*** Transcript of hearing is NOW attached - 9-24th Hearing ***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok

rk4gc said:
Rajiv,
I live in CA. But let me know if I need to be there for the next session. If I can let us know the date upfront I'll try to make it.

I didn't expect that no body will make it this time, other wise I was ready to attend.
Click to expand...


But we may not have a hearing on the class action. The Court might decide the issue based upon the papers.
 
operations said:
Not one class member was at the hearing. Diappointing. But, I do my job as I see fit. That is all I can do.

I do not think getting a class certified is that easy. There can be a lot of issues. We need to be prepared for it to go either way.

If the class certification is denied, we will start filing individual lawsuits if people want that.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear (from your earlier post) you were not well. Hope you're feeling better now and hope you stay that way.

I do not have words to express my indebtedness for everything you are doing for us.

It is disappointing, indeed, that we couldn't show up. However, I am more than willing to make up for it the next time. If you could post the next hearing date (or class certification date), I'll do my best show up. I will be flying from CA. I will need to know the date as far in advance as possible to make a reservation and find a reasonable air fare that I can afford.

operations said:
But we may not have a hearing on the class action. The Court might decide the issue based upon the papers.
Click to expand...

Is it possible, the court may be influenced by our presence and sway our way if we show up in a large number? Perhaps the judge will see a glimpse for himself how many people are suffering?

God bless and God speed.
 
I think it is important

peeved said:
Sorry to hear (from your earlier post) you were not well. Hope you're feeling better now and hope you stay that way.

I do not have words to express my indebtedness for everything you are doing for us.

It is disappointing, indeed, that we couldn't show up. However, I am more than willing to make up for it the next time. If you could post the next hearing date (or class certification date), I'll do my best show up. I will be flying from CA. I will need to know the date as far in advance as possible to make a reservation and find a reasonable air fare that I can afford.



Is it possible, the court may be influenced by our presence and sway our way if we show up in a large number? Perhaps the judge will see a glimpse for himself how many people are suffering?

God bless and God speed.
Click to expand...


It is important.
 
Rajiv Pls Help

With reference to the last transcript, I would like to present my case as an perfect model on how a person gets affected because of adhoc memo and amendments without any proper training to adusticators. If required, i would like to be a part of the class motion.

My labor was filed in Nov 2002 and it got approved in Sep 2003. I filed 140 and 485 in end of oct 2003. My 140 got denied on July 8th 2004 and appeal was also denied and it is not sent to AAU for further review and decision.

140 got denied because of company ability to pay. I am reciving 18K short of my preferred wages and company is kind of having a hard time with profits. But the point here is to focus on contradicting statements given by YATES in the memo and Q&A's with AILA.

As we all know the famous YATES memo on Ability to Pay is now being used as an AXE to deny applications and reduce the backlogs. While questioning YATES at an AILA conference, he stated saying that "officers/adjudicators have misinterpreted the underlying purpose behind the requirement of an employer demonstrating the ability to pay. As stated by Mr. Yates, “the statutory requirement [of establishing ability to pay] is to establish that it’s a bonafide company. Ability to pay was actually meant, when it was first put into the regulations, to be a tool that officers apply, not a sword, if you will. So, if you have a company that’s been in business for years, there really is no question about the ability to pay or the bonafides of the company.”

My employer is in business from 1996 onwards and had all of his green card got approved from VSC. I was last on the list and i got affected by YATES memo. We even presented the written Q&A given to AILA by VSC that "Line of Credit" of an employer will also be considered an a tool for ability to pay. We produced the LOC of employer and still the denied the application and sent it to AAU.

We all know that AAU wait time is 1 year for EB3 and success rate is small there. My frustration is of the time we spent and money we spend on GC process and one simple memo changes all the things. Also my Q is if a memo is released today, should'nt it be effective for applications recieved frm that day. why it is being applied to cases before that.

I would really appreciate if you could take some action in your next hearing about these issues.

ADHOC Memos and Random Amendments.
Contradicting Statements given by Center Directors.
Effective date of implementation of memo amendments.
Proof of trainging presented to officers/adjusticators after issuing new memos.
 
