/boy_on_jungle_gym_3.gif "free baby jungle clip art")
Thanks everyone who showed up. We actually did better than we had expected.
A total of 55 letters signed today, and will be dispatched tomorrow to the White House and to IV.
Go NORCAL, go IV!
---
Update: We have 10 more. That takes the total to 65.
Cheers!
A total of 55 letters signed today, and will be dispatched tomorrow to the White House and to IV.
Go NORCAL, go IV!
---
Update: We have 10 more. That takes the total to 65.
Cheers!
wallpaper free baby jungle clip art
Nowhere did I say I am not sure. In fact I am as sure as it can get :)
The original poster is talking about adjusting status to F-1 but not already being on F-1. Understand that difference here.
For FYI: If one is already on F-1 and applies for I-485 he/she is no longer on F-1 for all practical purposes but in a "period of stay as authorized by the attorney general". In such a case he/she can anyways use a EAD but have to have an AP while re-entering and continue studying as usual.
Note that F-1 and applied for I-485 is a highly debatable topic amongst the legal fraternity.
If you are not sure, don't give untrue info!! His F1 will be unaffected until and when he starts using EAD. He will not be able to re-enter on F1, but as long as he does not use EAD he can maintain this status. To re-enter he will need to use AP and at that point he is no longer in F1.
Also, once you file I485, there is no problem going to school as long as he maintains the job he was originally sponsored for.
The original poster is talking about adjusting status to F-1 but not already being on F-1. Understand that difference here.
For FYI: If one is already on F-1 and applies for I-485 he/she is no longer on F-1 for all practical purposes but in a "period of stay as authorized by the attorney general". In such a case he/she can anyways use a EAD but have to have an AP while re-entering and continue studying as usual.
Note that F-1 and applied for I-485 is a highly debatable topic amongst the legal fraternity.
If you are not sure, don't give untrue info!! His F1 will be unaffected until and when he starts using EAD. He will not be able to re-enter on F1, but as long as he does not use EAD he can maintain this status. To re-enter he will need to use AP and at that point he is no longer in F1.
Also, once you file I485, there is no problem going to school as long as he maintains the job he was originally sponsored for.
Sorry for any confusion. Here are the details :
My husband is on H1B visa and he is in US from past 4 years. I am on H-4 Visa and was in USA from past 2 years. We got extension in 2009 for another 3 years for H1 and H4. My husband stays in US but I came back to India for vacation. I appeared for H-4 visa stamping in US consulate in Delhi. After long wait they denied my H4 visa. My question is:
1) what are the options for me
2) Do they revoke my husband I797 H1 who is in US
3) What I have to do ..like appeal ..new petition..
Please advise..
My husband is on H1B visa and he is in US from past 4 years. I am on H-4 Visa and was in USA from past 2 years. We got extension in 2009 for another 3 years for H1 and H4. My husband stays in US but I came back to India for vacation. I appeared for H-4 visa stamping in US consulate in Delhi. After long wait they denied my H4 visa. My question is:
1) what are the options for me
2) Do they revoke my husband I797 H1 who is in US
3) What I have to do ..like appeal ..new petition..
Please advise..
2011 Pe+teacher+clip+art Gym
According to IRS
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179211,00.html
If any member has ITIN, economic stimulus package benefit will not be given.
You can definitely give it a try because when we went to apply SSN for my wife, they didn't ask for EAD even though we were carrying it. They might be able to give based on AOS, but I am not sure. You can give it a try since you have nothing to lose.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179211,00.html
If any member has ITIN, economic stimulus package benefit will not be given.
You can definitely give it a try because when we went to apply SSN for my wife, they didn't ask for EAD even though we were carrying it. They might be able to give based on AOS, but I am not sure. You can give it a try since you have nothing to lose.
As I was checking these forums and since one of my colleague received an RFE asking the company's ability to pay the proffered wage for all the 140 filed by the company I wonder if you can enlighten me with any idea on how to respond to the request? and how severely would it effect the other's in the same process with in the company.
Thank you for help in advance.
Thank you for help in advance.
Gave it 5 star, and posted a comment.
I already got a denial of my wife's application and had to pay $585 for the MTR :mad: ... that would be a nice source of revenue for the agency...
They have to advance the dates down the line to get more fees in order to keep the dumdums employed at the USCIS.........
That does not mean it translates into GCs.....its just more people get EADs and APs and continued revenue for USCIS.
I also won't be surprized if the fees go up in the next round.
