***********So, Is our I-485 Litigation Over?*************
- Thread starter Rajiv S. Khanna
- Start date
hidden_dragon
Registered Users (C)
I got an idea for fund collection, how about a "rummage sale". I donate my first $5o from selling computer parts on ebay. I plan to sell couple other stuff I really don't need (a laptop hard drive, a pc wilress card a/g/b compatible) and move the money to ip.org. Something you don;t need may be what somebody else look for. I suggest we do it on ebay, and donate the money to ip.org. We can either do private auction or put iporg in the title line. This way people get some souvinior for their donation -
.
.Originally posted by hidden_dragon
I got an idea for fund collection, how about a "rummage sale". I donate my first $5o from selling computer parts on ebay. I plan to sell couple other stuff I really don't need (a laptop hard drive, a pc wilress card a/g/b compatible) and move the money to ip.org. Something you don;t need may be what somebody else look for. I suggest we do it on ebay, and donate the money to ip.org. We can either do private auction or put iporg in the title line. This way people get some souvinior for their donation -
I'm really happy that lot of people here contribute not just monetarily but also contribute their time and worthy ideas like this.
Originally posted by hidden_dragon
I got an idea for fund collection, how about a "rummage sale". I donate my first $5o from selling computer parts on ebay. I plan to sell couple other stuff I really don't need (a laptop hard drive, a pc wilress card a/g/b compatible) and move the money to ip.org. Something you don;t need may be what somebody else look for. I suggest we do it on ebay, and donate the money to ip.org. We can either do private auction or put iporg in the title line. This way people get some souvinior for their donation -
Now that there are significant amount of funds, I am sure all of it is not going to be used at once. In this case it makes more sense to grow these assets by putting them into short term CDs or other guaranteed return schemes. I know the interest that we can get is not a lot but I guess each dollar counts. There are lot of schemes which do not penalize for even early withdrawls.
Just a 2 cents thought !!
Minutes of last teleconference call
Time: 14.00 am EST
Place: Conference call
Subjects: Update on the lawsuit
Agenda:
Participants: Rajiv Khanna, Counsel of plaintiffs.
About 40 people that included immigrantionportal.com members and non-members.
1) Rajiv S. Khanna started with the discussion about the Govt. response. He said that the Govt. opposition is based on two points:
i) This is not a class since there are differences in the class. For example we cannot have I-140 pending people to be considered on the same class as 140 approved 485 applicants.
ii) All the 3 non-members of the immigrationportal.com are the employees of the counsel attorney’s law firm.
2) Rajiv Khanna said that he is finalizing a response and he will file the response by next Friday, which was the deadline for the reply. He believes that he does not need any extension for reply. One more reason he is not asking for an extension is that he does not want to delay the lawsuit from his side.
3) Rajiv Khanna explained about the nature of the case. He explained the separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary.
4) He said that the posture of this case is why this delay is not unreasonable?
5) He explained what is Rule 16 statement. He said that we need to file Rule 16 statement
6) He further explained that after we file Rule 16 statement, we need to file Summary judgment motion
7) He also explained how this case could be dragged in various courts and hence he refused to give any deadlines on the case.
8) The motive of the Govt. seems to be that they want to delay the case as long as possible and want to implement reforms as soon as possible.
9) Even if this happens, this is the success of the lawsuit.
10) Things might change drastically, once the law suit is certified as class action lawsuit
11) There is no consistency in adjudication. There are ample number of cases that the processing time for adjudication between the cases of similar characteristics and hence similar complexity.
12) Rajeev feels that there are “no real disputable facts”. If the Govt. disputes that then we can ask for the data and the trial might go on for some months.
13) To reply to one question from member in the latter part of the discussion, he expressed that at I-485 stage the processing is the same whether he is EB-1, EB-2 or EB-3 or EB-5. We can ask their adjudication criteria and their submissions will be under oath.
14) At this point, the conversation entered into a Question and Answer mode
15) To a question of what should be the action plan for members to contribute to the lawsuit, the suggestion made was to collect affidavits to record hardships. Rajiv will submit these affidavits to the court. Moreover, we need to encourage volunteers who are willing to testify in the court.
