*******TRANSCRIPT of DEPOSITION - PAUL PIERRE********

apuhixi said:
Question: On the 485 receipt, there is a projected processing time and a maximum processing time. Except for recent applications, where the processing time is 990-999 days, most 2002 applicants are past their due time (300 days, 750 days, etc.). Now, this receipt could be considered a contract. If so, shouldn't there be some consequence to breaking the terms of the contract?
Click to expand...

They do not consider it a contract, not even close to anything like a contract.
They are breaking a lot of laws and trying to also defraud Congress and the public.
The 999 days is due to computer program limitation; i.e. maximum allowed by the computer program! (max three digit number).
 
hrithikroshan11 said:
Please do not limit to specific scenarios. We should ask them for SOPs why there is variability in processing of similar cases which could include concurrently filed 140/485, 140 and 485, 485 with FP, 485 with RFE and FP, and so on.

We also need to specifically ask them to define concurrently filed cases. Are they where 140 and 485 are filed on same day or are they when 485 is filed while 140 is pending?
Click to expand...

Good point. The I-485 class was broken into so many different groups that their computer systems, CLAIMS 3.0 and SNAPS for FPs are breaking down.
The "fair" and "timely" are lost forgotten. That is why one processing date
for all I-485 is not realistic. It was never realistic to begin with even with one group of I-485. As far as the scheduling of the FPs, the process should have never depended on ZIP CODE as a lot of the ASCs have technical difficulties or are artificially created by USCIS. Why should I have waited seven months after first FP expiry to go for second FP? Because I live ona certain zip-code? Cheap excuses by the USCIS. This is the United States of America with common rights for federal benefits , no matter where one lives!

I-485 sub-groups:

1: Applicants under PILOT program with first FP.
1A: Applicants under PILOT program with first FP and RFE

2: Concurrent applications submitted after concurrent rule in July 2002 with first FP.
2A: Concurrent applications submitted after concurrent rule in July 2002 with first FP and RFE.

3: Concurrent applications submitted after concurrent rule in July 2002 with second FP.
3A: Concurrent applications submitted after concurrent rule in July 2002 with second FP and RFE.

4: Concurrent applications submitted after recent memo for concurrent adjudication with first FP.
4A: Concurrent applications submitted after recent memo for concurrent adjudication with first FP and RFE.

5: Non-concurrent applications with still valid FP (<15 months).
5A: Non-concurrent applications with still valid FP (<15 months) and RFE.

6: Non-concurrent applications with expired first FP (>15 months) and no second FP.
6A: Non-concurrent applications with expired first FP (>15 months) and no second FP but with RFE.

7: Non-concurrent applications with expired first FP (>15 months) and valid second FP. (the time interval between the two is interesting).
7A: Non-concurrent applications with expired first FP (>15 months) and valid second FP and also RFE.


14 different groups and the list is still growing! What about the Transfer cases, with or without second FP, the early/pro-active second FP and the ones with NO FP at all? Yes, some cases were approved with no FP!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Resources to Adjudicate the case

lpdpatna said:
Are we going to ask if there are any performance norms for the resources involved in the adjudication and how the compliance to these norms is supervised.
Thus if a case is assigned for adjudication is a time limit provided for the officer or can he go play golf and come back after days to adjudicate a single case. How is an individual case being tracked to ensure it does not slip out of the cracks. ?
Click to expand...

One of the main things that sticks in my mind after reading the doc is that cases just sit until an officer is available to make a determination on the case. This obviously assumes that all the pre-determination of name check, security clearance etc is already done.

Assuming that there all the processes are followed to the best of USCIS's abililty (I know many people will not agree including me) why do the cases just sit there until someone comes along (albeit after playing golf) to determine the final status of the case? What happened to all the recruitment of officers that was supposed to aleviate the adjudications? Won't focussing on cases just waiting to be adjudicated at least help get rid of some of the backlogs?

One other thing...there is so much inconsistency in the online status. My AP was approved about 2 months ago (RD March 18th 2004)...but it still says that they have received it and it takes between 150 and 180 days.
 
Does Judge read the deposition transcript? Can we use the details collected from deposition during trail, if we proceed to trail?
I'm asking these questions since I feel that we are better positioned based on the details provided by CIS during deposition.
 
I have read all your comments

Most deposition material IS evidence. So we can use it.


Edison said:
Does Judge read the deposition transcript? Can we use the details collected from deposition during trail, if we proceed to trail?
I'm asking these questions since I feel that we are better positioned based on the details provided by CIS during deposition.
Click to expand...
 
Please help support the petition below

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=139965

Title: Inconsistencies in processing of EB3 I-140 applications at VSC

Dear Mr. Eduardo Aguirre,

We are writing to you regarding the unreasonable inconsistencies in adjudication of the Employment-Based I-140 cases at the Vermont Service Center (VSC) of the USCIS. According to VSC’s progress report, is adjudicating the I-140 cases (EB3) filed in April 2004. This is despite the fact that approximately 50% of the cases filed in prior months (some as early as August 2003) are still pending. Congress has expressed repeatedly that the reasonable adjudication period is 6 months for immigration cases.

