To fight cutoff date write to OMBUDSMAN,

N

nato

Registered Users (C)
As per the forum there are hardly 4-5 approvals is Oct and the statistics show only less than 50-60 cases before march 2001. The USCIS dates seem suspect and we shouldn't be expecting current provsions of SJC to move cutoff more than 2 years that too gradually and not overnight.

what is USICS doing and how many cases they have for years 98,99,2000, surely they should have the answers to that now or they should be approving the cases of 98 but still there is no movement even for Jan 98 case like Akbari.

It is the OMBUDSMAN only who seems to have authority to ask the USCIS how many case USICS has for these 3 years. we can't be asking the number of cases for all years to begin with but if USICS releases the count till March 31st 2001 that way they will be kind of forced to move the dates ahead if there are only say 100 cases in their system with those dates...

In past also people have sent email to Mr Khatri and got responses and action from USCIS, so if all of us ask the same question how many cases are in the system before 03/01 and why there are no approvals in Oct or for 98/99 cases yet, it might help us...do you all agree..

Additionally The proposal to let everyone apply for 485 is highly unlikely because that way the USCIS will only be working on tons of EAD/AP renewal and not 485 approval. if the current SJC provisions can be applied retro from say AC21 date that could end the retro possibly(good suggestion by UNITEDNATIONS in another thread), taking out the family numbers on a retro and freeing up that many numbers to be recaptured would release over a 250K visa numbers easily(that is something to lobby with senators though if I am not mistaken)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very good point Anand.

the burden of proof lies with the USCIS if they come up with an arbitrary and wholly unexpected cut-off date one fine day. Ironically (or maybe not), they have been so nonchalant and insensitive about this retrogression thing. No memos, no explanations, no apologies, no public address. Life goes on as usual. They owe us an explanaton since we are paying for their services. Weneed more transparency. As Nato has suggested, we should contact the Ombudsman so he can get some answers from USCIS.

If there are cut-off dates, there should be a basis (mathematical) for them and if there is a mathematical basis, then there should be an ability to predct how they will move with and without the various reforms being considered.

Its such a shame that nobody from USCIS presented anyhting to the Senate committee about retrogression and its potential consequences for "legal" immiigrants. What an organization!! They just dont care. They are acting like a typical monopoly.

Santosh
 
Very good point Ana.

the burden of proof lies with the USCIS if they come up with an arbitrary and wholly unexpected cut-off date one fine day. Ironically (or maybe not), they have been so nonchalant and insensitive about this retrogression thing. No memos, no explanations, no apologies, no public address. Life goes on as usual. They owe us an explanaton since we are paying for their services. Weneed more transparency. As Nato has suggested, we should contact the Ombudsman so he can get some answers from USCIS.

If there are cut-off dates, there should be a basis (mathematical) for them and if there is a mathematical basis, then there should be an ability to predct how they will move with and without the various reforms being considered.

Its such a shame that nobody from USCIS presented anyhting to the Senate committee about retrogression and its potential consequences for "legal" immiigrants. What an organization!! They just dont care. They are acting like a typical monopoly.

Santosh
 
FOLKS,
US Department of State and not USCIS comes out with the cut of dates.
You are completely off track even on the Department with issues this date.
Please educate yourself first before giving suggestions on this forum
 
Dude:

Stop pointing out mistakes and do somethign about it. At least we are trying. So replace USCIS with DOS in my entences and use that as an argument.

Santosh
 
Also waht makes you think that the DOS knows that the 98 cases

or X number of cases are pending with USCIS. It is the USCIS which provides the data i.e. the number of cases pending with them and the oldest case, based on which the DOS gave out the cutoff. so the question still remains with the USCIS how many cases of 98,99,2000 are with them and how many were approved in Oct. The state Dept though possible may be adding the CP numbers to that which are really very few
texancanadian said:
FOLKS,
US Department of State and not USCIS comes out with the cut of dates.
You are completely off track even on the Department with issues this date.
Please educate yourself first before giving suggestions on this forum
Click to expand...
 
santosh_30 said:
Dude:

Stop pointing out mistakes and do somethign about it. At least we are trying. So replace USCIS with DOS in my entences and use that as an argument.

Santosh
Click to expand...

