****Today's Deposition (July 22) Postponed to August 2nd****

Pilot Program and 6 months

It is understandable that USCIS is trying to reduce the backlog by implementing pilot programs but why the discrimination between Vermont Cases and California cases ? My friend got his 485 approved today (6 months after applying for 485) because he was part of the pilot program in CA and people like us are waiting for adjudication for more than 21 months. Don't get me wrong, I am happy for my friend but I am also angry at USCIS for discriminating prospective Perm Residents and possible citizens.
USCIS is a federal agency and should operate like one.
 
2FPs, 2 EADs and 2APs and applied for 3rd EAD and 3rd AP

And not to mention the money that we shell out for renewals. :mad: :mad:
 
Can we use this to win the case?

NSC : I-140s Await I-485 Adjudications
©MurthyDotCom
The Nebraska Service Center (NSC) apparently is literally concurrently adjudicating at least some pending I-140/I-485 cases, even if those cases were filed before the changed procedure. We recently made inquiry about two I-140s that were taking a longer time than the stated processing date. In response to our inquiries, the NSC advised that the I-140s would be adjudicated when the concurrent I-485 is ready for adjudication. Since the published processing date for employment-based I-485s at the NSC is as February 2002, whereas the date for I-140s is September 2003, this procedure will likely delay the processing of I-140 petitions considerably.
©MurthyDotCom
For the time being, we are continuing to receive approvals of I-140s in concurrently filed cases within the posted timeframes and well in advance of the I-485. It does appear, however, that the new procedures are having an impact on at least some of the cases. As time goes on, this is likely to increase. The significance of this for many applicants is that, if their I-140s are not approved, they may not be able to take advantage of AC21 portability based on the current USCIS policy as enunciated in the August 2003 USCIS Headquarters policy memo. Although the AC21 law itself only requires that the I-485 have been pending for at least 180 days, and does not require that the I-140 petition be approved for the I-485 applicant to enjoy portability, the USCIS position is that the I-140 petition should be approved. This new processing development creates significant legal and policy issues since the USCIS, by its own interpretation and actions, may have nullified the benefit of AC21 portability and violated the intent of Congress
 
What is next?

Pilot programs:

These programs by using real applicants in the EB I-485 applicants group violate the fundamental principle of any Federal agency, in the FIFO sense, money spent, etc.

PERM:

The good and bad from the DOL. It will create more backlogged cases for I-140/I-485 unless adequate measures are put in place to anticipate the influx. It should be noted that these folks deserve a timely decision on their LC application. It should also be noted that there is NO FIFO principle mentioned also! Don't know where they get their management principles, but a recent survey found high-level DHS officials with questionable college degrees (the on-line M.S. kind!). That is where the Education Evaluation is appropriate!

Congress:

They are offcourse playing the political game and/or being defrauded and lied to about the Backlog reduction programs. You just can't have it both ways. No more money and resources needed and on the other hand no progress and letters to applicants with "sorry, due to limited resources...). AC-21 violations also.

USCIS:

As a federal agency they are accountable. We should be more agressive and report all these to the Media and the GAO (Government Accountability Office, change of name recently). To me, all these amount to FRAUD and we should report it as such.

Security Checks and FP:

Give me a break. The FP problems have been around from the mid-90s wrt Naturalization and other. (Posted in VSC, Security checks thread).
 
John Kerry and Immigration Reforms???

John Kerry hasn't even listed Immigration reforms as an issue. We need to make sure we get heard, please go to www.johnkerry.com and send him a mail. We are sufferring at the hands of DHS and he should be aware of it. Here's what I wrote in my email.

Dear Mr. Kerry:

What's your policy to reduce the immigration backlog? I am one among thousand of Indian computer professionals who are suffering from delays at the hands of DHS. We are loyal, educated , legal workers making serious contribution to the American economy living thousands of miles away from our home trying to make a better life and make a difference to the American economy. But still the Permanent residency delays are killing us. I have filed my adjustment of status application two years back and I still see no signs of any progress, I had to wait 2 years for my labor certification prior to that. On top of that we have to renew our Employment authorizations (EAD) cards every year and we have to file 6 months in advance to get the cards in time so we can continue to work. Immigration reforms are a must and must be addressed in your speeches. Immigrants like me are making serious contribution to the American economy. We need your help in us be able to live the American dream!!

