sri1309
01-05 11:41 AM
Hello every one,
I am starting this thread for all of us not to just think about the GC process. If any one is residing here for 10 years without GC, think about making a law which can lead us to Citizenship. My thoughts on this:
Many of our colleagues who landed with us during the late 90s (1998, 1999) and early 2000, who got their GC without any issues are now Citizens or waiting to become Citizen soon.
What is our status?. Just think. Still we are strugling to get the GC. Even by law change, if we are getting the GC this year (by GOD's Grace), then we need to wait for another 5 years from now (approximately 2014). Many persons like me who have come to this Country in their later career will be very much affected due to this delay (we have lot of other issues like the dependents reaching the age of 21 etc., College, University fees etc.,).
Core team and every one, please consider this and try to lobby for getting the citizenship without further wait if the persons satisfy the folowing conditions:
1. If they are legally here for 10 years (With approved I-140 and waiting for Adjustment of Status without current date).
2. If they have earned full 40 points in Social Security
3. If they have paid the tax continuously for 10 years
4. If they own a house and paying Mortgage (adding weightage to the Economy boost)
and
5. If they do not have any criminal records in these 10 years.
Please again do not just concentrate on the GC issues. Consider this and if any one can come with a letter draft with legal openion, we can send it to all Congress members, State Governers etc.,
Hope the members and the Core team consider this issue. I have one more thread on this, which I started some months back but the response was not that good. If every one of us unite on this and raise this to the Congress, I think the new Government may consider as this is very genuine.
Hi,
I would take off the point 4 related to owning the house as most of us are unable to do it just as greencard isnt in hand. I know how one can feel the pain of even owning the house without a GC, but trust me, there are very very few who would have bought a house with GC pending.,.
I STRONGLY support Citizenship for anyone for 10 years in the US or waiting for 5 years after applying for GC. I have also voiced the same thing even before. Citizenship is what we need to request after this much wait,
I am starting this thread for all of us not to just think about the GC process. If any one is residing here for 10 years without GC, think about making a law which can lead us to Citizenship. My thoughts on this:
Many of our colleagues who landed with us during the late 90s (1998, 1999) and early 2000, who got their GC without any issues are now Citizens or waiting to become Citizen soon.
What is our status?. Just think. Still we are strugling to get the GC. Even by law change, if we are getting the GC this year (by GOD's Grace), then we need to wait for another 5 years from now (approximately 2014). Many persons like me who have come to this Country in their later career will be very much affected due to this delay (we have lot of other issues like the dependents reaching the age of 21 etc., College, University fees etc.,).
Core team and every one, please consider this and try to lobby for getting the citizenship without further wait if the persons satisfy the folowing conditions:
1. If they are legally here for 10 years (With approved I-140 and waiting for Adjustment of Status without current date).
2. If they have earned full 40 points in Social Security
3. If they have paid the tax continuously for 10 years
4. If they own a house and paying Mortgage (adding weightage to the Economy boost)
and
5. If they do not have any criminal records in these 10 years.
Please again do not just concentrate on the GC issues. Consider this and if any one can come with a letter draft with legal openion, we can send it to all Congress members, State Governers etc.,
Hope the members and the Core team consider this issue. I have one more thread on this, which I started some months back but the response was not that good. If every one of us unite on this and raise this to the Congress, I think the new Government may consider as this is very genuine.
Hi,
I would take off the point 4 related to owning the house as most of us are unable to do it just as greencard isnt in hand. I know how one can feel the pain of even owning the house without a GC, but trust me, there are very very few who would have bought a house with GC pending.,.
I STRONGLY support Citizenship for anyone for 10 years in the US or waiting for 5 years after applying for GC. I have also voiced the same thing even before. Citizenship is what we need to request after this much wait,
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
jonty_11
06-21 12:32 PM
dude this is serious...that means can they stop taking application in mid month august or sept??:eek:
Yes it is serious.....and given how many people are raring to go.....it islikely...
As I have said before......we r just too many!!!!
