They would be really stupid to do so if they were to take up new cases. How canthey prove that they have improved the processing time when proof can be given that so many thousand others from the previous 2 years are still waiting? Of course knowing the govt has already commited so many stupid things it is quite possible they may pull another one only to shoot themselves in the foot.
Settlement Memorandum Sent
- Thread starter Rajiv S. Khanna
- Start date
They would be really stupid to do so if they were to take up new cases. How canthey prove that they have improved the processing time when proof can be given that so many thousand others from the previous 2 years are still waiting? Of course knowing the govt has already commited so many stupid things it is quite possible they may pull another one only to shoot themselves in the foot.
gc_ki_khoj_me
Registered Users (C)
I have been a silent participant in this forum but was just wondering ....
Who sets the time limit for fingerprint expiration?
If its BCIS then their inability to adjudicate a case within their set lifetime of a fingerprint is having a cascading effect on the backlog.
For example if they pick up a case after its FP results expired then instead of adjudicating they will have to do FP and wait for the Security check again.
May be we can use this also to pinpoint BCIS inefficiency.
Who sets the time limit for fingerprint expiration?
If its BCIS then their inability to adjudicate a case within their set lifetime of a fingerprint is having a cascading effect on the backlog.
For example if they pick up a case after its FP results expired then instead of adjudicating they will have to do FP and wait for the Security check again.
May be we can use this also to pinpoint BCIS inefficiency.
ThelastMile
Registered Users (C)
Selection of favorable numbers and statistics is one trick that is played by governments, corporations and individuals. Just take a detailed look at underlying methods for arriving at budget deficits, EPS of some publicly traded companies, unemployment numbers to name a few, and you will see that the numbers misrepresent what they claim to stand for.
Let’s take average "Time to adjudicate" in a particular year. If I define this as the time it takes for a case to be adjudicated since it has been filed, (I am positive that you would agree) and I try to determine the average time to adjudicate in a particular year, I would take all the cases that were adjudicated in that year and get an average of the time to adjudicate. This leaves out cases which are not yet adjudicated as the time to adjudicate is not yet defined for them
a) If USCIS were to starts adjudicating all cases pending for 2 years and approximately keeps up with the incoming applications, at the end of the year USCIS has a average time to adjudicate of 2 years.
b) If USCIS were to start with new applications and adjudicate within 90 days, at the end of the year USCIS will have an average adjudication time of less than 90 days!
Throw in a few more old applications to adjudicate and you can even claim that the backlog is being reduced (less pending cases at the end of the year were at the beginning)
without much damage to the average.
As for the rest of my post, I am trying to bring to discussion the points which will fight the unfairness in such a case. USCIS officials may be indifferent to my suffering and even “be evil” when it comes to preserving their skin but, I did not make an assumption that they are stupid.
That defintely is totally a new "math" to me my friend. I only hope that USCIS is defintely not so blind and stupid to go this way. I was actually going the conventional way of doing averages which would take no of apps for last 3 years / no of approvals and that will expose their inefficiency, indifference etc.,
ANY WAY WHAT IS THE POINT IN WHINING?
One would assume that USCIS has to process applications in at least some semblance of the order in which they received these applications especially since there is a QUOTA for GC's every year for every category. It would be unfair for a person waiting for a long time to see someone else filing later getting adjudicated. However this argument would probably hold good if only there is a precedence of the quota running out before the end of the year. Now if they do not process any applications at all then this would be a baseless fear on my part.
I would leave it to the legal minds to see if this can also become another point of discussion and argument in the court, in the light of USCIS' recent fascination with 03 and 04 cases for obvious reasons. They are probably trying to show favorable averages as stated above, though if any one took a look under the covers and computed or demnded to know the average age of the pending cases, their average time for adjuducation would no longer be construed as a good indicator of the progress made on the backlog reduction front.
