***********So, Is our I-485 Litigation Over?*************

Originally posted by rajum
I140_2003,
I have given the examples to illustrate the point that by scientifically proven that one person doing one stuff will be more effective rather than one person doing different aspects...

For I-140 there is no security check. For 485 there is a security check. That means that they are not repetiting the security check..
To me, there is no overhaul of the process... we are not saving on any steps...I don't see any steps repetitive in I-140 & 485. Even now they have to issue approval for I-140 and 485 separately as such.. Please let me what steps they are saving...
If 485 process is that simple, they why we got so much backlogs.....why don't they clear the backlogs...
....In this memo, there is no mention about the dependent petitions...will they be part of the same queue...or will they be thrown in different queue...

With so many aspects unclear, I am arguing that this is not a serious attempt at reducing backlogs...just an eyewash to show that they are attempting to do some thing....they never gave any serious thought on how to reduce the backlogs...any person with minimal common sense will agree to the fact that with the cosmetic process changes one cannot achieve tremendous productivity ...




-rajum
Click to expand...

Agree, this is just their internal policies. Time will show if even the current/future applicants will benefit.
Wrt the Security checks: They are done on ALL applications/benefits at the front and the back. This was one of AILA's points in protesting. Even the applications with no admissibility are going through security checks. To use an example:
I have a I-485 pending: Security check done at the FRONT. 1 Security check at the FRONT
Past two EAD and AP: Security check done a total number of 4 X 2 (FRONT and BACK)= 8
Third EAD and AP applied: 2 X 1 (FRONT only)= 2.
Approved I-140: 2 of them X 2 (FRONT and BACK) =4
Total: 15 number of Security Checks.
So far, I have been through a total of 15 Security Checks with no end in sight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by I140_2003
Cinta,
Most of your points are valid, here is why I think they did not adopt them

1. Will cost more - e.g. 20% overtime do not produce 20% more work because productivity falls.
2. Will cost more - Then they have to train them.
3. Good point. I thought they are already issueing EAD/AP with two years validity.
4. This will reduce the processing time for an applicant in reducing the time is correspondence. But it will increase the amount of work they have to do.
Click to expand...

They did not adopt them because they do not want to. As simple as that. No political will. As some of the testimonies in the Senate said, CIS is at the mercy of ICE (enforcement is the mandate, not adjudication).

1: They are federal employees and overtime is one solution. They do not follow any cost effective solutions or money savings. There are examples (posted)that money was there and NOT USED, rolled over to next fiscal year. Also, adopting a home work program is an effective corporate solution (see JetBlue as an example).
2: Hiring new adjudicators and training them is a long process. See also DHS freeze on hiring. They should free the ones (1000 out of 4000) that do Security checks and devote this task to ICE personnel instead. I suggest they do them at the middle also, in addition to the Front and the Back.
3: They will do EADs in the near future. See OMB.
No extensions on AP. Actually the AILA liaison says (Murthy) says that one should return before expiry even if another one is pending and eventually approved. No back-dating also on APs.
4: Phone and Fax are proven quicker, cost effective solutions to reduce RFEs, if they want to again. They can call my HR, or my offive foir that matter and get it in five minutes or less, intead of issuing RFEs...
 
I think everyone(individual and the company) of us should adhere to timeline at work. If the deliverables are not delivered in time then we discuss about accountability. Who is accountable for backlog at CIS? As I understand there is no accountability, so no deliverables as per timeline (is there a timeline) from CIS ?

We all know when CIS started this security check, so we can't blame only CIS for this. But actually the wrong persons who entered this country is responsible for all our sufferings. CIS issued visa to dead people, this is mistake by CIS. But good people suffer due to someone's mistake. But that is beyond the scope of our discussion.

CIS always claims they are doing security checks for everyone, I believe profiling is nothing wrong for such purposes. Just for example assume a hit and run case, cops will be looking for suspect with some specifications like "Tall about 6'4'', White male about 20 years old was driving Yellow Ford Mustang................" rather than suspecting everyone in the city for the particular accident. Also you all know who hold the jobs which needs security clearance? (only US citizens). If something wrong happens at those places for example spying, then will the concerned department start the security check for everyone in this country? I think all these issues are something beyond immigration so I understand not only CIS but CIS along with Congressional offices should try to resolve this.
 
somebody already said this, but it is worth mentioning...

