PDA

View Full Version : Judge orders green card cases reopened


bsbawa10
04-22-2009, 09:11 AM
I was reading this news and thinking: why cannot a lawsuit be filed against so many irregularities of USCIS that it has been doing and so much of suffering that it is giving us ? Any comments ? Suggestions

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_re_us/us_widow_penalty

mps
04-22-2009, 10:13 AM
Going by the same reasoning - if an EB based applicant gets laid off, while GC is pending with DHS, DHS can't deny GC.

minimalist
04-22-2009, 10:37 AM
Going by the same reasoning - if an EB based applicant gets laid off, while GC is pending with DHS, DHS can't deny GC.

Even after death, the relationship continues, so to speak.How can you say the same about job? The laid off person is going to be a widow? Is he going to get a right to the company's estate?

sayantan76
04-22-2009, 10:55 AM
Going by the same reasoning - if an EB based applicant gets laid off, while GC is pending with DHS, DHS can't deny GC.
if they were talking about divorce - your point could possibly be argued as valid - the comparison with death is totally riduculous

morchu
04-22-2009, 11:12 AM
i will say what is ridiculous is the "window" where you have to prove the job.
If you got an RFE today, and you were in a layoff, you are unlucky because you got 30 days to find a new job, convince the new employer to give a letter, spend time with the company lawyers etc. Which I think is ridiculous. So it really depends on time timing of the RFE.

Another fact is that, usually a lot employers after announcing the layoff, asks the employee to remain there another 6 months or so to complete the pending tasks, and you will get the "severance pay" only if you sign and say that you will be there for that period. But remember, even if he is employed during these 6 months, there is no "permanent job" there, and so cannot be used as EVL for GC.

So in effect by taking that severance, and 6 months employment there, you might be risking your GC, which is also ridiculous.

I suggest USCIS give a more open window like 6 months to reply for Employment Verification.

mps
04-22-2009, 12:00 PM
Instead of focusing on semantics of death and job loss please try to understand argument behind this decision which is,

"If basis for your GC application goes away for no fault of the applicant, due to unreasonable timeframe for processing such application by DHS, DHS has no ground to come back after 5 years and demand that you must have maintained status quo which was at the time of filing."

hebbar77
04-22-2009, 12:50 PM
guys,
none of you are already dead. So please dont be depressed.
If you have hard time finding things to do till green card, I got ideas. In bay areas there are some bike events coming up. You can get a IV jersey and participate.
You will get some publicity for IV!

antihero
04-22-2009, 01:46 PM
guys,
none of you are already dead. So please dont be depressed.


And if you are dead, then you can't be depressed.

Isn't this a win-win deal for you. :)

antihero
04-22-2009, 01:48 PM
I say, if the company dies then the analogy is correct.

Even after death, the relationship continues, so to speak.How can you say the same about job? The laid off person is going to be a widow? Is he going to get a right to the company's estate?

jsb
04-22-2009, 03:03 PM
I was reading this news and thinking: why cannot a lawsuit be filed against so many irregularities of USCIS that it has been doing and so much of suffering that it is giving us ? Any comments ? Suggestions

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_re_us/us_widow_penalty
I didn't know that a dependant spouse's immigration status could be reversed if sponsoring spouse died within two years of marriage.

There is a parallel with EB based application to some extent. USCIS confirming continued job, type of job, etc. several years after AOS file was filed, through RFE's etc. does not make any sense. What if there is no job after GC is granted? GC is not cancelled in that case. Why such questions are asked (via RFE's) years after AOS is filed, and USCIS is just sitting on it for whatever grounds?

I think there is a possibility of eliminating RFE's etc, once AOS application has been filed, and accepted by USCIS, if lawyers take interest. Only conditions at application time should be checked, not years after. Of course, intent of working on regular fulltime basis for the sponsoring employer, which is the basis of any EB sponsorship, should remain in force, as is the case now.

But lawyers don't want that. They like lingering and prolonged cases, which is a source of income for their business.

Winner
04-22-2009, 03:10 PM
guys,
none of you are already dead. So please dont be depressed.
If you have hard time finding things to do till green card, I got ideas. In bay areas there are some bike events coming up. You can get a IV jersey and participate.
You will get some publicity for IV!

Just curious…
Are you planning on attending this event with you IV t-shirt?

rick_rajvanshi
04-22-2009, 03:24 PM
Instead of focusing on semantics of death and job loss please try to understand argument behind this decision which is,

"If basis for your GC application goes away for no fault of the applicant, due to unreasonable timeframe for processing such application by DHS, DHS has no ground to come back after 5 years and demand that you must have maintained status quo which was at the time of filing."



This should be made basis for filing a lawsuit on behalf of all EB3 and EB2 ( I/C ) applicants with pd of 2003-04 time frame who are facing similar situation today due to weakening economy and job losses. The USCIS has not only shown to be bureaucratic organization but has also demonstrated a reckless behavior in approving cases which were filed much later such as ones from 2005 and 2006 especially EB2/EB3 ( I/C).