You should take action

vicky_usa said:
With reference to the last transcript, I would like to present my case as an perfect model on how a person gets affected because of adhoc memo and amendments without any proper training to adusticators. If required, i would like to be a part of the class motion.

My labor was filed in Nov 2002 and it got approved in Sep 2003. I filed 140 and 485 in end of oct 2003. My 140 got denied on July 8th 2004 and appeal was also denied and it is not sent to AAU for further review and decision.

140 got denied because of company ability to pay. I am reciving 18K short of my preferred wages and company is kind of having a hard time with profits. But the point here is to focus on contradicting statements given by YATES in the memo and Q&A's with AILA.

As we all know the famous YATES memo on Ability to Pay is now being used as an AXE to deny applications and reduce the backlogs. While questioning YATES at an AILA conference, he stated saying that "officers/adjudicators have misinterpreted the underlying purpose behind the requirement of an employer demonstrating the ability to pay. As stated by Mr. Yates, “the statutory requirement [of establishing ability to pay] is to establish that it’s a bonafide company. Ability to pay was actually meant, when it was first put into the regulations, to be a tool that officers apply, not a sword, if you will. So, if you have a company that’s been in business for years, there really is no question about the ability to pay or the bonafides of the company.”

My employer is in business from 1996 onwards and had all of his green card got approved from VSC. I was last on the list and i got affected by YATES memo. We even presented the written Q&A given to AILA by VSC that "Line of Credit" of an employer will also be considered an a tool for ability to pay. We produced the LOC of employer and still the denied the application and sent it to AAU.

We all know that AAU wait time is 1 year for EB3 and success rate is small there. My frustration is of the time we spent and money we spend on GC process and one simple memo changes all the things. Also my Q is if a memo is released today, should'nt it be effective for applications recieved frm that day. why it is being applied to cases before that.

I would really appreciate if you could take some action in your next hearing about these issues.

ADHOC Memos and Random Amendments.
Contradicting Statements given by Center Directors.
Effective date of implementation of memo amendments.
Proof of trainging presented to officers/adjusticators after issuing new memos.
Click to expand...



File a lawsuit agains CIS. Your lawyers can do it or we can do it, because technically you are not a class member (you do not have a pending i-485).
 
operations said:
It is important.
Click to expand...

Please post the date for the next hearing/appearance. So I can make arrangements to get there from CA.

My guess is most of our most active members have had their cases approved and, obviously, their interest level can not be expected to be the same. I can not speak for others, but, barring circumstances beyond my control, I will be there.
 
Mr. Khanna, thanks for these altruistic efforts. I have seen people talk a lot, but this is the first time I am seeing someone actually walk the talk. I am missing out on being part of this fight by not being able to drive down to the court as I live in the west coast. Loss is mine, but I am closely watching every development in this case with much anticipation. You simply can't fail as you represent the voice of thousands of hurting individuals.
Thanks for keeping us posted. Wish you good luck and a speedy recovery !
 
operations said:
But we may not have a hearing on the class action. The Court might decide the issue based upon the papers.
Click to expand...



Is it possible that judge might rule before the end of two weeks?? I am assuming that both sides would be submitting more info before the the two weeks are over rather than submitting on the day of hearing.
 
Seek clues that CIS violates law

We need persuade Judger that unreasonable delay, or random processing, or whatever CIS did already violates civil law. Like we sue a hospital for a patient death or permanent injury, we might let judger believe treatment delay is a significant cause of death or injury that is against law. Training manual is the cause of not knowing how to do. Not knowing how to do is the cause of delay treatment. The delay treatment is the cause of death or permanent injury. What we have to address or focus on is the result is against law. Our thought should be out of box. Let's calm down and think about it. Mr. Rajiv now needs more examples that CIS did for you and that violated the civil law. Mr.Rajiv now needs more what are your suggestions for defeating CIS rather than too many thanks that we would say later.
 