It is very frustrating to see approvals happening for some cases filed as late as April and May 2004, even though cases filed several months prior to the current processing date have not even been touched in the last 6 months.

If for some reason, the candidate loses the job during this period, which in the current economic situation is quite likely, his/her green card processing stops, leaving no option to fallback on AC-21 provisions. The caveat here is, USCIS interpretation, that candidates could change jobs only if their I-140 petition is approved and I-485 petition is pending for over 180 days.

In summary, we would like to request your help to 1) contact the VSC of the USCIS and express frustrations with the I-140 processing inconsistencies; 2) Inquire how many cases filed prior to their current processing date of April 2004 are still pending, their percentage and the reason they are still pending 3) expand USCIS interpretation of AC 21 to include I140 which has been pending more than 180 days. and 4) request Mr. Don Neufeld to move some reasonable number of adjudicators from other operational units to the I-140 unit.


Sincerely,
 
My 2 cents

Dear Rajiv/Members,
I will play devil's advocate, because I want you to win.
I think the deposition was more in favour of the BCIS than us. They provided fuzzy and inconclusive answers to Rajeev's questions, and then kept blaming / accusing Rajeev of leading them to speculate / guessestimate. A very good ploy that worked like a charm. Most of the deposition is inconclusive and useless. In that aspect, they came with a game plan and succeeded in fending us off.
Some of the questions asked were also not good. Did you really expect that the Pierre was going to tell his weaknesses !!. Come on.

In my personal opinion, the questions asked were generic in nature and not factual enough. If you ask a person how old is he, and he wants to avoid giving the age, he can say anything like mid 30's, middle of life, etc etc. The right question to ask is what is your Date of Birth, including day, month and year.

We have an intent to proove that I-485's are getting delayed. We need to ask factual questions.
The BCIS officers will try to dodge them. But you need to insist on them. Tell them to provide after the meeting. Tell the judge that the facts will show that BCIS process is erratic and irregular, with no quality control, no procedure.

1) How many EB 485's were approved and transferred , monthwise, Jan 2002 to August 2004. This fact will show big drops in many months. Initially the deponent will tell you that he does not have the fact with him. Then you should ask him to furnish the answer after the deposition, say in 1 week. You should tell the judge, that you are very sure that the numbers will show a great deal of variation month by month and therefore, show that processing has no real checks or quality assurance.
2) How many Name check hits happend for the above in the same period for same months. This will help you to rule out that Security hits were the cause of delay.
3) How many adjudicators were allocated to adjudicate I-485 per month, for the same above period.
4) How many EB I-485 cases per adjudicator were approved per month, in the above period.
5) Hpow many RFE's were issues in the same above period, by month for EB-485.
6) How many Cases were actually rejected on EB-485 in the same period.
7) How many cases were cleared by FBI per month on EB-485 per month of the same period.

If you look at the questions, and plot a graph of possible answers and put them on a single page, you can convince any judge that BCIS processing has been erratic, and they have done little to improve it, and a lot more can be done.

Anyway, My 2 cents.
 
United Nation,

What you will say about processing time of I485? That is widely advertised on the USCIS net. 570 to 600 days for Nebraska. Similar processing estimate date are available for other processing center. So we already have the number of days to process I485. Now they will say it includes processing time for I140. That we know is not true. My I140 was approved in 3 months.
So Mr. Khanna already has the estimated processing time for I485. So why can't he use the estimated processing time to question the people being deposed.
 
United Nations

I fully agree with you. Rajiv is a professional - NO discussion on that. But sometime may be we need some crazy idea to let bulb glow.
 
I thought the initial phase of the hearings is just to determine if this is a class-action at all, and this is very consistent with Rajiv's questioning -- is there any difference in processing across the various EB categories? I think Rajiv got the answers he needed, a big NO. Unless this is certified as a class action the only people benefitting will be the 7 people that are part of the lawsuit.
 
Not touched my file from last Dec..

and they say.. every six months they open the file...
 
Let me explain more

bharad1 said:
I thought the initial phase of the hearings is just to determine if this is a class-action at all, and this is very consistent with Rajiv's questioning -- is there any difference in processing across the various EB categories? I think Rajiv got the answers he needed, a big NO. Unless this is certified as a class action the only people benefitting will be the 7 people that are part of the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Correct.

At this point, we are not looking so much for information. We are looking for documentation.

Once we start the document review, we will request a rehearing on the class action. If the class action is granted, THAT is when the real depositions begin. We will be deposing all levels of CIS officers at that time.
That is when it begins to get interesting. This is just spadework.

I really must not worry about winning or losing for us. I must keep the pressure up. The real victory is if they reform their own working. The court may not be able to order much. We knew that going in.