Also until the CIR is passed there is no way they will eliminate the backlog as that will mean giving up their "cash cows"===a.k.a "us".......
Here is what I beleive will happen until amnesty is enacted(whether we like it or not our fate is tied to the illegals):
1. Dates will be moved forward and backward randomly to get more fees from new and old suckers like us(everytime the dates move fwd they raise our hopes and we hang on longer).....they don't want us to leave...they just want us to keep paying for their jobs...so as Obama says......"keep the HOPE train alive" even if its not moving an inch.
2. Increase the fees.....
3. Increase the rate of denials: more denials mean more MTRs mean more revenue......
Its a business and you will do whatever to survive.........nothing personal........
They have to advance the dates down the line to get more fees in order to keep the dumdums employed at the USCIS.........
That does not mean it translates into GCs.....its just more people get EADs and APs and continued revenue for USCIS.
I also won't be surprized if the fees go up in the next round.
Also until the CIR is passed there is no way they will eliminate the backlog as that will mean giving up their "cash cows"===a.k.a "us".......
Here is what I beleive will happen until amnesty is enacted(whether we like it or not our fate is tied to the illegals):
1. Dates will be moved forward and backward randomly to get more fees from new and old suckers like us(everytime the dates move fwd they raise our hopes and we hang on longer).....they don't want us to leave...they just want us to keep paying for their jobs...so as Obama says......"keep the HOPE train alive" even if its not moving an inch.
2. Increase the fees.....
3. Increase the rate of denials: more denials mean more MTRs mean more revenue......
Its a business and you will do whatever to survive.........nothing personal........
2010 Car Image Clipart
If GC LCA salary is more than it is well planned by the employer. If you run away, at the time of GC you need to show a job with that higher salary other wise you may loose GC.
Usually GC LCA salary is kept low. If some mishap happen, is will be easier to find a job with lower salary.
good point... is the employer supposed to share the labor information with us?
Usually GC LCA salary is kept low. If some mishap happen, is will be easier to find a job with lower salary.
good point... is the employer supposed to share the labor information with us?
but what is notice of forward...in labor certification..the phone number is
written on the labor document..
PD 2001 Oct
TR..was about to convert it to RIR,,,but they started the process already..
DB
written on the labor document..
PD 2001 Oct
TR..was about to convert it to RIR,,,but they started the process already..
DB
hair and corner border clipart
When did you contact the Senators office and how long did they take to retrieve this information for you?
Thanks.
I have filed for my EAD and 485 in july 2007. I have not got my EAD due to Name check (dont know why they cannot issue EAD bcos of name check).
Well in my case USCIS did not give me any information.
So i had to call the senator office. Their office contacted the TSC, and got the information that my case is pending Name check.
Now i know my case is pending name check, whenever i call USCIS, they submit a request to provide me an update and ask me to call after 1 month, 2 months and like that.
So i have stopped calling USCIS and directly call the Senator office.
Infopass does not show any appointment dates in Altanta region. So i am relying on the Senator office.
So may be you can try calling the Senator office and ask them to followup with your case.
Thanks.
I have filed for my EAD and 485 in july 2007. I have not got my EAD due to Name check (dont know why they cannot issue EAD bcos of name check).
Well in my case USCIS did not give me any information.
So i had to call the senator office. Their office contacted the TSC, and got the information that my case is pending Name check.
Now i know my case is pending name check, whenever i call USCIS, they submit a request to provide me an update and ask me to call after 1 month, 2 months and like that.
So i have stopped calling USCIS and directly call the Senator office.
Infopass does not show any appointment dates in Altanta region. So i am relying on the Senator office.
So may be you can try calling the Senator office and ask them to followup with your case.
you would have to specify that when you apply for the AP. Look at part 7 item 2 in the application.
NO, that part applies to a person applying for Advance Parole (humanitarian reason) and not Advance Parole (baed on peding I-485).
This confusion is because the form is used for multiple application type - Rentry Permit, Refugee Travel Document, Advance Parole (humanitarian and I-485 pending). I think USCIS should redesign separate form for each application type to remove the confusion.
If your AP is based on a pending I-485 you must be in the US to apply and receive the approval. If you need to travel before the approval, you could go to a local USCIS office to expedite the application.
NO, that part applies to a person applying for Advance Parole (humanitarian reason) and not Advance Parole (baed on peding I-485).
This confusion is because the form is used for multiple application type - Rentry Permit, Refugee Travel Document, Advance Parole (humanitarian and I-485 pending). I think USCIS should redesign separate form for each application type to remove the confusion.
If your AP is based on a pending I-485 you must be in the US to apply and receive the approval. If you need to travel before the approval, you could go to a local USCIS office to expedite the application.
hot monster truck clip art
I am in the same boat. I spoke to my Attorney and she says, it is not an issue. They will ask for finger prints when they start looking at your case.
FP is a definite requirement before AOS is adjudicated. No fp will delay decision. Remember 'low-hanging-fruits' once visa numbers are available
FP is a definite requirement before AOS is adjudicated. No fp will delay decision. Remember 'low-hanging-fruits' once visa numbers are available
house ORIGINAL digital clip art
but how do we know it reaches everyone waiting for GC. i think people active on IV are willing to contribute in one way or another, but we are unable to spread the message across EB community. as someone suggested, we need to send email to everyone registered on IV website and ask them to contribute in whichever way they can.
tattoo water bottle clip art.
What was your Priority Date?
pictures hockey clipart the gym and
Please can anybody help me with this?
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
dresses Boys Basketball Clipart
Hi all
I am a green card holder. I received my green card through an application filed by a former employer, and received it in September 2004. I got married in Arpil 2006, my wife is from my home country, she had been in the US previously on an F-1 status which has since ran out. She became pregnant soon after we were married. She came up to the US last September on a B visa. She was given 6 months stay on her I-94; and had the baby here in January of 2007. Her expiration date on the I-94 is in 3 weeks and she is going to leave (with the baby) to maintain good status standing.
I filed for her (I-130) last July. Our plan at this time is for her to go to grad school, apply for a new F-1 to come back here. We are presently waiting for a decsion on the grad school application from the school she applied to.
I hope this isnt too confusing, but can anyone offer any suggestions or help with our situation? In terms of what options are out there for my wife to be here with me if things dont work out with grad school/ F-1 visa? As I mentioned I did file for her, but as I am not a citizen it will take longer. Also our newborn baby is a US citizen as she was born here.
Thank you!!
This is why consulates and uscis are so tough.
You got married before she got the visitor visa? Did you tell the truth on the visa application? If you did then they probably wouldn't have given the visa.
Now you have filed I-130 for her which difinitively shows immigrant intent. On the I-539 form if you tell the truth they will deny the extension/change of status because she has shown immigrant intent.
Sorry, not much good news for you.
I am a green card holder. I received my green card through an application filed by a former employer, and received it in September 2004. I got married in Arpil 2006, my wife is from my home country, she had been in the US previously on an F-1 status which has since ran out. She became pregnant soon after we were married. She came up to the US last September on a B visa. She was given 6 months stay on her I-94; and had the baby here in January of 2007. Her expiration date on the I-94 is in 3 weeks and she is going to leave (with the baby) to maintain good status standing.
I filed for her (I-130) last July. Our plan at this time is for her to go to grad school, apply for a new F-1 to come back here. We are presently waiting for a decsion on the grad school application from the school she applied to.
I hope this isnt too confusing, but can anyone offer any suggestions or help with our situation? In terms of what options are out there for my wife to be here with me if things dont work out with grad school/ F-1 visa? As I mentioned I did file for her, but as I am not a citizen it will take longer. Also our newborn baby is a US citizen as she was born here.
Thank you!!
This is why consulates and uscis are so tough.
You got married before she got the visitor visa? Did you tell the truth on the visa application? If you did then they probably wouldn't have given the visa.
Now you have filed I-130 for her which difinitively shows immigrant intent. On the I-539 form if you tell the truth they will deny the extension/change of status because she has shown immigrant intent.
Sorry, not much good news for you.
makeup out stock footageclip art
Did this ever go anywhere?
girlfriend Gym Shoe clip art
The numbers for the DOL contacts seems to be voice numbers and not fax numbers. Can someone please provide me with their fax numbers?
Thanks...
Thanks...
hairstyles GYM BALL EXERCISES FOR MEN
Delete your cookies. Hit the "back" button showed on the USCIS page (not the "back" button of your internet browser) and then, try it again.
That should work.
That should work.
Kundra's Management Challenges
Posted by J. Nicholas Hoover on December 21, 2009 03:17 PM
Federal CIO Vivek Kundra's job is different from others whom we�ve named as InformationWeek�s Chief of the Year in the past in a few big ways that make it especially challenging.