Yes it is serious.....and given how many people are raring to go.....it islikely...
As I have said before......we r just too many!!!!
jamesbond007
11-04 11:10 AM
Well, all the jobs you mentioned in your message now falls in Zone 4 i.e. Eb3.
Only option that person may have now is to change career altogether in the fields where desi consulting companies do not operate.
I need to read up on the new zones implementation.
But if you may, please answer this question: If one wants to change jobs within the same company to a new job that falls in the same zone as his current one, can he do that without a new LCA?
The new job is in the same building/region; just some additional responsibility and would be in a different group than the present one.
Only option that person may have now is to change career altogether in the fields where desi consulting companies do not operate.
I need to read up on the new zones implementation.
But if you may, please answer this question: If one wants to change jobs within the same company to a new job that falls in the same zone as his current one, can he do that without a new LCA?
The new job is in the same building/region; just some additional responsibility and would be in a different group than the present one.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
h_shaik
04-06 01:55 PM
IV changed the policy....you can get donor access only if you sign up for recurring donation..hope that helps..
Great,
That helps.
Great,
That helps.
more...
subahjaani
01-12 01:48 PM
Just mailed letter to President and a copy to Immivoice.
OLDMONK
07-09 07:18 PM
Here is a Screen Shot of USCIS statement for Flower Campaign. For Archival Purposes.
or for people who missed or non believers.
or for people who missed or non believers.
more...
ssamineni
09-09 07:28 AM
Got 485 approvals yesterday for me and my wife. Thank you so much IV for everything
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
godbless
01-22 02:12 PM
If you really want to be on h1(very safe decision), why don't you leave for a couple of days and re-enter on your H1?
You mean even when my application for h1 extension has already been sent to USCIS?
You mean even when my application for h1 extension has already been sent to USCIS?
more...
morchu
06-17 01:18 PM
So attack on L1 is on the way.
What about another plan to attack F1?
You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. So what about targeting all those F1 now, since it is very obvious that they didnt come here just to study and go back. So lets smoke them out based on their "fraud intentions" at the time of F1 application.
After that lets attack the H1 landers. Many of them landed in H1 with body shoppers, and later changed to some big american company. Lets find some thing or other against these body shoppers, and all those H1 came with these body shoppers should go back (even though they are with some other company).
Ok. what is left.......... lets find out something bad about everybody else, except me.
Ohh... wait a sec..... we were supposed to be "united", by this forum, not "divided".
What about another plan to attack F1?
You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. So what about targeting all those F1 now, since it is very obvious that they didnt come here just to study and go back. So lets smoke them out based on their "fraud intentions" at the time of F1 application.
After that lets attack the H1 landers. Many of them landed in H1 with body shoppers, and later changed to some big american company. Lets find some thing or other against these body shoppers, and all those H1 came with these body shoppers should go back (even though they are with some other company).
Ok. what is left.......... lets find out something bad about everybody else, except me.
Ohh... wait a sec..... we were supposed to be "united", by this forum, not "divided".
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
miaroh
09-12 06:59 PM
but it is pending with FBI since Aug 1st. Looks like they also check for fragmented names.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
If I search my "Firstname Middlename" there are 10000 hits in google :-). And I know for sure there are few murderers , politicians and movie stars(most of them are arrested atleast once for crime or the other :-)) who have the same first name and middle name as mine back in India.Last name is what makes the full name unique.
My Namecheck was initiated Aug 4th as per TSC IO and is still pending.Looks like I am going to be waiting for a long time.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
If I search my "Firstname Middlename" there are 10000 hits in google :-). And I know for sure there are few murderers , politicians and movie stars(most of them are arrested atleast once for crime or the other :-)) who have the same first name and middle name as mine back in India.Last name is what makes the full name unique.
My Namecheck was initiated Aug 4th as per TSC IO and is still pending.Looks like I am going to be waiting for a long time.
more...
