Reply from Mr. Khanna on the lawsuit.

G

Ganesh Ranganathan

Member
I asked Mr. Khanna of a possibility of a law suit. He mentioned that he did not see any detriments in putting a class action suit against TSC and that he would help if we had a case.

However the condition for a law suit is that we have to prove inconsistency. He mentioned that TSC slower than VSC, NSC or CSC is not an inconsistency. However 2002 applications being processed while 2000 and 2001 cases are still not processed is an inconsistency. I am not sure if we want to pursue a lawsuit based on this inconsistency. My guess is that the outcome will be TSC will start processing 2000 and 2001 and stop 2002 cases until they completely finish 2000 and 2001 but the processing speed will remain the same slow speed.

What do you folks think?
 
I understand the concerns of everyone about delay in process in TSC. I'm also on the same boat and I'm also worried.

But do you think that law suit will make the process better? The simple answer TSC/BCIS will give to court is "It is National security and we can NOT reveal the information ". Did anyone expect any better answer from BCIS? It will make everyones life harder.

I don't have clue, how come any attroney prove that TCS is working on 2002 applications and not working on 2000 and 2001 cases. Do you think that anyone who got approved from 2002 filing is willing to testify by putting his GC at the stake?

Please don't curse me that I'm against lawsuit/speed processing and don't come to a conclusion that I have a job which is never ending. I'm also on the same boat as every one here and eagerly waiting for the process to get better. But we need to remember that Green Card is not an promise from US goverment. In plain english we are requesting them to stay here. Why I'm telling this is if we file the lawsuit, they come out with all different rules to make our the procees too slow and can get away with an answer "National Security".

I don't know how come people are coming up with the brilliant ideas like lawsuit. Everyone who filed at TSC is worried but it doesn't mean that we should go fight with TSC with lawsuit.


I'm worried about the consequences of the lawsuit. If some one thinks their brilliant idea of "LAWSUIT" is not getting enough beef ... I can't help it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronx cheer

Tru:

Unfortunately, I would only tender Bronx cheers for such a proposition where the case would be made with "inconsistency" being made out of 2002 vis-a-vis 2000 or 2001 cases. The bunch of Throttlebottoms within TSC would seize the opportunity to make the process further tardy.

Here are a few points for consideration:

  1. Ipso facto the law-suit will be fought in a court of law, and won't TSC take recourse to a complete freeze during that time, blaming that the case is sub judice? Will that not affect even the "silver-lining" cases we see sporadically?
  2. Will this excuse not further embolden them to delay the entire adjudication process?
  3. Will not the Status available online be put to scrutiny for encouraging such class-action lawsuits, primarily because that is the only way others could notice any anomalies concerned?
  4. The SRC notice, clearly says the time taken for processing as 990-999 days. Where is the FIFO (First In-First Out) policy enumerated? TSC would argue that it's purely its own prerogative to process applications, so long as the applications are adjudicated within the time-frame promised in the SRC notice. The SRC notice calls your attention only if the time has lapsed and yet your application is not adjudicated. It doesn't call your attention, if a later SRC application is adjudicated, while yours is still pending. I find that prima facie, a case for inconsistency doesn't exist here at all. Again, this is my personal opinion.
  5. If the court seeks the opinion from the BCIS Attorney as to how the processing is being performed at other centers, would that not affect the processing at other centers, primarily because they have to file a brief before the court for which they have to get their records straight? And if it is found that the FIFO policy is always violated at other centers as well, will they not claim that it is their prerogative, subject to a lot of constraints ranging from Internal Security to processing and verification travails to human-resource constraints?
  6. Even assuming the court (or the Justice ) tilts towards the FIFO policy, I am very sanguine that the Department of Homeland Security would file an amicus curiae (Friend of the court) brief saying that the policies of adjudication put in place by the Service Centers should not be transgressed by Court rulings, because a lot of things have changed since 9-11 and the passing of USA Patriot Act. Again, the court can ignore or affix its cachet on such a brief, but in order for the court to overrule such a brief, it has to be clearly convinced that there was an inconsitency to start with. I can only postively state, that nowhere in any of the written communication, any of the Service Centers guarantees a FIFO processing. All they promise is a 990-999 or 772-775 days processing time. By that very argument, the fragile grounds for the case is broken.
  7. And if we count on proving the "inconsistency" by proving a bunch of online status messages, what will prevent TSC from making the online query an offense, if it is being queried using a macro/script or with SRC number other than that of the applicant? Or what if they just add a simple LAST NAME and SRC NUMBER field as the criterion for query to ward off any queries unrelated to that of the principal applicant? In such a changed scenario (please note how they came up with discontinuity of 214-381-1423 service), how are we even going to prove the inconsistency?
    [/list=1]

    My two cents! Please note that I am just playing a role of advocatus diaboli (Devil's advocate) and hope I can be spared of any lampooning and vilification for voicing 'some' dissent. I really want these things to be submitted for your perusal, so that any decision we guys take would be a learned decision, rather than an ad hominem reaction to TSC's ineptness.