BlameTSC said:
We need persuade Judger that unreasonable delay, or random processing, or whatever CIS did already violates civil law. Like we sue a hospital for a patient death or permanent injury, we might let judger believe treatment delay is a significant cause of death or injury that is against law. Training manual is the cause of not knowing how to do. Not knowing how to do is the cause of delay treatment. The delay treatment is the cause of death or permanent injury. What we have to address or focus on is the result is against law. Our thought should be out of box. Let's calm down and think about it. Mr. Rajiv now needs more examples that CIS did for you and that violated the civil law. Mr.Rajiv now needs more what are your suggestions for defeating CIS rather than too many thanks that we would say later.
Click to expand...

Your point is very good, but if you have read the court transcript thoroughly, then you would have understood that the judge is NOT willing to listen to any complaints against INS. He became angry (sort of) with Rajiv for making the complaints against the functioning of INS. He said that he is not going to tell INS how to do its business and he is not interested in making any fixes to INS. He is only interested in one question : "What legal grounds do we have to take up a case against INS based solely on delays in processing an application" .
 
Thanks Rajiv

Rajiv......I just read the entire transcript.....and am usually a silent observer but I really need to thank you for all your efforts and the long arguments presenting the case inspite of bad health....

I will continue to follow this closely and willing to participate in any participation required in future.....

again.....Thanks and hoping your health is doing good now....!!

Shiva
 
Unreasonable Processing times. 2-4 years?

Unfair processing - cases filed in Feb-2002 are not approved while cases filed in Dec 2002 are approved.

If two applications say EB3 are filed in Feb-2001 and one gets approved in Feb-2002 while the other keeps on waiting with no information on what's going on with his application.

A simple question, why my case is pending?. I don't get right answer from USCIS.

USCIS say's we are processing Feb-2002 cases. If so how come Dec-2002 cases are approved. Don't we have the right to know the right information and the right to fix things that are not appropriate.
 
Thats nothing. cases filed in June 2004 are getting approved in California. is that called partiality or is that called equality????
 
ligal grounds

Originally posted by Dsatish:
"Your point is very good, but if you have read the court transcript thoroughly, then you would have understood that the judge is NOT willing to listen to any complaints against INS. He became angry (sort of) with Rajiv for making the complaints against the functioning of INS. He said that he is not going to tell INS how to do its business and he is not interested in making any fixes to INS. He is only interested in one question : "What legal grounds do we have to take up a case against INS based solely on delays in processing an application" .

They (INS) say name check takes say 90 days + FBI FP check another 90days + "resonable processing time 180". Why 2-4 years?

So by their own math it is unreasonable even considering high priority additional security checks by any means it should not take so long
 
No. of Applications processed alongwith Processing dates

I wonder if CIS would be willing to accept this suggestion -
In the Service Center processing date web-updates published could CIS add a column indicating the number of applications processed during each period alongwith the Receipt dates of applications processed.
This would help as sometimes though processing dates have not moved - releasing the number of applications processed during that period would indicate some activity.
Thanks
 
To dsatish

Dsatish,

Your point is very good, but if you have read the court transcript thoroughly, then you would have understood that the judge is NOT willing to listen to any complaints against INS. He became angry (sort of) with Rajiv for making the complaints against the functioning of INS. He said that he is not going to tell INS how to do its business and he is not interested in making any fixes to INS. He is only interested in one question : "What legal grounds do we have to take up a case against INS based solely on delays in processing an application" .

I think the judger did right thing. Complains could not prove CIS violates law. Malfunction of CIS or not knowing how to do business is not against law. That is why he asked “What legal grounds do we have to take up a case against INS based solely on delays in processing an application”. What a judger would have to do is to judge whether a person or agency violates law or not. That is the point. That is his duty. Unfortunately, Mr. Rajiv poorly demonstrated that point the judger wanted to know. Complains are emotion and equal to nothing in law. What we have to do now is to help Mr. Rajiv out with some ideas and facts that CIS has violated law. We have to ask ourselves one question “Does CIS violate law?” Please email your suggestions to Mr. Rajiv or post here. I think Mr. Rajiv is willing to listen to. Good facts and ideas will inspire him and help win our class action in the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top