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
crystal
07-10 10:28 PM
http://www.prlog.org/10023531-bollywood-supports-highly-skilled-workers-green-card-concerns.html
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
leoindiano
08-07 06:15 AM
SunnySurya, Flood,
I see that you guys didnt join IV until 2008. So, you know very less about this org. The people who only can think for their own wont come to join you at any stage, it was proven many times. They will just keep writing messages here and use valuable information on the forum.
I am EB2/Masters/PD Nov 2004. I do not not support your idea. I loose patience at times, but not to the extent of effecting other peoples chances. I know quite a few of my freinds who had masters, their corporate employers applied in EB3, none of them are trying to do conversion. But, i feel their pain.
I see that you guys didnt join IV until 2008. So, you know very less about this org. The people who only can think for their own wont come to join you at any stage, it was proven many times. They will just keep writing messages here and use valuable information on the forum.
I am EB2/Masters/PD Nov 2004. I do not not support your idea. I loose patience at times, but not to the extent of effecting other peoples chances. I know quite a few of my freinds who had masters, their corporate employers applied in EB3, none of them are trying to do conversion. But, i feel their pain.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
nkavjs
09-21 10:54 AM
JSB ! You are just one very optimistic one.. aren't you ? :)
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
saileshdude
09-15 06:02 PM
Actually I want to know how we can check that our I-485 is associated with EB2 and not EB3. Is there a code for this on I-485 application?
Did you check if you are under EB2 or EB3 with USCIS?
Did you check if you are under EB2 or EB3 with USCIS?
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
gc_chahiye
06-29 06:03 PM
I have a few theories on this. This is meant just to open discussion.
1) The USCIS and State department are not communicating at all. This is not at all uncommon within gov't agencies as we all know.
The State Dep't released the bulletin perhaps without realising the full ramifications. Having heard from the USCIS..........hey hey hey what the F&^% are you doing? They may have realised over the last few weeks what a mess they have on their hands. Now they are trying to undo it.
thats possible. I thought the Ombudsman also said something to this effect. that these three (DOL/USCIS/DOS) dont talk to each other as well as they should. Also, apparently visa dates are set by ONE person who does all the number crunching. that seems to be weird. There should be a more transparent mechanism of doing all this.
2) Another possibility I can think of, is that this is a grand plan(heck I almost said grand bargain) concocted by the USCIS to get 485s OUT of the system as much as possible while minimising those that can get IN. Hence you might see in the coming few weeks thousands of approval letters all dated the 2nd of July. That will allow them to clear their backlogs of pre-approved, approvable cases and clean the slate fresh for the new fees structure/new quota in the new year. Some of you might remember they retrogressed to unavailable around this time 2 yrs ago. They do these weird things in the 4th quarter.
the U two years ago was apparently because USCIS somehow used up more visas than they should, and ate up all the numbers from the next quarter. Apparently that was the only year they did not waste visa numbers.
I guess hte only reason they dont want applications IN the system is because it looks bad on them (# of backlog cases); otherwise whats the harm: take the file and stick it on a shelf. As the applicant keeps coming back for EAD/AP
keep milking them for money. win-win.
3) Of course the last option is their brains have the same IQ as that of any common critter that messes up your garden.
Pick your poison, it is all the same. I feel for everyone whose hopes were raised so high. It is truly inhumane of them. If they planned this, they should atleast have delayed the release of the July VB.
I would think its #1. The miscommunication across these govt. bodies. We pay the price, there will possibly be a lawsuit (which will be quickly settled) and some heads will roll.
1) The USCIS and State department are not communicating at all. This is not at all uncommon within gov't agencies as we all know.
The State Dep't released the bulletin perhaps without realising the full ramifications. Having heard from the USCIS..........hey hey hey what the F&^% are you doing? They may have realised over the last few weeks what a mess they have on their hands. Now they are trying to undo it.
thats possible. I thought the Ombudsman also said something to this effect. that these three (DOL/USCIS/DOS) dont talk to each other as well as they should. Also, apparently visa dates are set by ONE person who does all the number crunching. that seems to be weird. There should be a more transparent mechanism of doing all this.