    Whenever we talk about a writ petition or a class-action suit, we are talking about taking on a Governmental agency. And we are talking about a court of law. Therefore, it only makes all the more important to raise appropriate questions, engage in useful debate, before taking up the case. I know, my points may be discouraging to all the perfervid folks who want to see TSC challenged and ultimately our petitions adjudicated. If we don't engage in this debate, right now, we may well be forced to eat the humble-pie later. That would only give TSC a carte blanche to bungle and bollix up not only all I-1485 applications, but even the I-131 and I-765 applications as well.

    Please raise these questions with Mr. Khanna.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Poon!!!!!

Mr Poon,
I duff my hat. Your lexicon is full of class. Your reasonings bolsters my sentiments. Great stuff!
 
Greensurf:

Thanks for your accolades. I should laud the likes of tru who are trying to lit a candle in lieu of crying hoarse about darkness. Their thirst and initiatives for action is perfectly in line with the exhortations for peaceful resistance by Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy. One should not forget how Gandhi used the tool of "petitioning" to force the empire on its knees. However, while doing so, he made sure that a case really did exist.

Our challenging TSC is akin to the battle between David and Goliath. While doing so, we have to make sure that our grounds are very strong to break by our defendant (in this case TSC). If we do not have a solid ground for a case (and in my personal opinion inconsistency in adjudication by violating FIFO is very shaky), then we abdicate a chance to contest, once for all. Hopefully, we all can arrive at a consensus by way of fruitful dialog, sans any intolerance to difference in opinions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just something to think about......

guys, before considering such drastic actions as class action, why don't each of you start bombarding your elected officials in your individual states with your complaints regarding this service center and light the fire from that end?

I happened to have great success in contacting both my senators in expediting my case after i waited more than 1 1/2 years after filing my I-485 in the nebraska center. I believe for every 5 anti immigration bigshot, you'll find one who's willing to inquire about your cause. Just imagine if TSC starts getting 5 calls a day from these senior govt. officials based on your individual petitions and complaints. Something has to give and I can''t even fathom the patience you're showing by doing nothing year after year.
 
AC21 gives us the tools and means to fight this !!

After reading through all comments and suggestions I feel that the "Senate" has given us the AC21 LAW which is a "Means & Tool" to lessen the affect of the pending I485 cases.

Filling a Class Action lawsuit might worsen the situation as elaborated above in this thread.

AC21 though might be "unclear" ---> but this definately leaves room for interpretation and implementation of AC21.
Hopefully as more people use AC21 sucessfully; pending 485 cases will be a secondary topic.

I-485 Approval After I-140 Revocation
http://www.murthy.com/UD140rev.html

Also read http://www.murthy.com/ukac21.html
 
reply

Agreed, we do not have much grounds against TSC to file a lawsuit and win to our benefit. So we will have to use other methods (petitions, bugging congresspeople, senators, demonstration in front of TSC etc.) to drive out point.
 
A lawsuit may just cause the dragon to turn on us, and TSC would essentially use this as a reason to slow down processing even more. Could you imagine how much work it would be for TSC to start implementing a healthy FIFO system if they've never done it before? Heck, they would need to sift through all the pending cases to find which ones have been pending the longest. This would only add more delays to all our cases. TSC would use this as an excuse to try to find the oldest cases, and in the mean time, no cases would be approved. It may take a year to go through the warehouse of cases and sort them properly, before even starting a FIFO process.

For anyone who has no idea of the amount of paperwork we're talking about, read this:
http://www.usvisanews.com/memo1607.html
http://www.usvisanews.com/memo1610.html
http://www.usvisanews.com/memo1612.html
http://www.usvisanews.com/memo1616.html

Quote:
"For any of you who have ever wondered where the files are stored while priority dates are becoming current or where files are stored pending an RFE response, I had an opportunity to see the room. Just imagine a large warehouse with aluminum metal shelving about six feet high and stretching over the length and width of a football field. Then imagine boxes with cases and mail being handled with forklifts and you pretty much have the picture."