The 2009 chief of the year (read our story here) is certainly younger, and the federal government�s $76 billion IT budget dwarfs those of any other organization. However, Kundra�s two big biggest differences are that first, his job isn�t driven by traditional profit motives and second, many of his subordinates report to him only via a dotted line. In some ways, these two issues play together, and they've been challenges that have played a role in creating what top officials like OMB director Peter Orszag note as a gap between IT in the private and public sectors.
Unlike in the private sector, where Wall Street can make or break IT decisions, the government doesn�t have the same forcing mechanisms for IT performance and for determining what should be the next project to pursue. Second, the reporting structure in the federal government is one of typical bureaucracy. Dozens of federal agency CIOs report to Kundra, but only indirectly. That means that while Kundra sits as chair of the federal CIO council, there are limits of what he can require of agencies or demand of budget and system decisions.
Kundra's peers say he stands out in his ability not only to strategize, but to execute. Take his ability to understand that a drop of sunshine can go a long way when it�s tax dollars and not supply and demand at work, and that citizen engagement is the name of the game, which has played out in his use of dashboards and full embrace of the administration�s transparency initiatives, both as federal CIO and before as CTO of Washington, D.C.
�His goal has never been innovation merely for innovations� sake, but innovation to get results in service to the public,� Virginia governor Tim Kaine said in an e-mail that didn�t make it into our story. �Vivek has a limitless imagination, and combined with his agility in the structures of government, I have the utmost confidence that he will continue to do great work for President Obama.�
One story, which also didn�t make it into our feature, is particularly telling. Earlier this year, President Obama called on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to partner with Kundra, federal CTO Aneesh Chopra, and federal chief performance officer Jeff Zients to find ways to improve the immigrant application experience.
Kundra took an idea and ran with it. "Vivek very quickly helped to think through how transparency and open government could instill more confidence if we could publish average turnaround times in a forum online for visa and other application processing time, by office," Chopra says.
The effect would be two-fold, Kundra thought. First, immigrants could now find out exactly where they stood in line to get their green card or visa and check on processing times for specific forms at US-CIS field offices around the country, comparing them with national averages and national goals. Second, placing that data online at the hands of the public could put pressure on US-CIS field offices to make them more efficient.
Kundra then acknowledged the need to separate this effort from a larger, more complex modernization project currently underway at US-CIS. "When you have a multi-year project plan, it's challenging to thoughtfully introduce any new innovation without disrupting or adjusting requirements," Chopra says. And yet, that's exactly what happened: the team delivered the site within 90 days, and though it required shifting some money around, it didn't end up requiring any additional budget expenditure.
"When you put it together, he sees the ability for something like the IT Dashboard to really jump start his larger strategy for how to change the way IT projects are done and then puts his head down and gets it done within 10 weeks," Zients says.
Posted by J. Nicholas Hoover on December 21, 2009 03:17 PM
Federal CIO Vivek Kundra's job is different from others whom we�ve named as InformationWeek�s Chief of the Year in the past in a few big ways that make it especially challenging.
The 2009 chief of the year (read our story here) is certainly younger, and the federal government�s $76 billion IT budget dwarfs those of any other organization. However, Kundra�s two big biggest differences are that first, his job isn�t driven by traditional profit motives and second, many of his subordinates report to him only via a dotted line. In some ways, these two issues play together, and they've been challenges that have played a role in creating what top officials like OMB director Peter Orszag note as a gap between IT in the private and public sectors.
Unlike in the private sector, where Wall Street can make or break IT decisions, the government doesn�t have the same forcing mechanisms for IT performance and for determining what should be the next project to pursue. Second, the reporting structure in the federal government is one of typical bureaucracy. Dozens of federal agency CIOs report to Kundra, but only indirectly. That means that while Kundra sits as chair of the federal CIO council, there are limits of what he can require of agencies or demand of budget and system decisions.
Kundra's peers say he stands out in his ability not only to strategize, but to execute. Take his ability to understand that a drop of sunshine can go a long way when it�s tax dollars and not supply and demand at work, and that citizen engagement is the name of the game, which has played out in his use of dashboards and full embrace of the administration�s transparency initiatives, both as federal CIO and before as CTO of Washington, D.C.
�His goal has never been innovation merely for innovations� sake, but innovation to get results in service to the public,� Virginia governor Tim Kaine said in an e-mail that didn�t make it into our story. �Vivek has a limitless imagination, and combined with his agility in the structures of government, I have the utmost confidence that he will continue to do great work for President Obama.�
One story, which also didn�t make it into our feature, is particularly telling. Earlier this year, President Obama called on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to partner with Kundra, federal CTO Aneesh Chopra, and federal chief performance officer Jeff Zients to find ways to improve the immigrant application experience.
