Settlement Memorandum Sent

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

I have sent to the govt, our settlement memo. Attached.

I will keep you updated as and when I hear something back.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

The govt has assured me

...that they are considering our proposal in good faith. I have no reason to doubt them. I do not subscribe to the notion that the govt. is evil - just indifferent and slow, many times.

Hang tight.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Item 4 is non-negotiable

We want a green card approval. That is the only item that truly eliminates almost all existing sufferning and future problems. I intend to stand unyielding on that. The periphery of these provisions can be discussed. But the core is immutable. We will not change on that.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

I doubt it

Originally posted by kuldeepc
Howmuch ever I like the the rationale behind #4 and the beauty and simplicity of implementing it, I am not sure it will be an easy win even if the USCIS agrees, in principle.

This might require an act of congress to amend the I485 adjudication process if it does not completely fall within the ambit of the existing policy. If there is even a slight doubt on that, USCIS will say that we need to impress up on the legislators to make that happen. any opinions?

Without a continued concerted effort and more community involvement, I think USCIS will at the most agree to study in detail a few proposals and implement them in the due course (2 year EAD and stuff). They will for sure expedite approval of those plaintiff's whose application were received before the current JIT date and maybe approve others, at the most. They will make promises to reduce backlog by provisioning for it in the next fiscal budget proposal.

We can however, hopefully, change this course, if a lot more people express their opinion by signing the petition and continue to put pressure on their local representatives.

An Act of Congress should not be required. This is jus a procedural change.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

They have no time limit

Originally posted by getit
Dear Rajiv,

Do you have an expectation that how long they need to consider our proposal and give you a response? Do they have to give you a reply by Mar. 22 before the extension expires?

Thanks.

We are moving forward on the litigation.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

No harm in sending it out

Originally posted by Singhflying
Hi Raji and group,
Thanks a ton for your helping the to be immigrant community. ( I am yet in the labor stage.....quite painful any way to get the labor certificate delivered!!!!!)
Do you think we need to send this proposal to our senators and/or congress man/woman to build pressure or should we wait and watch? They may be able to use this proposal during their up coming debate on immigration.

Regards
Singh

The more awareness there is in Congress, the better off we probably are.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Originally posted by askgc
Rajiv,

Can we use the story by lawyers on the USCIS phone service
in support of our point 6 in the settlement.

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115921

Yes. We can.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Originally posted by hopeIgetit
We are moving forward on the litigation.

Rajiv

What do you mean with above, are we going ahead with the class suit...did you hear anything back

Thanks





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by getit
Dear Rajiv,

Do you have an expectation that how long they need to consider our proposal and give you a response? Do they have to give you a reply by Mar. 22 before the extension expires?

Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We are moving forward on the litigation.

So far, the govt has failed to cooperate with us on all suggestions. That could be just the lawyers being cautious. Now the ball is in CIS' court. The lawyers were suggesting we hold off filing the class action motion. I declined. See my response to the govt. today:

"...your client has so far shown us no consideration. Accordingly, rules permitting, I do intend to oppose any enlargements of time. This lawsuit is about delays. I feel duty bound to most vigorously object. Sorry about that."

But they are still thinking about our settlement. The point is, we are not going to sit still while they think things out. I have a time table in mind. We must proceed. If they make me an offer, I will bring it to you all. If not, we fight.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Originally posted by afshin63130
I have a suggestion:

Don't you think it's better to contact some other immigration organizations and get them involved. By doing this we get more united and will have more power. After all each organization has its own contacts and its own voice.

Like:

AILA.org or ...

What do you think?

Thanks,

sure. No harm.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
Rajiv,

Do you have a deadline as to when you expect the govt. to get back to you on the demands?

There is no deadline, unfortunately. From next week, we will start looking at some options to hurry the litigation along.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Re: Item #4

Originally posted by 485Alcatraz
Rajiv and the Core Team,

Thank you for your superb efforts in the fight for our just cause.

On item #4, I support the unyielding stance taken by Rajiv.

Rajiv, Does this item definition cover the applicants whose cases have been transferred to the local offices and have been waiting for weeks/months for an interview? Specifically EB related? Obviously, we do not want to leave a loophole whereby CIS transfers cases to local offices and claims backlog reduction/elimination.

Thanks & Best Regards.

All EB cases with pending 485 are covered (including local office cases).

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Re: Item #4

Originally posted by 485Alcatraz
Rajiv and the Core Team,

Thank you for your superb efforts in the fight for our just cause.

