Project Ocean - supporting thread - Information about Budget, Acts, ...

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.


- kashmir's comment -

The processing delay is not considered at all, so it is unfair to those who have been waiting for a log time like us.

The bold line at (b) should be amended to:
the application for the adjustment of status is filed.
 
INA: ACT 316

INA: ACT 316 - REQUIERMENTS AS TO RESIDENCE, GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND FAVORABLE DISPOSITION TO THE UNITED STATES

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.


- kashmir's comment -

If INA: ACT 245 can not be amended as above,
the bold line at (a) of INA: ACT 316 should be amended to:
the application for the adjustment of status is filed.

Amendment of INA: ACT 245 is stronger than one of INA: ACT 316.
 
Re: Lawsuit - update 2/23/2004

(Originally posted by operations 23rd February 2004 02:09 AM)

I do want help from the community in approaching Congress
and in getting more people involved. Every little bit helps. Keep going. I will discuss the details in the conference call.
Click to expand...
Rajiv received an e-mail from DOJ attorney yesterday:
(Originally posted by operations 22nd February 2004 04:19 PM)
Here is some of the relevant parts of their e-mail:

"Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:30:43 -0500 (EST)
Rajiv, I wanted to get back with you regarding your class cert. stipulation proposal. We had two meetings over here to discuss your proposal. However, after review of your proposal it does not look like DOJ can agree to it.....Finally, when can we expect your list of proposed settlement topics? Best regards"

At this point, I intend to present our settlement request this week. If they do not agree, we will go full steam ahead with the litigation. I intend to hire one more law clerk to devote full attention to our case. Upon refusal of our proposal, we will expose the shameful results of these delays. We have cases of people suffering horribly because of CIS.

Take care all. Do not lose heart. We won the day we filed the lawsuit. Rest all is just effort.
Click to expand...
One of the aims is for us to get a letter like the attached one signed by Congressmen.
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=696201#post696201
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMMIGRATION RULES AFTER SEPT. 11 CITED IN CRITICAL REPORT

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/8454345.htm?1c

Posted on Sat, Apr. 17, 2004

Panel says policies fail to halt terrorism

IMMIGRATION RULES AFTER SEPT. 11 CITED IN CRITICAL REPORT

By Michael Janofsky

New York Times

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has concluded that immigration policies promoted as essential to keeping the country safe from future attacks have been largely ineffective, producing little, if any, information leading to the identification or apprehension of terrorists.

The commission said one program proved so fruitless that it was discontinued after less than a year.

The critical assessment was released this week as part of a preliminary finding to a final report that is expected in July. It returned a spotlight to programs that were controversial from the start, aimed mostly at people, like the Sept. 11 hijackers, from Muslim or Arab countries. Critics said the government engaged in a wholesale roundup of those people, kept them in jail for months, in some cases without access to lawyers, and conducted closed-door legal hearings on their status.

Critics welcome findings

Many of the same libertarian and pro-immigration groups that criticized the Bush administration for what they said was the unfair and unnecessary focus on these groups hailed the findings. They said that, as the first independent assessment of government actions after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, it affirmed their misgivings.

``Clearly, the government was overreaching,'' said Timothy Edgar, legislative council for the American Civil Liberties Union, about the immigration programs. ``We raised concerns from the beginning that they not only interfere with time-honored civil liberties, but they were likely to prove to be ineffective.''

But a former Justice Department official involved in the development of the programs defended them as critical to counterterrorism efforts.

Kris Kobach, a Republican candidate for Congress in Kansas who served as counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft from 2001 to 2003, said the programs yielded great benefits by leading to the identification and deportation of hundreds of individuals with criminal backgrounds or indirect ties to terrorism.

Suspected terror links

Kobach said the commission viewed the programs too narrowly, drawing conclusions based solely on the application of anti-terrorism laws, rather than others, like immigration law.

``The commission is looking for a terrorism label affixed to an individual,'' Kobach said. ``But it's failing to realize that just because the FBI hasn't gotten to the point of applying the terrorism label, it doesn't mean the individual is not a terrorist.''

Perhaps the most controversial of the programs was one that sought to identify ``special interest'' immigrants, which resulted in the arrests of at least 700 people, most from Middle Eastern countries, who were charged with violating immigration laws and were held for months, in many cases, until federal agents cleared them of any involvement in terror-related activities.

The commission report echoed concerns raised when these programs were initiated.
 
USCIS Reports Reduction in Backlogs: Where is the Beef for the Employment-Based Cases

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

08/07/2004: USCIS Reports Reduction in Backlogs: Where is the Beef for the Employment-Based Cases?
  • Mr. Aquirre, Director of USCIS reportedly disclosed today that at the end of July, the national backlog was reduced from 3.7 million cases to 2 million. In Houston, officials report that the time it takes to process a permanent residency application has been cut in half, from up to two years in June to about a year at the end of July. The officials attribute the backlog reduction at the local levels to an aggressive effort to process old cases and at the same time to increase appointments at the front ends. This reporter has already reported that in the family-based immigration cases, it currently takes approximately one year or less to schedule interviews wherein they determine approval or denial of the cases. Expansion of the Dallas District type of Pilot Program may further help to reduce the backlogs in the family-based immigration cases. For the news report, please click here.
  • In the emplolyment-based immigration cases, the USCIS announced that it would achieve the reduction of backlogs simultaneously from the two ends: At one end, it would accelerate the name-check and fingerprint scheduling for existing cases to reduce the backlog cases in the pipelines, and at the other end, it would commence "concurrent adjudication of I-140 and I-485" for the new cases at the timeline of I-140 processing. The goal was allegedly to reach a certain point where the processing times for existing cases and the processing times for new cases become the same. For the frontend backlog strategy, the USCIS allegedly is also testing water an aggressive Pilot Program through the California Service Center to adjudicate I-140/I-485 cases within 90 days. However, there are no visible results reported anywhere, at least at this point of time. There is no visible sign of change of processing times for I-140 and I-485 cases in the USCIS processing time reports which should report the pace of cases which are already in the pipeline. In fact, it rather produced a negative fall-out. The Service Centers appear to be not consistent when it comes to the concurrent I-140/I-485 adjudications. But in certain Service Centers, there is a sign that they process I-140 and I-485 concurrently even for existing cases, resulting in I-140 petitions being stuck pending processing and adjudication of I-485 applications. This has created a tremendous problem to the applicants who need change of employment using AC 21 which allows the I-485 applicants to change employment after 180 days of filing inasmuch as I-140 has been "approved." Consequently, unless the USCIS achieves the concurrent adjudication within 180 days of concurrent I-140/I-485 filing, the current concurrent I-140/I-485 adjudcation policy produces chilling effect on the legislative intent of AC 21 making this provision a mockery. The current pace of processing of concurrent I-140/I-485 produces a large number of victims who have lost but located a similar job after 180 days of filing but are facing denial of I-485 because of the unadjudicated I-140 petitions. We do agree with the USCIS that administratively it would make more sense to process I-140 and I-485 by the same people in the same production unit within the building rather than the two different units handling these cases, but the USCIS should release I-140 processing from being held a hostage of I-485 processing/adjudication considering the above-mentioned unintended consequences and chilling effects on the AC 21 legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top