Thanks for lending your ear.

Regards,
abc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Document regarding operatign procedures for I485/I131

Hi Rajiv,
First , kudos to your efforts. Hope we win big.

I think we should ask how they define the processing date. I applied for I485 with receipt date Jan 31, 2002 at CSC, and am still waiting. My friend applied Aug 2003 and got approval recently. The processing date they show is Apr 2002. So, there seems no head and tail of what is meant by processing date.

Who monitors that teh cases that are at the processing dates are being handled swiftly, and not just dumped on someone's table ?

Secondly, how they can, in reasonable mind, issue documents like EAD and advance paroles for 1 year when the time to process I485 is about 2-3 years for the last few years. They should issue those for at least 2-3 years or renew them free of charge. When you consider that the processing times for these documents itself can be 3-6 months (as they say on their web pages), that means applying for an advance parole which may be useful only for 6 months. It does not make sense.

How they can be so inefficient and stupid and insensitive to applicants, whom they ar echarging money, is beyond me. US talks of civil rights on one side, and on the other harasses well-educated legal imigrants worse however it can.

They should pay through their nose for all the extra money they charged people in renewing the EADs and advance paroles. It is their fault.

Regards,
- madan
 
CSC has approved 27 WAC-04 cases filed in May 2004.

kashmir said:
WAC-04 (CSC FY2004) cases approved witin 2 months
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=125537&page=12&pp=15#post839355
You can find a couple of dozens of FY2004 cases which have been approved only within two months.
One of WAC-04-152 filed on 5/5/2004 has been approved on 7/2/2004.
I can provide the list of actual case numbers.
Click to expand...
CSC has approved 27 WAC-04 cases filed in May 2004.
We will see approvals of WAC-04 cases filed in June 2004 soon.
Code: 
case #*  receipt    status        approved date              previous scanned status
--------^----------^------------^------------------------^--------------------------
WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-29              <- 2004-05-19 received
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-05-19 received
WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-06-18 FP sent
WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-06-18 FP sent
WAC04170 2004-05-27 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-07-08 resumed
WAC04170 2004-05-27 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-07-08 resumed
                                    subtotal 5

WAC04168 2004-05-25 approved      2004-07-27              <- 2004-06-22 resumed
WAC04170 2004-05-27 approved      2004-07-27              <- 2004-06-16 RFE received
WAC04170 2004-05-27 approved      2004-07-27              <- 2004-06-22 resumed
                                    subtotal 3

WAC04149 2004-05-01 approved      2004-07-26              <- 2004-06-12 resumed
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04153 2004-05-06 approved      2004-07-23              <- 2004-05-28 FP sent
WAC04159 2004-05-13 approved      2004-07-23              <- 2004-07-02 resumed
WAC04168 2004-05-25 approved      2004-07-23              <- 2004-07-03 resumed
                                    subtotal 3

WAC04152 2004-05-05 approved      2004-07-21              <- 2004-07-03 resumed
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04155 2004-05-08 approved      2004-07-20              <- 2004-05-24 received
WAC04155 2004-05-08 approved      2004-07-20              <- 2004-05-24 received
WAC04155 2004-05-08 approved      2004-07-20              <- 2004-05-24 unknown
WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-20              <- 2004-05-19 received
                                    subtotal 4

WAC04162 2004-05-17 approved      2004-07-16              <- 2004-06-12 FP sent
WAC04162 2004-05-17 approved      2004-07-16              <- 2004-06-15 resumed
                                    subtotal 2

WAC04163 2004-05-18 approved      2004-07-14              <- 2004-06-25 FP received
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04151 2004-05-04 approved      2004-07-07              <- 2004-06-12 resumed
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04152 2004-05-05 approved      2004-07-02              <- 2004-06-15 resumed
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04149 2004-05-01 approved      2004-06-28              <- 2004-06-19 resumed
WAC04149 2004-05-01 approved      2004-06-28              <- 2004-06-19 resumed
WAC04151 2004-05-04 approved      2004-06-28              <- 2004-06-15 resumed
WAC04151 2004-05-04 approved      2004-06-28              <- 2004-06-18 resumed
                                    subtotal 4
 
