USCIS Move to Reduce RFEs ?!?!

I dont think the memo serves any purpose in reducing the backlog. Most of the RFEs issued are for employment verf. letters. Instead of issuing RFEs they could make it mandatory to send the EVL every six months or 1 year.

The downside of this memo has far more negative implications than that of positive. USICS policy seems to me like:

"To get rid of poverty, better kill the poor"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reduced RFE's

Let's not panic on this issue. USCIS clearly states that the policy is meant only for frivilous and ineligible cases where even basic documents are not provided. My understanding, it is not meant for minor mistakes in the application package. Just because someone's name was mispelled or the BC is not in the format required by the USCIS doesn't mean that someone becomes ineligible to gain benefits of employment based I-485 filing. If USCIS starts rejecting cases on flimsy grounds, I am sure 95% of those denied applicants will file cases in immigration courts calling for a motion to re-open. That would make things more messy and time consuming than the time to respond to an RFE.

My only concern is that lately USCIS is putting more and more burden on the applicants and harassing them even when the cases are genuine. We are already under nerve wrecking pressure during this process and now they keep adding more and more. Despite all these rules, the processing time still remains the same. No change in that.
 
Gcard 2002: Your interpretation may not be fully correct. If you look at the memo it seems like point 2 and point 3 contradict each other. Eg:

Point 2 is :Outright Denial for Failure to Submit "Sufficient" Evidence to Establish Eligibility: When the petitioners or applicants submit the required basic threshold supporting documentation which meet the "initial" evidence requirement under the statute and regulation, the agency will not give additional opportunity to supplement the evidence by issuing RFE. Accordingly, it will be critically important that the petitioners or applicants go an extra mile to document not just de minimus threshold evidence but sufficient evidence to prove the threshold requirements.

Point 3 is :RFE is required When "Initial" Records Are Missing: The statutes and regulations list the record requirements for filing of petitions or applications. If such records or evidence are missing, the agency will continue to issue RFE.

Lets take a simple example. I came to US on a J1 visa. Then changed status to F1, then to EAD card and finally to H1. However when I filed my I-485 my attorney forgot to put in approval notices of F1 change of status. Now will that fall into point 2 or point 3. Because if I was NOT in status previous to filing 485 then my application will be denied. However I was in status but the attorney did not provide sufficient proof to meet the threshhold. So will the USCIS send me a RFE to prove this or will they just DENY my case OUTRIGHT.

Another eg: could be BC because the applicant forgot to include notarized translations alongwith his initial application. Will INS allow him to prove this or just DENY his case.

I am still not able to make distinction between point 2 and point 3 in this memo.
 
looks like immigration-law has lobbyist intentions

No other site has any reference to this new stuff that this site has mentioned.

If one gives this a long thought, who would benefit most from this new concept?? .... it will be those companies that have employed EB based I-485s and they would lose the most with any job hopping that occurs due to new AC21 rule. These employers were uptil now very content on giving sub-par salaries to GC hopefuls since economy was down. Now since the economy is looking better more people are taking recourse to AC21.

So who is losing... the companies that were profiting on the backs of such bonded labor. But USCIS doesnt have anything to do with this, does it? And therefore my view that this immigration-law stuff should be taken with a "sack" of salt.

:D
 
I have seen the same new in Murthy.com also. Here is the link :
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html#2

I wonder why it is not here on this website. Also we cannot see the memo anywhere , not even in AILA website. We should be really concerned about 485,s if USCIS now stary to DENY them after us waiting for almost 2 years.

I wonder what we can really do about this. Maybe Rajiv should mention this issue in the court hearing this week. Because this would impact a lot of exisiting 485 applicants who have been suffering painfully waiting thru the backlog. Because at the time of filing we did not know this situation.

Also we dont know if this applies to existing applications or just newer ones. To me it looks like it would apply to all the applications.
 
puneet,

if i were you i would supplement my f1 to h1 document asap, before they get to my case. just a suggestion.
 
I am planning to talk to my attorney on Monday. But I needed to be fully sure about this news. But are we allowed to send the document at this stage. Will the Nebraska center accept it. I am not even sure what procedure needs to be followed here.

But has anyone sent documents later on during I-485 stage. Because earlier on people just waited to see if any further doc is needed via RFE.
 
Punnet gcard

In your case, it is better to contact the lawyer and ask him to file the missing evidence about your status.

In my case, I did concurrent filing based on future employment i.e my future employer gave a letter at the time of I140/I485 filing, stating that he will hire me after getting my GC. He is the one who also filed my labor in 2001. So, my I-140 was approved in 3 months after that, got EAD twice, gave FP and now I am waiting for my GC approval. All this time, I am working with my current employer (since 1999) though I am planning to switch to the sponsoring employer anytime now. In case (I know they will) INS sends an RFE, I can take a letter from the sponsoring employer stating that I am currently working with them. I believe this should satify their I-485 requirements. I doubt they would deny my case without an RFE just because my case is filed by a future employer. Anyway, let's see. I will keep my case progress updated to be useful for others.

My other concern is, on the BC, my mother's name does not appear. I am worried a little if they use it as an excuse to deny the case without giving me oppurtunity (RFE) to produce more documentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top