I would leave it to the legal minds to see if this can also become another point of discussion and argument in the court, in the light of USCIS' recent fascination with 03 and 04 cases for obvious reasons. They are probably trying to show favorable averages as stated above, though if any one took a look under the covers and computed or demnded to know the average age of the pending cases, their average time for adjuducation would no longer be construed as a good indicator of the progress made on the backlog reduction front.
Lawsuits against CIS
Another case for reference: Ongoing. Motions, Challenge to Regulations, Class Action?
http://shusterman.com/toc-phys.html#3
INA and Quota numbers: Is US CIS liable if the numbers are not allocated? maybe yes, maybe no. Asylee case similar?
Point 1: AC-21 indicated that the unused numbers for some years for EB due to per Country limits, be used in the future. Due to the Backlogs, this was never done. (2000 and onwards)
Point 2: Unused Family Based numbers add to the EB numbers (2001-2003). The 140,000 EB numbers PLUS the unused FB numbers were not used because of Backlogs. Actually the FB numbers were not allocated also!
Point 3: The 140,000 numbers for EB were not allocated for 2002-2003.
Another case for reference: Ongoing. Motions, Challenge to Regulations, Class Action?
http://shusterman.com/toc-phys.html#3
INA and Quota numbers: Is US CIS liable if the numbers are not allocated? maybe yes, maybe no. Asylee case similar?
Point 1: AC-21 indicated that the unused numbers for some years for EB due to per Country limits, be used in the future. Due to the Backlogs, this was never done. (2000 and onwards)
Point 2: Unused Family Based numbers add to the EB numbers (2001-2003). The 140,000 EB numbers PLUS the unused FB numbers were not used because of Backlogs. Actually the FB numbers were not allocated also!
Point 3: The 140,000 numbers for EB were not allocated for 2002-2003.
Last edited by a moderator:
Delay in EAD issuance / Asylee case.
WORK AUTHORIZATION IN ASYLUM APPEALS
Posted on: 3/2/2004
QUESTION: MY ASYLUM CASE IS ON APPEAL, MAY I GET WORK AUTHORIZATION WHILE WAITING FOR THE APPEAL?
Many persons file appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals following denial of their asylum claim. It is vital that throughout their appeal they continue to have work authorization. If you qualified for work authorization during the time that you filed your asylum claim, you can extend that work authorization during the full time of your appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. (8 C.F.R. 208.7(b)) The asylum applicant is entitled to work authorization during the appeal and this authorization will be granted in one-year increments. (8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(10)).
Although it is clear that applicants are entitled to this benefit, the Immigration Service frequently withholds the employment authorization claiming that the applicant has not fulfilled a requirement that the asylum proceedings lasted more than 150 days. (8 C.F.R. 208.8(a)(1)).* Where cases have taken more than 150 days the USCIS then blames the delay on the asylum applicant and still refuses to issue work authorization.
Reeves & Associates recently took this issue to the Federal District court and obtained the work authorization from the Immigration Service for their client. The government issued the employment authorization only after it was clearly demonstrated from immigration court hearing transcripts that the government was responsible for 159 days of delay in presenting their case to the court. These delays may include failure to perform background checks based on fingerprints, failure to produce witnesses or a simple failure to obtain the file of the asylum applicant for the hearing.
It is this attention to detail, research of the record and willingness to take this issue to Federal District Court that allowed this office to reverse the Immigration Service’s Decision.
It is important to note that an asylum claim should never be filed unless the immigrant has a well-founded fear of persecution. Unfortunately many immigration services, paralegals and attorneys wrongly recommend asylum applications in an effort to obtain work authorization for their clients. This abuse of the system may lead to tragic results where individuals end up in deportation proceedings without any relief.
Even if you are subject to a final order of deportation persons may still obtain work authorization where the country will not accept that person, where it can be determined that there is an economic necessity to be employed, the presence of a dependent spouse or child, or a substantial length of time existing prior to that person being removed from the United States. (8 C.F.R. 274A.12(c)(18))
People wishing to file for asylum or appeal a decision of an Immigration Judge, should seek the advice of a well-informed immigration firm. Those attorneys who have overlooked changes in the law or fail to examine the record of proceedings may seriously compromise their client’s right to work while their asylum claims are on appeal.