2) Another possibility I can think of, is that this is a grand plan(heck I almost said grand bargain) concocted by the USCIS to get 485s OUT of the system as much as possible while minimising those that can get IN. Hence you might see in the coming few weeks thousands of approval letters all dated the 2nd of July. That will allow them to clear their backlogs of pre-approved, approvable cases and clean the slate fresh for the new fees structure/new quota in the new year. Some of you might remember they retrogressed to unavailable around this time 2 yrs ago. They do these weird things in the 4th quarter.
the U two years ago was apparently because USCIS somehow used up more visas than they should, and ate up all the numbers from the next quarter. Apparently that was the only year they did not waste visa numbers.
I guess hte only reason they dont want applications IN the system is because it looks bad on them (# of backlog cases); otherwise whats the harm: take the file and stick it on a shelf. As the applicant keeps coming back for EAD/AP
keep milking them for money. win-win.
3) Of course the last option is their brains have the same IQ as that of any common critter that messes up your garden.
Pick your poison, it is all the same. I feel for everyone whose hopes were raised so high. It is truly inhumane of them. If they planned this, they should atleast have delayed the release of the July VB.
I would think its #1. The miscommunication across these govt. bodies. We pay the price, there will possibly be a lawsuit (which will be quickly settled) and some heads will roll.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
gautamkini
06-15 01:55 PM
Hi,
My wife and kid are outside india. Can i file for 485 and include them...Do they have to be in india for that. Also can i file for my wife's ead
My wife and kid are outside india. Can i file for 485 and include them...Do they have to be in india for that. Also can i file for my wife's ead
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
addsf345
01-13 03:56 PM
Looks like Obmudsman office have acknowledged the problem. Just read this on their site
......
However, the Ombudsman understands that USCIS may deny the Form I-485 in cases of portability (the ability to change jobs) before first issuing a Notice of Intent to Deny in certain limited circumstances. These include, for example, where the beneficiary is ineligible for the benefits of the Form I-485 by statute, or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the Form I-485 was pending for 180 days........
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm
Once again a big Thank You to all of the volunteers behind this campaign.
Good News! Thank you for sharing. This shows that if we are united, we can have our complaints heard. Those who started this thread, pursued, promoted and participated, you all ROCK!
A BIG THANKYOU!
......
However, the Ombudsman understands that USCIS may deny the Form I-485 in cases of portability (the ability to change jobs) before first issuing a Notice of Intent to Deny in certain limited circumstances. These include, for example, where the beneficiary is ineligible for the benefits of the Form I-485 by statute, or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the Form I-485 was pending for 180 days........
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm
Once again a big Thank You to all of the volunteers behind this campaign.
Good News! Thank you for sharing. This shows that if we are united, we can have our complaints heard. Those who started this thread, pursued, promoted and participated, you all ROCK!
A BIG THANKYOU!
nk2006
09-16 10:48 AM
Hi,
Can state chapter leaders please send an email to members to inform about latest scheduling of HR5882 and ask them to call the appropriate congress members.
Not all IV members visit the site regularly and it seems most members are under the impression that HR5882 is post-poned indefinitely. I did receive an alert email two weeks ago when 5882 was being considered first time (and it was helpful - thanks MA chapter) - it would be effective to send another short one now. Thanks.
Can state chapter leaders please send an email to members to inform about latest scheduling of HR5882 and ask them to call the appropriate congress members.
Not all IV members visit the site regularly and it seems most members are under the impression that HR5882 is post-poned indefinitely. I did receive an alert email two weeks ago when 5882 was being considered first time (and it was helpful - thanks MA chapter) - it would be effective to send another short one now. Thanks.
pappu
08-04 07:46 PM
I am researching this topic and will post more as I find answers
================
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_uscis_bcs.pdf
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/others/FBI_NNCP_part1.pdf
================
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_uscis_bcs.pdf
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/others/FBI_NNCP_part1.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment