nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
wallpaper Cassie Wallpaper
FucTheGC
06-06 02:35 PM
We got the "welcome" and "card production ordered" email for my wife and I today too. It was a long frustrating wait at times but I am glad its over for us now. Our best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
===========
Was your I485 Approval from Neb or Texas ?
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
===========
Was your I485 Approval from Neb or Texas ?
pappu
02-22 12:28 PM
Pls post your schedule and location on the the IV agenda thread so that it is visible on the homepage. Urge more NJ members to come to the temple to help you distribute flyers and talk to interested people.They will also have a chance to and meet other NJ chapter members. At least one core member will also come for this and everyone will have a chance to meet and ask any questions.
2011 dektop wallpaper Cassie
stucklabor
07-24 10:15 PM
.. there should definitely be some policy interpretation at the discretion of the USCIS
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
more...
Tito_ortiz
11-19 12:09 PM
Please do not take any precipitated steps that harm yours status ! Calm down. This is still the strongest economy in the world. You don't want to miss this unique opportunity !
tabletpc
12-20 04:24 PM
Prioritydate,
I din;t mean to be so funny as you have realzied from my response.
My comment was just on the other post.
Having said that let me also say that....everyone one is tensed in some way or the other just realted with immigration. That does not mean we should stop laughing. of course i don't mean to say this at others cost here..!!!!
As of your situation....based on what i know....you might be issued RFE..jsut be prepared for a right reason..if you have any.
I din;t mean to be so funny as you have realzied from my response.
My comment was just on the other post.
Having said that let me also say that....everyone one is tensed in some way or the other just realted with immigration. That does not mean we should stop laughing. of course i don't mean to say this at others cost here..!!!!
As of your situation....based on what i know....you might be issued RFE..jsut be prepared for a right reason..if you have any.
more...
Dhundhun
10-19 09:46 PM
Folks,
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
I heard them talking on same issue. Your findings are consistent with what ever I heard from their mouth.
Still it is hard to believe. Specially most of my GC holder friends have blind faith in Obama.
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
I heard them talking on same issue. Your findings are consistent with what ever I heard from their mouth.
Still it is hard to believe. Specially most of my GC holder friends have blind faith in Obama.
2010 Cassie-mobile-wallpaper
laborchic
09-12 11:06 AM
So many people in NJ Thread... How many are coming for the rallly....
Please forrward the Businessweek article to everyone.. This may give us a good bump in increasing the attendance..
Please forrward the Businessweek article to everyone.. This may give us a good bump in increasing the attendance..
more...
sat0207
04-27 09:23 AM
Immigration Security Checks
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
hair Cassie iPhone Wallpaper
arunmohan
03-17 01:50 PM
Hello group:
This is true that EB3 people are going to stay for longer period( no one knows how long).
I am not sure that how much would be fruitful to port from EB3->EB2. Everone knows that it is not easy.
IV team should think and decide the next course of action for EB3.
I am with them what ever they decide. I am ready to give any kind of support.
Regards
This is true that EB3 people are going to stay for longer period( no one knows how long).
I am not sure that how much would be fruitful to port from EB3->EB2. Everone knows that it is not easy.
IV team should think and decide the next course of action for EB3.
I am with them what ever they decide. I am ready to give any kind of support.
Regards
more...
Kodi
04-01 11:36 AM
Does anyone have the format of the employment letter? My attorney didn't request one even when I emailed him few time.
Form I-140 has an area to write the wages per week? The amount my attorney wrote is wages for the year. Is this ok?
Thank you.
Form I-140 has an area to write the wages per week? The amount my attorney wrote is wages for the year. Is this ok?
Thank you.
hot Cassie Wallpaper for Desktop
go_gc_way
12-11 03:34 PM
First someone from IV core has to confirm that this rule change does not need congress action. I am sure the core has explored this option before.
Until then, there is no point in having any discussion on this.
I second all , who want to contact USCIS for this. We can take out this from our wish list for a bill.
Until then, there is no point in having any discussion on this.
I second all , who want to contact USCIS for this. We can take out this from our wish list for a bill.
more...
house pictures cassie wallpapers
HV000
02-22 01:56 PM
Do NOT blame Googler for sharing some info. for movement of EB quotas!!! People with INFORMATION/NEWS will always get attention. Deal with it!
tattoo Cassie Ventura – Diddy#39;s
vin13
02-11 06:48 PM
There is a huge backlog in FB category. How come there are 13,000 unused visas in FB. If any immigration business shop is so confident about their assertion, why do they not file a lawsuit on CIS. Why are they posting these messages on different forums? Do they just want to gain visibility? It seems that its better business practice is to write random statements like 'CIS failed again' without having the willingness to do something about CIS failure. Aren't there clients with pending 485 of this immigration shop. As their lawyer and with fiduciary duty towards his clients, if he is so confident of CIS failure, why is he not filing a lawsuit on CIS to guard the interest of his clients.