The officers being deposed are the top tier of CIS. They should know the consequences of perjury. Whatever we ask, they have to answer truthfully. If they don't, they will be in trouble.


You folks need to know a bit more about the law.
PLEASE READ THE LAW UNDER THE NEW LINKS HERE:

http://www.immigration.com/litigation/I-485_litigation.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brij, call me next week

Brij523 said:
Mr. Khanna,

Here are some Statistical Jargon. I left a voice mail to you. By profession I am well versed with Six Sigma Terminology.
1) Sampling Plan - To check how the process is working, the sampling plan is drawn. The Sampling Plan is such that the sample represents the population. So we should ask for their sampling plan. If they say yes they have sampling plan that means the data they give you represents most of the cases.

2) Capability Study - Capability study gives the mean of generally 30 pieces with standard deviation. If the Capability Study is done for a long period of time it is called PERFORMANCE of the process. So we should ask not for average but the performance of the process. But since they don't have data, that means they are twidling their fingure all the time. We should request them to collect data at least now.It is for their benefit.

3) I think in most of the places you have asked for worse case. And they didn't answer that. I see the game going on their. I think you should ask time for best case with no hurdle, time for worse case with all the hurdle. And case with different hurdle taking one at a time. (I know in discussion they said they only know one problem - that is ability to pay. I could have told more than what they told. Again I know the politics going on their) And you will see that they will shot on their leg. What we can see in public is Pilot Program 75 days and Normal way 600+ days of adjucation. Such a huge differnce in time. How can USCIS justify that. What differnec it make in cases that they can proces in 75 days rather than 600 days.

More later.
Click to expand...



Let us talk. I have been very busy with the litigation logistics.
 
Good points, all.

unitednations said:
Rajiv, I always thought that the weakness in our class certification for employment based cases was that we were including categories where a job offer is not required.,

It seemed that Pierre was coached between the morning and afternoon during lunch as he attempted to change his answer of how the cases are different. I know and I know you know that ability to pay is applicable for employment based cases where a labor certification is required. You did get ground from him that essentially there is no difference in processing 485.

However, Ohata will talk about how some employment based cases do not need labor and therefore they are processed differently. I'm not sure if that would hamper the class certification. If it does you may need to determine whether to drop the categories that require a labor certification.

Many of the questions that people have should be answered by what we find from the standard operating procedures, if ultimately we are able to get them. I would think that would be good source of information to prove there is no difference in processing 485.

I don't think USCIS is lying (there are too many people involved in the lawsuit for them to collaborate and falsely give answers), but for an organization as large as they are it is difficult to fathom that they do not have any tangible quality standards, processing times by petition, turnover of staff, experience level of staff, number of RFE's issued, RFE's by type, adjudicator, service center, etc. I think you have to keep at this as it is really difficult to believe.

I work in a fairly decent sized organization and I know that it is impossible to standardize everything, keep everyone abreas of new changes/procedures but USCIS doesn't seem to even have a framework to monitor all this.

Another very important thing to find out from Ohata is what in the standard operating procedures is binding on adjudicators. Any internal memos from Yates, Office of general counsel, etc.

I've seen a few cases on these boards where in the denial notice, adjudicators mentioned that any memos that are unpublished are not binding on them. Essentially, every memo that Yates gives which are internal, their own legal counsel according to them are not binding. How do they choose which ones they follow or don't.

I know from my experince with the Securities and Exchange Commission that everytime they are at a conference, round table disccusion there representatives always start off with that the opinion are their own and do not necessarily represent that of the SEC. However, I don't think USCIS does that at AILA conferences, internal memos and at aila liason meetings. Therefore, I think it is very important to determine when adjudicators can ignore internal memos.
Click to expand...


Thanks. All good comments.
 
Wait

ny178 said:
can some one confirm if this news is right ? it says we can use AC21 regardless of I-140 approval ????
Click to expand...


We have to see offficial confirmation IN WRITING. There is notrhing so far.
 
EB-2 vs. EB-3

Thanks a lot, Rajiv, for doing so much for us.

In your questioning of Ohato & Co., could you please ask what is the difference in processing of an EB-2 I-140 vs. EB-3 I-140? At VSC, the processing of EB-2 category I-140s has come to a standstill in last 2-3 months :mad: , while they are processing EB-3 category I-140s as recent as June 2004 (on their website they show April 2004). Pierre deposed that EB-2 are easier than EB-3, so one would think that EB-2 I-140s should be processed faster, but that's not the ground reality.

Also, Pierre said that I-140s were going to be held off/delayed per Ohato memo, however, there is a flood of EB-3 I-140 approvals at VSC without corresponding I-485 approvals, so the question is: is Ohato memo applicable only on EB-2s? It would be good to know the answer.

Thanks.
 
Rajiv,

There is no doubt that the change in USCIS working and gain in momentum is due to your efforts and ONLY YOUR EFFORTS. Thanks for it. USCIS would have never changed otherwise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top