Ohato Memo & AC-21

Mr.Khanna,
Since you would be meeting with the architect of the Ohato memo, could you ask her to clarify when this memo would take effect? My understanding was it takes effect for applications filed after April 1, 2004. But then this whole immigration GC process seems to be saturated with more myths, mysteries and rumours than facts! and people have been talking about "concurrently adjudicating at least some pending I-140/I-485 cases, even if those cases were filed before the changed procedure" [NSC : I-140s Await I-485 Adjudications, http://www.murthy.com/news/n_485upd.html]

BCIS promises to process GC's faster, but unfortunately promises followed by zero "transparent" actions doesn't instill any confidence in so many people already dejected by their attitude. Their overzealous plan needs to have a transparent "performance monitoring" system coupled with "corrective actions measures" to make their goals a reality, Their processing capabilities should be atleast be somewhere around "Output = input + Average RFE + portion of Backlog" per unit time. But data trickling from sites such as immigrationwatch.com (don't know how reliable they are) kills any such lingering hope.

In the midst of this chaos, the only silver lining seemed to be AC-21. But this Ohato memo seems to kill that ray of hope, For those of us banking on AC-21, Ohato memo seems to be the death knell. Rather than being stuck with BCIS and their promises for another n number of years for a GC, I'd take my AC-21 and run from this white collared slavery.
Thanks for taking up our cause Mr.Khanna, and help us please...
 
Divide and conquer strategy?

Do you think the reason for approving people who filed in 2004, leaving people who filed in 2002 unapproved, is "to break the Class"?

Probably INS is back to the time tested colonial technique of "divide and conquer" to save its backside

kashmir said:
CSC has approved 27 WAC-04 cases filed in May 2004.
We will see approvals of WAC-04 cases filed in June 2004 soon.
Code: 
case #*  receipt    status        approved date              previous scanned status
--------^----------^------------^------------------------^--------------------------
WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-29              <- 2004-05-19 received
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-05-19 received
WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-06-18 FP sent
WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-06-18 FP sent
WAC04170 2004-05-27 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-07-08 resumed
WAC04170 2004-05-27 approved      2004-07-28              <- 2004-07-08 resumed
                                    subtotal 5

WAC04168 2004-05-25 approved      2004-07-27              <- 2004-06-22 resumed
WAC04170 2004-05-27 approved      2004-07-27              <- 2004-06-16 RFE received
WAC04170 2004-05-27 approved      2004-07-27              <- 2004-06-22 resumed
                                    subtotal 3

WAC04149 2004-05-01 approved      2004-07-26              <- 2004-06-12 resumed
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04153 2004-05-06 approved      2004-07-23              <- 2004-05-28 FP sent
WAC04159 2004-05-13 approved      2004-07-23              <- 2004-07-02 resumed
WAC04168 2004-05-25 approved      2004-07-23              <- 2004-07-03 resumed
                                    subtotal 3

WAC04152 2004-05-05 approved      2004-07-21              <- 2004-07-03 resumed
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04155 2004-05-08 approved      2004-07-20              <- 2004-05-24 received
WAC04155 2004-05-08 approved      2004-07-20              <- 2004-05-24 received
WAC04155 2004-05-08 approved      2004-07-20              <- 2004-05-24 unknown
WAC04164 2004-05-19 approved      2004-07-20              <- 2004-05-19 received
                                    subtotal 4

WAC04162 2004-05-17 approved      2004-07-16              <- 2004-06-12 FP sent
WAC04162 2004-05-17 approved      2004-07-16              <- 2004-06-15 resumed
                                    subtotal 2

WAC04163 2004-05-18 approved      2004-07-14              <- 2004-06-25 FP received
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04151 2004-05-04 approved      2004-07-07              <- 2004-06-12 resumed
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04152 2004-05-05 approved      2004-07-02              <- 2004-06-15 resumed
                                    subtotal 1

WAC04149 2004-05-01 approved      2004-06-28              <- 2004-06-19 resumed
WAC04149 2004-05-01 approved      2004-06-28              <- 2004-06-19 resumed
WAC04151 2004-05-04 approved      2004-06-28              <- 2004-06-15 resumed
WAC04151 2004-05-04 approved      2004-06-28              <- 2004-06-18 resumed
                                    subtotal 4
Click to expand...
 