Kundra took an idea and ran with it. "Vivek very quickly helped to think through how transparency and open government could instill more confidence if we could publish average turnaround times in a forum online for visa and other application processing time, by office," Chopra says.
The effect would be two-fold, Kundra thought. First, immigrants could now find out exactly where they stood in line to get their green card or visa and check on processing times for specific forms at US-CIS field offices around the country, comparing them with national averages and national goals. Second, placing that data online at the hands of the public could put pressure on US-CIS field offices to make them more efficient.
Kundra then acknowledged the need to separate this effort from a larger, more complex modernization project currently underway at US-CIS. "When you have a multi-year project plan, it's challenging to thoughtfully introduce any new innovation without disrupting or adjusting requirements," Chopra says. And yet, that's exactly what happened: the team delivered the site within 90 days, and though it required shifting some money around, it didn't end up requiring any additional budget expenditure.
"When you put it together, he sees the ability for something like the IT Dashboard to really jump start his larger strategy for how to change the way IT projects are done and then puts his head down and gets it done within 10 weeks," Zients says.
The backlogs at DOLS's found a solution..PERM. Similarly premium processing was introduced for I-140's. I think now it's time to move the Departments and courts to find a more efficient Security/Name check process. If not USCIS will continue to loose tons of visa numbers every year. Though USCIS has 26 k cases that has the visa number available,
many of them are struck with FBI. Any movements or actions?
Successfully Challenging USCIS Delays in Federal Court
On September 10, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about how FBI name checks have been slowing down the process of gaining immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The article revealed that "nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of August 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding this issue. The Times article quotes an ACLU attorney who stated that "there is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd. People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
Applicants for adjustment of status, citizenship, extensions of stay and many other immigration benefits have taken days off work to visit USCIS offices only to be told that the USCIS can do nothing since the name check process is in the hands of the FBI.
Nor do letters and meetings with Senators and Members of Congress yield results. They receive polite letters from the USCIS' Congressional Liaison Unit to the effect that "Sorry, but this is FBI's problem, not ours."
DHS Secretary Chertoff announced that his Department is meeting with the FBI (which is part of the Department of Justice) to work out a more efficient system of processing these name checks, but so far, the number of people waiting for results from the FBI continues to grow and grow.
The problem exists for applicants from a wide variety of countries and affects Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc.
Our solution is to sue both the USCIS and the FBI in Federal Court. Most Federal Judges are not reluctant to order the FBI and the USCIS to complete their name checks and application processing by a date certain.
Many applicants have turned to litigation as the one and only method of solving the name check problem. The numbers of such lawsuits have increased from just 680 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2006 to over 4,100 this year. Although there is no guarantee of success, our law firm has yet to lose one of these cases in Federal Court.
The Times article concludes with a quote from me:
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court."
We link to the Times article, "Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole" from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107P.shtml
We also link to AILF's new practice advisory entitled "Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" from
http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html#A1
many of them are struck with FBI. Any movements or actions?
Successfully Challenging USCIS Delays in Federal Court
On September 10, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about how FBI name checks have been slowing down the process of gaining immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The article revealed that "nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of August 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding this issue. The Times article quotes an ACLU attorney who stated that "there is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd. People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
Applicants for adjustment of status, citizenship, extensions of stay and many other immigration benefits have taken days off work to visit USCIS offices only to be told that the USCIS can do nothing since the name check process is in the hands of the FBI.
Nor do letters and meetings with Senators and Members of Congress yield results. They receive polite letters from the USCIS' Congressional Liaison Unit to the effect that "Sorry, but this is FBI's problem, not ours."
DHS Secretary Chertoff announced that his Department is meeting with the FBI (which is part of the Department of Justice) to work out a more efficient system of processing these name checks, but so far, the number of people waiting for results from the FBI continues to grow and grow.
The problem exists for applicants from a wide variety of countries and affects Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc.
Our solution is to sue both the USCIS and the FBI in Federal Court. Most Federal Judges are not reluctant to order the FBI and the USCIS to complete their name checks and application processing by a date certain.
Many applicants have turned to litigation as the one and only method of solving the name check problem. The numbers of such lawsuits have increased from just 680 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2006 to over 4,100 this year. Although there is no guarantee of success, our law firm has yet to lose one of these cases in Federal Court.
The Times article concludes with a quote from me:
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court."
We link to the Times article, "Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole" from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107P.shtml
We also link to AILF's new practice advisory entitled "Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" from
http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html#A1