16) At this stage, Rajiv clarified that one need make sure that the plaintiffs will be testified with respect to their I-485 petition only. They will not testified about their background or they will not testified on their H-1 or any other issues.
17) To numerous questions on the March 30th memo on concurrent processing of 140 and 485, there was consensus on the following points.
• This does not apply to cases where the 140 is already approved
• This creates a new product line i.e. new queue
) The following were the points of difference of opinion
a) The memo covers only those people who applied after April 30th. Some people are of the opinion that this covers all the concurrent filers who I-140 was not approved before 4/30/2004.
b) Might moot the applicability of AC 21
c) Delay the processing of I-140
These differences are because of the some assumptions that USCIS will increase the staff for adjudication. So, some people thought that USCIS might add more staff and some others felt that they might not add.
19) However everybody agreed that without increasing the staff, creating a separate queue does not help. It causes one more queue, which might suffer again with backlogs intern.
20) To one question that whether increased processing fee will be used for the adjudication of cases, Rajiv said that there is no guarantee for that.
21) Rajiv hoped that they will use increased revenue for increase in staff for adjudication purposes. At this time, one member pointed out to the Hiring freeze in BCIS.
22) One member asked Rajiv opinion on the pilot projects. After due discussion on this topic, it has been decided that Rajiv will ask USCIS for the methodology employed and the objectives of this pilot projects in CSC.
23) Rajiv and others expressed satisfaction that mainstream national media is covering the backlogs issue in a positive way.
24) One member explained when he contacted USCIS through congressional representative, how he got an irresponsible answer from USCIS.
25) One more person explained how the delay is affecting him at work because as part of the job he has to travel to many countries and he is having problems in transit visa.
) On a query, Rajiv Khanna said that he would look into the issue of corporate issuing affidavits in support of lawsuit. He is of the opinion that these are individual cases and corporations are not part of the class.
27) One member explained their activities in Atlanta.
28) Most of the questions are repetitive and with some variances of the above questions.
Meeting ended on a good note.
-rajum
Time: 14.00 am EST
Place: Conference call
Subjects: Update on the lawsuit
Agenda:
Participants: Rajiv Khanna, Counsel of plaintiffs.
About 40 people that included immigrantionportal.com members and non-members.
1) Rajiv S. Khanna started with the discussion about the Govt. response. He said that the Govt. opposition is based on two points:
i) This is not a class since there are differences in the class. For example we cannot have I-140 pending people to be considered on the same class as 140 approved 485 applicants.
ii) All the 3 non-members of the immigrationportal.com are the employees of the counsel attorney’s law firm.
2) Rajiv Khanna said that he is finalizing a response and he will file the response by next Friday, which was the deadline for the reply. He believes that he does not need any extension for reply. One more reason he is not asking for an extension is that he does not want to delay the lawsuit from his side.
3) Rajiv Khanna explained about the nature of the case. He explained the separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary.
4) He said that the posture of this case is why this delay is not unreasonable?
5) He explained what is Rule 16 statement. He said that we need to file Rule 16 statement
6) He further explained that after we file Rule 16 statement, we need to file Summary judgment motion
7) He also explained how this case could be dragged in various courts and hence he refused to give any deadlines on the case.
8) The motive of the Govt. seems to be that they want to delay the case as long as possible and want to implement reforms as soon as possible.
9) Even if this happens, this is the success of the lawsuit.
10) Things might change drastically, once the law suit is certified as class action lawsuit
11) There is no consistency in adjudication. There are ample number of cases that the processing time for adjudication between the cases of similar characteristics and hence similar complexity.
12) Rajeev feels that there are “no real disputable facts”. If the Govt. disputes that then we can ask for the data and the trial might go on for some months.
13) To reply to one question from member in the latter part of the discussion, he expressed that at I-485 stage the processing is the same whether he is EB-1, EB-2 or EB-3 or EB-5. We can ask their adjudication criteria and their submissions will be under oath.
14) At this point, the conversation entered into a Question and Answer mode
15) To a question of what should be the action plan for members to contribute to the lawsuit, the suggestion made was to collect affidavits to record hardships. Rajiv will submit these affidavits to the court. Moreover, we need to encourage volunteers who are willing to testify in the court.