Pro Bono

Some people are asking questions about fairness, ac-21, etc.

Time for Murthy and others to get together with affected individuals and do some productive PRO BONO work????????????????????????

http://www.murthy.com/news/n_485upd.html

http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/chat0726.html

Chat User : When is the new Ohata Memo for concurrently filed I-140/I-485s effective from? What will happen to processing for I-140s filed before the Memo was effective?

Attorney Murthy : Actually, we are seeing that I-140s filed before the Memo are also getting approved fairly fast. The pilot program at the CSC seems to apply only to concurrently filed cases after the date of the Memo in order to take care of newly filed concurrent cases. The USCIS plans to separately take care of the backlogs for previously filed cases.

----------------

Chat User : Do you anticipate the USCIS to clear the confusion on AC21, especially on its use even if the I-140 and I-485 are pending for more than 180 days?

Attorney Murthy : The USCIS has already cleared up that issue in their August 2003 Memo, which we have written about extensively on our website. Their position is that the I-140 has to be approved and the I-485 has to have been pending for over 180 days for one to take advantage of AC21 portability. Although AC21 law does not require that the I-140 be approved, keep in mind that, at the time of the AC21 law's passage in October 2000, the I-485 could only be filed if the I-140 had previously been approved. Concurrent filing only started from July 31, 2002, so the USCIS believes that its interpretation is justified. Someone who has been adversely affected may decide to test this rule in court in a lawsuit.
 
av35 said:
Do you think the reason for approving people who filed in 2004, leaving people who filed in 2002 unapproved, is "to break the Class"?

Probably INS is back to the time tested colonial technique of "divide and conquer" to save its backside
Click to expand...

This is not divide and conquer, this is "If we want to, we can adjudicate in less than 2 months, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want. Who are you? You are just a beggar, just beg. We are the almighty, we will do things according to our whims and fancy. You can go to the International court of Justice, for all we care - in short 'YOU GUYS CAN SHOVE IT'".

CAN the challenge be more OPEN than this? This is not democracy - This is totalitarianism.

I wonder what the honorable judge has to say to this? If we get him to hear i.e.
 
cinta said:
Some people are asking questions about fairness, ac-21, etc.

Time for Murthy and others to get together with affected individuals and do some productive PRO BONO work????????????????????????
Click to expand...

It is not CAN they. It is WHY CAN'T they do some productive work? All appear to be hand in glove OR do not want to take on the government.
Also it is much easier to push papers and update websites than to file lawsuits.
 
a thought...

this is just my opinion: we "would be" (hopefully) immigrants don't have much unity and fire power among us. take for example the fund collection - i guess there are about 67000 registered users in this forum. even if 5000 are 485 applicants, with $10 each, we didn't even collect $50,000 (we didn't even collect half of it). anyways, if we are not fighting for our cause why should they. Rajiv, is the only one (my apologies if there is any one else, ps. pardon my ignorance) that is fighting for our cause. i am sure he is spending quite some resources on this.

as an alternate thought, why can't we have a campaign where we just go to all the service centers (say 5000 ppl each) and demand to talk to them, otherwise we won't leave. NO, i am NOT talking about hunger strike or suicide or anything, just a peaceful protest or something like that. granted, it may get some negative publicity, but atleast we will be given a chance by the press to put our side of the story. my opinion (i could be wrong on this) is that many ppl (american) don't have any clue about this system. results can only be brought if everyone is aware of our troubles. atleast they will know that the ppl are watching.

amrcn_attd said:
It is not CAN they. It is WHY CAN'T they do some productive work? All appear to be hand in glove OR do not want to take on the government.
Also it is much easier to push papers and update websites than to file lawsuits.
Click to expand...
 
tmc said:
my opinion (i could be wrong on this) is that many ppl (american) don't have any clue about this system. results can only be brought if everyone is aware of our troubles. atleast they will know that the ppl are watching.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I am of the same opinion. Many outside this forum are not aware of such a lawsuit. We need media blitz badly. In America silent fights die a silent death. Unless there is public pressure, things won't move.