That's a hell of a lot of files to figure out who is first, and who is last.

Has anyone ever considered bombarding the news agencies (newspapers, TV News stations, etc) and getting them to expose the fact that the US government is sitting on its damn ass when it comes to immigration issues such as green card processing? Most US citizens believe that increasing funding to immigration will affect the economy, and employment rates in a negative way. Unfortunately that is a misconception. There are enough checks and balances in the immigration process to ensure that only the most sought after of individuals is granted a green card.

The immigration process is so extremely bureaucratic that illegal immigration is a much easier option, and much less of a risk. The reason that so many people choose illegal immigration as an option, is that the thought of getting involved with such a screwed-up bureaucratic process as the I-485 adjudication process is such a waste of someone’s life, that they would rather take the risk, and come live and work here illegally. Its much easier to get away with, and they could potentially live and work here from day one, for their entire lives, without anyone giving them much of a hassle.

The news agencies need to know that the legal immigrants who have been proven as sought after and talented people by our own government agencies such as the DOL, and the BCIS, are the ones that must suffer the most during the excruciatingly long wait of I-485 processing.

US tax payers, most of which are US citizens, need to realize that they are doing themselves a disservice by not funding immigration properly. If the process to immigrate legally is too difficult, for even the most talented people, then more and more illegal immigrants will decide to come into the country one way or another. Those illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes, but can still find work, will be sending their children to public schools, (paid for by the US taxpayer), driving around without insurance or drivers licenses (which raises the US taxpayer's insurance premiums, when accidents happen with these people), and which also increases the level of crime, as these illegal immigrants get desperate to meet ends legally.

US taxpayers need to know what it means to not put funding towards immigration. Our local news agencies can help expose this problem to the general public, and get it out of forums like this filled with people who are living the problem day-to-day.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Immigration McCarthyism ???

At another point, the attorney general reiterated that his department's policy — "for which we do not apologize" — is to hold illegal aliens without access to bail or bond until they can be cleared of terrorist activities, and then deported.
"We believe that's the right policy in protecting the American people," he said.
Click to expand...
This is how the Attorney General has deposed to the US Congress, today. Point is, this is exactly the same argument any class-action suit against the INS would invite. This is a testing time for all the legal immigrants of this country, because every single act of racism, wanton bungling, and utter callousness on the part of Governmental Agencies like BCIS is and will always be justified lock,stock, and barrel by this administration until the forseeable future.

For news please go here: Ashcroft's deposal
 
Hi tru and Jaxen,

==============================================
From Curious George's Last link

"Before sharing the big news of what is coming, I would like to touch on the money (or lack of money) issue once again. Several of our readers have already pointed out that the INS filing fees are not nominal and that if one multiplies the number of petitions filed by the fees that are charged by INS, we are talking about lots of money. While that is true, I would like to remind our readers that the vast majority of the budget at INS is allocated to border enforcement and not services.

It is also interesting to note that with the Premium Processing program,....................... 99.1% of the petitions filed through Premium Processing Program have been adjudicated within the allotted 15 calendar days. As a matter of fact, I do not recall a single petition that we have filed under Premium Processing that has not been approved with 15 calendar days."
==============================================

I think there may be a ray of hope, if it's leagal to contribute to TSC and We do contribute may solve some of TSC's "lack of money problems". Can any one of you talk to Mr. Khanna in this regard. I wrote to Mr. Mike Blirakis about our problem but so far no reply yet.
 
reply

Khoula:
The issue that we have mentioned to Mr. Khanna is the following
a) Congress provides funding so that our 485’s get approved
b) Charge premium processing fees
c) Change AC-21 rule and make it more liberal than the current interpretation.

Khanna told that he will need until next week to think about this. We will see what he recommends.
So your point is already under consideration.

Thanks for your other efforts.
 
In the unlikely event of premium processing fees coming into effect we need to make sure they give this option to those who have already filed their I-485. I wouldn't want scant resources transferred to process new apps that take advantage of this scheme.

Just something we need to be careful about...
 
ha ha sensless arguments....

Do you mean if a case is taking more time because of some unknown reasons, then all other subsequest applications should be not processed ? :D:D fearing it becomes inconsistence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top