USCIS does not care (read: they don't give a damn) about national security. they only care not to give a benefit to an undeserving candidate, i.e., they just want to cover their back. if not, why don't they issue FP as soon they recieve a 485.

they also don't give a damn about backlogs. if they do, then as soon as the security check is done at the front of the application, why not approve it. why wait for 2 years?
 
Can we cite discrimination in the arguments? USCIS is expected to take some reasonable steps to ensure that the cases are adjudicated in the order they come in. USCIS is taking measures to improve adjudication for newer concurrent filers, while no measures have been taken up in good faith to bring relief to pending older applicants. In fact, as the resources used are the same, I would say that the newer, concurrently filed applications are being processed at the expense of older, non-concurrent ones.
 
Originally posted by Edison
I think everyone(individual and the company) of us should adhere to timeline at work. If the deliverables are not delivered in time then we discuss about accountability. Who is accountable for backlog at CIS? As I understand there is no accountability, so no deliverables as per timeline (is there a timeline) from CIS ?

We all know when CIS started this security check, so we can't blame only CIS for this. But actually the wrong persons who entered this country is responsible for all our sufferings. CIS issued visa to dead people, this is mistake by CIS. But good people suffer due to someone's mistake. But that is beyond the scope of our discussion.

CIS always claims they are doing security checks for everyone, I believe profiling is nothing wrong for such purposes. Just for example assume a hit and run case, cops will be looking for suspect with some specifications like "Tall about 6'4'', White male about 20 years old was driving Yellow Ford Mustang................" rather than suspecting everyone in the city for the particular accident. Also you all know who hold the jobs which needs security clearance? (only US citizens). If something wrong happens at those places for example spying, then will the concerned department start the security check for everyone in this country? I think all these issues are something beyond immigration so I understand not only CIS but CIS along with Congressional offices should try to resolve this.
Click to expand...

Edison, wrt the visas issued to the hijakers. They were infact alive when the visas were issued. See discussions about failures of the Intelligence community, recent (today?) NYT article about the 9-11 commission and DHS re-organisation and who is to blame. See also my thread on DHS / USCIS Issues for a catalog of all sources. In fact, they entered with modified passports and visas issued abroad. The media twisted the real story, so the INS became part of DHS with the results known..
See, the whole truth as described by a ex MPI and current Dean of Law School:

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/ipf121203.asp : Intelligence Failure not Immigration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...e=&contentId=A25516-2004Mar25&notFound=true : Dean of Law school at George Washington appointment.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/ : Source

Read his chapter "Immigration" from The Century Foundation's recent report The Department of Homeland Security's First Year: A Report Card.

The events of September 11 put new emphasis on reorganization. The
hijackers were non-citizens who had entered through lawful immigration channels
(although subsequent investigation has found that some were improperly granted
visas). The straw that broke the camel's back was the arrival of immigration
documents at a Venice, Florida flight school for two of the hijackers six months
after they had flown planes into the Twin Towers. The event was widely
misreported: the documents were not visas, but rather copies of visas approved in
July and August 2001 that had been retained by INS contractors and mailed as a
matter of routine to the flight school. But the damage was done. President Bush
showed anger at a press conference a day after the news broke. Stating that he was
"stunned and not happy," he continued: "Look, the INS needs to be reformed.
And it's one of the reasons why I have called for the separation of the paperwork
side of the INS from the enforcement side. And obviously the paperwork side
needs a lot of work. It's inexcusable." As plans proceeded with the new
Department of Homeland Security, the Bush Administration stated its intention
that all INS functions be transferred there.

Wrt the Security Checks: Inefficient, not productive, unreliable, wasteful and certainly not in favor of any National Security, tmc is right. They do not give a damn about backlogs and National Security..the borders with Mexico and Canada are wide open. They arrest you and if you are a Mexican you are sent back to Mexico to try again next month. If you are a OTM (other than Mexican)you are let go into the US. What a free country, especially for OTMs!!!

And this is what the 9/11 commission found: (posted in VSC, Press thread for non-registrants).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/national/17IMMI.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reality check

Guys,
Don't dwell on past.Get over it as the process is full of potholes of BUREAUCRACY. Blaming the process is not going to solve it ,but think of how to improve it. Its very easy to point fingers at the "Security check's etc".