How you can they even consider 2005-06 cases for approval before 2003-04 cases and now start sending RFEs to the same applicants asking to prove that they are maintaining status.

jsb
04-22-2009, 03:37 PM
......How you can they even consider 2005-06 cases for approval before 2003-04 cases and now start sending RFEs to the same applicants asking to prove that they are maintaining status.

Answer is very clear. CIS centers claim to process applications in order they receive them. Applications of those with PD's in 2005, 2006 may have been received few minutes/hours/days earlier (which means tens of thousands of cases in July07 filings). So they were ahead in que, and their PD's were also Current when their cases were reviewed.

Nobody cared (or cares) if your case was shunted around for months (as happened in my and thousands of other cases) before a center accepted it and decided to enter in the system, putting it down in que by tens of thousands of cases.

Note that PD's are nowhere in the system (to help with Search, Sort, Count etc.). They are only on papers you file (or receive back). Cases are not processed in PD sequence. PD is used only to check with published cutoff date.

kpchal2
04-22-2009, 03:39 PM
excellent question. i back you on that. but the sad part is that the reckless uscis and dhs does not care. it is very unfortunate that they issued green cards to people from 2005 and 2006 (of all the people). i would very much like the USCIS to use up all the green card slots but that should not be an excuse to give them in a random manner. if they follow that random order then there is no way any one can state with certainity that they can get their green card. i hate saying this but the USCIS should be help accountable for this stupid act of theirs and they should either issue the same number of green cards to the previous year applicants eiother by creating a new slot of cards or revoke the old ones and get them to the rightful owners. i should only be day dreaming to think that this will happen but what ever there is nothing wrong in dreaming as there is no RFE or denial for that reason - stupid USCIS - i got the best here :-)

kpchal2
04-22-2009, 03:41 PM
that is not correct. there are lot of people who applied in Aug (by no means they are earlier than July 2nd filers like me) and still managed to get their green cards. it just boils my blood to even think that this kind of injustice is prevelant and that they dont care about it. what ever those idiots at USCIS do not care.

jsb
04-22-2009, 03:58 PM
that is not correct. there are lot of people who applied in Aug (by no means they are earlier than July 2nd filers like me) and still managed to get their green cards. it just boils my blood to even think that this kind of injustice is prevelant and that they dont care about it. what ever those idiots at USCIS do not care.

It did boil my blood too. My RD is 2July07, but my application was entered by TSC in the system in October(in the meantime perhaps they were arguing on who should take this extraordinary load). My online status says "your case was received on Oct 11, 07...), meaning that, as far as TSC is concerned, my case was recieved on 11 Oct '07, so was placed at the tail end (behind all those who cases entered in July, Aug and Sep).

It is not right, but that's how they work. When I noted last year in July-Aug that people with 2005, 2006 were getting cleared, I raised this issue in a conference call with the Ombudsman. I even sent a 'complaint' via Fedex for a quick action. But I got a standard reply after 3 months saying "...your PD is not current..." (as by that time, PD cutoff were retrogressed again). Perhaps noone even read or cared to understand.

Pagal
04-22-2009, 07:57 PM
Hello,

I understand the frustration, but I always like to look at the brighter side...here it is from my perspective (maybe true, maybe not given how transparent the process is)

After the initial mountain of applications was received and USCIS was caught off-guard by volume, there was a period of 'shell-shock' for USCIS...which meant, no response, no clarity, mixed messages and no significant progress. I guess, this continued through Q1'2008. Then, in Q2-Q3'2008, USCIS got control (!) of the situation and started to disperse the applications to local offices.

The local offices may have been given guidance to process applications 'pro-actively' and move valid applications to pre-adjudicated status while denying applications that are not valid for one reason or another.

I think, this was a smart move by USCIS. It allowed USCIS to utilize the resources from local offices, it got major work done of application review, it got out invalid applications, it ensured completeness of the valid applications through RFEs and/or interviews, it offered these applications to be entered/updated in USCIS systems and it pushed applications one step further towards 'pre-adjudicated' status.

I think in 2009-10, USCIS may be able to utilize the visa numbers quickly by issuing green cards against pre-adjudicated applications in their system. This will also free resources at USCIS to handle the workload from CIR (if it hits them in early 2010).

If this is the case, then I wouldn't be surprized to see cut-off dates advancing quickly in Jul-Sep 2009 (barring the mysteries like EB-3 U in 2009 from April)....should we say, "Always look at the sunny side..." a la Mel Brooks movie? ;)

hebbar77
04-22-2009, 10:05 PM
Just curious…
Are you planning on attending this event with you IV t-shirt?

I dont have a IV T-shirt, nor I know how to print on clothing!

pappu
04-22-2009, 10:24 PM
I dont have a IV T-shirt, nor I know how to print on clothing!

http://www.cafepress.com/immivoice