Who are you questioning???
I just conveyed the message .Nobody said it is true or false. This is the message received period. Now we need to evaluate and see if it makes sense.
We are talking about an inefficient USCIS. It is OK to question and make sure things are happening as it should. The lawyer is not posting information everywhere. Why do you have to jump into conclusions? You and Me have a interest in us getting the green card not the lawyer. Don't expect the lawyer to file a lawsuit for you...and lets get the facts together and leave the lawyer alone.
Who are you questioning???
I just conveyed the message .Nobody said it is true or false. This is the message received period. Now we need to evaluate and see if it makes sense.
We are talking about an inefficient USCIS. It is OK to question and make sure things are happening as it should. The lawyer is not posting information everywhere. Why do you have to jump into conclusions? You and Me have a interest in us getting the green card not the lawyer. Don't expect the lawyer to file a lawsuit for you...and lets get the facts together and leave the lawyer alone.
more...
pictures cas - Cassie Wallpaper
paula
03-21 05:44 PM
EB3
Labor PD - 6/2/2004
Labor cleared - February 2007
485 filed - August 17
140 cleared - September 2007
EAD card - November 2007
AP - December 2007
485 pending.
Labor PD - 6/2/2004
Labor cleared - February 2007
485 filed - August 17
140 cleared - September 2007
EAD card - November 2007
AP - December 2007
485 pending.
dresses Anlo Cassie Legging Jeans
Refugee_New
07-30 11:19 AM
LOL.
The issue of GOD and religion has been discussed ad nauseum by many great thinkers and philosophers (Spinoza, Voltaire, Hume, Russel etc.). Most of us do not read their opinions and try to broaden our knowledge. We never get beyond what our parents taught us about GOD and religion. What is worse still is that the allegorical descriptions in religious texts are now treated as facts and we often end up arguing over these as well.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong in believing in GOD. There is also nothing wrong if someone is not convinced about the existence of GOD. There are valid philosophical arguments for both cases. Lack of mutual respect and failing to see others point of view is what is causing this rift.
You are true. Every religion preaches their followers to give atmost respect to people of other faith. Being a weak humanbeing we always tend to forget these simple rules.
The issue of GOD and religion has been discussed ad nauseum by many great thinkers and philosophers (Spinoza, Voltaire, Hume, Russel etc.). Most of us do not read their opinions and try to broaden our knowledge. We never get beyond what our parents taught us about GOD and religion. What is worse still is that the allegorical descriptions in religious texts are now treated as facts and we often end up arguing over these as well.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong in believing in GOD. There is also nothing wrong if someone is not convinced about the existence of GOD. There are valid philosophical arguments for both cases. Lack of mutual respect and failing to see others point of view is what is causing this rift.
You are true. Every religion preaches their followers to give atmost respect to people of other faith. Being a weak humanbeing we always tend to forget these simple rules.
more...
makeup cassie scerbo wallpapers;
nixstor
10-15 07:25 PM
Nixtor - In the poll question you talk about providing your receipt number but I don't see any mentions about that in the document. Do you expect us to include our receipt # with this request. Please clarify.
Yes, National Records Center will provide you with a receipt number for tracking purposes.
Yes, National Records Center will provide you with a receipt number for tracking purposes.
girlfriend cas - Cassie Wallpaper (14072675) - Fanpop
dontcareanymore
07-29 01:35 PM
please let me know how to close the thread. I do not want divide IV.
Don't worry.You have no chance ...........(..........of dividing IV)
IV is ROCK SOLID :):)
.
.
.
.
.
.........
No...... Just joking.
It is already divided and you have no chance of dividing it any further. Look at EB2 Vs. EB3 posts with I am better than you attitude and EBX-I vs ROW posts.
Your thread is just a punching bag :) All had fun giving their 2 cents and this is my 2 cents.
Don't worry.You have no chance ...........(..........of dividing IV)
IV is ROCK SOLID :):)
.
.
.
.
.
.........
No...... Just joking.
It is already divided and you have no chance of dividing it any further. Look at EB2 Vs. EB3 posts with I am better than you attitude and EBX-I vs ROW posts.
Your thread is just a punching bag :) All had fun giving their 2 cents and this is my 2 cents.
hairstyles Meryl Cassie Pictures
mmrao2007
07-14 05:15 PM
May be you can submit AC 21 now. Just a wild guess
richi121175
01-16 10:21 PM
Contributed $20 in Dec and just signed up for $20 per month.
Can anyone please confirm that we are still going for I-485 provision attached to the appropriation bills in February??
Can anyone please confirm that we are still going for I-485 provision attached to the appropriation bills in February??
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
No comments:
Post a Comment