It seems like people can freely protest against the government and its agencies by taking out rallies, when they are citizens. I do not know what rights non-citizens have. Just one bad record should be enough reason for future problems(and more delays.)
 
tmc said:
this is just my opinion: we "would be" (hopefully) immigrants don't have much unity and fire power among us. take for example the fund collection - i guess there are about 67000 registered users in this forum. even if 5000 are 485 applicants, with $10 each, we didn't even collect $50,000 (we didn't even collect half of it). anyways, if we are not fighting for our cause why should they. Rajiv, is the only one (my apologies if there is any one else, ps. pardon my ignorance) that is fighting for our cause. i am sure he is spending quite some resources on this.

as an alternate thought, why can't we have a campaign where we just go to all the service centers (say 5000 ppl each) and demand to talk to them, otherwise we won't leave. NO, i am NOT talking about hunger strike or suicide or anything, just a peaceful protest or something like that. granted, it may get some negative publicity, but atleast we will be given a chance by the press to put our side of the story. my opinion (i could be wrong on this) is that many ppl (american) don't have any clue about this system. results can only be brought if everyone is aware of our troubles. atleast they will know that the ppl are watching.
Click to expand...

While I totally agree with TMC, I am just curious to see how the attorneys (other than Rajeev) are doing to help their clients. There are so many forums and opportunities the lawyers get which give them a great opportunity to meet with the senior directors of USCIS etc. and they can atleast have some informal talk on issues such as the new FO memo etc and get some guidance or put some pressure - though it may be indirect.

I must say that I have not seen the above kind of activity from the lawyers as well. When compared to lawyers Vs their clients, it is teh lawyers that are in a much better and forceful position to talk to the persons concerned at the USCIS. I am a regular visitor to various web sites but still don't even see any such activity other than the measures taken by Rajeev.

The lawyers have established bodies such as the AILA etc and i would really like to see these guys excerting more pressure on the USCIS and bringing to light the concerns of their clients.

I may be asking for a bit more effort on the part of our lawyers, but guys, in this situation they are our best bet and they are in the best position to serve as our mouth piece. Surely we need to pursue this startegy apart from teh various other methods discussed in this thread.

Cheers and wish you all the best of luck and prayers!
 
AILA lawyers make money off every EAD they file. Do the math and you will know what AILA's priorities would be.
 
Discovery / Documents / Security Checks

Reference wrt Security Checks:
GAO report GAO-04-260.
Fingerprinting and Biographical CheckServices Provided by the FBI to the INS.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=95941&page=1&pp=15

Documents wrt EB I-485 Security Checks:

1: Any SOP references to Finger Print procedures: First, Second, etc.
What triggers the First, what triggers the Second? How does this fit into the main management tool used? Is it CLAIMS I or II?
2: Any documents wrt USCIS and other agencies Security Checks communication: FBI, CIA, DOS, DOL, DHS and DOJ and Department of Commerce (Export Control).
3: Any documents and requests to FBI wrt Finger prints and Biographical Information form G-325A and Name Check.
4: Any documents wrt IBIS checks. Who is doing it, how often and what the validity is? Is it still done at the front and the back of every application? Are all the Service Centers and District offices equipped with IBIS experts and IBIS software computers? Is there any change in the validity from 35 to 90 days?
5: Any documents, letters, communication between the USCIS (INS) and any other Federal agency wrt Security checks, including the GAO and OIG Audit Division from the mid-90s.
6: Any documents wrt STORING the FPs by USCIS.
7: Any documents wrt Procedures for "hits" and "possible hits".
8: Any documents with any changes in Security Checks procedures in 2002.
9: Any documents wrt Fraud prevention procedures and letters, communication to GAO wrt Fraud report.
10: Any documents describing in detail all procedures wrt Security Checks and the CIS interaction with other Federal agencies.
11: Any documents and accounts wrt load/resources management and IBIS checks. Why are 25% of all adjudicators doing IBIS checks?
12: Any documents regarding appropriations, budgets and NEW HIRINGS.

Note: Letters and communication with other Federal agencies are also important to show the picture. In the past USCIS or INS sent promises and letters to Congress, the GAO and OIG to fix problems but in vain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top