Everybody is almost same boat..some better off while some worse but overall,the immigration process is always going to have some sort of bottleneck and because impact on american citizens is little ,it would never get the attention to get it on political radar.
So just hang in there through the process and hope that whole lot of damage is not done.
My two cents .
-- AK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Edison
I think everyone(individual and the company) of us should adhere to timeline at work. If the deliverables are not delivered in time then we discuss about accountability. Who is accountable for backlog at CIS? As I understand there is no accountability, so no deliverables as per timeline (is there a timeline) from CIS ?

We all know when CIS started this security check, so we can't blame only CIS for this. But actually the wrong persons who entered this country is responsible for all our sufferings. CIS issued visa to dead people, this is mistake by CIS. But good people suffer due to someone's mistake. But that is beyond the scope of our discussion.

CIS always claims they are doing security checks for everyone, I believe profiling is nothing wrong for such purposes. Just for example assume a hit and run case, cops will be looking for suspect with some specifications like "Tall about 6'4'', White male about 20 years old was driving Yellow Ford Mustang................" rather than suspecting everyone in the city for the particular accident. Also you all know who hold the jobs which needs security clearance? (only US citizens). If something wrong happens at those places for example spying, then will the concerned department start the security check for everyone in this country? I think all these issues are something beyond immigration so I understand not only CIS but CIS along with Congressional offices should try to resolve this.
Click to expand...

Edison,
I agree with you on accountability.

Regarding security checks...
Have you heard about 'Kafkasque trial'. This was a novel written on the conditions in Eastren Europe after second world war. Kafka wrote the classic called "The Trial". Where "Joseph K" is arrested and is supposed to defend himself without knowing the charges. The prosecution denies to give him the list of charges because of national security reasons. He was not allowed to participate in some parts of his own trial because of national security reasons. Finally, he was sentenced but still he was denied on the charges.

Don't you see any similarility now...you don't know why backlogs are mounting...on the website they say that for more than 90% cases, security clearance takes few minutes....one person drums up everywhere (in each national media which contacts him) that the delay is because of security reasons and by this memo, it looks like the process of I-485 is very simple and the incremental work in 485 is minimal , security check is not that a big issue. If so, many people in this forum including me are simply confused, why our cases are not getting adjudicated...


So, to me all this security check argument is simply a facade...with due respects to you,there is no point discussing why profiling is not bad....Govt. has every right to profile but that cannot go the foolish levels in justifying the delays and that should not become a tool to discrimination....


-rajum
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It can't be security check alone. After reading the USICS panel discussion posted by Kanadian (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/inspanel.html), it is clear that lack of man power and low efficiency that's causing all these. The priority of USCIS in its first year is national security/enforcement, not the "service". Hiring won't be a solution in short term, since they are trained for two years before adj any cases. Privitization could be a future solution, but it causes USCIS employee complaining. You can imagine the working morality over there.
 
Originally posted by hidden_dragon
It can't be security check alone. After reading the USICS panel discussion posted by Kanadian (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/inspanel.html), it is clear that lack of man power and low efficiency that's causing all these. The priority of USCIS in its first year is national security/enforcement, not the "service". Hiring won't be a solution in short term, since they are trained for two years before adj any cases. Privitization could be a future solution, but it causes USCIS employee complaining. You can imagine the working morality over there.
Click to expand...

Trained for two years before adjudicating the cases??? do you mean they will go to college and take I-140/I-485 processing as their major???
 
They hire people know nothing about immg law. Probably assisting some other already trained officer for a while, i guess. Read the article.

Originally posted by zyu
Trained for two years before adjudicating the cases??? do you mean they will go to college and take I-140/I-485 processing as their major???
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by hidden_dragon
It can't be security check alone. After reading the USICS panel discussion posted by Kanadian (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/inspanel.html), it is clear that lack of man power and low efficiency that's causing all these. The priority of USCIS in its first year is national security/enforcement, not the "service". Hiring won't be a solution in short term, since they are trained for two years before adj any cases. Privitization could be a future solution, but it causes USCIS employee complaining. You can imagine the working morality over there.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what the MPI president testified in the Senate: See a small part and the reference.