DOS recently issued a memo which explains how the cut-off dates are established. I do not think that they will reveal the particular data which their decision on cut-off dates was based on. That's the way the bureaucracy works. Here's the dead end IMHO. Lets concentrate on lobbying the immigration provisions in the budget bill through the Congress.
 
we gave up even without trying, OMBUDSMAN has been known in past to be responsive

The DOS explantion is not forthcoming is how many for each year is pending, it has the same basis of cutoff that is the oldest case in the system which has not been approved and for EB3 we already have one person of Jan 98 in the forum. but the question is more of how many till 2000 and will they wait for 5 months to approve the 98 case which was not approved even in Oct nor any LUD, why not??? and will they wait next 5 months to approve the guy with march 98 PD. here is the DOS explanation too

http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=193900
xbohdpukc said:
DOS recently issued a memo which explains how the cut-off dates are established. I do not think that they will reveal the particular data which their decision on cut-off dates was based on. That's the way the bureaucracy works. Here's the dead end IMHO. Lets concentrate on lobbying the immigration provisions in the budget bill through the Congress.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nato said:
The DOS explantion is not forthcoming is how many for each year is pending, it has the same basis of cutoff that is the oldest case in the system which has not been approved and for EB3 we already have one person of Jan 98 in the forum. but the question is more of how many till 2000 and will they wait for 5 months to approve the 98 case which was not approved even in Oct nor any LUD, why not??? and will they wait next 5 months to approve the guy with march 98 PD.
Click to expand...

With this you are running into the same issue which Rajiv Khanna brought to the court and effectively lost -- trying to figure out and perceive CIS's timing is futile and eventually useless. Since they sped up processing of many forms recently one can only hope that approval of his or her particular case with the current priority date won't take years these days.
 
that is why a simple email to Mr. Khatri asking how these cutoff dates of Jan 98

hold good if there is only 1 person in the system and that too is held up and not approved, so they will hold processing of thousands other till that case is approved. had they approved that Jan 98 case in Oct it would make sense still..He is the person who can ask USCIS those questions not us...Also with that if the case of 98 takes 1 year more to process then everytime this would bethe case..
xbohdpukc said:
With this you are running into the same issue which Rajiv Khanna brought to the court and effectively lost -- trying to figure out and perceive CIS's timing is futile and eventually useless. Since they sped up processing of many forms recently one can only hope that approval of his or her particular case with the current priority date won't take years these days.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sent email to Immigration ombudsman

Have sent the following email to Immigration Ombudsman; Let us see what happens:
Dear Mr Khatri
We are shocked to find the priority date for EB3 for India have moved back to January 1998 in October 2005 when the new year visa numbers are supposed to be available. We are even more shocked that it has remained in January 1998 for the month of November 2005 too!
Assuming that there was one EB3 India applicant with PD of 1st Jan 1998 who could not have been accommodated in October and the PD moved back to 1st Jan 1998, why this case was not approved in October to let the PD move forward.
We request your kind intervention in this matter to find out how many EB3 India cases were approved in the month of October 2005 and whether there is any real justification for the PD dates to move all of a sudden from June 2002 to all the way back to January 1998.
Regards: Name
A#
SRC#
 
Great we all need to at least try and see what the sanctity of these dates is

and where are the approvals in Oct even for old cases.
Also in the note please add that here may be hardly 100 cases before 2000, can USCIS give at least a rough count of cases before 2000 or each year breakup of how many cases they have pending
Dallas03096 said:
Have sent the following email to Immigration Ombudsman; Let us see what happens:
Dear Mr Khatri
We are shocked to find the priority date for EB3 for India have moved back to January 1998 in October 2005 when the new year visa numbers are supposed to be available. We are even more shocked that it has remained in January 1998 for the month of November 2005 too!
Assuming that there was one EB3 India applicant with PD of 1st Jan 1998 who could not have been accommodated in October and the PD moved back to 1st Jan 1998, why this case was not approved in October to let the PD move forward.
We request your kind intervention in this matter to find out how many EB3 India cases were approved in the month of October 2005 and whether there is any real justification for the PD dates to move all of a sudden from June 2002 to all the way back to January 1998.
Regards: Name
A#
SRC#
Click to expand...
 
EB3 Retrogression - Standard reply from Ombudsman's office

Recieved the following standard reply in response to my email to Ombudsman regarding EB3 retrogression:
Thank you for your email status inquiry and for contacting the office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISO). The Ombudsman is dedicated to identifying systematic problems in the immigration benefits process and recommending solutions to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Our office echoes the sentiments of President George W. Bush that together 'as a nation that values immigration and depends on it, we should have immigration laws that work and make us proud.'


If you are experiencing difficulty with a particular immigration case, please utilize the following resources before submitting a case status inquiry to our office:



1) The USCIS National Customer Service may be accessed online at http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/NCSC.htm or by calling (800) 357-5283.





2) The USCIS.gov online case status may be accessed at https://egov.immigration.gov/ris/jsps/index.jsp.



These sources of information can resolve many frequently asked questions including: What are the appropriate forms to file, where is the proper place to file the forms, as well as give information regarding the status of a particular case. After using these resources, if you still wish to submit an inquiry to the Ombudsman, please send a formal typed or written inquiry via US mail in accordance with the instructions contained on our website: http://www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. We will review your inquiry and if appropriate, forward it to USCIS for further action.



Again, thank you for contacting the Ombudsman office.
 
Dallas

your email to ombudsman may have played a part in getting the dates movement for dec :)
if the s.1932 doesnot pass we should continue try sending more emails
Dallas03096 said:
Have sent the following email to Immigration Ombudsman; Let us see what happens:
Dear Mr Khatri
We are shocked to find the priority date for EB3 for India have moved back to January 1998 in October 2005 when the new year visa numbers are supposed to be available. We are even more shocked that it has remained in January 1998 for the month of November 2005 too!
Assuming that there was one EB3 India applicant with PD of 1st Jan 1998 who could not have been accommodated in October and the PD moved back to 1st Jan 1998, why this case was not approved in October to let the PD move forward.
We request your kind intervention in this matter to find out how many EB3 India cases were approved in the month of October 2005 and whether there is any real justification for the PD dates to move all of a sudden from June 2002 to all the way back to January 1998.
Regards: Name
A#
SRC#
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Nato

Nato
May be Ombudsman started asking questions on Retrogression which caused the PD to inch forward :)
Let us hope PD will jump forward to current soon!
 
We need to keep efforts on mutiple sources to fight this damn retro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Its a political conspiracy ....

Guys,

I have always maintained that this retrogression is a ploy by the USCIS to improve their processing dates. I am not sure if any of you remember but when Bush was first elected, one of his election promises was to make sure that the GC process took 6 months total by 2006. Guess what, 2006 is here and the USCIS is under a lot of pressure to get the processing dates to within 6 months. It is less than a coincidence that the retrogression started 6 months before 2006 and ever since Retro kicked in, the processing dates for each of the centers have improved considerably and are generally within 6 months of todays date.

So this retrogression is a great way for the USCIS to improve their processing dates. You will find a lot of articles justifying the current retrogression but we would be naive to believe all of it. There are a lot of under handed things going on and we are suffering. That is the truth .. its a shame ..

regards,

saras
 
that is right but the conflicting part here is

that all cases filed on June 30th go to Backlog count on Dec 30th and same way for Sept 30th. That increase the backlog heavily for them

Yes for the case filed after that would be processed in the 6 months time frame so they will meet the target.

we don't have any direct access to CIS to ask them any clarifications of this backlog and there seem to be no takers to send email to OMBUDSMAN, who can possibly get us an explantion of this retrogression. most of the folks in the forum have time to write about FP, etc.. which will expire having to wait and thus meaningless, Guesses for the next bulletin, etc but not for making some effort
saras76 said:
Guys,

I have always maintained that this retrogression is a ploy by the USCIS to improve their processing dates. I am not sure if any of you remember but when Bush was first elected, one of his election promises was to make sure that the GC process took 6 months total by 2006. Guess what, 2006 is here and the USCIS is under a lot of pressure to get the processing dates to within 6 months. It is less than a coincidence that the retrogression started 6 months before 2006 and ever since Retro kicked in, the processing dates for each of the centers have improved considerably and are generally within 6 months of todays date.

So this retrogression is a great way for the USCIS to improve their processing dates. You will find a lot of articles justifying the current retrogression but we would be naive to believe all of it. There are a lot of under handed things going on and we are suffering. That is the truth .. its a shame ..

regards,

saras
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top