IV Action Item: File FOIA request with USCIS

[ilikekilo]

U could get notarized at ur local banks or at ur work place if u ahve anyone who has a license

i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...


and also anyone knows the fax #??

[nixstor]

Originally Posted by ilikekilo

U could get notarized at ur local banks or at ur work place if u ahve anyone who has a license

i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...


and also anyone knows the fax #??

Fax number (816) 350-5785

[mbartosik]

Originally Posted by ilikekilo

U could get notarized at ur local banks or at ur work place if u ahve anyone who has a license

i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...


and also anyone knows the fax #??

I've already got my GC, but will file this.
Anybody can file a freedom of information act request. It is a general principle of democracy that the public needs to be in an informed position, and sunlight is the best disinfectant for government.

I think that the receipt number referred to is the FOIA receipt number that you will get back after sending this, not your AOS receipt number.

[saketkapur]

sent.........

[ezee]

Don't you think we should be more clear in requesting information per specific country instead of lumping China and India together for EB-2 and others for EB-3? Also will it be too much to request pending applications by month/quarter instead of year?

We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
|[indent]|EB2 - China |EB-2 India |EB-3 China |EB-3 India |EB-3 Mexico |EB-3 Phillipines |EB-3 Rest|
2001-Q1
2001-Q2
2001-Q3
2001-Q4
2002-Q1
2002-Q2
2002-Q3
2002-Q4
2003-Q1
2003-Q2
2003-Q3
2003-Q4
2004-Q1
2004-Q2
2004-Q3
2004-Q4
2005-Q1
2005-Q2
2005-Q3
2005-Q4
2006-Q1
2006-Q2
2006-Q3
2006-Q4
2007-Q1
2007-Q2
2007-Q3
2007-Q4
2008-Q1
2008-Q2
2008-Q3
2008-Q4

[Openarms]

This is one of the most important issue on this forum that ever taken care. I will do send letter with in couple of days.

[nixstor]

Originally Posted by ezee

Don't you think we should be more clear in requesting information per specific country instead of lumping China and India together for EB-2 and others for EB-3? Also will it be too much to request pending applications by month/quarter instead of year?

We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.

This is what is in the letter.

>>>> I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether) <<<<

I clearly mentioned each of the following country and category. To make sure, I also mentioned that we do not need combined total of pending AOS applications. If the request is ambiguous or means different things to different people,please let us know and we can make needed modifications asap. Are you recommending to hand out a blank tabular format .to USCIS FOIA?

As far as the year vs quarter thing is concerned, we felt that its best to get some thing out of this rather than tossed around. Most of the data from 2005/post perm can be found on the flcdatacenter and we can sort these ourselves. This leaves with pre perm applications and I believe DOS will have a better handle in moving the PD's a lot better in the last Q, if they have a handle on the number of applications by year. I agree that if info available on a monthly/quarterly basis, it would be even better. But I feel that we will get tossed around

[ezee]

I clearly mentioned each of the following country and category. To make sure, I also mentioned that we do not need combined total of pending AOS applications. If the request is ambiguous or means different things to different people,please let us know and we can make needed modifications asap. Are you recommending to hand out a blank tabular format .to USCIS FOIA?

I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.

[nixstor]

Originally Posted by ezee

I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.

Hear ya. Even though its repetitive,for the sake of clarity and to avoid ambiguity/frivolous answer, I have updated the document in google docs and the attachment by one of our other member prabhu.

Thanks for your feedback.

[aroranuj]

Notarized & mailed my FOIA letter today...

[Libra]

bump

[bharani]

Just mailed the letter.

[Openarms]

Notarized & mailed my FOIA letter yesterday.

[conundrum]

Faxed and mailed!

[WeldonSprings]

USCIS NSC and TSC is cutting the line in approval of I-140 aplications and is not following First In First Out policy.

This affects not only the I-140 applications, but pending I-485 (EB-2) applications too.

USCIS NSC and TSC is approving I-140 applications for EB-1 and EB-2 ROW cases filed six months ago, and letting them go ahead and grab the coveted visa number.

However, they are not approving EB-2 India and China I-140 applications, because of non-availability of visa numbers.

This is causing an issue with the horizontal spill-over effect as described in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

EB-2 India and China waiting patiently since 2004 should have gotten those visa numbers via spill-over effect, not used by Rest of World, if USCIS had not approved their I-140 application, since they joined the line after the EB-2 India and China folks. This is blatant misjudgment and misorganization.


Please refer to immigration-law.com for full message, but here is the part of it:

The I-140 petitions have been experiencing a significant dely and witnessed a irregular pattern in processing times between the stand-alone I-140 filing cases and the I-140/I-485 concurrently filed cases. Here are some questions and answered which are revealed in the USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting on September 30, 2008:
Question: In TSC and NSC, there is dramatic delay for last July/August concurrently filed I-140. At the same time, TSC quickly approved many non-concurrently filed I-140 with application mailing dates later than last August and even in 2008. So far, the average waiting time for concurrent filers > 300 days and for non-concurrent is around 80 days, according to some voluntary tracking data. Is that delay caused by the Plus Pilot program installed in TSC in Feb 2008, under which the entire I-140 and I-485 package is reviewed by one officer? If so, does that mean I-140s won't be processed and approved until the petitioner's Priority Date becomes Current? A delay of processing, and then denial, in I-140 adjudication could cause serious could cause serious problems for I-485 portability.
Response: Visa availability has been the primary focus at the Texas Service Center and the Nebraska Service Center for concurrent filings and stand alone I-485s. In recent weeks, we have identified I-140 petitions that have been held up because of visas are not available. These filings are placed in the workflow by I-140 processing date within the range of those that were processed after having been filed independent of an adjustment application. The instance of delayed I-140 adjudication should decrease significantly. Petitions that are outside of the posted processing dates can be raised to our attention through the 1 800 customer service number. Officers in the Call Centers will issue a service request if a call about the status of an application is received one day beyond the processing time listed on the website.