On item #4, I support the unyielding stance taken by Rajiv.

Rajiv, Does this item definition cover the applicants whose cases have been transferred to the local offices and have been waiting for weeks/months for an interview? Specifically EB related? Obviously, we do not want to leave a loophole whereby CIS transfers cases to local offices and claims backlog reduction/elimination.

Thanks & Best Regards.

All EB cases with pending 485 are covered (including local office cases).

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Re: Return of SS tax and Medicare$$ for H1-B's

Originally posted by pani_6
Dear Sir,
We need to take up this issue too.... I think person who has worked for 6 years has paid upto 50K woth of taxes and not getting benefit from it....Please do something about this issue too.........

You seem to be our only hope

Send me an email next week. I will look into it.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

I see some issues you folks have brought up

1. How many plaintiffs we need: Maybe 50-100. Some of them must be non-members of immigrationportal.

2. Why do we need them: to protect against any potential problems that the govt. could try to raise becuase of approval of exisiting pliatiff's 485 (3 are already approved). You will understand better when I post the Motion for Class Certification for all of you to read.

3. Do I still represent everyone, plaintiff or not: Yes. If the court certifies the class, that would certainly formalize this matter.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Oh no

Originally posted by kashmir
One of defendants hopitalized with severe pancreatitis.
Should it affect our litigation ?

Not at all. The top bosses delegate these matters to subordinates.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Various questions

1. There is no response form the govt on the settlement offer. I will send their lawyer an email today. Hard to say where they stand.

2. What will hapeen or how the settlement will be implemented - impossible to say. Too soon. We do not have anything yet.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Re: ...

Originally posted by PradK
Rajiv and all core team members, thank you all again for your efforts,

Now, some one posted this link below some time back,
http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~stefanko/BCIS/index.html#foipa

that talks about a DV Lottery VISA issues and how USCIS actually never made an attempt to check the FBI for the security while at the same time telling applicants the reason for delays is security checks. Apparently they were successful in requesting complete file under FOIA. We can clearly see that at least in these guys cases, FBI(/CIA??) didn't take much time to get back on the request.

To quote the information there


Should we start to gather such data for some cases (may be just the plaintiffs), so that we can show the court (if/when required) that the delays are purely due to administrative mis-handlng rather than actual times FBI/security checks take? Do you think it will help?

Yes. Collect the data that you can. We will go over it and see what we can use.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Re: National embarrassment

Originally posted by lcaNY
Dear Rajiv.

The federal district court in Minnesota ruled in favor of AILF's litigation on February 12, 2004!

http://www.ailf.org/lac/021304a.htm

Judge ruled on February 12, 2004:
The American Immigration Law Foundation hails the ruling of a federal judge today, condemning the former Immigration and Naturalization Service for "widespread," "egregious" and "plainly harmful" violations of law that "constitute nothing short of a national embarrassment."

This shows justice still lives here.

I have a strong intuition that your efforts will win.

Thanks. We did follow that case very closely.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Thanks

This data is certainly useful.

 

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Re: False representation/advertisement (repost)

Originally posted by jat
My apology if this fact has been pointed out earlier in the discussion forums or not. I would like myself and everyone to get Rajiv’s opinion about this seemingly misrepresentation of the facts. As if I am not mistaken, we (all immigration beneficiaries) are USCIS’s customers and are entitled to fair and accurate representation of facts. Any false representation is against the law.

Here is my point. On Feb 2, 2004, USCIS claims that “Today, and each business day, USCIS will: ” … “ issue 20,000 green cards;” Please see last paragraph in this link:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/backlogfy2005.pdf

32 days later, they say that “Major volumes of pending cases at the end of January 2004 include: 1,984,710 I-130 relative petitions; 1,236,226 I-485 permanent resident adjustments; 639,198 I-90 Green Card renewals/replacements; and 306,059 I-765 employment authorizations.” Please see last paragraph in this link:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/msrjan04/BENEFIT.HTM

Even if we add 1,236,226 I-485 and 639,198 I-90 Green Card renewals/replacements, the total # of green cards are 1,875,424. With a rate of 20,000 green cards the entire backlog should be cleared by end of 94 days from Jan 31, 2004 i.e. May 5, 2004.

Rajiv, unless I am missing anything here, we all know that is not going to happen. In fact, USCIS is nowhere near to this magic number. Can we use this false representation or advertisement in support of the lawsuit?

Not directly. The focus is on delays, so far. We could mention something like this in passing.