16) At this stage, Rajiv clarified that one need make sure that the plaintiffs will be testified with respect to their I-485 petition only. They will not testified about their background or they will not testified on their H-1 or any other issues.
17) To numerous questions on the March 30th memo on concurrent processing of 140 and 485, there was consensus on the following points.
• This does not apply to cases where the 140 is already approved
• This creates a new product line i.e. new queue
) The following were the points of difference of opinion
a) The memo covers only those people who applied after April 30th. Some people are of the opinion that this covers all the concurrent filers who I-140 was not approved before 4/30/2004.
b) Might moot the applicability of AC 21
c) Delay the processing of I-140
These differences are because of the some assumptions that USCIS will increase the staff for adjudication. So, some people thought that USCIS might add more staff and some others felt that they might not add.
19) However everybody agreed that without increasing the staff, creating a separate queue does not help. It causes one more queue, which might suffer again with backlogs intern.
20) To one question that whether increased processing fee will be used for the adjudication of cases, Rajiv said that there is no guarantee for that.
21) Rajiv hoped that they will use increased revenue for increase in staff for adjudication purposes. At this time, one member pointed out to the Hiring freeze in BCIS.
22) One member asked Rajiv opinion on the pilot projects. After due discussion on this topic, it has been decided that Rajiv will ask USCIS for the methodology employed and the objectives of this pilot projects in CSC.
23) Rajiv and others expressed satisfaction that mainstream national media is covering the backlogs issue in a positive way.
24) One member explained when he contacted USCIS through congressional representative, how he got an irresponsible answer from USCIS.
25) One more person explained how the delay is affecting him at work because as part of the job he has to travel to many countries and he is having problems in transit visa.
) On a query, Rajiv Khanna said that he would look into the issue of corporate issuing affidavits in support of lawsuit. He is of the opinion that these are individual cases and corporations are not part of the class.
27) One member explained their activities in Atlanta.
28) Most of the questions are repetitive and with some variances of the above questions.
Meeting ended on a good note.
-rajum
Last edited by a moderator:
Backlog injury to the US
Is it ok to argue backlog injury to the US when the actual case starts? We can explore the connection between the so-called 'outsourcing of high-tech and R&D jobs' and the backlogs at USCIS.
A company will certainly prefer to open an office abroad to keeping its best brains in limbo for 3 to 5 years waiting for USCIS to act.
Just a thought
Is it ok to argue backlog injury to the US when the actual case starts? We can explore the connection between the so-called 'outsourcing of high-tech and R&D jobs' and the backlogs at USCIS.
A company will certainly prefer to open an office abroad to keeping its best brains in limbo for 3 to 5 years waiting for USCIS to act.
Just a thought
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Backlog injury to the US
You got a good point...
My personal opinion is that this is a political argument rather than argument about law. So, courts deal with law and they are not suppose to look into economic or political issues....
So, I perfectly agree with your opinion and we will raise this with the Congressman and opinion makers.
-rajum
You got a good point...
My personal opinion is that this is a political argument rather than argument about law. So, courts deal with law and they are not suppose to look into economic or political issues....
So, I perfectly agree with your opinion and we will raise this with the Congressman and opinion makers.
-rajum
Interesting fact about security checks...
The necessary security checks have a short shelf life, Smulian said, adding to the BCI's workload. A check must be started within 15 days of receiving an application, and it expires 35 days after the check is completed. Since no applications are completed that quickly, Smulian said, the checks are done several times for every applicant.
"The cases have been piling up and piling up and piling up. It's a vicious circle. The longer the cases sit, the more times you have to do a security check," Smulian said. "It's basically a system that is literally out of control."
http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsro...122backlog.html
The necessary security checks have a short shelf life, Smulian said, adding to the BCI's workload. A check must be started within 15 days of receiving an application, and it expires 35 days after the check is completed. Since no applications are completed that quickly, Smulian said, the checks are done several times for every applicant.
"The cases have been piling up and piling up and piling up. It's a vicious circle. The longer the cases sit, the more times you have to do a security check," Smulian said. "It's basically a system that is literally out of control."
http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsro...122backlog.html