where is becky?

B

brokenarrow

Registered Users (C)
Becky,

Can you kindly draft a letter that we all can use to send it to our congressmen/senators about this out of queue processing. This is killing us oldtimers. You are so good at writing letters hence the request :-))
 
Draft letter for use

Dear Honorable <Congressperson/Senator>:

I am writing to you to draw continued attention to the processing delays at the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS and formerly BCIS/INS). In this current fiscal year, the California Service Center (CSC) has made less than two calendar months of I485 processing progress. This appalling progress comes despite the commitment from the head of the CSC, Don Neufeld, to reduce backlogs from over two years to less than 12 months by the end of this fiscal year. It also contradicts commitments made by Congress and President George W. Bush to reduce immigration processing times to 6 months.

I have waited <insert your number of months here> months to have my I485 adjudicated by the CSC. I am very frustrated at the long waiting period and the lack of accountability. Most recently, I have become angered by the injustice in the processing queue. The CSC processing time reports clearly state that the CSC is currently processing I485 cases with a filing date of about 1/30/2002. However, I was shocked to learn that the CSC has processed and approved cases which they received much later. Immigration Watch (www.immigrationwatch.com), a group that monitors the USCIS online case status reports, shows that the CSC approved I485 applications that it received between October 2002 and June 2003 in March 2004. The CSC received all of these applications many months after mine.

While I do not begrudge these people being free of the lengthy wait, I am disappointed that it comes at the expense of those who have waited over two years to be processed. Consequently, I request your assistance in determining why cases such as mine that were filed in the early part of 2002 are being set aside in favor of later ones. I am particularly concerned that the reason that these earlier cases are being ignored might be due to the fact that cases filed at the CSC in the early part of 2002 were subject to shredding by INS workers at the center. Maybe the reason why cases, including my own, are not being processed is because they were shredded. But, that surely does not mean applicants who filed cases in 2002 should be ignored; rather I think it means that we are especially deserving of an apology from the CSC, and timely processing.

In conclusion, I respectfully request that you write to Don Neufeld, head of the CSC, and ask him when cases in early 2002 will be processed and why cases after that time are being processed at the expense of earlier ones. I would also respectfully ask that Don Neufeld explain his plans to make good on his commitment to reduce the backlog to 6 months before September 2004.

Yours sincerely,






<my name>
WAC 02 124 5XXXX
 
Letter

I hope you find the letter helpful. I have used it myself with Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer. If you've written before you might want to mention the dates of your previous letters and so forth--so that they know that it's not your first letter. In the interest of having a little variety, feel free to change some of the words.

Recently I got some writing feedback from one office. One thing that was clear is even though congress may play a hand in making the problems bad at the CSC (too much legislation not enough funding) the people that are likely to work on your case, or take up your case, very much feel that they are on your side. They believe that they are fighting for you on your behalf. This means that they tend to reasonate more effectively with polite and well-written letters that make good points, but don't make them feel personally hurt or are so angry that they can't take them to the INS and argue.

That's been my criteria for writing ever since. I feel that I am getting results too.

becky
 
Hi Becky,
I like your letter writing skills. Thats great. How long since u have been practicising this? truly appreciate it.
 
Thanks Becky.

Matter of fact I sent this exact letter (I think you wrote this some time back) to

Saxby Chambliss
Edward Kennedy
Sheila Jackson
John Hostettler

Nothing from anyone. I will send them a third letter...

My problem is that I now reside in NJ, while 485 is pending in CSC. So whom do I contact? NJ senators or CA senators.
 
Thanx Becky Jee

Great letter. I am gonna send this letter to CA senators.

I did send few weeks ago with reply from Senator Feinstein
 
Thank you for the compliments

Thank you for all kind words about my letters. I have a secret, which is that my husband always reads and proofs them. It's really good to get another set of eyes on a letter--especially when its a topic like this because it's easy to get very upset when writing.

Re: Ca or NJ: I would do both if I had the time. CA people should focus more on your personal situation and the CSC. NJ should also focus on your personal difficulties, but perhaps emphasize why this is not good for
-- american employers
-- american economy
-- anything that NJ legislator does to worsen things (are they difficult about driving licenses for example?)

These are just my suggestions of course.

Again, everyone, thanks for the compliments,

becky
 
Great. Thanks. Your message just reassured me. I will write to senators in both the region. I do plan to touch upon the spin-offs of 485 delay, notable the DL in NJ.
 
It's the economy!

Remember that phrase "it's the economy stupid!" I can't remember what political context it was used in, but this is an election year and I think it's difficult for congresspeople to take a position that's not supporting the growth and revitalisation of the american economy...

so that's the way to play the DL issue. Be careful not to slam the NJ legislators for their decision directly... but indirectly, without a DL it's hard for you to perform your work most efficiently for your employer... the employer who's already paying through the nose to get nothing but further demands for payments for your future ability to wait and pay again.

One time I used a story about a project that my employer wanted me to start, and I couldn't start it because it was the same time that my EAD was expiring and even though I'd done the seven months prior to expiry application, seven months wasn't enough time to renew the card. Rather than my pain, I kept coming back to the employer, the American company who's getting to pay twice, once financially, and then a second time through time, effort, and other things that are caused by these lengthy delays.

Again, just a suggestion, but I think the economy is our strongest argument, because it's always the number one voting issue in a voting year.

becky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top