*NOTE: Work authorization may be granted in spite of the 150 day restriction rule if an asylum application is coupled with an application for some other kind of relief from deportation.
BY: ATTY. ROBERT L. REEVES AND ATTY. ROBERT J. DUPONT:
WORK AUTHORIZATION IN ASYLUM APPEALS
Posted on: 3/2/2004
QUESTION: MY ASYLUM CASE IS ON APPEAL, MAY I GET WORK AUTHORIZATION WHILE WAITING FOR THE APPEAL?
Many persons file appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals following denial of their asylum claim. It is vital that throughout their appeal they continue to have work authorization. If you qualified for work authorization during the time that you filed your asylum claim, you can extend that work authorization during the full time of your appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. (8 C.F.R. 208.7(b)) The asylum applicant is entitled to work authorization during the appeal and this authorization will be granted in one-year increments. (8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(10)).
Although it is clear that applicants are entitled to this benefit, the Immigration Service frequently withholds the employment authorization claiming that the applicant has not fulfilled a requirement that the asylum proceedings lasted more than 150 days. (8 C.F.R. 208.8(a)(1)).* Where cases have taken more than 150 days the USCIS then blames the delay on the asylum applicant and still refuses to issue work authorization.
Reeves & Associates recently took this issue to the Federal District court and obtained the work authorization from the Immigration Service for their client. The government issued the employment authorization only after it was clearly demonstrated from immigration court hearing transcripts that the government was responsible for 159 days of delay in presenting their case to the court. These delays may include failure to perform background checks based on fingerprints, failure to produce witnesses or a simple failure to obtain the file of the asylum applicant for the hearing.
It is this attention to detail, research of the record and willingness to take this issue to Federal District Court that allowed this office to reverse the Immigration Service’s Decision.
It is important to note that an asylum claim should never be filed unless the immigrant has a well-founded fear of persecution. Unfortunately many immigration services, paralegals and attorneys wrongly recommend asylum applications in an effort to obtain work authorization for their clients. This abuse of the system may lead to tragic results where individuals end up in deportation proceedings without any relief.
Even if you are subject to a final order of deportation persons may still obtain work authorization where the country will not accept that person, where it can be determined that there is an economic necessity to be employed, the presence of a dependent spouse or child, or a substantial length of time existing prior to that person being removed from the United States. (8 C.F.R. 274A.12(c)(18))
People wishing to file for asylum or appeal a decision of an Immigration Judge, should seek the advice of a well-informed immigration firm. Those attorneys who have overlooked changes in the law or fail to examine the record of proceedings may seriously compromise their client’s right to work while their asylum claims are on appeal.
*NOTE: Work authorization may be granted in spite of the 150 day restriction rule if an asylum application is coupled with an application for some other kind of relief from deportation.
BY: ATTY. ROBERT L. REEVES AND ATTY. ROBERT J. DUPONT:
BigClassAction
Is this the same lausuit??
United States Immigration and Citizenship Services
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States Immigration and
Citizenship Services in regards to extraordinary delays in the processing times for some
applications for employment based immigrants. The suit alleges that the overall process
for receiving a green card can take 6 years or more, and that the applicant is left in a
state of uncertainty in the interm. The suit claims that these inordinate delays are causing
severe negative affects for the applicants.
If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this class action
please fill out the form below.
If your injustice does not match the complaint described above, please click here to
register your complaint. Thank you.
Is this the same lausuit??
United States Immigration and Citizenship Services
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States Immigration and
Citizenship Services in regards to extraordinary delays in the processing times for some
applications for employment based immigrants. The suit alleges that the overall process
for receiving a green card can take 6 years or more, and that the applicant is left in a
state of uncertainty in the interm. The suit claims that these inordinate delays are causing
severe negative affects for the applicants.
If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this class action
please fill out the form below.
