View Full Version : Ombudsman recommendation and USCIS reply

07-10-2007, 09:04 PM
In February 2007, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS adopt a standard operating policy under which there would be, absent exigent circumstances, at least 30-days advance notice to the public and posting on the USCIS website of changes to policy and operations instructions. The Ombudsman has been and continues to be concerned about changes to USCIS policy and procedure without adequate notice to the public. Implementation of this recommendation would improve USCIS efficiency and customer service by: (1) helping to ensure that customers understand precisely what is expected and required in a submission; and (2) allowing USCIS to focus on adjudicating applications, rather than issuing time consuming rejections, denials, and RFEs when customers do not know what has changed.
On May 7, 2007, USCIS responded to this recommendation. USCIS stated that it has “increasingly been notifying the public of changes to policy and operating instructions whenever appropriate . . . [and] will continue to improve and expand on its efforts to provide public notice as a standard practice, absent exigent circumstances.”81 However, USCIS noted that in certain instances, it will put forth policy changes without any delay, and that “[m]aking the 30-day advance notice requirement for all policy or procedural changes will unnecessarily delay implementation of important changes.


Go to Page 107 and you can see the same

07-10-2007, 09:12 PM
USCIS is not even able to give 30 min advance notice. 30 days will be too much for USCIS.

07-10-2007, 10:25 PM
USCIS is not even able to give 30 min advance notice. 30 days will be too much for USCIS.

good one :p

07-11-2007, 01:41 AM
good info read

07-11-2007, 02:08 AM
Tell me if I'm wrong somewhere:
A) Acceptance of I-485 without an available visa number requires congressional intervention, not administrative decree by USCIS.
B) The issue here is not whether USCIS, if they do reject and send back I-485's based on DOS's notice of availability of visa numbers, are technically correct in that action or not, but whether they gave "Fair and sufficient" notice of it.
C) Are the ways and methods of calculating 'available' visa numbers correct and bona fide.
The AILF lawsuit focuses on points B and C. If proven "at fault" by the court, the issue is whether it can, within the parameters of the constitution and the written law, force an over ride of point A, and how.
Is this the issue in a nutshell?
I've heard and read many conflicting takes on this, so wanted to clarify this for my enlightenment..