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?postid=759631#post759631

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/papademetriou031104.pdf

CHART 4 ABOUT HERE
The final chart is the most graphic depiction yet of the chaotic relationship between
demand for and the government's capacity to adjudicate (or is it the priority it attaches to
adjudicating?) lawful permanent residence (LPR) or "green card" applications. Chart 4
shows the dramatic and consistent increase in pending LPR petitions beginning with FY
1994. Remarkably, for much of that period of extended and continuous increases in
demand, application completions have hardly ever kept up with new application intakes,
a factor which explains the accumulation of the backlog evident in the graph. (The
exceptions are 1995-1996 and 1999-2000).
Most striking perhaps is the 2002-2003 segment of the graph that shows demand spiking
at the same time that the government's capacity to and priority in adjudicating petitions
simultaneously plummets. While the need to be as certain as possible that no one who
may wish us harm receives a green card-a perfectly natural impulse and a critical
governance objective-the preponderance of the evidence still points to another,
inescapable, conclusion: immigration services, whether under the old INS or the new
CIS, have been no more than the stepchild in what many consider the immigration
system's foremost (and all too often nearly exclusive) responsibility: enforcement, not
services.
..enforcement, not services.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about all forum members sending letter to USCIS - though we welcome the move by USCIS for new filers, but the pending cases should be cleared on priority bases before the new program can be implemented and highlighting this discrimination to all media and congress etc.
 
Only the lawsuit may force them to listen to us.

Originally posted by jhonyrk
How about all forum members sending letter to USCIS - though we welcome the move by USCIS for new filers, but the pending cases should be cleared on priority bases before the new program can be implemented and highlighting this discrimination to all media and congress etc.
Click to expand...
 
Mr Rajiv,

Sunday 2 pm Easter time works well.

What number do we call to dial in ?

From my side, other than an update on the litigation, I would
also like to discuss the future steps that can be taken in the
course of this litigation to ensure that USCIS publishes a plan
to process those I-485 cases that were not filed concurrently,
so that such cases are not left behind (while USCIS works on
cases that were filed concurrently).

Regards,
avgm
 
Originally posted by hidden_dragon
Only the lawsuit may force them to listen to us.
Click to expand...

I agree that only a lawsuit will force them...lets discuss on Sunday with Rajiv about FIFO....

-rajum
 
Re: Re: $$$$

Originally posted by rajum
I don't think any body is attributing malice to this...clearly I believe that USCIS never gave any serious thought on this either...to me this memo was devised to show to the court that they attempted to reduce the backlogs...this is not any serious effort...

there were some references to USCIS punishing old filers etc...

However, I am suprised at your statement.. that you are hoping to extend this program to old filers at a premium...of course every body will pay for it...however, don't you think it is official way of bribing to get your case done...is it justified for different processing fees for old filers and new filers and new filers paying less....

-rajum

i fully concur, everyone one of us will be more than willing to cough up money - that further backs my argument...

i don't think USCIS is particularly interested in exactly how it gets funds, or whether the process is equitable. having said that if and when the fee structure is released, we'll find out...

but enough speculation... we should pursue on, while USCIS tries to unearth the silver political bullet...
Click to expand...
 
Too many unknown parameters

Joining late in this discussion (just saw this thread) gave me a good chance to get a better idea of this issue. I think that this is an attempt by USCIS to address the backlog issue. Let me present the pros and cons of this decision.
Pro side : They might have thought that the concurrent adjudication will bring down the over all time for adjudication. Keep in mind that CSC and TSC have just started (or about to start) 90 day adjudication for concurrent filers. I think that they will use the pilot program results to improve the process and when they are satisfied with the accuracy of the results, they will apply those procedures for all the concurrent cases. That's why they have issued orders to start treating concurrent cases separately from now. I think that it is definitely a good news for all concurrent filers.

Con side : This is going to cause further delays to non concurrent cases due to shifting of man power, training them in new procedures, freeze in hiring new staff etc. Also if my assumption of the good intension on their part is wrong then rajum's analysis becomes correct (it might take 18 months for the concurrent filers). Only time can naswer this (if their intention is good or not).
It is REALLY UNFORTUNATE that they haven't done ANYTHING for the real backlog(old) cases. Rajiv need to pester them about what they are doing for old cases, the real sufferers. He should also tell them that the new Memo will do more harm to the backlogged cases.
Cinta's suggestions for improving the backlog are good, but do the the great arrogant USCIS will ever listen to good advises ? They have their strange solutions (Last In First Out policies) :(

PS : Edison, please do not send out conference numbers to too many people due to practical limitations. Choose some 10 to 15 active members and send it to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you can't include to omany people in the tel conf, that's ok since most of us have pretty unified concern (what will happen to old filers, and how should we proceed to press USCIS to extend the changes to us). please post the transcript.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top