgren, we handed hundreds of pages of documents and our petition letters to Ms. Sandra, the Chief of Staffs.
We will follow it for the detail dicussion later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ImmigrationPortal.Com
Community for Information,
Action and Reform

August 8, 2004

RE: Bill to Amend Section 316(a)(1) of the INA
as the relief for innocent victims of the government's immigration policy
which had illegally discriminated I-485 applicants during 2003

Dear Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren;

We are very pleased that you and 43 Congressional Members have written to USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre on June 15, 2004 to address immigration petition backlog. Meanwhile, USCIS updated its Backlog Elimination Plan, and introduced a couple of pilot programs. Over two years of the current I-485 backlog would be eliminated by the end of FY2006.

Under the pilot program, the CSC has been approving hundreds of WAC-04 cases filed just in April or May 2004 within 60 days, of course completing the security checks. This means USCIS itself proves that USCIS could adjudicate I-485 case only in 60 days even with the security checks. Although USCIS had always claimed the security checks as one of major reasons of I-485 processing delay, the I-485 processing delay from late 2002 through early 2004 including the whole year of 2003 must be the intentional discrimination against I-485 applicants, and such an unjust immigration policy of the government should be unconstitutional.

While the CSC is approving I-485 application concurrently with I-140 only in 2 months under the pilot program, most of I-485 applicants who filed in early 2002 have been waiting for more than 2 years just for I-485 adjudication. In addition to that, these I-485 applicants were not allowed to file I-485 until their I-140 got approved, so it takes almost 3 years from I-140 receipt date to I485 approval date.

To apply Naturalization, one must be resident for 5 years after I485 approval, so most of I-485 applicants who filed in late 2001 through 2002 are victims of the government's illegal immigration policy during 2003 because they have to wait 3 years more to apply Naturalization. Congress should provide a relief to those innocent victims to amend Section 316(a)(1) of INA about 5-year residential requirement for Naturalization.
Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a) being filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Here, the "petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a)" means I-140 (or I-130). We believe this kind of amendment is the only way that the U.S. Congress can implement the justice for Immigrants who have been contributing the United States for a long time with their commitment and hard work.

Sincerely,
 
kashmir said:

...
Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a) being filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
Here, the "petition for the immigrant visa under section 204(a)" means I-140 (or I-130).
...
Click to expand...
My targetting 5-year starting date is I-140 receipt date as above.
Several people have asked me to change it to Priority Date or to consider Laber Certification, but I have no idea how to describe.
If you'd really push PD or LC starting date instead of I-140 receipt date, please draft the specific statement for amendment of INA Section 316(a)(1), otherwise, I must push my original plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top