If your injustice does not match the complaint described above, please click here to
register your complaint. Thank you.
Re: BigClassAction
Cinta,
Where is this link?? It talks about overall process, whereas I believe our lawsuit is based on 140 and 485 delays. If the lawsuit is about the overall process, I am sure a lot of people from Regular LC and backlogged RIR LC process can swamp the registry.
001
Cinta,
Where is this link?? It talks about overall process, whereas I believe our lawsuit is based on 140 and 485 delays. If the lawsuit is about the overall process, I am sure a lot of people from Regular LC and backlogged RIR LC process can swamp the registry.
001
Re: Re: Re: BigClassAction
i *think* cinta refers to this:
http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/usics.html
i *think* cinta refers to this:
http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/usics.html
sirlurkalot
New Member
Looks like the "ambulance chasers" have wised up.
This outfit is based in Canada, and a quick look at there "about us" looks like they gain "fees" from lawyers in regard to class action settlements.
It's a fishing exercise.
This outfit is based in Canada, and a quick look at there "about us" looks like they gain "fees" from lawyers in regard to class action settlements.
It's a fishing exercise.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BigClassAction
A suggestion:
Right now, USCIS has beautifull image by presenting performance statistics, pilot programs, steps towards reduction of backlog, bringing aboard energetic officials, progresses in different areas, future plans and goals, hinderance, constraints, etc.
These would be simple and easiest ways to divert "Eyes of Justice". Judge is not an H1B, waiting for adjustment of status, will definitely gether above cited info prior to decide and response will reflect efforts being made in this connection. In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to proceed further, in these situations. However efforts can be made to expedite cases by extending help to USCIS, as a token of participation in the USCIS processes and phases.
Mr. R. Khanna is brilliant, could make it possible, way to win.
Same here.
A suggestion:
Right now, USCIS has beautifull image by presenting performance statistics, pilot programs, steps towards reduction of backlog, bringing aboard energetic officials, progresses in different areas, future plans and goals, hinderance, constraints, etc.
These would be simple and easiest ways to divert "Eyes of Justice". Judge is not an H1B, waiting for adjustment of status, will definitely gether above cited info prior to decide and response will reflect efforts being made in this connection. In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to proceed further, in these situations. However efforts can be made to expedite cases by extending help to USCIS, as a token of participation in the USCIS processes and phases.
Mr. R. Khanna is brilliant, could make it possible, way to win.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BigClassAction
This is almost certainly our lawsuit.
This is almost certainly our lawsuit.
Truth about security checks... and what the USCIS dont want you to know!!!
Its all here, get it before they remove it...
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/garrity022504.htm
All thanks to a very active forum member.
This report talks about Visa mantis, but I dont think the report will be much different for USCIS...
001
Its all here, get it before they remove it...
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/garrity022504.htm
All thanks to a very active forum member.
- 85% of name checks are electronically returned to the Department of State as having "No Record" within 72 hours
- 88% are completed in 30 days
- 98% of the requests are resolved in 120 days
This report talks about Visa mantis, but I dont think the report will be much different for USCIS...
001
Last edited by a moderator:
FYI --
FYI
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=549&letter_id=78876071
http://capwiz.com/usatoday/bio/userletter/?letter_id=78876326&content_dir=congressorg
http://www.tafapolskyandsmith.com/news/2002april19.html
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0404/03/nation-111368.htm
http://chicagoreporter.com/2003/6-2003/registration/backlog.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/513600.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/n...n=7337446c9316aa0f&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/n...n=fe94bc1e2303bec1&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
FYI
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=549&letter_id=78876071
http://capwiz.com/usatoday/bio/userletter/?letter_id=78876326&content_dir=congressorg
http://www.tafapolskyandsmith.com/news/2002april19.html
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0404/03/nation-111368.htm
http://chicagoreporter.com/2003/6-2003/registration/backlog.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/513600.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/n...n=7337446c9316aa0f&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/n...n=fe94bc1e2303bec1&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1